Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051997 PC AgendaCALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS TEMECULA PLANNING COMMBSION May 19, 1997, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive, Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Ch~irm~ Fahey Fahey, Miller, 5laven, 5oltysiak and Webster 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 Comwi~-,ioeers about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and ~ed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and stme Four name and address. For all other agenda items a sRequest to Speak~ form must be ~ed with the Phnning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute lime limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Elect New Chairperson and Co-Chair 3. Approval of Minutes from: a. April 7, 1997 b. May 5, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: ~ Application No. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit - Texaco Express Lube and Goodyear Tire) /ames D'Angelo, 3838 Carson Street, Suite 307, Torrance, CA 90503 Approximately 450 feet northeast of the intersection of Winchester Road (State Highway 79) and Ynez Road (40915 Winchester Road). To construct an automotive service complex including a Texaco Express Lube and a Goodyear Th'e center (totaling 6084 Square feet of building area) on a 0.78 acre site. Negative Declaration John De C-ange Approval PIning Application No. PA97-0087 (Development Plan - Fast Track) SPT Holdings South side of County Center Drive, east of Ynez Road, Within the Winchester Highlands Business Park To construct two (2) shell buildings, each at 41,000 square feet Negative Declaration Carole K. Donahce Approval Case No: Applicant: Propo~l: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: PA9~-0117 (Sign Ordinance) City of Temecula Citywide Adoption of a Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Exempt from Ihe Requiteme~ of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). Saied Naaseh Recommend the City Council Approve PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT PLANNING COIVIMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS Next meeting: June 2, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission meeting ADJOURNMENT ITEM #2 ELECT NEW CHAIRI~ERSON AND CO-CHAIR ITEM #3 MlNUTES EROM THE APRH, 7, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR M'R.F, TING OF TB'E CITY OF TEM/i;CULA PLANNING COI~IMISSION APRIL 7, 1997 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was ca/led to order on Monday, April 7, 1997, 6:01 P.M., at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca/ifomia. Co- Chairman Slaven presiding. PRESENT: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster ABSENT: Fahey Also present were .Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, P_~ncipa/Engineer Ron Parks, Assistant City Attorney Rubm D. Weiner, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan, Assistant Engineer Larry Cooley and Minute Clei'k Pat Kelley. PUBLIC COMMENTS Co-Chairman Slaven ca/led for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak. COIVI1VIISSION BUSINESS _. Approval of Agenda Co-Chairman Slaven requested Item 5 be heard after Item 6 as the proponents, who were from out of town, had not arrived. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Chairman Fahey arrived at 6:03 P.M. 2. Approval of March 17. 1997 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to approve the minutes of March 17, 1997, with the following amendments: Page 3, last paragraph, add Commissioner Soltysiak requested clarification that other developers would not be subsidizing this developer's infrastructure cost. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw pLANNINg COMMISSION APRIL 7. 1997 Page 5, second paragraph, "Commissioner Soltysiak asked to see the proposed grading.... The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE Platruing Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated she was available to answer any questions. Them were none. Best Western Freeway Sign (PA97-0065) Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster asked if the applicant had received any tree trimming from Caltrans. Mr. Hogan replied the applicant started with Caitrans, but Caltrans only approves selective tree thinning and the trees need to be topped. Commissioner Slaven asked if the trees have reached full maturity, and if there are other areas on th property to locate a lower sign. Ms. Ubnoske stated Caltrans say the trees have reached full matu however, the City 's landscaper says they can grow higher. Mr. Hogan stated the property is bordereu by trees and there is no other viable location ahemative. Commissioner Slaven commented that since the trees along the freeway will continue to grow, increasing the sign height will not solve the ,',roblem on a long-term basis. Chairman Fahey suggested fleeway oriented signage would be an appropriate item for discussion at the tentative April 29, 1997, joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Webster stated he did not believe it was necessary to wait for the joint meeting to decide this particular matter as the outcome from that meeting will not change the decision made tonight. Commissioner Miller expressed his concern over other requests for higher signs and stated he cannot support a sign higher than Burger King's 40' sign. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Chairman Fahey, to continue the item until after the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting and to have freeway oriented signs added to that agenda. Chairman Fahey stated an understanding is necessary of how the City wants the landscape along the freeway to appear; for example, is it City policy to ensure businesses are clearly visible, or to h' greenscape along the freeway. Mr. Hogan stated staff has begun to look at signing and landscaping, a compatible basis so they work together. R:\PLANCO~M\MINUTES\1997\4-7-j'. :'~ ? '25/97 vgw 2 PLKNNINO COIGflSSION ~PRIL 7, 1997 The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Fahey COMMISSIONERS: Webster COMMISSIONERS None 6. Planning Application No. PA96-0345 - (Development Plan. Palomar Village Shopping Center) Commissioner Webster stated although his residence is in the adjacent area, he is beyond the conflict of an interest limit. Assistant City Attorney Weiner asked Commissioner Slaven to confirm she does not have any predisposition regarding how the grounds mentioned in her letter of March 25, 1997, may come out in this hearing. Commissioner Slaven stated she would make her decision solely based on the evidence presented in the heating. Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster asked if the requested uses are permitted or conditionally permitted. Mr. Hogan replied they are permitted uses. Commissioner Webster asked if a signal is planned for the Margarita Road/Yukon intersection. Assistant Engineer Larry Cooley answered no signal is scheduled at this time because the intersection does not meet warrants - trip counts for Margarita Road, just north of Rancho California Road, were 13,500 daily as of July 1996. Principal Engineer Ron Parks stated the maximum allowable is approximately 20,000 per day. Commissioner Slaven questioned if the tanker trucks can safely enter and exit the facility from Yukon. Mr. Cooley stated the turning radii at the intersection can accommodate a tanker truck and Yukon was originally approved as a commercial collector street. Commissioner Miller questioned whether the loaded weight of 23 service tankers monthly will overstress the street. Mr. Cooley replied he does not feel this is a concern. Commissioner Slaven stated landscaping and driveway access will displace parking spaces and question the depth from the driveway pmperty line to the landscaping area. Mr, Hogan answered it is about 15'. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant S&L Oil, JV, stated the applicant remains in concurrence with the Conditions of Approval as modified at the March 13, 1997 Directors' heating. He provided additional detail regarding lighting (1/4-foot candle at the sidewalk, and sufficient for the Police Department) and landscaping. He suggested the shrubs be ruoved to the outside of the buffer wall, and said the applicant is willing to make a right-turn exit only at the car wash to eliminate stop sign problems. Mr. Markham stated the applicant continues to request @ 24-hour operation for the gas station. R:\PLANCO~M\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/15/97 vGw 3 PL~NNING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 1997 Commissioner Slaven asked if new trees were pined for the north side of the property. Mr. Mar, ,l replied five (5) or six (6) 24' box London Plain, trees, and pines, and shrubbery, are planned aiong the wall or betre. Mr. Markham suggested Condition 6F be modified to put the landscape buffer outside the wallo Commissioner Slaven asked if the height of the canopy could be lowered. Mr. Markham stated lowering the canopy could restrict RV service. Commissioner Slaven questioned the need for the service station to operate 24 hours a day. Mr. Markham replied competing stations are presently open 24 hours. Joanne Boggcin, 30591 Hollyberry Lane, representing the Village Homeowners Association, stated when driving a full size van, she has problems pulling onto Yukon with cars parked on both sides and questioned a tanker being able to make the move safely. She presented photos of businesses in the Palomar Center and Temecula illustrating tile wofs and small signage and requested any slanting or visible portion of the buildings be tile rather than metal. Ms. Boggein stated the Long Valley Wash could be a victim of hazardous spills and runoff and asked if Shell or the developer would post bonds for damages and health hazards to clean up the wash. She mentioned this is the first service station in a residential area. Barbara Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, representing the Village Homeowners Association, spok~ :n opposition to the project due to the increase in noise and light levels. Jim Contopulos, 42075 Humber Drive, representing the Village Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition to the project due to excess lighting created by a 24-hour operation. David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, representing the Village Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition to the project because of an increase in traffic, noise, and lighting in the area. However, if the project is approved, he recommended the applicant pay half of the cost for a signal at Yukon and Margarita Road. He stated only one meeting was held with the homeowners and all attendees were opposed to the project. Sharon Mayberry, 42055 Kaffirboom Court, spoke in opposition to the project due to an increase in accidents and the safety of children on Yukon. Curtis Schen, 42136 Teatree Court, representing KFC and a Village Grove properly owner, spoke in favor of the project and stated the restaurant manager is very conscientious and has addressed concerns raised by homeowners. Commissioner Slaven asked if it is anticipated that most of the customers will be drive-thru ones. Mr. Schen replied the business is geared for drive-thru traffic and he does not anticipate many dining room customers as they only have two (2) booths and seating for two at a counter. Commissioner Slaven expressed concern about customers crossing the drivc-thru lane since a majc ~ of the parking is on the west side. Mr. Schen replied KFC believes their customers will be from the gas station rather than the Center. He suggested signage might be helpful. R: \PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/15/97 v~w 4 PLI~'NIN~ CO~,~ISSION ~PRIL 7o 1997 Frank Villirilli, 30371 Red River Circle, spoke in opposition to the project because of odors, accidents, and trailer truck noise. Peter Rathbun, 24399 Avenida Musico, Murrieta, represeming the Village Homeowners Association, expressed concern the project is not meeting discharge requirements. He said rather than going into an approved concrete or underground system; the proposed storm drain system has been incorporated into the area's green belt. Mr. Rathbun stated that most car washes do not meet OSHA noise pollution requirements at significant distances from the blower/dryer assembly. Michelle Dawn, 41880 Humber, spoke in opposition to the proposal because of the loss of parking spaces and increased traffic. Gus Friedel, 42140 Teatree, spoke in opposition to the project due to landscaping restrictions in the Village Grove CC&Rs, which homeowners will prevent use of landscape material to block out noise. Kathafine Lara, 42162 Sweet Shade Lane, stated opposition to the proposal because increased traffic will adversely affect those who like to walk/jog/run in the area. Mike Helfrich, 42144 Teatree Court, spoke in opposition to the project. Don Harper, 42020 Teatree Court, spoke in opposition. Debra Prentice, 30445 Shenandoah Court, spoke in opposition to the project because there is nothing to advance the village center concept; to the contrary, it creates additional vehicular traffic. In response to the concems raised, Mr. Markham reiterated; 1) The traffic generated by this facility will be below the 5% allowable range of additional impact. 