Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012797 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 27, 1997, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fahey ROLL CALL: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak and 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 rwt listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. I III IIl ~.% !;.~!" ~.~:tl ~.,~' .'all,~d ': .i~d;~.-i~[' · :"' :~,:~a~.l ~;a,I ;la:t ;.~.'d'_':aP:'~' a.,~.~;l,[tAres-.." '''~;''......... :":":"""' ';'~ %'. ....r.:: ""' . ...~".' "' (..,I.-':,-. i,q! !,.'Is id ll~'l~l~...,:g'/m~ ~. it [hl~.,' · .,. ininuk' tune i!ml:,.t:,~r~.~l~.i.jual .pchk~'.;.- 1ll llllIIIIIIl (. 0 'it 'iIl.~ ~;10 V I,.'SI ~ ES5 ' .'.' .'..' "" '."'" ."'....~ ..' II Ill1 I. Xpprovai;:~b{ ~'ltda ...... "~'; ""' ° .... " 3. RB Park]ng Re~lrk'fimis l~t .Dt~L'k~ms~t Q~de " /' 4. X.lo ~,lall '.~1~',7a~:7..7.. ".' "" ' ,.' .. 5. %orm ~,~¢..s .~ign ' · ..' I't,'BI.K.' ~A.s.,R/~G IfEMS 6. ' (..:~,~'h'O.' PA97-4h~B e/td PAeT-0Q!/ Ci~' ,',; 'l'~mecr.ula Ci~'wi~', .' $$ Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan) Ted Zonos Southwest corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road Development of a 19,729 square foot commercial retail center Mitigated Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan Annie Bostre-Le Approval PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT No items for February 3, 1997, meeting will be adjourned to February 24, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS Next meeting: February 24, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission meeting ADJOURNMENT ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6, 1997 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, January 6, 1997, 6:06 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, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Project Planner Carole Donahoe, Assistant Engineer Anna Bostm-Le, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. 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 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2. Approval of Minutes December 2, 1996 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the minutes of December 2, 1996, with the following amendment: Page 5, 2nd paragraph, "...booth was under the exterior screen...located under the screen and drawings can be supplied. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None r:~phncommXminutea\1997\l~-97 vgw 1-10-97 PL~TNINO COMMISSION JANUARY 6, 1997 It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of December 16, 1996, with the following amendment: Page 4, add new paragraph after 5. Planning Application PA96-0291... Commissioner Miller discussed a possible conflict of interest regarding a previous business arrangement with the architect for this project with Attorney Weiner who determined Commissioner Miller did not have a conflict and could participate in the matter. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Soltysiak DIRECTOR'S HEARING CASE UPDATE Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reported she had nothing further to report. Commissioner Slaven asked about Arco's ultimate goal in subdividing the 3.42 acres. Ms. Ubnoske replied she did not know why the property was subdivided; and Arco is planning a station at that location. Planning Application PA96-0270, The Spanos Corporation Commissioner Miller stated he has represented one of the property owners of this parcel and will step down. Project Planner Carole Donahoe presented the staff report. She made the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: 10. amend the last sentence to read ...property line or one foot from the property line. and add In addition, a similar buffering treatment shall be designed for the northerly property line and ~pproved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading permits. 61 ....fight in/fight out ~ vehicular movements. No. 17 of the Fire Department letter, add ...protection impacts, or the fee currently in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Commissioner Webster asked if the mostly northerly driveway is in line with the proposed Overland Drive. Assistant Engineer Anna Bostre-Le stated at this time, Public Works does not know exactly where Overland Drive will be located, but it is hoped the two will intersect. Commissioner Slaven asked if there will be a signal at Margafita Road and Solana Way and Ms. Bostre- Le replied one is planned. r:\plancommXminutcs\1997\l-6-97 vgw 1-10-97 2 Pr,~,IqNING 0'26,NUin~RY 6, 1997 Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the north buffering treatment is to be similar to the east buffering. Ms. Bonahoe stated although a site property line requires l0 feet and a rear property line, 20 feet, the same kind of buffering and screening for vehicular noise and ear lights is desirable. Commissioner Slaven asked about the following Conditions: o Condition of Approval No. 6 - will 14 handicapped parking spaces be sufficient for 312 apartments and are they dose to the handicap-accessible apartments. Ms. Donahoe stated she will recheck the number as there must also be handicap parking spaces dose to the recreation building. o Condition No. 26 - what are Acacia redolens. Commissioner Webster replied it is a common ground cover/shrub used in this area. o Condition No. 33 - are securities and/or bonds taken as a deposit. Ms. Ubnoske answered both are taken. Chairman Fahey opened the public heating at 6:27 PM. Dave Jeffers, of Rich Engineering Company, representing The Spanos Corporation, introduced members of the Corporation and gave a brief history of The Spanos Corporation. He stated they have reviewed the amended Conditions of Approval and they are acceptable. Commissioner Webster asked about the vacant northeast comer projection. Mr. Jeffers replied Don Lord, who represents the owner to the north, spoke to him regarding a lot line adjustment, or something similar, but until escrow closes, he cannot enter into those type of discussions. Commissioner Soltysiak asked for an explanation of the buffer treatment. Mr. Jeffers replied he met with surrounding homeowners three times, and the original 10-foot setback from the parking area became 20 feet to alleviate concerns regarding headlight glare, noise and visibility of the buildings. He mentioned apartments were set back and second-story windows eliminated from the end unit so homeowners would not feel the apartment residents were looking into their backyards. Mr. Ieffers stated they have agreed to build two walls along the easterly property line - a 6' concrete block wall with a 2' wrought iron fence on top, about 1' from the property line; and a 40" concrete block wall at the edge of the parking stalls to block headlights and to help buffer noise from cars starting up in the morning. He added the 20' buffer area will be planted with trees and shrubs to provide a more pleasant view. Commissioner Soltysiak asked about the garage rents. Mr. Ieffers replied garages will rent for approximately $75 to $85 per month. Commissioner Slaven questioned if the traffic study was prepared for the anticipated number of residents. Mr. Jeffers replied a traffic study, which extended to Ynez Road from Winchester Road to Rancho California Road, was completed and the complex is within the General Plan requirements. r:\plancomm\minutes~1997\l-6-97 vgw 1-10-97 3 PLANNIN0 COMMISSION JANUARY 6, 1997 Commissioner Slaven asked if two egress/ingress points were sufficient. Mr. Jeffers answered they are satisfied with the two and their locations. The 25' high slope on Solana Way makes Margarita Road pretty much the only access point. Jerry Throckmorton, 41883 Shorewood Court, Temecula, stated his home backed up to the project and he artended two of the three community meetings. He had originally sought an 8' wall; however he agreed that height wall would be ugly, and the proposed 6' wall with a 2' wrought iron top will hinder people coming into their backyards, and the 4' wall will project headlights over rooftops. Mr. Throckmorton presented a petition signed by 23 area homeowners supporting the proposed design of the Solana Apartment project with construction of walls and a landscaped open space. Brewster Cotton, 41905 Shorewood Court, Temecula, said he had no objection to the project, but wanted to make certain water trucks will be used when grading starts to prevent dirt blowing. He suggested the four (4)-acre southeast comer of Margarita Road and Solana Way would be suitable for the regional park being planned further up on Margarita Road, or at least made into an open space area rather than another high-density development. Commissioner Webster and Ms. Bostre-Le told Mr. Cotton if dust problems should occur, please notify Public Works since dust control is part of their grading inspection process. Donald Lohr, 43513 Ridge Park Drive, Temecula, spoke on behalf of the property owner north of the project, and their coneem related to a wall at the northerly boundary, which the applicant has agreed to. He clarified the tall wall is to be placed at the top of the slope rather than at the property line, which would defeat the purpose. Mike Rennie, 31321 Ashmill, Temecula, stated he was disgusted with the number of apartments already in Temecula and with having another one built on one of the most pristine, beautiful plots of land in Temecula. He stated this complex will add to the traffic in the area. He asked that this apartment complex be the last one in Temecula. Mr. Jeffers' response regarding Mr. Cotton' s concerns, that a water truck is required to be on site at all times during grading to keep the dust down; and he agreed with Mr. Lohr the wall should be at the top of the slope. He suggested they meet after the meeting to work out where the top of the slope is in relation to the property line. Chairman Fahey stated a letter was received from Delphine Capen in opposition to the project based on traffic and apartment housing. Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 6:50 PM. Commissioner Webster expressed concern over two walls being so dose together at the easterly property line. Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated the 3 xh to 4-foot wall is designed to be integrated with the carport structure as a screening measure. The 6-foot wall is between the complex and existing residences. As to the northerly property line, a 6' screening wall along the top of the slope is being pursued. r:\plancomm\minut~s\1997\l~i-97 v~v 1-10-97 PL~,NNING CO!~ISSION ~'ied~i~,RY 6, 1997 Commissioner Soltysiak asked what type of trees are proposed and if the adjoining homeowners requested evergreen trees. Mr. Hogan replied eight (8) different species are planned and actual species will be determined on the final landscape plan. Mr. Jeffers remarked the homeowners were more concerned with the screening provided by the wall than the type of trees and shrubs. Commissioner Webster suggested for general landscaping throughout the project: o Denser tree planting than shown on the easterly boundary in the landscape plans; o A mixture of 24-inch box and 15-gallon trees which staff can determine; o A percentage of deciduous and evergreen trees which staff can determine. Commissioner Slaven asked if the 40" wall is a retaining or a screening wall. Mr. Hogan replied it was a screening wall. Commissioner Slaven asked if the carport covers will drain toward the driveway or the planter, and if toward the planter, a french drain will probably be necessary. Mr. Hogan stated final detailed drainage will depends on the precise grading of the site. Commissioner Slaven expressed her concern about traffic generated by the 312 units which may have two (2) cars per unit and the 1500 vehicular trips mentioned in the staff report seem very conservative. She is not certain sufficient infrastructure is being provided for this area considering the mall and development of vacant land. Chairman Fahey asked if there is a generally aceepmd practice for estimating the number of trips for a particular type of development and was that applied to this project. Mr. Hogan replied yes to both questions. Chairman Fahey asked if it can be determined how many of the 1500 trips are going to occur at peak hours. Mr. Hogan stated the General Plan looks at peak hour trips, not the total number of trips, and standards are set for peak hour traffic. He added a major change in land use or a development outside the city boundary could throw out the traffic modeling results for the General Plan, however neither has occurred. Chairman Fahey asked if the traffic modelling for this project, is not at the maximum numbor of units used in the General Plan, which looked at the impact of a mall on these intersections. Mr. Hogan answered the General Plan envisioned a substantial commercial complex in the area of the regional mail and he believes the General Plan projected traffic will be very close to actuals. Chairman Fahey asked if the build-out at Margarita Road and Solana Way was anticipated and would the intersection remain at a level D or better. Ms. Bostre-Le stated a D level, which means a vehicle gets through a signal in one or two cycles, will be maintained and with the street widened, it should improve. r:Xphncomm\minut~a\1997\l-6-97 vgw 1-10-97 5 PLKNNIN6 COXHISSION ~'KNUi~Y 6~. 