2) The center has paid about $55,000 in traffic mitigation fees which should pay for half of a signal at Yukon and Margarita Road. 3) He said double wall tanks with censoring devices which tie into HAZMAT will be installed and HAZMAT holds the developer liable for any bay~rdous spills. 4) The applicant offers to put in a chamber catch basin, which is an anticipated future municipai/industriai best management practice for EPDS. 5) The car wash has a clarifier system which basically recirculates the water; Eastern Water District will monitor for any violations. 6) Mr. Markham stated the planned tanker access is along Margarita Road onW Yukon, but a routing through the center is possible. He accepted the condition that no light spillage shall occur beyond the property line. He provided staff with a car wash acoustic study showing the dryer end, the noisiest area, will have a decibel reading of less than 75 at 30 feet. The developer will accept a condition that noise generated by the car wash will not exceed ambient noise levels for Margarita and Rancho California Roads. Mr. Markham stated a complete pedestrian walking system around the site has been provided, and Lucky's has appruved the project. He added the metal roof was dictated by staff to match existing buildings and the developer is neutral on style and open to modification. Mr. Markham mentioned the nine (9) existing trees along Yukon will be retained (the diseased ones replaced) and five (5) additional ones at about 20' spacing are pined, as well as some on Margarita Road. Commissioner Slaven asked how HAZMAT and the fire deparunent were notified of h~7~rdous leaks. Mr. Markham explained an automatic alarm system, with a dedicated phone line to HAZMAT, issues such a warning. R:\PLANCO~M\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/15/97 vc~4 5 PLXdqlqlNG COMMISSION APRIL 7, 1997 Chairman Fahcy questioned the impact if the car wash was not part of the project. Mr. Markham re, , the applicant typically has a car wash facility with his stations and the project would probably not go without the car wash. Commissioner Miller asked how much noise will be beard by a neighbor 100 yards from the car wash. Mr. Markham replied the noise will be below the ambient noise of Margarita Road, and he will accept a condition the car wash shall not be within 200' of a residential zone. Commissioner Soltysiak questioned timing of gasoline deliveries. Mr. Markham replied deliveries in a peak season occur about 23 times a month and typically in the evening, but can be tailored to whatever is required. Commissioner Miller asked if a right-out-only turn from the car wash wouldn't make traffic worst because traffic is then forced to exit on Yukon. Mr. Markham stated he did not see exits from the car wash as a major concern. Chairman Fahey called for a recess at 8:18 P.M. The meeting was reconvencd at 8:29 P.M. Commissioner Webster asked why Mr. Michael only received a copy of the general plan. Ms. Ubnoske stated, staff reviewed traffic and noise impacts and determined the project is consistent with the General Plan's traffic study, which was done for the entire city. Mr. Hogan stated a negative declaration appmved by the County when the Conmr was built; staff reviewed the General Plan EIR which ad~ impacts. He also advised that Mr. Michael will be given a copy of the initial study. Chairman Fahey stated her thoughts are: this use is allowed at this location; the developer has attempted to mitigate any adverse effects; she and she would support the project with the following additions: no lights spill past the property lines; tankers to come thin the center at a time having the least traffic impact (staff to determine); a chambered basin is to be installed; The car wash acoustic impact will not exceed ambient standards; staff directed to determine if it is possible to lower the canopy height; operating hours shall be 6AM to midnight; and increase the size of trees on Yukon, with a majority being evergreen. Commissioner Webster stated a tile roof is inappropriate as the other buildings have metal roofs; and shrubs should be placed outside the wall. Commissioner Slaven said her comments are: The design is not in the best interest of the community or people living in the vicinity; she supports the lighting/noise-impacting-homes arguments; and are not certain the guarantees are enforceable; The existing landscape was put in to mitigate noise, but according to residents doesn't; The design does not allow for ease of use; is not pedestrian friendly; does not include any of the village concept ideas; and should not be a 24-hour operation. Commissioner Soltysiak stated his thoughts arc: the project is consistent with the General Plan; internal traffic congestion relates to Lucky's, and the Lucky's and Albertson Centers being built to the south should relieve this area; 24" boxed trees shall be required; architecture consistent with center; installation of a catch basin. R:\PLANCC{~l\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/15/97 v~w ~ FLANNINO CONMISSION lily 5, 1997 Commissioner Miller said a gas station will meet the auto needs, homeowners and he supports the project as it in compliance with zoning. Mr. Markham reiterated the applicant is agreeable to amended conditions except for the hours of operation as the station works most efficiently on a 24-hour basis, with maintenance, upkeep and cleaning being performed in the early hours. Chairman Fahey stated she cannot support a 24-hour operation based on the noise impacts on the surrounding areas. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven to deny Planning Application PA96-0345 based on the best interest of the people in the area due to negative impacts to their health, safety and welfare, and because the hours of operation exceed midnight. The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak, to approve Planning Application PA96-0345 as previously conditioned at the March 13, 1997 Planning Director meeting and as augmented tonighi--i.e, no light spills past the property lines; installation of a special catch basin; acoustic impact not to exceed ambient parameters; canopy height to be as low as possible and still accommodate vehicles; trees to be 24" box, of an evergreen majority, along the property's perimeter; shrubs to be located outside the wall; if a left-turn lane from Margarita Road into the Center is established, the fuel trucks must utilize that entrance; establish hours of fuel delivery to minimize noise impact; -- and staff direction to return at the April 21, 1997 Planning Commission meeting with a resolution containing the findings. The motion failed as follows: AYES: 2 NOES: 3 ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Soltysiak COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Webster, Fahey COMMISSIONERS None Commissioner Miller, "I move the approval of PIning Application... and as those conditions have been augmented and amended tonight..., Chairman Fahey, "...Clarification on the conditions was...tanker coming through the center vs Yukon with an appropriate time to be determined in the daytime limitation in low traffic times in the center, but not nighttime." Assistant City Attorney Weiner, "You may want to discuss actually what the appropriate time at this point because there may be a disagreement among the people voting on the motion on that." Commissioner Webster, "Give a time range." Chairman Fahey, "10 A to 4 P." Commissioner Miller, "This is petrol deliveries; if I inadvertently made that a part of my motion, I apologize. I think it is an inherently bad idea to run a gas truck through that parking lot...." R:\PIANCO~R4\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1997 Chairman Fahcy, "...the two things under discussion arc the tankers through the center vs around Y, and then the hours as far as delivery of fuel. Does the maker of the motion want to clarify what they intended for that condition?" Commissioner Miller, "Until there is a left-turn lane provided..." Chairman Fahey, "The next question was hours of delivery. I had suggested that staff determine hours of delivery that would be had the least noise impact to evening and nighttime hours as far as a truck coming in there. And someone asked that we clarify that for discussion and so I pulled numbers out of the hat which were 10 A to 4 P. Is it, would you like that not to be in there?" Commissioner Miller, "I don't know that it if we are talking about wanting to reduce traffic, I would assume it should be at the later hours." Commissioner Soltysiak, "I think the concern about the later hours is how much noise it would make." Commissioner Miller, "Perhaps we should add an additional condition that I don't know that this happens, but when the trucker is there to drop the fuel...there is no noise involved.. Chairman Fahey, "Probably you need to clarify most...are you making a motion that included limited hours or does not include limited hours?" Commissioner Miller, "I am not making that part of my motion." Chairman Fahey, "So the maker of the motion would not include any limits to the hours. Does the second concur with that?" Comn~ssioner Soltysiak, "I don't think I am knowledgeable to make that determination...our intent which is to minimize the impact." Chairman Fahey, "Do you have a problem with staff making that." Commissioner Miller, "Not at all." Chairman Fahey, "Staff work on minimizing the noise and traffic impact by narrowing down the hours of fuel delivery..." Do you agree that those are the conditions that you were requesting, second..." The motion did not pass. Commissioner Webster, "I'd like to move to make the same motion, but just to change the hours of operation till 12 o'clock midnight for the gas station." Chairman Fahey, "So what about the opening time?" Commissioner Webster, "Opening time I want to clarify this. Any route, any time just that the hours of operation end at 12 midnight...beginning of 6 AM." PLi~.'NIN~ COI~IBSION I,~Y S, 1997 Chairman Fahcy, "We have a motion for of the previous motion and conditions with one additional condition that the hours of operation arc 6 AM to midnight. Is there a second? ~ Commissioner Webster, "Actually, let me modify that. Speaking more of a 5 AM to 12 midnight due to the number of commuters...." The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Webster, Fahey NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Slavcn, Soltysiak ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS None Forest City Workshop (Mall PrOject-Winchestcr/Ynez/Margarita Roads) Community Development Director Gary Thornhill presented a summary of the project's background. Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Chairman Fahey questioned the review of the environmental impact report. Mr. Fagan stated the project appears to be consistent with the parameters of the EIR. Colm Macken, representing Forest City Development, stated the power center elevations will be ready by June 2, 1997, and it is hoped elevations of the anchor stores will also be ready at that time. Jim Heller, KA Architects, Cleveland, stated the anchor department stores will do their own designs as they will own the buildings, but will work with Forest City to develop an integrated design scheme. Mr. Heller explained the site plan. Tom Groover explained the design study model illustrates patios, landscaping, and activity apace (football field-size) for special community and tenant events. He also displayed the proposed materials and colors; explained how each major courtyard will have a different theme, and how building fronts/backs will be designed to resemble a main street, with each tenant having an opportunity to customize their individual entrance. Phil Milsap, Mason Design, provided overall landscaping information and stated the landscaping is based on the approved Specific Plan. Mr. Macken stated the power center is an integral part and economically makes the development work. He said it will extend to North General Kearny Road, which is larger than previously shown, and will have the same architectoral features as the front of the mall. Mr. Macken mentioned an approved site plan should be ready by the June 2, 1997 hearing. R:\PLANCOM4\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1997 Commissioner Webster stated hc had provided written comments to staff; and would like to see the; ~ coloring rendition shown tonight for the dep~uh~nt stores and back of the cinema. He expressed concern the activity space may not be large enough, after all the shown amenitics are in place; with the grading at two levels, it appears a lot of asphalt will be visible when driving along Ynez Road; and he requested a variety of large trees in the parking area. Mr. Heller replied the slopes are mild, but in the hours before the mail is open, aspbait will be seen, which they will try to mitigate with landscaping. Mr. Heller stated a detailed urban trail plan will be developed. Commissioner Soltysiak inquired if there would be any circulation problems with every parking aisle entering the ring mad. Mr. Heller stated Forest City has successfully utilized this design for the last 12 to 15 years and have never experienced any problems with turning, and it is a design mandated by all three anchors. The ring road is four lanes, two through lanes and two with turning movements, with speed limits and stops at the major entrances and ring road intersections. Mr. Hcllcr mentioned it is planned to have final approval of the site plan by the anchors in the next three (3) weeks. Mr. Macken stated the traffic engineer, Bob Davis, will be at the next meeting to answer all traffic related questions. Commissioner Soltysiak asked about the service entries. Mr. Holier replied each department store will have three (3) or four (4) receiving docks which will have screening walls and landscaping. Commissioner Slaven questioned the possibility of designing a power center which will meet toe developer's goais and have an aiignment other than ail in one ww. Mr. Macken answered a power center must have 26-27% coverage to make the center efficient and economical, but the elevations will show a separately configured center at the June 2, 1997 meeting. Commissioner Slaven asked how Forest City deait with corporate colors and signage. Mr. Macken replied sign criteria is included in the CC&Rs. Commissioner Miller stated he feels the Winchcster/Ynez comer needs a more elaborate treatment and asked if any thought had been given to having a bridge over Ynez Road or a promenade so people could walk from one center to another. Mr. Macken responded sidewalks are not developed until the users are set. Mr. Heller stated there is sidewalk development along each entrance and around the islands to the interior, but no bridge has been considered. Commissioner Miller reiterated a bmader plant paiette is needed and the landscape plan should spell out on center rather than interconnecting circles. Mr. Heller stated detailed betanicai sheets, at 16 scaie in some cases, will specify all plants, numbers, location and centering. Chairman Fahey stated she was concemed about: the height of the buildings and the decorative features of the mail because there are homes that will acquire this mall as pan of their view; she questioned the contribution of the tower; said making the anchors more interesting would be appreciated; and circulation works better with multiple exits. R:\PLANCO{~M\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1997 Commissioner Miller commented the tower seems like an interesting feature that is probably designed to be viewed from the freeway. Mr. Macken stated the tower idea is to get visibility to the entertainment area. Mr. Fagan asked for any comments regarding the entrances. Commissioner Slaven stated she thought staff was going in the right direction. Commissioner Slaven requested the mall be the only matter on the June 2 agenda and copies of the materiai be received as soon as possible. Chairman Fahey suggested staff aiso provide the Commissioners with the old WailMart plans because it was for the same location. Mr. Fagan summarized the following schedule for the project: April 17 - formai submittal; May 8 - Development Committee review; May 15 - rcsubmittal; middle of May - finai submittai. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Ms. Ubnoske stated she will confirm the April 29, 1997 joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting date. oLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Miller asked about the status of getting the Unocai station into compliance. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held April 21, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hail Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Caiifornia. Linda Fahey, Chairman Debbic Ubnoske, Secretary R:\PLANCO~M\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/15/97 MINUTES FROM ~ MAY 5, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR lVB~.TING OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 5, 1997 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, May 5, 1997, 6:02 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 Principal Engineer Ron Parks, Assist3nt City Attorney Mike Estrada, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Senior Planner John Meyer, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Naaseh, Project Planner Carole Donahue, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley. PUBLIC COMMF,,,NTS Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items. COMMISSION BUSINF,,SS There were no requests to speak. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Approval of Minutes a. April 7. 1997 It was moved by Commissioner Webster, and seconded by Commissioner Miller to continue this item to May 19, 1997 pending a verbatim transcript of the motions made by Commissioners Miller and Webster for Planning Application PA96-0345. The motion was carried unanimously. Planning Application PA96-0345 Commissioner Miller, "I move the approval of Planning Application...and as those conditions have been augmented and amended tonight...' R:\PLANCO~\MINUTgS\1997\5-5-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw PLT~TNIN~ COHMISSION M3Y 5, 1997 Chairman Fahcy, "...Clarification on the conditions was...tanker coming through the center vs ~ with an appropriate time to be determined in the daytime limitation in low traffic times in the center, but not nighttime." Assistant City Attorney Weiner, "You may want to discuss actually what the appropriate time at this poim because there may be a disagreement among the people voting on the motion on that." Commissioner Webster, "Give a time range." Chairman Fahey, "10 A to 4 P." Commissioner Miller, "This is petrol deliveries; if I inadvertently made that a part of my motion, I apologize. I think it is an inherently bad idea to run a gas truck through that parking lot...." Chairman Fahey, "...the two things under discussion are the tankers through the center vs around Yukon and then the hours as far as delivery of fuel. Does the maker of the motion want to clarify what they intended for that condition?" Commissioner Miller, "Until there is a left-turn lane provided..." Chairman Fahey, "The next question was hours of delivery. I had suggested that staff determine of delivery that would be had the least noise impact to evening and nighttime hours as far as a coming in there. And someone asked that we clarify that for discussion and so I pulled numbers om of the hat which were 10 A to 4 P. Is it, would you like that not to be in there?" Commissioner Miller, "I don't know that it if we are talking about wanting to reduce traffic, I would assume it should be at the later hours." Commissioner Soltysiak, "I think the concern about the later hours is how much noise it would make." Commissioner Miller, "Perhaps we should add an additional condition that I don't know that this happens, but when the trucker is there to drop the fuel...there is no noise involved., Chairman Fahey, "Probably you need to clarify most...are you making a motion that included limited hours or does not include limited hours?" Commissioner Miller, "I am not making that part of my motion." Chairman Fahey, "So the maker of the motion would not include any limits to the hours. Does the second concur with that?" Commissioner Soltysiak, "I don't think I am knowledgeable to make that determination...our intent which is to minimize the impact." Chairman Fahey, "Do you have a problem with staff making that." R: \PLANCO~\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97 .WPD 5/15/97 vgw 2 PLI~iNING COMMISSION N3kY 5, 1997 Commissioner Miller, "Not at all." Chairman Fahey, "Staff work on minimizing the noise and traffic impact by narrowing down the hours of fuel delivery..." Do you agree that those arc the conditions that you were requesting, second..." The motion did not pass. Commissioner Webster, "I'd like to move to make the same motion, but just to change the hours of operation till 12 o'clock midnight for the gas station." Chairman Fahey, "So what about the opening time?" Commissioner Webster, "Opening time I want to clarify this. Any route, any time just that the hours of operation end at 12 midnight...beginning of 6 AM." Chairman Fahey, "We have a motion for of the previous motion and conditions with one additional condition that the hours of operation are 6 AM to midnight. Is there a second7" Commissioner Webster, "Actually, let me modify that. Speaking more of a 5 AM to 12 midnight due to the number of commuters...." b. April 21. 1997 It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slavcn, to approve the minutes of April 21, 1997, with the following corrections: Page 3, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...can issue citations, but has not done so... Page 3, llth paragraph, last sentence - Mr. Roripaugh agreed he would not need any further extensions if he received 105 days. The motion was carried unanimously. Director's Hearing Update Planning Manager Ubnoske stated she had nothing further to report. Commissioner Miller stated he needed additional information regarding the Development Plan for Vineyard Crest Subdivision to be able to ask a question. Ms. Ubnoske answered actual product on the lots, the siting of the building, and footprints for the various products to ensure they would meet setbacks were approved. R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw 3 PT.~rNING CO~,~IBBION I~U~Y 5. 1997 PUBLIC B~,ARING ITEMS 4. Planning Application PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map. No. 28503) Project Planner Carole Donahoe presented the staff report and corrected Condition 6a. to read ...lots and 10 open space lots. Commissioner Slaven expressed concern over the lack of access for maintenance to the common area around Lots 34 and 35. Commissioner Webster mentioned a level walkway shown on the east side of Lot 16 could provide access to those lots at the end of the cul-de-sac as well as La Serena Way. Commissioner Webster questioned the location of the equestrian trail as Condition 56 states it is adjacent to existing MWD fight-of-way, yet the map shows it inside MWD's easement. Principal Engineer Ron Parks stated the trail is suppose to be outside MWD's easement. Commissioner Webster suggested the map be corrected. Commissioner Miller asked if staff considered this tract to be a transitional area between the larger Meadowview lots and the smaller Temeku Hills lots and what are the lot sizes. Ms. Donahue stated it is felt the amount of slope and open area compensate for the smaller lots; and the lots range from 7,204 sq. ft. to 20,841 sq. ft. with a 1.9 target density. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:24 PM. Brian Johnson, 23333 Avenida la Caza, Coto de Caza, CA, applicant, stated he agreed with Conditions of Approval and regarding maintenance access to the area mentioned by Commissioner Slaven, maintenance crews can get access at the end of the cul--de-sac to maintain the natural and slope areas. He stated the equestrian trail is outside MWD's right-of-way, and staff requested it be kept as close to the lots as possible. Commissioner Slaven asked about including access in the middle of the main street down the center to the back of hills in Meadowview; what kind of slope landscaping is planned; and do you have a landscape plan. Mr. Johnson replied he does not have a landscape plan at this time; there are two storm drain easements within Lots 10 and 13, which take drainage from the terraced drain to the street, but a homeowner would probably prefer that to be just an easement and landscaped, and not have maintenance crews walking through, especially since they can enter at the cul-de-sac. Landscaping material will be consistent with what is planted in Chardonney Hills so the entire area is similarly landscaped. Commissioner Slaven expressed concern about the difficulty of getting equipment into the area even with the drainage ditch easement. Mr. Johnson replied the Meadowview Homeowner Association was concerned about the maintenance of these areas and by being open space, they will be consistently maintained throughout the project. Commissioner Slaven asked if an access sidewalk could be put in alongside the drainage culvert easements between Lots 10 and 11 and 11 and 13. Mr. Johnson stated it is doubtful homeowners will ~' maintenance crews going through that area. R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.h~PD 5/15/97 vgw 4 PLI~,NNIN~ COMMIBBION 1G~.Y 5, 1997 Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about the type of fencing for individual lots while allowing access. Mr. Johnson stated fencing is at the top of the slope for access directly off the street; and fencing in the area under discussion would be along the toe of the slope or adjacent to the terraced drain. Chairman Fahcy closed the public comment section at 6:33 PM. Commissioner Soltysiak stated it is a 2:1 slope so it has to be accessed by foot and it is not unusual for the refuse bags and equipment to be handcarried. Commissioner Slaven said plant material needed to be low maintenance, such as ice plant which is also fire retardant. Commissioner Miller commented he thought the project was over dense given its proximity to Meadowview. Ms. Donahoe stated Planning Area 2's smallest lots is 8,200 sq. ft., with a majority in the 10,000 sq. ft. range, and the Specific Plan labels Area 2 as the buffer area between Meadowview and Temeku Hills Specific Plan. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to adopt Resolution No. 97-Next approving PA97-0033, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; to approve Planning Application No. PA97-0033, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as corrected; and to close the public heating. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None Planning Application PA97-0030 (Amendment and Restatement to Development Agreement No. 5) Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:45 PM. Brian Johnson, 23333 Avenida la Caza, Coto de Caza, CA, applicant, stated he agreed with the Conditions of Approval and asked that the development fee be left open in the event a lower fee is appmved by the City Council on May 8, 1997. Assistant City Attomey F~irada recommended the Commission not make any changes to the fee because the matter will come before the City Council and Mr. Johnson can bring up the issue at that time. Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 6:48 PM. Chairman Fahey clarified the attorney's recommendation is for the Commission to review the development agreement as written and if the City Council makes a different decision, it can be incorporated into the language before the final agreement is appmved by the City Council. R:\Pl-n-NCOM~I\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw 5 pLMqNTNG COMMTSBION MAY 5. 1997 Principal Engineer Parks Clarified the 309 lots in the p~kct is incorrect and the staff report and appr~ 't should bc bi~-d on 305 lots. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0030; to adopt Resolution No. W-Next approving recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA~'/-0030 to the City Council, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; to correct documents to indicate 305 lots; and to close the public hearing. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Chairman Fahey called a recess at 6:51 PM and reconvcned the meeting at 6:58 PM. 6. Planning Application PA97-0007 (Development Plan Commissioner Soltysiak stated he is a consultant to the applicant and he stepped down from the dais. Project Planner Carole Donahue presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster asked if the 6' wall around the parking area on the west side is consistent ~, ..a the Police Department's requirements to have hedges and planters no higher than 3'. Ms. Donahue answered the Police Depanment's letter of January 29, 1997 stated they wanted landscaping down to a low level for visibility from the street. The wall forms a secured area with gates locked during nonbusiness hours. Commissioner Miller questioned whether or not storage areas are planned. Ms. Donahue replied there is no proposed storage area. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:04 PM. Dean Davidson, 28441 Rancho California Road, Suite A, representing the applicant, stated the applicant agrees with the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Fahey asked for clarification regarding planned storage areas. Mr. Davidson replied there are no plans for outside storage areas and the second gate was required by the Fire Department. Commissioner Webster suggested a 3' high solid fence with a 3' ornamental iron fence on top, and Mr. Davidson stated he had no opposition to that suggestion. Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 7:06 PM. R:\PLANCO~M\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw 6 PL~aOqING COMMISSION 14AY 5. 1997 It was moved by Commissioner Webster, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0007; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0007; to adopt Resolution No. 97-Next approving recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0007 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended by having a 3' high solid fence with a 3' ornamental iron fence on top; and to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miller commented he preferred the solid fence on a purely aesthetic basis -- a heavily landscaped wall has a better appearance. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Webster, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Soltysiak Planning Application PA95-0127 (Sign Ordinance Chairman Fahey stated the public hearing remains open. Window Coverage Commissioner Soltysiak expressed concern that the Commission may be creating a lot of nonconforming signs by limiting window areas to 10%. Commissioner Miller stated he suggested 10% after considering the magnitude, and the intent is to clear out sign clutter. Chairman Fahey asked if staff could provide unidentifiable photos illustrating windows with 10 to 25 percent coverage. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if it was decided handpainted signs are not acceptable. Commissioner Miller replied non-day glo-eolored handpainted signs are acceptable within the 10%. 17.28.070 General Requirements for Permanent Signs h. - Commissioner Miller stated he did not understand why a center's identification signs had to be one sided. Mr. Naaseh replied the intent is to have the center's ID sign built into the landscaping. Chairman Fahey clarified a one-sided sign is to encourage landscaping and monument-type signing. (5) Landscaping c. - Commissioner Miller questioned the wording in the last sentence, and if the goal is year-round color, replanting is required every six to eight weeks which is unreasonable and unenforceable and suggested the sentence be removed. Chairman Fahey stated she would leave the sentence in to encourage seasonal changes. R:\PLANC0~\MINUTES~1997\5-5-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw 7 PL~,'NIN~ COMMISSION F-~Y 5, 1997 It was the consensus of the Commission to eliminate the last sentence. Commissioner Miller questioned the intent of "similar proportions" in the first sentence. Chairman Fahey suggested the sentence end at "...which provide additional color." It was the consensus of the Commission to end the sentence after color. (7) Illumination Commissioner Webster mentioned Paiomar Light Pollution Ordinance may not be the correct title; staff will check on the correct title. (8) Width Introduction, last sentence - Commissioner Webster asked for an explanation of ". ..width calculated by the sign width coefficient." Mr. Naaseh stated there is a maximum area and height, but not a maximum width for a freestanding sign and the coefficient puts the sign in proportion to the height. (b) Standards for Permanent W~II Mounted Signs for Bulldirges with Two (2~ Stories or Less (1)a. - Commission Miller questioned why require a sign on a specific wail rather than at a logical pl~e to view the sign. Mr. Naaseh replied the intent is to prohibit a business from putting a sign ol freeway-facing side when their actual office area is loca~;xl on another side. Ms. Ubnoske stated staff ~,a clarify the language regarding a wall definition, if an overhang is considered a wail, and flexibility for sign locations. Commissioner Miller stated he could not support this item. It was the consensus of the Commission to eliminate (a). (3) b. and c. - Commissioner Webster questioned the definition of scale; i.e., is there a certain ratio or is it a Planning Depat'U~ent scale, and is there a maximum. Mr. Estrada suggested deleting "be in scale with the building., Commissioner Webster mentioned there are signs with large letters which are out of scale with the building and asked what is the correct percentage. Mr. Naaseh answered 75% is a standard percentage used in other cities' ordinances. Commissioner Miller asked how the 75% in (3) b is applied when the building is essentially glass. Mr. Naaseh replied office buildings are covered in another section and is not affect by these standards. Ms. Ubnoske suggested a beginning paragraph stating these are general standards with specifics found in subsequent sections. R:\PLANCfM~4\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw 8 PL~ka'IN~ CO~,~IBSlON I~Y 5, 2997 Mr. Naaseh stated a large building can be broken into small elevations and a sign installed on only one elevation overwhelms the building. For large buildings, the maximum area of the sign would probably be met before the 75% building ratio. (4) Letter Height Commissioner Webster asked if a maximum letter height is needed. Mr. Naaseh stated letters are restricted by sign height and the building mass. ~5~ D_~gn Commissioner Soltysiak inquired into the intent of (5) A, B and C. Mr. Naa~eh stated the section is to encourage creativity. (6) Illumination Commissioner Miller suggested white should also be permissible for a channel letter. Mr. Naa~eh stated if the channel letter background and neon tubing is the same color, the sign is easier to read during the day. Commissioner Webster noted an inconsistency in the day glo color definition as it seems to apply to neon and suggested rewording the definition to exclude neon. It was the consensus of the Commission to have neon excluded under day glo color definition. 17.28.210 Freew~ Oriented Signs in Commercisl Districts Chairman Fahey stated freeway oriented signs will be addressed at a later date. Mr. Naaseh stated an issue dealing with center size, (a)(1)Co), was raised and staff needs direction regarding minimum acreage. Chairman Fahey remarked that if seven (7) acres are the minimum, parcels will be broken up to be able to have more signs and is in favor of three (3) acres. Commissioner Webster expressed an interest in looking at Mr. Markham's proposal of a three-acre minimum with an option of having a freeway sign and then not allowing wail mounted signs. Ms. Ubnoske stated staff is looking into incentive programs and available options and will report to the Commission. 17,28,220 Requirements for F~estanding Shopping Center Identification Signs in Commercial Districts Commissioner Miller asked why the differential between seven (7) acres and less than seven-acre sites. Mr. Naaseh stated seven acres was the Sign Committee's break up of large and small centers. Commissioner Miller stated smaller centers have the same need for signage as the large ones and adequate spacing between signs is more important than the depth/width of a lot. Mr. Na_~,~h said the Sign Committee gave centers as many identification signs as they could -- two (2) per major entrance. Mr. Naaseh mentioned that 20 sq. ft. is the area around the letters, not the sign structure. Chairman Fahey stated since all interested parties reviewed and agreed with this section, the Commission should proceed. R: \PLANCO~M\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 5/15/97 vgw 9 PT.3,~TNIN~ eO~O~IB~ION ~Y 5, 1997 17.28.230 Freestanding Tenant Identification in Commercial Districts (a)(1) - Commissioner Miller asked the purpose of the statement "... at least half...shall be single tenant..." Mr. Naaseh answered the Sign Committee, in calculating the number of signs a shopping center could have, did not distinguish between single and multi-tenant signs and they said one sign per 1,000' of frontage. Mr. Hogan explained the Sign Committee looked at total frontage and believed a combination of multi and single-tenant signs eliminated visual and monotonous clutter. Commissioner Miller expressed his disagreement. It was the consensus of the Commissioner to leave (a)(1) as written. (a)(6) - Commissioner Webster remarked there are cases where two signs per panel is well designed. Commissioner Slaven and Chairman Fahey expressed they had no problem if letters are sufficient size to be read, and Chairman Fahey suggested changing (a) (6) to read "The maximum number... shall be two. It was the consensus of the Commission to change to "two." (a)(7) - Mr. Naaseh reported it should read..minimum panel ~ should... 