1997 Mr. Jeffers said a D level means 85% of the roadway is being taken up by traffic at the morning/evening peak hours. He stated the result of this project doubling Margarita Road to a 110' wide street with four (4) lanes and left-turn movement, a traffic signal at Solana Way, and the proposed Overland over crossing will mitigate this particular site. Commissioner Slaven stated a Levd D is not acceptable to her. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if any consideration has been given to blocking the easterly back wall at the ends. Mr. Hogan replied staff will look at requiring some kind of closure, and there is also some discussion that neighbors may take their fences down and tie into this wall which will eliminate the dead Commissioner Slaven asked when it was anticipated the northwest corner of Margarita Road would be developed and the improvement of Margarita Road completed. Commissioner Webster replied the City agreed to a full width improvement of Margarita Road as part of the mall agreement. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0270; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA96-0270; and to adopt Resolution No. 97-001 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 as amended and for staff to consider the landscape comments when reviewing the landscape plans; and to close the public hearing. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: MILLER Commissioner Miller who did not participate in the public hearing rejoined the meeting. PLANNING MANAGER' S REPORT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated the City Attorney is looking at the auto mall marquee agreement and the lease with Norm Reeves Super Group and she will have an update to the Commissioners by the next meeting. Commissioner Miller asked staff to look at the bunling Norm Reeves Super Group has placed at the back of their property. Ms. Ubnoske mentioned a seminar on January 25, 1997 and asked the Commissioners to let her know as soon as possible who will be attending. Commissioner Slaven stated she will be attending. r:\planconma\minut~s\1997~l~-97 vgw 1-10-97 PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Miller asked staff to compare what was approved for the Unocal Station and what is on the site. There are signs, poster enclosures, and a banner, none of which he believes were approved. Chairman Fahey requested the Commissioners contact the Planning Secretary if they are planning to attend the Planner Institute. Commissioner Miller suggested a joint meeting with City Council, with the public invited, to address those matters the Planning Commission and City can and cannot consider, because judging from the letters and articles in the newspapers people are unaware of the City' s limitations. Commissioner Slaven suggested articles, written by City staff and published in the newspaper, explaining the General Plan and how it effects the Planning Department, how the Planning Commission fits into the process, Proposition 218 and how it affects parks, etc, and the duties of each City Department would be educational and informative to the public. Ms. Ubnoske stated she will discuss the suggestions with the Community Development Director. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held January 27, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hail Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Linda Fahey, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary r:\plancomm~ninutea\1997~l-6-97 vgw 1-10-97 7 ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: January 27, 1997 SUBJECT: Recreational Vehicle Storage in Residential Districts Prepared by: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff on this issue BACKGROUND Section 17.24.050(I) of the Development Code restricts the ability of residents to store recreational vehicles in the front and street side yards in all residential districts. Since the implementation of this provision of the Development Code, this has presented some problems due to the size of lots in most of the residential developments in the City not being large enough to allow storage in areas other than the front or street side yards. As the City's Code Enforcement Officers have attempted to enforce this provision of the Development Code, they have met with resistance from property owners who have no where else to store their trailers, recreational vehicles, and boats. DISCUSSION The Sections of the Code that appear to be causing the most concern are as follows: Section 17.24,020(f) states: "Except as provided in herein, vehicles parked within public view in required or authorized parking areas within the front yard, corner side yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for temporary periods of time not to exceed five (5) consecutive days." Section 17.24.050(I) states: "In a residential zone, no portion of the required front yard area shall be developed or used for vehicular off-street parking other than that portion occupied by the driveway. The curb cut for the driveway shall not exceed twenty four (24) feet in width. This restriction shall apply to automobiles, trucks, buses, trailers, boats, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles." The City's new Development Code requires at least one residential side yard to be at least 10 feet wide. A 10-foot side yard setback is wide enough to allow vehicular access to the side and rear of the property for vehicle storage. In contrast, the previous County land use ordinance required only a 7 '~ foot side yard, Staff is concerned that Sections 17.24.020(f) and 17.24.050(I) may not be reasonable or implementable because so many of the City's residential areas are already built with a narrow side yard on both sides. Staff is requesting direction on this issue. ITEM #4 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: January 27, 1997 Signage in Auto Mall District MEMORANDUM Prepared by: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff on this issue. BACKGROUND The City of Temecula has been working with a citizen/business committee to develop a comprehensive sign ordinance since early 1996. The draft ordinance as currently proposed does not contain special standards for the auto dealer corridor along Ynez Road. The City's Code Enforcement Officers have had a difficult time enforcing illegal signage in the City due to the perceived double standard that seemingly exists for the auto dealers. Examples of this are the banners, flags, and buntings that have not been approved for the auto dealers, but which continue to remain in place. Staff has re-evaluated this item, and given the code enforcement problems that seem to regularly occur with respect to signage, are concerned that special sign standards may be appropriate for the auto dealers. These standards could apply to either automobile dealerships in the City or only to those located in the auto mall area. Staff is requesting direction on this issue. ITEM #5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: January 27, 1997 SUBJECT: Planning Application No. PA96-0321 - A Freestanding Freeway-Oriented Sign for Norm Reeves Super Used Cars, measuring 150 square feet in area and 35 feet in height, located on the west side of Interstate 15 Prepared by: Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: Approve a height of 30 feet for a freestanding freeway-oriented sign at the Norm Reeves Super Used Cars dealership, 27500 Jefferson Avenue, located on the west side of Interstate 15 BACKGROUND: Planning Application No. PA96-0321 was submitted to the Planning Department on November 13, 1996. A flag test was performed by staff, with assistance from Country Signs and Designs and Dick Kennedy of Norm Reeves Super Group. Planning Application No. PA96-0321 was before the Planning Commission on December 2, 1996 because current policy requires the Commission to direct staff with respect to the height of all freeway oriented sign applications. The Planning Commission discussed the matter and requested that the item be brought back to the Commission with additional information from staff. Commissioners questioned whether or not the applicant is a separate entity from the Norm Reeves dealership that is part of the Temecula Valley Automobile Dealers Association. Commissioners asked that the terms of the agreements made between the Dealers Association and the City be reviewed regarding restrictions on freeway-oriented signs other than the Auto Mall electronic message board. Lastly, Commissioners were concerned that the proposed sign may be inconsistent with the preliminary Comprehensive Sign Ordinance currently being developed. ANALYSIS: Separate or Same Legal Entity Staff asked the City Attorney to review the agreement in effect between the City Redevelopment Agency and the Temecula Valley Automobile Dealers Association. The City Attorney rendered his opinion on January 13, 1997, a copy of which is attached to this report. Within the footnote on page 2, the City Attorney concludes that the applicant is either directly subject or as successor is subject to the agreement. Validity of Planning Aoplication No. PA96-0321 The City Attorney opined further that the agreement does not prohibit applications with respect R:\STAFFRPT'x321pA96,PC2 1/23/97ckd ] to any free-standing freeway oriented signage lawfully existing in the City at the time the agreement was entered into. Since the sign structure on which the applicant desires to place a new sign lawfully existed in the City at the time the Agreement was entered into, the proposal for a change of copy is not prohibited by the agreement. Sign Ordinance in Effect at the Time of Aooroval Ordinance No. 348 governs sign applications at this time and Section 19.4.a. 1. allows for one free-standing sign at a maximum height of 45 feet with a maximum surface area of 150 square feet. The proposed sign is an internally illuminated cabinet sign, using blue letters, red accent stripe and white background. The sign cabinet is of steel-frame construction with sheet metal, and polycarbonic faces (Lexan) and will be mounted on poles already existing within the rear parking area. The proposal complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the proposed height of 35 feet is within the range of existing freeway oriented signs in close proximity to the site, The proposed new Comprehensive Sign Ordinance went to the Planning Commission on October 16, 1996 after six months of work by the Sign Ordinance Committee (a Council-appointed group of local business people and private citizens) and a Community Meeting held October 14, 1996. The Commission recommended that staff continue their work, meeting with those people providing comments to address a number of issues raised. Staff anticipates returning the Ordinance back to the Commission next month. While the applicant's proposed sign may not conform to the future Ordinance once it is adopted, it need only conform to ordinances in effect at the time of approval. Staff has recommended conditioning the proposed sign to remain in place only throughout the term of the lease or any extensions thereof. The current lease is for a three year period. Staff is also recommending a condition that the applicant remove the existing monument sign on the site as only one free-standing sign is permitted on a parcel of land. Heiaht At the December 2, 1996 Planning Commission meeting staff heard Commissioners support a 30-foot height based upon the flag test finding that a motorist could reasonably see the sign at this height at a distance that allowed him/her sufficient time to exit at the next off-ramp. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 3 City Attorney Correspondence Dated January 13, 1997- Blue Page 5 Ordinance 348, Section 19.4. On-Site Advertising Structures and Signs - Blue Page 6 Excerpts from the Planning Commission Minutes of December 2, 1996 - Blue Page 7 Exhibits - Site Plan and Elevations - Blue Page 8 R:\STAFFRPTX321PA%.I~C2 1/23/97ckd 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT~321PA96.PC2 1/23/97 ckd 3 CITY OF TEMECULA PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0321 - Freeway Oriented Sign Application Project Description: A freestanding freeway oriented sign for Norm Reeves Super Used Cars, measuring 150 square feet in area and 30 feet in height, located on the west side of Interstate 15 Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 910-310-007 The termination of Lease Agreement No. 602-00, Contracts No. 93-117 or any extensions thereof. PLANNING DEPARTMENT This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The construction of the sign shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" approved with Planning Application No. PA96-0321, or as amended by these conditions, a. The maximum sign height shall be thirty feet (30'). b. The maximum sign area shall be 150 square feet on each face. The applicant shall remove all other free-standing signs on the premises prior to the issuance of a building permit for the sign approved by Planning Application No. PA96- 0321. This approval shall terminate upon the expiration of Lease Agreement No. 602-00, Contracts NO. 93-117 or any extensions thereof. R:\STAFFRPTX321PA96.PC2 1/23/97ckd 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY ATTORNEY CORRESPONDENCE DATED JANUARY 13, 1997 R:\STAFFRPTX321PA96.PC2 1/23/97ckd 5 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW January 13, 1997 1101689 11086-00006 Mr. Gary Thornhill Community Development Director City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Re: Planning Application No. PA96-0321 (Norm Reeves Super Used Cars) Dear Mr. Thornhill: You have requested our opinion whether Planning Application No. PA96-0321, submitted by Norm Reeves Super Used Cars (the "Applicant") may be processed by the City of Temecula, or whether the application is in violation of the Loan and Security Agreement (the "Agreement") by and between the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and the Temecula Valley Automobile Dealers Association (the "Auto Mall Association"). For the reasons discussed below, we believe that Planning Application No. PA96-0321 is authorized under the Agreement. Under Section 5 of the Agreement, the Auto Mall Association agreed that "each individual or entity that owns or operates a business located in the Temecula Valley Automobile Mall and which desires to use the Sign for advertisement" would execute a Waiver and Agreement prior to the issuance of building permits for the sign. Section 1 of the Waiver and Agreement provides as follows: "So long as the Sign is erected, and whether or not the Loan Documents are still in effect, TVA Mall Business hereby waives any right to, and agrees for the express benefit of the Re. development Agency that it will not, request, pursue or promote the construction or use of any additional freeway signage in the City of Temecula, other than the Sign; it being understood, however, that RICHARD,S, WATSON & GERSHON Mr, Gary Thornhill January 13, 1997 Page 2 the foregoing waiver and agreement shall not apply to any lawful free slanding freeway oriented signage currently located in the City of Temecula or any lawful signage affixed to any building occupied by the undersigned in the Temecula Valley Automobile Mall." (emphasis added) We are informed by Staff that the sign structure on which the Applicant desires to place a new sign existed in the City of Temecula at the time the Agreement was entered into. Therefore, it appears that the Waiver and Agreement does not apply to applications for the remodeling and modification of that signJ-~ Please call me if you have any further questions regarding this matter. RDW:rdw 1101689 co: Debbie Ubnoske Dave Hogan Carol Donahoe Peter Thorson Very truly yours, Rubin D. Weiner 1/ The Applicant has argued that it is not a party to the Waiver and Agreement, since it is purportedly a separate legal entity from the parties which signed the Waiver and Agreement. We find this argument unconvincing. Section 6.1 of the Lease Agreement between Donna L. Reeves Trust and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency specifically refers to "Lessee's automobile dealership operations located in the City of Temecula." Since the Lessee's only dealership operations within the City at that time were in the Temecula Valley Automobile Mall, this reference indicates an understanding that the Lessee was considered a member of the Auto Mall Association. Therefore, it appears that the Applicant is either directly subject to the Waiver and Agreement, or the successor to the Donna L. Reeves Trust and thus subject to the Waiver and Agreement. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 348 SECTION 19.4, ON-SITE ADVERTISING STRUCTURES AND SIGNS R:\STAFFRPTX321PAg~.PC2 1/23/97ckd 6 SECTION 19.4. ON-SITE ADVERTISING STRUCTURES AND SIGNS. NO perSOn shall erect an on-site advertising structure or sign in the unincorporated area of the County of Riverside that ts in violation of the proviSionS contained Within any specific zoning classification in this ordinance or that is in violation of the.following provisions. Free-standing Signs 1. Located wi thin 660 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right of way line. la) The maximum height of a sign shall not exceed 45 feet. b The maximum Surface area of a Sign shall not exceed 15D square feet. 2. All Other Locations. (a) The maximum height of a sign shall not exceed 2D feet. (b) The maximum Surface area of a sign shall not exceed 5D Square feet. 3. Shopping Centers - All Locations. Notwithstanding the provisions Of sub-paragraphs 1 and 2, an alternate standard for free standing on-site advertising signs for shopping centers is established as follows: {a) the maximum surface area of a sign shall not exceed 50 square feet of .25 percent (1/4 of 1~) of the total existing building floor area in a shopping center, whichever is greater, except that in any event, no Sign shall exceed 203 square feet in surface area. b. The maxim~ height of a sign shall not exceed 2D feet. 4. Number of Free-standing Signs - All Locations. NOt'more than one free-standing sign shall be permitte~ on a parcel of land, except that if a Shopping center has frontage on 2 Or more streets, the shopping Center shall be permitted 2 free-standing signs, proviesd that the 2 signs are not located on the s~ne street; are at least IOD feet apart an~ the seconO sign does not exceed 100 square feet in surface area an~ 20 feet in height. Signs Affixed to buildings - All Areas 1. No on-Site advertising sign shall be affixed on, above or over the rOOf Of any building, and no on-site advertising sign shall be affixed to the wall of a building so that it projects above the parapet of the building. For the purposes of this section, a mansar~ Style roof shall be considered a parapet. 2. The maximum surface area of signs affixed to a building shall be as follows: (a) Front wall of building - The surface area of the sign shall not exceed 10: of the surface area of the front face of the building. (b) Side walls of a building - The surface area of the sign shall not exceed 1D% of the surface area of the si~e face of the building. {c) Rear wall of a building - The surface area of the sign shall not exceed 5% of the surface area of the rear face of the building. 253 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- RF-QOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE OLD TOWN SPECWIC PLAN TO MAKE CHANGES TO TABLE 17.08(a) OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED USES, AND TABLE 1 OF SECTION HI, LAND USE MATRIX, OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW "FORTUNE TELLING, SPIRITUALISM, OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY" AS PERMITTED USES RATHER THAN CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0003 AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 97-0016) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City adopted the Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan that both identify Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity as conditionally permitted uses; and, WHEREAS, concerns were raised by prospective business owners that the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit may not be warranted and reasonable for Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity; and, WHEREAS, staff brought this issue to City Council to receive direction; and, WItF~REAS, on December 10, 1996, the City Council of the City of Temecula directed staff to prepare a Development Code Amendment and Old Town Specific Plan Amendment to allow "Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity" as permitted uses rather than conditionally permitted uses (Planning Application No. PA97-0003 and Planning Application No. 97-0016, hereinafter "Amendments"); and, WHF~AS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on January 27, 1997, on the issue of recommending approval or denial of the Amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS: R:~STAFFRIr~FORTUNE.PC 1/22/97 an 5 Section 1. That in recommending adoption by the City Council of an Ordinance approving the Amendments, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: (a) That Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plan as may be in effect in any such city; and, (b) That there is a need to amend the Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan to ensure its clarity and completeness; and, (c) That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances. (d) The said uses do not have any special uniqueness or impacts on the surrounding commercial uses to require Conditional Use Permits for them. Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that these amendments to the Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan do not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Any potential impacts associated with the Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Development Code and Zoning Map and the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. Further, these projects are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. This section of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It also states, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. These projects comply with the requirements for this section as there is no possibility that the adoption of these amendments may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt and approve the Ordinance approving the Amendment, Exhibit "A ", substantially in the form attached hereto. Section 4. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall cause this Resolution to be transmitted to the City Council for further proceedings in accordance with State law. RASTAFFRPTxFORTUNE.PC F22/97 ~n 6 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 271h 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 27th day of January, 1997, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:XSTAFFRIrI~ORTUNE.PC lr22/97 m 7 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 97- R:XSTAFFRPTWORTLrNE.PC 1/22/9'/ EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMF, NDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE OLD TOWN SPECWIC PLAN TO MAKE CHANGES TO TABLE 17.08(a) OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND TABLE 1 OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW "FORTLINE TELLING, SPIRITUALISM, OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY" AS PERMITTED USES RATHER THAN CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ~taiag~ The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings: A. That Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plan as may be in effect in any such city; and B. That there is a need to amend the Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan to ensure its clarity and completeness; and C. That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances. D. The said uses do not have any special uniqueness or impacts on the surrounding uses to require Conditional Use Permits for them. Section 2. Table 17.08(a) of the Development Code is hereby amended to replace the current line for "Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity" with the following: NC CC HT SC PO P P P P P BP LI R:~STAFFRFY~ORTUNE.pC 1/22/97 In 9 Section 3. Table 1 of the Old Town Specific Plan is hereby amended to replace the current line for "Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity" with the following: Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity TSR HTC OTC TRC TSO CCTS CC -- p -- p P P P Section 4. Environmental Determination The City Council hereby determines that these amendments to the Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan do not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Any potential impacts associated with the Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Development Code and Zoning Map and the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. Further, these projects are exempt from Califomia Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061Co)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. This section of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It also states, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. These projects comply with the requirements for this section as there is no possibility that the adoption of these amendments may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 5. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 6. F. ffective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. R:XSTAFFRPT~FORTLrNE.FC 1/22/97 m 10 Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this __~ day of ., 1997. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor ATFEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 97- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ~. day of ,1997, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the foilowing roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS June S. Greek, City Clerk R:~STAFFRPT~ORTUNE.PC 1/22/97 aa 11 ATTACBMENT NO. 2 CITY ATTORNEY CORRESPONDENCE R:~STAFFRPT~FOR. TUNE.pC 1/22/97 ~i 12 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATrORNEYS AT LAW December 13, 1996 Barry Fisher, Esq. Fleishman, Fisher & Moest 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3160 Los Angeles, California 90067 Re: City of Temcula Fortunetelling 1480320 OUR FILE, N{JMBER 11086-00001 (213) 253-0216 Dear Mr. Fisher: On December 10, 1996, the City Council instructed the Staff to begin the process of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance to treat fortunetelling as a permitted use in the Commercial, Office and Industrial Zoning Districts of the City rather than as a conditionally permitted use as the zoning ordinance currently provides. Specifically, Table 17.08(a) of Section 17.08.030, Use Regulations, of the Temecula Municipal Code will be amended to designate the use currently described as "Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity" as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Community Commercial (CC), Highway/Tourist (HTC), Service Commercial (SC), Professional Office (PO), Business Park District (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) zones. An amendment to the zoning ordinance requires compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and the ordinance approving the amendment would require two readings and a 30 day period before taking effect. Next week, the Planning Staff will prepare a tentative schedule of the time frame for this process and schedule tentative hearing dates. Pending the effective date of the new ordinance, the Council has also instructed staff not to enforce the conditional use permit requirements for fortunetelling and to consider it a permitted use under Title 17, Zoning, of the Temecula Municipal Code. Thus, there will be no special land use regulations applied to fortunetelling, however, compliance with all RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Barry Fisher, Esq. December 13, 1996 Page 2 applicable provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code, including business license, zoning, and building regulations, will be required in the same manner as such regulations are applied to other businesses and uses within the City. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, Peter M. Thorson CC. Gary Thornhill, Genie Roberrs, Debbie Ubnoske, PMT: pmt 1480320 Director of Community Development Director of Finance Planning Manager ITEM #7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 27, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0293; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA96-0293; ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving Planning Application No. PA96-0293 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ted Zonos REPRESENTATIVE: Markham & Associates PROPOSAL: The design and construction of 19,729 square feet of commercial development, associated parking, landscaping, road and drainage improvements LOCATION: The southwest corner of Margarita and Pauba Roads EXISTING ZONING: Neighborhood Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Public/Institutional Facilities L (Low Density Residential) SP (Specific Plan - Paloma del Sol) NC (Neighborhood Commercial) and L (Low Density Residential) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NC (Neighborhood Commercial) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:\STAFFRFI~293pA96.PC11/22/9'/klb SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Rancho California Sports Park Single-Family Residences Single-Family Residences Vacant/Single-family Residences PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Site Area: Building Area: Landscape Area: Parking/Paved Area: Other Hardscape: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Building Height: Tower Element Height: 2.54 acres (net) 19,729 square feet (18%) 42,228 square feet (38%) 41,508 square feet (37%) 7,339 square feet (7%) Sixty-six (66) spaces Eighty-five (85) spaces Twenty*one (21) feet Thirty-five (35) feet) BACKGROUND The project was submitted to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department on October 22, 1996. A Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting was held on November 14, 1996. A letter was mailed to the applicant (dated November 18, 1996) recapitulating the issues raised at the DRC meeting. The applicant re-submitted revised elevations, landscape plan and elevations on December 10, 1996. The project was deemed complete on January 2, 1997. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a proposal for the design and construction of 19,729 square feet of commercial development, associated parking, landscaping, road and drainage improvements on 2.54 acres (net). ANALYSIS Previous Project A project was previously approved on the site where the current project is proposed. The original project on the site (Plot Plan No. 226) was approved by the Planning Commission in July, 1991 for a period of two (2) years for three (3) buildings totaling 27,000 square feet. Three subsequent one (1) year extensions of time were approved for the project. Since "substantial construction" had not commenced on the project, it expired on August 5, 1996. Public Opposition for Previous Project As more people purchased property adjacent to the site, public opposition increased. When this project was heard in July of 1991, only one member of the public spoke in opposition of the project. At the August 5, 1991 hearing and the September 20, 1993 extension of time hearing, no one spoke in opposition to the project. However, at the September 15, 1994 Director's Hearing five people spoke in opposition. The matter was deferred to the Planning R:XSTAFFRIvI~93PA96.PC11/22/97 klb 2 Commission, and at the November 7, 1994 Commission meeting, nine people spoke in opposition. Residents were opposed to uses which served alcohol or would be a detriment to the existing residential development, the park site and schools in proximity to the project. This project has also been the topic of City Council discussion. Current Project/Site Design The current project is a proposal for the design and construction of 19,729 square feet of commercial development, associated parking, landscaping, road and drainage improvements on 2.54 acres (net). The amount of square footage of the development has been decreased from 26,920 square feet proposed with the original project for the site. Originally three (3) building were proposed on the site (Buildings A, B & C). Building C, the southernmost building, has been omitted from the current site design. The project will take access from both Pauba and Margarita Roads. Parking will be in the front of the building. Eighty-five (85) parking spaces have been provided; however, the Development Code only requires sixty-six (66) parking spaces. The applicant states: "given the length between the two access points to the site and the frontage of the buildings along Margarita Road between the corner and the entry the geometry resulted in the current number of spaces." A twenty-six foot (26') wide access road has been provided at the rear of the site. A delivery/loading space has also been provided at the rear of the site. Accent paving/stamped concrete will be used at the driveways, on the walkways crossing the parking lot and in front of the stores. Correspondence Staff received a transmittal from the Temecula Valley Unified School District dated November 6, 1996 (reference Attachement No. 4). The letter states: "The District has no objections other than to businesses proposing the sale of alcohol, or to businesses whose nature is otherwise incompatible with an educational setting." Landscaping Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the site has been landscaped. The Development Code requires a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) landscaped open space. Slopes to the west and south of the project have been landscaped with trees and ground cover. The perimeter of the site, along Pauba and Margarita Roads, has been landscaped with turf, groundcover, shrubs and a mixture of tree types. California Fan Palms have been used for accent at the corner, as well as at the southern entry to the site. An upright vertical tree (Tristania Conferta) has been used on the west side (rear) of the building to help break up the massing. Architecture The building is one story, stucco with a clay tile roof. Three tower elements are included in the design, with a maximum height of thirty-five feet (35'). Stucco colors are "Ivory" and "Eggshell." "Blue Spruce" will be used as the accent color for the trellis, awning and accent tiles. "Mayan Brick" will be used as an accent color for the storefronts. Column features have been included on all four elevations, with tan stone being used at the base of the columns. A R:\STAFFRPT~293PA96.}~Cl 1/22/97 kib 3 variety of rosettes, with designs made up using tiles, have been included on all four sides of the building to further break up the massing and add interest to the facade. The rear of the building has been well articulated and continues the use of the elements (except glass) used on the other elevations. Approval of Future Uses/Alcohol Sales Once the commercial center is built, uses which could lease space in the center would be subject to the City's Development Code. Some uses which would allow the sale of alcohol would require a conditional use permit. According to the Approval Authority ion the Development Code, Conditional Use Permit applications which are to be located in an existing building are to be considered at a Planning Director's hearing. In addition, Alcohol Beverage Control Board (ABC) has separation distances criteria between alcohol sales and conflicting land uses. All sales are licensed and are generally prohibited within 600' of a school, hospital, park, or church pursuant to Section 23789 of the California Business and Profession Code. Per ABC, alcohol sales within 500' rnav be grounds to deny a license, but is not automatic. Allowable exceptions include sit down restaurants, when they are considered a bona fide eating place, as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Profession Code. Further, the City of Temecula Planning Commission must make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for many uses that propose the sale of alcohol. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is NC (Neighborhood Commercial). Existing zoning for the site is NC (Neighborhood Commercial). A variety of commercial uses are permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The initial Study 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 for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is a proposal for the design and construction of 19,729 square feet of commercial development, associated parking, landscaping, road and drainage improvements on 2.54 acres (net). The project will take access from Pauba Road and Margarita Road. Parking will be in the front of the building. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the site has been landscaped. The Development Code requires a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) landscaped open space. The building is one story, stucco with a clay tile roof. Three tower elements are included in the design, with a maximum height of thirty-five feet (35'). The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study 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 for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. A project was previously approved on the site where the current project is proposed. The original project on the site (Plot Plan No. 226) was approved by the Planning Commission in July, 1991 for a period of two (2) years. Three subsequent one (1) year extensions of time were approved for the project. Since "substantial construction" had not commenced on the project, it expired on August 5, 1996. FINDINGS 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 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 welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Attachments: 3. 4. 5. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Initial Study - Blue Page 20 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 39 Letter from Temecula Valley Unified School District - Blue Page 47 Exhibits - Blue Page 48 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations R:\STAFFRFr~93PA96.PC11/22/97k11> 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:~TAFFRPT',293PA96.FCI 1/22/97klb 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0293 (DEVELOPMF-NT PLAN) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A 19,729 SQUARE FOOT CO1VEMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 2.54 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR*S PARCEL NO. 945-110-003 WItF~REAS, Ted Zonos filed Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHF. REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan) on January 27, 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. PA96-0293 (Development Plan); NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit: 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets R:XSTAFFRFI~93PA96.PCI 1/22/97klb 7 the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project 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 Temecala Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan) to design and construct a 19,729 square foot commercial development on a parcel containing 2.54 acres, located on the southwest comer of Margarita Road and Pauba Road and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 945-110-003 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th 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 271h day of January, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie LPonoske, Secretary R:',STAFFRPT~293PA96.PC11/22197 klb 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFPRPT~293PA96,PC11/22/9']klb 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of 19,729 square foot commercial development on 2.54 acres Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-110-003 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 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 or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The 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 Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. R:\STAFFKPT~293PA96.PCI 1122197 klb 10 4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, as approved with Planning Application No. PA96-0293, or as amended by these conditions. a. Nine (9) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. b. A minimum of sixty-six (66)) parking spaces shall be provided. c. Four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F (Elevations) and Exhibit G (Color Elevations), or as amended by these conditions. Envelopes for wall-mounted signage are conceptual only. Businesses may have one (1) wall mounted sign located over their suite in accordance with the City's current sign ordinance. Maximum area for the sign shall also be in accordance with the City's sign ordinance in effect at the time of permit issuance. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H (color and material board), or as amended by these conditions. Colors Tile (roof) Concrete (entry paving) Concrete (sidewalk paving) Cost Stone (column base) Stucco (building) Stucco (building) Glass (windows) Wood (trellises) Metal (mullions) Tiles (rosettes) Stone (cornice) Monier Mission Tile "16682" Chromix Admixture C-22 "Coral Red" Chromix Admixture "Summer Beige" Dura Art Stone S-4 "Tan" La Habra Stucco X-73 "Eggshell" La Habra Stucco X-73 "Pure Ivory" Clear Frazee #4925A" Blue Spruce" Frazee #6265R "Mayan Brick" DaI-Tile Dura Art Stone S-3 "White" Directional signs, the monument sign and accent paving shall conform substantially with Exhibit I, or as amended by these conditions. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation). 10. 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 11. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 12. 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. 13. 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. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. 14. 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 15. An application for signage or a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. 16. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 17. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 18. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 19. 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 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. 20. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 21. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 22. 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. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 24. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 25. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction work. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994), Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. Show path of accessibility from the parking to the furthest point of improvement. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. Provide fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. Provide an automatic fire sprinkler system. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review, 23. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. R:\STAFFRPTX293PA96.1N21 1/22197 klb 13 34. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for panel review. 35. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of recoed, the truss maufacturers engnieer, and that have been plan checked and stamped by the plan check agency and the City are required before sheet and shear inspection. 36. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. 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 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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 40. 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. 41. 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:\STAFFRP'I~293PA96.PCI 1/22/9/Idb 14 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 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 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California California Department of Fish and Game Army Corps of Engineers 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. A drainage easement shall be provided for construction and maintenance of the drainage structure outlet. The drainage easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit. 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. 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. R:\STAFFRPT~293PA96.PC11/22/97 k]b 15 51. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. 52. 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. 53. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by the Riverside Transit Authority. 54. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property, Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 55. 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 Temecula 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. 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. hm Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. R:\STAFF1LuTX293PA96,PCI 1/2~/~7k~ 16 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62, 63. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 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 limited to water and sewer), raised landscaped median. be improve Pauba Road (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). All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transitions to existing street sections, 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 Pauba Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 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 gross acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. The Developer shall obtain an easement for the driveway located on Pauba Road for ingress and egress over the adjacent property between parcels 3 and 4. 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. R:\STAFFRFI~93PA96.PC11/22/97 klb 17 64. 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 $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~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; D.EQ_V_iJ;;Le~ 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 65. 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 66. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 67. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 68. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 69. 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. OTHER AGENCIES 70. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Fire Department's transmittal dated January 21, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 71. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated November 4, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 72. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated November 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRFI'~93pAg~.PC1 1122197 klb 18 73. 74. 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated November 5, 1996, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency's transmittal dated November 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated November 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached. R:~TAFFRFI~93PA96.PCI 1/22/97klb 19 City of Temecula 43200 Buslne~ Park DrHe, Temecula, CA 92590 · Madln~lAddre~ P O Box 9033 · Temecula, CA 92589~9033 (909] 694~444 - Fax (909) 694-1999 January 21, 1997 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MATIYiEW FAGAN RE: PA96-0293 With respect to the conditions of approval 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 fire 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 operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 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 fure 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 developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. 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. Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. Install pertable 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. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fife 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. 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. 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. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. 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 engineering section (909)694-6439. Brian Hampton Fire Safety Specialist Wa r Michael R. McMillan deffrey L. Minkler George M. Woods John F. Hennigar Philllp L, Forbes November 4, 1996 Mr. Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 8455 APN 945~110-003 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 96-0293 Dear Mr. Ruiz: 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 you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 96/SB:mc208/F01 Z/FEF c: Laude Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor ,/ Raneho California Wat,r District Eastern Municipal X,V,..er District General Manager John B 8rudin Legal Courud Redwine and Shortill Dorc~or of The Metropolitan Water Craig Ruiz City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 November 8, 1996 SUBJECT: PR96-0293 (Parcel 4, PM 8455) Dear Mr. Ruiz: By - Agency Case Transmittal We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: our understanding is the subject project is to develop 2.76 acres on Parcel 4 of PM 8455 (APN 945-110-003) into a retail commercial center. The subject project site is located on the southwesterly corner of Pauba and Margarita Roads. The project includes a 3,113 square foot Building A and the 16,616 square foot Building B. EMWD reviewed PA96-0119 in July of 1996 for this same parcel of land. The previous project is similar to the proposed subject project except phasing of the building construction is not planned. EMWD comanents are similar to these for the previous project and are reiterated below. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. The available service capabilities of the District's systems are constantly changing. Hence, service to the subject project is dependent upon the available capacity of the District's systems at the time service agreements are made with EMWD. DOMESTIC WATER The project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Potable water must be arranged with the Rancho California Water District. Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto. California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 92q-02q7 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue. San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue. Hornet. CA Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road. Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177 Craig Ruiz PA 96-0293 Page 2 SANITARY SEWER The subject project is tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. For service from EMWD, an 8- inch gravity sanitary sewer must be extended in Margarita Road, 650 feet southerly from Rancho Vista, to the project site. Construction drawings for such a sewer main have been approved by EMWD (SD-14741 to 14743). However, these drawings must be updated to conform to current EMWD standards. Before construction can begin, the revisions and a Waste Discharge Application must be completed by the Developer and approved by EMWD. RECLAIMED WATER The project is outside of the EMWD's water service area. Reclaimed water must be arranged with the Rancho California Water District. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Additions or improvements to off-site facilities are required to adequately serve the subject project. This letter serves as the Plan-of-Service for the subject project. The project is being processed through the Customer Service Department for completion of the plan check process. Tracking of the subject project is being coordinated through the "One-Stop" program by Ms. Judy Conacher at (909)766-1810, ext. 4409. 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 cc: Judy Conacher, Development Coordinator - EMWD Karl Roland, Project Engineer - EMWD County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Craig Ruiz FROM t(fi GI/I/~(G/g~R DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0293 - Formerly PP 226 - Now Expired DATE: November 5, 1996 By 1. Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA96-0293 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) Ifthere are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. c) If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (358-5055) will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance# 615.3. · HaTardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2). · Waste reduction management. GD:dr (909) 285-8980 cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch November 8, 1996 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street RO. eox 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 6844)850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 Mr. Craig Ruiz Temecu!a Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: PA96-0293 Dear Mr. Ruiz: Currently our Route #23 travels S.W. along Pauba Road and N.W. along Margarita Road. We do not provide service on Margarita Road past Pauba Road; however, based upon our plans for future growth, we are requesting a bus turnout be incorporated into the general design. An ideal site for the bus turnout would be on Margarita Road near Building "B" between the HC Path-of-Travel and the driveway, where the sidewalk is adjacent to the curb, I can indicate the exact location for the bus turnout as the project progresses. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Should you require additional information or specifications, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, M. Anne Newvine Transit Planner MAN:cam cc: Planning Files I)AVID P ZAI~PE City of Temecula Plannin Department 43200 ~usiness Park Drive Temecuta, California 92590 A.e.tion: R.u 'Z-- Ladies and Gentlemen: 199s MAI;[KET STREET !C '~ ~ IUVERSIDll, CA 92501 !~ 909/275-1200 7~ 901H788-1)965 FAX RWERS DE COUNTY AND WATEI~ CONSI,~RVATION DISTRIC~ N(2V Re: ?(,- OZ 3 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. Distdct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Draina e Plan facilities. other regional flood control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logical componen~or extension of a master plan system, and District A 'ea E?;ainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The Distdct has not reviewed the roposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa constitute or imply District approva~or endorsement of the proposed projed w~th respect to flood hazard, public health; h and safety or any other suc issue: This project would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities, The District will accept ownership of such facilities on wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for Distdct 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 be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facilities on written request of the Ci . Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards, and District plan check and inspection w~ll be required~r District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. J/,tILL{,~ . ,/This project is located within the limits of the District's IvJUP,.P,,I era C,P,£r r, 7i £cut./~ Area Dreina e Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; a plicable fees should be aFt~o the Flood Control Distric~or Ci dot to final ap royal of the pro'ect, or in t~e case of a arcel m'~/pir subdivision prior to GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordafion, or other ~Vr;al approval should not be given City until the has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require ~{~e applicant to rovide all studies, calculations, plans and other reformation required to meet FEMA requirements. and should l~rther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading. recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project. the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean ~/~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U,~. Army Corps of En ineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. Ag~lean Water 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. 5KM. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXCERPTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 1996 R:'xSTAFFRFI~321PA96.FC2 1/23/97 ckd 7 PT.M~qlNG COMMTSBzON 3. PA96-0321 NORM REF. VI:.~ SUPI:.R GROUP D~e~ta~gR 2, 2996 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 Lrbnoske 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 property 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 greed 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. Etchison stated if the sign cabinet stayed the same size and the lettering reduced, it could be done, but would look odd. He sinful it would be monumental to replace the sign with a reconstructed smaller sign. r ~ftq*rNG COI~IBBION DECRWRER 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 opimon 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. Donahoe 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 permissible for the Commission to ask staff 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 electronic message sign. Ms. lJbnoske mentioned this dealer is not a part of the auto mall and therefore, does not advertise on the auto mall marquee; and as an independent, he would be permitted a freestanding sign. Commissioner Slavcn asked if the two Norm Reeves dealerships were not the same company. Mr. Kennedy replied the dealerships are 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 Dealers 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 Fahcy stated she strongly disagreed with that viewpoint and is of the opimon the City Council would send it back to the Planning Pr,MqlqlN(] COI~IIS2ION DEC~a~E~ 2, 1996 Commission. She reiterated this project does not require a Commission decision; staff brought it forth for a recommendation. She said the auto sign agreement was made with particular dealers who agr_,~_d 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 Slaven 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 probability 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, Slavcn, Soltysiak, Webster COMMISSIONERS: Fabey COMMISSIONERS None 4. Revision to Elevations for Tower PlaTa Theater and Retail Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. David Thomas, Layton-Belting and ASSOclnu'S, P.O. Box 3221, Raneho 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 being met. Mr. Thomas replied yes. Commissioner Soltysiak asked for an explanation for the screening shown on the present plans. Mr. Thomas stated Ms construction manager, who would know the details, is not at the meeting. Chairman Fabey noted actual equipment is shown in the drawings and therefore are not in compliance with conditions previously approved. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT'x321PA96.FC2 1/23/97ckd 8 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0321 (NORM REEVES SUPER USED CARS) EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- JANUARY 27, 1997 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRPTX321PA96,R22 1/22/97ckd CITY OF TEMECULA 8C~xrLr~ 'i]18"' == 1]' CASE NO. - PA96-0321 (NORM REEVES SUPER USED CARS) EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -JANUARY 27, 1997 ELEVATIONS R:\STAFFRPT'x321PA96,PC2 1/22197 ckd ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 27, 1996 Planning Application No. PA97-0003, Development Code Amendment and Planning Application No. PA97-0016, Old Town Specific Plan Amendment, Fortune Telling Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 97- recommending approval by the City Council of Planning Application No. PA97-0003 and Planning Application No. PA97-0016 (Development Code Amendment and Old Town Specific Plan Amendment) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: A Request for Approval of a Development Code Amendment and Old Town Specific Plan Amendment to allow "Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity"as permitted uses rather than conditionally permitted uses. LOCATION: Citywide BACKGROUND The Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan currently require a Conditional Use Permit for fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activities. According to Section 17.04.010 (a) of the Development Code, a Conditional Use Permit is intended to allow the establishment of those uses which have some special impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance of the use being proposed for a particular location. This Section further states that the Conditional Use Permit provides the City with the means to review the location, design, configuration of uses, and potential impact and compatibility with the surrounding area. Similar provisions are included in the Old Town Specific Plan. As a result of City Attorney concerns, on December 10, 1996, the City Council instructed staff to process amendments to the City's Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan to treat fortune telling businesses as permitted uses in Commercial, Office and Business Park Zoning Districts. The current requirement calls for a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, pending the effective date of the Amendments, the City Council further instructed staff not to enforce the Conditional Use Permit requirements for fortune telling and to consider it a permitted use. DISCUSSION Table 17.08 (a) of Section 17.08.030 of the Development Code, Schedule of Permitted Uses, is proposed to be amended to designate" Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity" as permitted uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Community Commercial (CC), Highway/Tourist (HTC), Service Commercial (SC), Professional Office (PO), and Business Park (BP) Zoning Districts. In the NC, CC, HTC, SC, PO, and BP Zoning Districts of the Development Code, fortune telling and similar uses do not have any special uniqueness or impacts, other than those generally caused by any other office or professional service uses on the surrounding areas. Staff recommends that these proposed amendments be approved to allow the "Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity" uses as permitted uses in the specified Zoning Districts in a similar manner to professional service businesses. In the Development Code, staff is recommending to prohibit these uses in the Light Industrial (LI) Zoning District. This recommendation is based on a current provision of the Development Code which prohibits offices and professional services with less than 50,000 square feet, Further, for the Old Town Specific Plan, staff is recommending to add these uses as permitted uses in the HTC, CCTS, and CC Zoning Districts. This recommendation is based on the similarity of these zones with the HTC and CC Zoning Districts of the Development Code. As a result, Table I of Section III of the Old Town Specific Plan, Land Use Matrix, is proposed to be amended to designate" Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity" as permitted uses in the Highway Tourist Commercial (HTC), Tourist Retail Core (TRC), Shootout Zone (TSO), Community Commercial and Tourist Support (CCTS), and Community Commercial (CC) Zoning Districts. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY These projects are consistent with the General Plan since these commercial uses are considered appropriate in the Commercial, Office, and Business Park Land Use Designations of the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION These amendments to the Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan do not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Any potential impacts associated with the Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Development Code and Zoning Map and the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. Further, these projects are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, R:XSTAFFRPTXFORTUNE.pC 1/2~97 sn 2 pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. This section of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It also states, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. These projects comply with the requirements for this section as there is no possibility that the adoption of these amendments may have a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A (Ordianance No. 97- ) - Blue Page 8 City Attorney Correspondence - Blue Page 12 R:~TAFFRIrf~ORTLrI~.PC 1/22/97 an 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:~TAFFRFl~293PA96.PCi 1/22/9'/Idb 20 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan) City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Southwest comer of Mergarita Road and Pauba Road Ted Zonos 9041 Lubec Street Dewhey, CA 90240 NC (Neighborhood Commercial) NC (Neighborhood Commercial) The project consists of the design and construction of 19,729 square feet of commercial development, associated parking, landscaping, road and drainage improvements on 2.54 acres. A vacant portion of the Rancho California Sports Perk to the north, residences and a church to the west, residences to the south, vacant and residences to the east. Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Mumcipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. R:\STAFFRPT~93PA96,PC11/22/97klb 21 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. IX] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise [X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services [X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandato~ Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATiVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Printed Name Date R:~STAFFRFF~93PA96.FC11/22/97klb 22 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES potentially Signmeant Potentially Unl~ Significant Mitigation Impa~t InooIpormd NO 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be mcempatible with existing lend use in the vicinity? d. Affect agricultural resottrces or operations (e.g. impactsto soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-16) e. Disruptordividethephysicalarrangementofanestablished community (including low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of maj or infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal resuH in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-5) b. Seismic groend shaking? Seisrmc ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) h. Expansive soils? I. Unique geologic or physical features? [1 [] [] ~] [1 [] [] [~ [1 IX] [1 [] [1 [] [] [~ [] [] [x] [] [] [1 [1 [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [] [1 [~ [1 ~] [1 [1 [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [1 [x] [1 [] [] [] [] [~ [1 [] [~ [] [] [] [1 [~ R:\STAFFRPl~93PA96.PCI 1/22/97 klb 23 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORIvIATION SOURCES potentially Significint Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation NO 4. WATER. Would the proposal resuR in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? b. Exposum ofpcople or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10) c. Discharge mto surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aqinfer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater7 h. Impacts to groundwater quality? I. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othenvise available for public water supplies7 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to polhitants? c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d, Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a, Increase vehicle hips or traffm congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [] [~ [] [] [] [] [] [~ [] [x] [] [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [] Ix] [1 [1 [1 [x] [ ] [1 [] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] [1 [1 [] [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [l [1 [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [] [~ [1 [] [] Ix] [1 [] [] [1 [~ R:\BTAPPRPTX293PA96.PCI 1F22/971db 24 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Si~ai~caat Impact Significant Units Mitigation Sig~ftcant NO c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? £ Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne or air Wallic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare spe(xes or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammais and birds)? b. Locally designated sp~tes (e.g. heritage trees)? c. Locally designated natural conunuinfies (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat Ce.g. marsh, fiparian and vernal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energ~ couscrvafion plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the re~ien and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pestidtdes, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of my health hazard or potential health hazard? [1 [1 [1 [] [1 [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 Ix] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [1 [] [1 [x] [x] [] [] [x] Ix] [xl [x] [x] [] Ix] [xl [xl [xl R:',STAFFRFF~93PA96.PCI lF22/97ilb 25 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potcmially Impact potentially Unless Incoxpor~ted Significant Impact No d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sources ofpotential health hazards? e. Increase fire heard in areas with fiEable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenance ofpublic facilities, includrngroads? e. Other governmental services7 12. UTILITIES 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 dislxibution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a seeroe vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [1 [1 [] [xl [x] Ix] Ix] Ix] [] [] [1 [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] Ix] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 Ix] [:q [x] [x] Ix] [] [xl [x] [x] [] R:\STAFFRPTX293PA96.PC11/22/97 klb 26 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES pok~ntially Significant Impaa Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Sinaifie, am No Impact Impact c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21) c. Affect historical resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21) e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increasethedemandforneighborhoodorregionalparksor other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational oppormmties? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or aremat community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or ammal 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? Does the project have impacts that area indlvidm~ly limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the meremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed m connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direc~y or indirec~y? [] [x] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [1 [] [~ [1 [] [] [~ [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [1 lx'] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ R:\STAFFRPT~93PA96.PC1 1122197 klb 27 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3, South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. R:\STAFFRFI~93PA96.t'CI 1/22/97klb 28 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning 1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of NC (Neighborhood Commercial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) 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 polices. The site has been previously graded and services are within proximity of the project. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.C, The project may have a potentially significant impact (unless mitigation is incorporated) from compatibility with existing land uses in the vicinity. A project was previously approved on the site in 1991, with subsequent extensions of time approved in 1993, 1994 and 1995. As residential development increased around the project site, many residents voiced concerns regarding compatibility of that project with the surrounding development at the 1994 extension of time for the project. The project in 1991 was approved for 26,920 square feet of commercial development on the site. The size of the current proposal has been reduced to 19,729 square feet of commercial development on the same amount of area, thereby mitigating some concerns regrading the scale of the project at that site. The General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Designation for the site is NC (Neighborhood Commercial). According to the General Plan, neighborhood commercial centers are intended to "...provide retail or convenience services for the local residences in the surrounding neighborhood." This project meets the intent of the General Plan in this regard. Landscaping has been included on the southern and western slopes to provide further mitigate impacts to adjacent residences. A letter was received from the Temecula Valley Unified School District (dated November 6, 1996) stating: "The District has no objections other than businesses proposing sale of alcohol, or to businesses whose nature is otherwise incompatible with an educational setting." Once the development is built, the uses which occupy the structure would be subject to the City's Development Code. Many uses which would allow the sale of alcohol would require a conditional use permit. In addition, Alcohol Beverage Control Board (ABC) has separation distances criteria between alcohol sales and conflicting land uses. All sales are licensed and are generally prohibited within 600' of a school, hospital, park, or church pursuant to Section 23789 of the California Business and Profession Code. Per ABC, alcohol sales within 500' may be grounds to deny a license, but is not automatic. Allowable exceptions include sit down restaurants, when they are considered a bona fide eating place, as defined by R:\STAFFRPT~93pAg~.PC1 1122197 k~ 29 Section 23038 of the California Business and Profession Code. Further, the City of Temecula Planning Commission must make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for many uses that propose the sale of alcohol. By following the procedures discussed above, impacts from uses serving alcohol can be addressed within the extent of applicable laws, No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.e. The project will have a less than significant impact in terms of disrupting or dividing the physical arrangement of an established community (including low- income or minority community). While there has been previous opposition to a previously proposed, larger project, at this site, the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations. These designations were established though both the General Plan Program and Development Code process to insure the logical and orderly development of the City. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. PoDulation and Housing 2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is a commercial project which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of NC (Neighborhood Commercial). Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for Neighborhood Commercial, 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 the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The project may cause people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems 3.b,h. The project will have a potentially significant impact (unless mitigation is incorporated) on people involving seismic ground shaking and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~293pA96.PCI 1/22/97 k~ 30 3.d. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.6. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.f. The project will have a potentially significant impact (unless mitigation is incorporated) from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project does propose grading beyond that which has already occurred. 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. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features, No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. at.a. The project will result in potentially significant (unless mitigation is incorporated) changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying harriscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design, Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After 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 discharges 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 System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e. The project will have a less than significant impact in changes in the amount of surface water in any waterbody or impact to water currents, or to the course or R:\STAFFRFI'a93pA96.PCI 1/22/971db 31 4.i, Air Quality 5.a. 5.b. 5.c. 5.d. direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (22,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in the immediate proximity to the project and it is not anticipated that this type of project would generate pollutants which would be harmful to sensitive receptors. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. R:\STAFFKPT~93PA96.PC11/22/97 lab 32 TransDortation/Circulation 6.a. The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersection of Margarita Road and Pauba Road. Presently, the intersection of Pauba and Margarita Roads operate at a Level of Service A (LOS A) or the lowest level of impact. LOS categories range from LOS A (free-flow condition with no congestion) to LOS F (gridlock condition with severe congestion). When Pauba and Margarita Roads are constructed to their ultimate widths (88 feet and 110 feet respectively), the roads will continue to operate at a LOS A. As for the construction of improvements in this area, this project will be required by the conditions of approval to construct half-width improvements for both Pauba and Margarita Roads adjacent to the boundaries of this site. The conditions of approval also require the project to pay signal mitigation fees and development impact fees. Pauba Road west of Margarita Road was designated a Capital Improvement Plan road widening project and has been completed. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. 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 to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. Sufficient on-site parking spaces shall be provided. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e. The project will result in a less than significant impact from hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Increased activity at this intersection will logically increase hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists. Because the project is designed to current City standards, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). In their transmittal (dated November 8, 1996) they have requested a bus turnout be provided on Margarita Road. A condition of approval will be included for this project requiring compliance with this transmittal. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFIL~'L293PA96,PCI 1/22/97klb 33 6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources 7.a. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are none located anywhere else in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.c. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.d. The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or within proximity to the site that would be affected by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy and Mineral Resources The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non- renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources, due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. R:'~STAFFRFr~293PA96.IN21 1/22/97klb 34 8.c. The project will not result in the loss of 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 the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.8. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Typically, large quantities of these types of substances are not associated with uses permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Designation. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from two maintained streets and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.8. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project 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 proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. 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 would be generated from automobiles, trucks, pedestrians using the site and ancillary equipment (i.e., air conditioners) used by the tenants of the building. Because the site is separated from immediate residential development, no significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. lO.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable R:\STAFFRlrFX293PA96.PCI lF22/97klb 35 of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11 .a,b. The project will have a less than significant 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, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.c. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. School Mitigation fees will be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project to mitigate any incremental impacts associated with this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.d. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11.e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 12.c. 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact R:\STAFFRPT~293PA96.PC11/22/97 Lib 36 12.f. 12.g. Aesthetics 13.a. 13.b. 13.c. Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The I~roject may have a potentially significant negative aesthetic effect. The project is a commercial use located at the intersection of two General Plan Circulation Element roadways. The site is highly visibly from all sides. While the building is of high quality design and includes landscaping which provides some aesthetic enhancement, it will be the only commercial establishment in the immediate area. As discussed in 1 .c. above, this may present a compatibility issue with the surrounding development. Mitigation measure to include enhanced building articulation and landscaping have been included in the project design. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources R:\STAFFRPT~293pA96.PC1 1122197 14.a. 14.d. 14.e. Recreation 15.a,b, The project will have a less than significant impact on paleontological resources. The site is identified being located in a high sensitivity area for paleontological resources. The immediate site, plus areas adjacent to the site have been disturbed from prior grading activity and the resources may have been disturbed. This reduces the probability for paleontological resources to be on the project site. A condition of approval will be included for the project which requires a qualified paleontologist be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/archaeological impacts. if necessary, during the grading process, the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it may result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:XSTAFFRPTX293PA96.PC11/22/97 ~ 38 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAI~'P,J~I~293PA96.]~C11/22/97 klb General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA96-0293 (Development Plan) Incompatibility with existing land uses in the vicinity. Reduce the scale of the project from the previously approved project and provide enhanced landscaping on the southern and western perimeter. Submit building construction plans for the commercial development which are consistent with the approved site plan (approximately 19,729 square feet in size) and submit landscape plans which are consistent with the approved site plan (with enhanced landscaping on the southern and western perimeter of the project) for review and approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Planning Department and Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Incompatibility with existing land uses in the vicinity. Project compliance with Section 23789 of the California Business and Professions Cede and the City's Development Code Require the applicant to acquire the necessary enti~ements to sell alcohol on the premises. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Building and Safety Department. Geologic Problem~ General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic Found shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submined to the Department of Public Works with the initial Fading plan check. 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 Safety Department. R:xSTAFFRP'B293PA96.PC11/22/97klb 40 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expo~ people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety DeparUnent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department. 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. Planning Department and Department of Public Works. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. R:\STAFFRFFX293PA96.FCI 1/22/97klb 41 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people seismic Found shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or expansive soils. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to lhe Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure or expansive soils. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and mount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Submit grading and drainage plan to the DeparUnent of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. DeparUnent of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPTX293PA96.PC11/22/97klb 42 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shah 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 grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Increase in vehicle flips or traffic congestion. Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. 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 occupancy permits. DeparUnent of Public Works. Increase in vehicle flips or traffic congestion. Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-ram share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT~93PA96.PC11/22/97klb 43 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use. Install on-site parking spaces. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Deparlment of Public Works, Planning Department and Building & Safety Department. 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 gross acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the nell for fire 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 Deparunent R:\STAFFRPT'Q93PA96.PC1 1122197 Idb 44 General Impact: Mitigation 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 Temecula Valley Unified School District. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: 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. Department of Public Works. Aesthetics General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A potentially significant negative aesthetic effect. Reduce the scale of the project from the previously approved project, provide architecturally high quality development and include enhanced landscaping on the southern and western perimeter. Submit building construction plans for the commercial development which are consistent with the approved site plan (approximately 19,729 square feet in size), submit elevations which are consistent with the approved elevations and submit landscape plans which are consistent with the approved site plan (with enhanced landscaping on the southern and western perimeter of the project) for review and approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Planning Department and Building and Safety Department. R:\STAFFRPT~293PA96.PCI 1/22/97klb 45 Cultural Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Potentially impact paleontological resources. Monitor the Fading process. A qualified paleontologist shall monitor the Fading process for the recovery of fossils. During the grading of the site. Planning Department. R:\STAFFRPT~93pA95.PCl 1122197 k~ 46 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 LETTER FROM TEMECULAVALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DATED NOVEMBER 6,1996 R:\STAFFP, PT~93PA96.PC11/22/97klb 47 TVUSD FACILITIES 909-695-7335 NOV r #6 9:30 No.O02 P.02 TEMECULA VALLEY UnHled School DIstrict SUPEW BN~emTeekee P~hmmdS~alm U~Cam~mem RemW Vmmdm~ November6, 1996 Craig Ruiz City o~ TemeCulm Planning Department 43200 Business Park Ddve 'remectde, CA 92590 BUBJECT: PAH-O293, Development Plan, Comer of P&uba and Margarita Roads Dear Mr. Ru~ The Temecula Valley Unified School Distrial has Concams about fie potential sale of alcohol at the proposed I~taH c, entef aS the comer of Pnuba Bed Ma~adta Roads. Although alcoholic sales were not mentioned in the recent application we received, b~ioesses proposing the sale of alcohol my c~:msider moving to this new ~erltet. This location is across the Inletsection from Tamecain Valley High 8chocd, with a current Mu0ent polNlation of about 3500 students. The DisIdols obJectjon to alcohol ales at this location Is consistent with the Business ned Professions Code, which provides forthe denial of such Iiconses within 600 feel of a school site, public playground. Or nonpa'ofit youth facility. The Distdct has no objedions other than to bulnesses proposing the sale of dcohol, or to businesses whose nature is otherwise inco~npatible with en educational setting. you have any quessi~s, please call me al 695*7340. Sincerely, Temeeula ValleyX,~,ed ~__f,~Dlstdct ~d~or, F:lities Development Dave Galinher. Dimdot of FadtRies Developmenl 31350 Raalcho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 1 (I~09) 676-2661 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS R:'~TAFFR.PT~293PA96.PC11/22/9'/klb 48 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0293 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 27,1997 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0293 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 27, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0293 EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 27, 1997 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA MARGARITA ROAD PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0293 EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 27, 1997 LANDSCAPE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA ® ® ® ® ® ®® ® ® ® ® ® PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0293 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT F ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 27, 1997