17.28,240 Requirements for Wall Mounted Business Identification Signs for Buildings with 2 Stories or Less in Commercial Districts (b) - Commissioner Webster questioned if there is a requirement for spacing between individual tenant signs or does each individual sign take up 75% of the area. Mr. Naaseh replied there are no standards addressing that issue, but the 75 % requirement could apply to a multi-tenant building. Staff will review wording to make certain the intent for appropriate spacing is clearly worded. (c) - Commissioner Miller asked when would there not be a tenant identification of a building. Mr. Naaseh stated "proposed" may be a better word than permitted. 17.28.250 Wall Mounted Signs for Buildings with 3 Stores or More in Commercial Districts Commissioner Soltysiak asked if a controversy remains since the section was revised. Mr. Naaseh stated the ordinance now distinguishes between a primanj and secondary tenant; a primary tenant wanting to identify the building with their name can have two signs with four additional identification signs for smaller tenants - a total of six signs -- as the intent is to limit the number of signs on a building. Mr. Naaseh stated Section A refers to a wall-mounted building identification sign which could also be a tenant of the building; Section B, wall-mounted secondary tenant business identification sign. Commissioner Soltysiak asked staff to clarify the section by adding primary tenant in the bold title. R:\PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.~PD 5/15/97 vgw PLIed~TING CO],D~IBB'rON 3~Y 5. 1997 Commissioner Soltysiak asked staff to alert the Commission when a controversial section is under discussion. 17.28.260 Reql.lirements for Special Signs in Commercial Districts (a) - Commissioner Slavcn asked how can the diesel fuel signs placed in planters be eliminated. Mr. Naaseh stated gas price signs arc regulated by the state, but the new ordinance does not allow separate price signs for diesel and a diesel price sign placed without a permit, is an illegal sign. 17.28.265 Requirements for PrOjecting Signs in Commercial Districts (c) - Commissioner Slaven asked the meaning of "Maximum height of signs shall not exceed 20'..." Mr. Naaseh replied it means the clearance of the sign; staff will clarify language. 17.28.275 Requirements for Awning Signs in Commercial Districts (d) - Commercial Miller asked since projection is limited to the right of way, can an awning extend to the middle of a parking lot. Chairman Fahey stated we are talking about signs on awnings, not awnings. Mr. Estrada remarked that the ordinance stated no signs in the public right of way so (d) could be eliminated. It was the consensus of the Commission to eliminate (d). 17.28.280 On-Site Directional and Directory S~gns in Commercial Districts (b)(2) Commissioner Webster stated he would like to see a maximum area bigger than 3' - something around 10 sq. ft. - because a sign could be providing direction to two or three spots. Mr. Naaseh replied there are three types of directory signs: (b) and (c) are on-site signs for individual businesses, i.e., drive up windows; and (c) is for shopping centers. Commissioner Webster mentioned industrial signs refer back to this section and an individual business could need office/warehouse/delivery directional signs; perhaps it can be clarified in the industrial section. Commissioner Slavcn mentioned small-sized stop signs in a plaTa arc difficult to see and should be addressed. Mr. Naaseh stated hc was not certain of the appropriate section, but will look into it. (b) - Commissioner Miller stated the introductory sentence of (b), (b)(6) and (c)(5) should be rcworded. Staff will rewrite the sentences. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commission Miller to continue the public hearing of PA95-0127, Sign Ordinance, to May 19, 1997, beginning with 17.28.300, Signs in Professional Office District. The motion was unanimously carried. R:\PLANC0~\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 5/15/97 v~ 11 pL3.NNTN~ COI,~IS~IXON I,~Y 5, 1997 PLANNING MANAGER 'S RF, PORT Ms. Ubnoske rcport~l the Planning Dcpa~i,ucnt's Fast Track process was submitted to the Inland Emp:re American Planning Association and won an award for Customer Service. She stated she mentions the air-conditioning problem after every meeting, and it is to he worked on next week. pI ,ANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Chairman Fahey asked if any commissioner would like to attend the award dinner with staff Wednesday, May 21, 5:30 PM, Benedict Castle, Riverside, to let Ms. Ubnoske know as soon as possible. Chairman Fahey reported it has been over a year since the chair position was addressed and she would like the item to he put on an agenda for discussion. She invited others to consider the position, but she is willing to continue. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will he held May 19, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hail Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary Linda Fahey, Chairman R:\PIANCOM~\MIN~jTES\1997\5-5-97.WnPD 5/15/97 v~w 12 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0060 - Conditional Use Permit (Texaco Express Lube/Goodyear Tire Center ) Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0060; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0060; ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving Planning Application No. PA97-0060 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: James D'Angelo Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Greg Izor, Greg Izor & Associates PROPOSAL: To operate and construct an automotive service complex including a Texaco Express Lube and Goodyear Tire Center (totaling 6,084 square feet of building area) on 0.78 acres. LOCATION: Approximately 450 feet northeast of the intersection of Winchester and Ynez Roads (40915 Winchester Road) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial) EXISTING ZONING: CC (Community Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: CC (Community Commercial) SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) CC (Community Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested R:/STAFFRFI~60PAg?.PC 5/15197 klb 1 EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Santa Ger~rudis Creek flood control channel Vacant (proposed Regional Mall site) Vacant (proposed Regional Mall site) Medical Office Building PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Building Area: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Building Height: 0.78 acres Texaco - 1,735 square feet; Goodyear - 4,349 square feet (6,084 total) 7,894 square feet 19,810 square feet 28 spaces 30 spaces Texaco- Twenty-eight (28) feet; Goodyear- forty-four (44) feet BACKGROUND A pre-application meeting was held for this project on February 19, 1997. The application was formally submitted to the Ranning Department on February 28, 1997. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on March 20, 1997. The project was deemed complete on April 29, 1997. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the operation, design, and construction of an auto service complex on 0.78 acres. The project consists of two separate buildings: a Texaco Express Lube building which has three service bays, is 1,735 square feet in size and is 28 feet high and a Goodyear Tire facility with four service bays, is 4,349 square feet in area and 44 feet in height. ANALYSIS Site Design The project is designed such that access is taken from Winchester Road with parking along the front and the northern side of the site. The building has been designed with the service bays oriented perpendicular to the street. The design of the site is consistent with the provisions of the Development Code and the Design Guidelines. Architecture & Colors The building is stucco concrete with a tile roof. initially the applicant had proposed yellow, and later blue (for Goodyear) and red (for Texaco) metal seam roofing. However, staff suggested that the applicant utilize a flat concrete tile roofing style to improve the project's compatibility with the adjacent medical office buildings. At staff's request the applicant has added reveals to both buildings to add depth and interest and stucco column pop out features to the Goodyear building. R:~TAFFR~cT~OPA97.PC 51151~7 k4b ~ The project also includes an outdoor waiting area. Staff also recommended that a trellis patio cover feature be added in order to screen the outdoor seating areas from the sun and heat during the summer and early fall, and to help add interest and break up the massing of the Texaco building. Landscaping The project proposes to landscape 22 percent of the site which is consistent with the 20 percent minimum landscaping requirement in the CC (Community Commercial} zone. The site has a minimum five foot wide landscape planter around its perimeter and smaller planter along the fronts of the two buildings. Landscaping in the form of berming and planting has been included along the front of the project within the 25 foot wide transportation corridor easement. Given the nature of the proposed use and its potential to impact existing and proposed uses, staff asked the applicant to provide additional landscaping to enhance the front and west elevations, to screen the service bays, to soften the overall look of the building and match the adjacent medical office complex. At staffs request the applicant has also added landscape planters at the neck of the driveway between the two buildings to further screen the bays and to generally soften the front of the buildings. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation and the zoning classification for the site is CC (Community Commercial). Automobile repair services are conditionally permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Development Plan, pursuant to Chapters 17.04 and 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. 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 compatible with the surrounding land uses. The architecture complements the adjacent medical office projects to the south, and creates a more aesthetically appealing presence along Winchester Road from the vantage point of the future proposed regional mall. It is staff's opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. 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. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. 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 disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. 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, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Initial Study - Blue Page 18 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 27 Exhibits - Blue Page 34 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan R:~STAFFP, F~60PA97.PC 5115197 kib 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:~STAFFRY~60pA~7.PC 5/15197 Idb 5 ATFACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0060 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN - TEXACO EXPRESS LUBE / GOODYEAR TIRE) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A TOTAL OF 6,O84 SQUARE FOOT OF BLrH .r}INGS FOR TEXACO EXPRESS LUBE AND GOODYEAR TIRE CONTAINING 0.78 ACRES, LOCATFJ} APPROXIMATELY FOUR HUNDREn FIFrY (450) FEET NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND YNEZ ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-283-003 WltEREAS, James 'Angelo Trust - Texaco Express Lube/Goodyear Tire filed Planning Application No. PA97-0060 (for Conditional Use Permit [CUP]) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WfWREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit) on May 19, 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. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit); 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. F. iading~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit) makes the following findings; to wit: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. R:\STAFFRPT~60PA97.PC 5115197 Idb 6 B. 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. C. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. D. 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 disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. 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, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. 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 Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0060 to construct and operate a total of 6,084 square feet of building area (two buildings) for Texaco Express Lube/Goodyear Tire Center on a parcel containing 0.78 acres located on Winchester Road, approximately four hundred fifty (450) feet northeast of the intersection of Winchester and Ynez Roads known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 910- 283-003 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:XSTAFFRIq~60PA97.PC 5115197 lab 7 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 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 19th day of May, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: A YES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit - Texaco Express Lube/ Goodyear Tire) Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit to operate and construct a total of 6,084 square feet of buildings for Texaco Express Lube/Goodyear Tire Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-283-003 Approval Date: May 19, 1997 Expiration Date: May 19, 1999 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 Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit) is for the operation, design and construction of an automotive service complex. The storage of used tires shall be within the trash enclosure and shall stored in such a way that all items are out of public view. The final approved site plan shall indicate where tire storage will occur. All used tires shall be removed from the site as necessary when the trash enclosure is no longer cable of concealing them from public view. 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. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit). 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. R:%STA,~FRPT~60PA97.~C 5/15/97 klb 10 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 development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0060, or as amended by these conditions. a. A minimum of twenty eight (28) parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. c. Two (2) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Additional trees shall be added to the planter on the southwest property line to better soften the building elevations along this portion of the project, subject to the review and approval of the City's Landscape Architect. This requirement shall be added to the project's landscape plan and become part of the approved record. Building elevations shall conform substantially with the approved plans (Color Elevations), or as amended by these conditions. 10. The applicant shall submit the actual colors (manufacturer and number) to be used for the project. The colors and materials used shall conform substantially with the approved color and material board, or as amended by these conditions. Material Cement Stucco Body Stucco Cement Trim and Garage Doors Metal Coping and Reveals Glass Storefront Windows Flat Concrete Shake Roofing Tile Accent Trim Color Eggshell (X-73) Santa Fe (X-24) Rustic Red Black Monterey Blend Sorrel Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 12o 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. R:~STAI~FRFI~60PA97.1=C 5/15/9'7 klb 11 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 13. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 14. 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. 15. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning 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. 16. 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 17. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. 18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 19. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 20. 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. 21. 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 R:~STAFFRFB60PA97.PC 5115197 klb 12 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. 22. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to guarantee the installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 23. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 24. 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 25. 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. 26. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 27. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work including trash enclosure(s) light standards and monument signs. 28. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 29. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 30. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems. 31. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 32. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 33. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 34. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 35. Truss calculations that are stamped by the Engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. R:%STA~FILr~60PA97.1~C 5/15/97 Idb 1 ~ 36. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handi-capped accessibility. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. 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. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State Right-of-Way. 40. 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. 41. All grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjoining projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. Precise Grading plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 42. A Precise 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. 43. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-way. 44. 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. 45. 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. R:LrI'AFFRPT~60PAfT.PC 5/15/971db 14 46. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 47. 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. 48. An Area Drainage Ran fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit 49. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter Of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 50. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along public street frontage in accordance with City of Temecula Standard 401. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under sidewalk drains. 51. Improve Winchester Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) along property frontage to include installation of sidewalk and drainage facilities. 52. 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. 53. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per gross acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 54. The Developer shall provide reciprocal easements over property and obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. 55. 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 P,:~STAFFRPT~60PA~7.PC 5/t5/97 kJb 15 mitigation as required under the FIR/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; provided that the Developer is not waiving his/her right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 56. 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 57. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 58. 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 59. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control transmittal dated March 28, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 6O. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 6, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 61. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department transmittal dated March 11, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 62. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) transmittal dated March 19, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 63. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated March 10, 1997, a copy of which is attached. R:~TAFFILxq~60PA97.PC 5/15/~7 kl~ 16 64. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Fire Department's transmittal dated March 18, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 2:~STAFFRFI~60pArJ.pC 51151~7 Id'o 17 DAVID I>, ZAPPE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRIC~ 1995 MARKET STI~.EE'F .IVERSIDEI CA 92501 09/275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 7829.1 City of Temecula Plannin Department 43200 ~usiness Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: rvl/~TTHE./,~,) ~'/:t~.//~/q By Ladies a.d Sent eme.: Re: The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or oilier 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 oilier flood hazard reports for such cases. District commentslrecommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Draina · Plan facilities, other re3ional flood control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logical componen~or extension of a master plan system, and District Area ~ainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District 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 project with respect to flood hazard, public healt~ and safety or any other such issue: v'/This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District sfanc~Pards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facffitie$ on written request of the Ci . Facilities must be constructed to District standarno'qs, and District plan check and inspection wdl be require~tY~r District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project is located within the limits of the District's GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearenca for grsding, rec~rdation, or oilier ~al approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this pro'ect involves a Federal EmergenpJ Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain then the City should require ~{~e applicant to rovide all studies, calculations, plans and other snformation required to meet FEMA requirements, and should t~rther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or oilier final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor 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 P~;ter Act Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A g~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. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: --'2>'Z'~:;> ' ~1' TO: FROM: RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA97-0060 DATE: March 6. 1997 RECEIVED HAR Z 1 B97 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA97~0060 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: 3. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. 4. A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694- 5022 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: a) Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. b) Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. c) Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2). d) Waste reduction management. 5. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). GD:dr (909) 275-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. City of Temecula Temecula Police Department RE: PA97-0060 Texaco Xpress Lube end Goodyear Tire Store March 11, 1997 Pl...,.g ,epertr. e.t . By Case Planner: Matthew Fagan I have layout on it: reviewed the plans you provided and have no objection to the placement or of the project. I recommend the following conditions of approval be placed Applicant/developer shall ensure all hedges on the property surrounding the building shall be maintained at a height no greater than thirty-six (36) inches or below window level, whichever is lower. Applicant/developer shall ensure all trees on the property are kept away from the main building so as to deter roof accessability. All parking lots, driveways, and pedestrian walkways shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained one (1) foot-candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed, eliminating all shadows. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be vandal resistant and shall be controlled by photocells, timers, or other means to prevent deactivation by unauthorized persons. All exterior doors shall have their own vandal resistant light fixture installed above. The doors shall be Illuminated with a minimum maintained one (1) foot-candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. All roll-up door areas shall have vandal resistant light fixtures installed and shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained one (1) foot-candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed, eliminating all shadows. All glazing material (store front glass) surrounding the building shall, at all times, be kept free of obstructions so as to allow officers to clearly see inside of the building while patrolling the area. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building shall be placed in a well lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a 'Call Out Only" feature to deter loitering. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be of commercial or institutional grade. 9. Any graffitj painted or marked upon the premises shall be removed or painted over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. 10. The address for the location shall be painted on the roof using numbers no less than two (2) feet tall, in a color which contrasts the background. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact myself at (909) 696-3000. Crime Prevention Officer STATE OF CALIFO~NIA---~USINES$, TEANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ~EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .ITRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 :~AN BERNARDINO, CALIFOrNiA 92402 TDD (909) 383*5959 Mr. Matthew Fagan Associate Planner Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Fagan: March 19, 1997 08-Riv-79%.4 RECEIVED MAR 2 1 t997 Planning Application No. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit) We have reviewed the above-referenced documents and request consideration of the following comments: The site plan does not show continuity of the project's east side driveway crossing the easterly adjacent parcel nor access to the State highway from that parcel. It has been mutually discussed that the ultimate plan for State Route 79 (SR 79) in the project area is a six (6) lane, limited-access facility within a 134' right of way over a new alignment. The City of Temecula should develop policies and procedures to preserve the needed right of way, and maintain and improve the current facility. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the city of Temecula was finalized on Noven~oer 13, 1995. This MOU serves as a guideline for new development and upgrade or realignment of SR-79. The following excerpts are from this MOU: Route 79 is planned for up to three lanes in each direction for through traffic and up to two lanes in each direction for local circulation. Realignment may be necessary upon future development along Route 79. Mr. Matthew Fagan March 19, 1997 Page 2 The City shall hereafter protect the right-of-way for said realignment by limiting development approvals for North Route 79 (Winchester Road) as follows: Intersections will be spaced at 1/4 mile increments with 1/8 mile spacing for limited access driveways (i.e., right in, right out only) from Interstate 15 (I-15) to Margarita Road. at (909) Concerning drainage, care should be taken when developing this project to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the state highway. Particular consideration must be given to cumulative increased storm runoff to ensure that a highway drainage problem is not created. This project will require an encroachment permit if there is any work, including work pertaining to: access, grading, and drainage, within the State highway right of way; the Department of Transportation would be a responsible agency and may require certain measures be provided as a condition of permit issuance. The developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the District 8 Permits Office prior to beginning work. Their address and phone number are listed below: Office of Permits California Department of Transportation P. O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92402 (909) 383-4536 If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934. Sincerely, ROBERT G. PLA_RVEY, Chief Office of Riverside County Transportation Planning Michael R* McMillan Csaba F. KO Ralph H. Daily Lisa D. Herman Doug Kulherg ,leffrev L. Minklet (~eorge M. Woods John F. Hennigar Phillip L, Forbes Kenneth C. Dealy C. Michael Cowett Best Best & Krleger LLP March 10, 1997 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 MAR I 2 1BS7 Z66t ~ I SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 23335 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0060 APN 910-'1 '10-059 Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced propercy 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 propercy 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 any046 questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E Development Engineering Manager 97/SB:eb046/F012/FEF c: Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Supervisor -6444 · Fax 1909~ 694-1999 Box 9033 · Temecula, CA 92589-9033 March 18,1997 TO: Planning Department ATI'N: Matthew Fagan RE: PA97-0060 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced development plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The fire Departmere is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in City of Temecula Ordinances and recognized fire protection standards. A fire flow of 1500 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. The required fire flow shall be available from a super fife hydrant (6"x4"x2-2 ah" ), located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along vehicular travelways. The applicant/developer shall be restx~nsible to submit written certification from the water company noting location of the existing fire hydrant and the existing water system is capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. If a water system curren~y does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the job site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the 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. InstaB a supervised waterflow monitoring 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. ff building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. ff 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. 10. All exit doors shah be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. 11. Install penable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. 12. R is prohibimd to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code. 13. Applicant/developer shah be responsible for obtaining underground and aboveground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. 14. Blue dot reflectors shah be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shah be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrant. 15. 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. 16. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. 17. Please contact the F~xe Department for a Final inspection prior to occupancy. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be refexTed to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section (909)693-3974, Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT~60PA97.!"C 5115197 Idb 18 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist , 10. Project Title: Planning Application No. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit) Texaco Express Lube and Goodyear Tire Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: John De Gange, Project Planner, (909) 694-6400 Project Location: Approximately 450 feet northeast of the intersection of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) and Ynez Road (40915 Winchester Road). Project Sponsor's Name and Address: James D'Angelo, 3838 Carson Street, Suite 307, Torrance, CA 90503 General PlanDesignation: CC (Commumty Commercial) Zoning: CC (Community Commercial) Description of Project: To construct and operate an automotive sendec complex including a 1,735 square foot Texaco Express Lube and a 4,349 square foot Goodyear Tire center (totaling 6,084 square feet of building area) on 0.78 acre site. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Santa Gemdis Creek flood control channel and industrial buildings to the north, vacant properties to the east, vacant (proposed regional mall site) to the south, end medical offices (one building which is currently under construction) to the west. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Fire Department, Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Riverside County Flood Control, Southem Califomia Edison, Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone R:\STAFFRlrrX60PA97.PC 5115197 k~ 19 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [X] Lend Use end Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population end Housing [ ] Noise [X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services [X] Water [ ] Utilities end Service Systems [ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy end Mineral Resources [ ] Mendatory Findings of Significence DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significent effect in this ease because the mitigation measures described on en attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Printed Name: John I. De Gen~e Date: April 24. 1997 For: City of Temecula R:XSTAFFRFI~6OPA~7.1~C 5/15/97 klb 20 Units Mitigation No LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. ConfLict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b. Confiict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source l, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement ofan established community (including low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result In or expose penpie to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rapture? (Source 1, Figure 7-l, Page 7-6) b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Some 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) d. Scichc, tsunami. or volcanic hazard? c. Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [] [x] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] Ix] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [] [x] [x] [] [~ [~] Ix1 [] [l R:~,STAFFP, FI~60PA97.PC 5/15/97 klb 21 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Po~ally Signi~cant Pol~nti~lly sig~ie~m Units No g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68) h. Expansive soils7 i. Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? b, Exposure of people or properly to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10 and Figure %4, Page 7-12; Source 5) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interenption of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altereddireetionorrateof~owofgroundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source 2, Page 263) AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 3, Page 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2) b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ix] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [xl [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x3 [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [x] Ix] [x] R:~STAFFRPT~0PA97.PC 5/15/~7 klb 22 PoWa~ally po~ially Unlm NO c. Alter air movement, mffxsture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle lrips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Some 4, Table 17.24(a), Page 17-24-9) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sourco 4, Chapter 17.24, Page 12) [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [1 [:x] [] [x] [x] [x] [x] g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal resuR in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or the'tr habitats (including but not limimd to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3) b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: [l [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [1 [] [1 [] [1 [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [;q [x] [x] [x] R:~TAFFRFI~60PA97.PC 5/15/97 klb 23 Potemla~y Significant Impact Potentially Signifwnnt No a. Conflict with adopted ener~ conservation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wastefill and inefficient manner? c. 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? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. Ariskofaceidentalexplosinnorreleaseofhazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles, chemical or radiation)? (Source l, Figure 7-5, Page 7-14) b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sources ofpotential health hazards? e.Increase fife hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposureofpeopletoseverenoiselevels? 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. Mamtenaneeofpublicfacilities, includingroads? e. Other governmental services? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] Ix] Pq [x] [x] [] [:x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [:x] R:\STAFFRPT~0PAg?.I~C 5/15/97 kib 24 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING IMFORIvIATION SOURCEg Pom~dly gignitkam l. Jnl~ Mitigatiaa Sight NO 12. UTILITIES Al"fl) SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the foliowing utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systms? c. Local or re~onal water t~catment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 39-40) e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. A~cct a scculc vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280; Source 6) b. Disturb ~rchaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283) c. Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e, Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [] [] [xl [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] [] Ix] [x] [x] Ix] [x] [] [] R:XSTAFFRPTX60PA97.PC 5115197 klb 25 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Pot~tidly potentilffiy Unka NO 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY 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, lhreaten to eliminate a plant or aremat community, reduce the number ofrastrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Calffomia 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 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other eta'rent projects, and the effects of probable future projects). [1 [] [] [] [l [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] Does the project have enviromental egects which will cause substantial adverse effects on hman beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] 17. EARI,W~R ANALYSES. None. 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. 4. City of Temecula Development Code R:~TAFFRPT~60PA97.PC 5/15/f/~ 26 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STA~PA~7.I~C S/IS/~ ~ Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA97-0060 (Development Plan) Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shah be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Cede. Submit conswuction plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:~TAF~P,,Fr~60PA~'/.FC 5/15/97 lab 28 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, Fading or fill. Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic Found shaking, seismic Found failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil eompaetion is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the 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 permils and building permits. Deparlmem of Public Works and Building & Safety Deparlment. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize cons~'uction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to die Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Deparlment R:XSTAFFRFrX60PA97.PC 5115197 Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will restfit in changes to absorption rams, 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 Fading plans. Submit Fading and drainage plan to the Depa,uxtent of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. 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) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shah 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). Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: R:XSTAFFRlrI~60PA97,PC 5115197 klb Increase in vehicle trips 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. Department of Public Works. 30 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mifigadon Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or ~raffie congestion. Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-ram share for Waffle impacts (to be determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Deparunent of Public Works. 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. Department 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 acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Deparunent of Public Works and Planning Department R:X~TAFFRPT~60PA97.PC 5115197 Idb 3 1 Public Services 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 Pan'y: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need 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 A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anlicipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Depatuuent and Temecuia Valley Unified School District. 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 $10,000.00, and execute agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. R:~STAFFRFB60PA97.PC 5115197 klb 32 AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. R:~qTAFFRFI~60pA97.PC 5115197 kl~ 33 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:~TAFFPd>T~60PA97.PC SI151~7 kl~ 34 Ii' I CITY OF TEMECULA 8,1TE /-.- leo SCALE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 19, 1997 R:~$TAFFRPTX0060PA97.PC 5/14/97 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - SC (SERVICE COMMERCIAL) BP NC ~ x BP CC CC ' 0 ~~.,0~ LM '~ VL - BP H EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - SC (SERVICE COMMERCIAL) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0060 (Development Plan, Fast Track) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0060 (Conditional Use Permit) EXffIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 19, 1997 ? SITE PLAN R:XSTAFFRI~0060PA97.PC 5114197 klb ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 19, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0087 (Development Plan, Fast Track) Prepared By: Carole Donahoe, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ,~,DOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0087; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0087; ADOPT Resolution No. 97- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0087 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: SPT Holdings REPRESENTATIVE: Peter Sterling, Gary Nogle PROPOSAL: To construct and operate two (2) shell buildings each at 41,000 square feet for office, warehouse, manufacturing, distribution, research & development uses LOCATION: On the south side of County Center Drive, east of Ynez Road, within the Winchester Highlands Business Park EXISTING ZONING: LI (Light Industrial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: BP (Business Park) CC (Community Commercial) LI (Light Industrial) PI (Public/Institutional) PROPOSED ZONING; Not requested GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park) R:~STAFFl12T~87PA97.1~C 5114197 klb 1 EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant North: South: East: West: Office building Santa Gertrudis Creek, commercial under construction Industrial building County administrative offices, library PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Site Area: Building Footprint Area: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Building Height: 5.49 gross acres (228,642 square feet net) 82,000 square feet (35%) 64,400 square feet (28%) 89,000 square feet (38%) 35 feet BACKGROUND A pre-application meeting was held for this project on March 12, 1997. The application was formally submitted on March 24, 1997. The Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on April 10, 1997, and the project was deemed complete on April 23, 1997. This project is a fast-track application. Precise grading plans, water improvement plans, and construction plans have already been submitted to reviewing agencies and departments. Staff held the first coordination meeting with the project's development team on May 5, 1997. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SPT Holdings proposes to construct two 41,000 square foot industrial shell buildings within the existing Winchester Highlands Business Park. The facility is designed to respond to the market for warehouse, distribution, corporate office, research and development and/or manufacturing uses. Parking requirements were calculated based upon use scenarios for each building as noted in Attachment 6 - "Potential Use Ratios Based on Parking" and similarly noted on the site plan submitted for approval. ANALYSIS Site Design The project site has two existing access drives off County Center Drive, one at the north end of the site, and the other at the south end. Vehicular and truck traffic can circulate the entire site perimeter. Parking spaces for vehicles, motorcycles and bicycles surround the building, and loading/unloading docks are located entirely to the rear of each building. The design offers two side-by-side employee patio areas overlooking the channel that will serve each building. Parking The applicant maximized flexibility in attracting tenants by offering a variety of use combinations, while providing the al~propriate number of parking spaces for the project. Based upon the total maximum parking spaces required, the applicant has revised his site plan to provide bicycle racks and motorcycle spaces as well. Exhibit D-1 indicates the locations for bicycle racks and motorcycle spaces. Architecture The two building frontage along County Center Drive provides two entry accentuation areas and several features that lend interest and shadows to the building. The colors and materials proposed clearly identify each building, yet blend with each other because of the consistent use of soft paint hues and the continuous use of tinted window glazing. Articulation is carried around the building sides as well as the rear elevations. The overall architecture is consistent with adjacent and surrounding buildings already existing within Winchester Highlands Business Park. Landscal;)ing The applicant proposes to retain the existing landscaping on the sloped areas at the rear of the property down to the drainage channel. He also proposes to retain the existing landscaping along the street frontage, in order to maintain street scene continuity. The applicant has doubled the 20-foot front yard setback in order to provide a lush setting at the entry to the project. The applicant also chose to provide additional landscape fingers for the parking spaces fronting County Center Drive in lieu of landscape fingers in the second tier of spaces. in that area, E-foot square tree wells are proposed. Use of shrub massing to buffer views is proposed along the sides and rear of the building, where loading docks, trash enclosures and employee outdoor patios are located. Plant materials and sizes have been modified to comply with recommendations of the City's Landscape Architect. The applicant has submitted two letters, Attachments 4 and 5 to this staff report, in which he explains his creative approach to landscape design. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Existing zoning on the site is LI (Light industrial). Warehouse, distribution, manufacturing, corporate office, research and development uses are permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The General Plan designation for the site is BP (Business Park). The project as designed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An initial study was prepared for the project, which determined that the proposed project could potentially affect geologic problems, water, transportation and circulation, energy and mineral resources, public services and aesthetics. However, these effects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels. R:~STAFFRPT~87PA97,1'C 5114197 Idb 3 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City General Plan and Development Code. The applicant has been responsive to issues and concerns raised by staff, and has provided enhancements to the project amenities and building design. FINDINGS The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State Law. The project is consistent with all City ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. m The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There are no native species of plants or vegetation at the site, nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 17 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 18 Correspondence from Gary Nogle, dated April 17, 1997 regarding Parking Planters - Blue Page 19 Correspondence from Gary Nogle, dated April 17, 1997 regarding Truck Docks - Blue Page 20 County Center Plaza Potential Use Ratios Based on Parking - Blue Page 21 Exhibits - Blue Page 22 A. Vicinity Map B~ Zoning Map C General Plan Map D. Site Plan D-1. Location of Bicycle Racks/Motorcycle Spaces E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Floor Plan R:~TAFFRF~87PA97.PC 511S1~7 k~ 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO, 97- ]~:L~TAFFRJt~g7PA97.]~C 5114/97 klb 5 PC RESOLUTION NO, 97- A ]RF*~OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMBSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0087 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE TIVO SHELL BUIIJ)INGS EACH AT 41,000 SQUARE FEET FOR OFFICE, WAREHOUSE, MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTION, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT USES ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 5.49 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, EAST OF YNEZ ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR*S PARCEL NO. 910-110-044 WHEREAS, SPT Holdings fled Planning Application No. PA97-0087 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WItEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0087 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0087 on May 19, 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. PA97-0087; 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. Einaing~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA97-0087 makes the following findings; to wit: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State hw and other ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City ordinances including: the City's Development Cede, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. R:~TAFFRPT~87PA97.PC 5114197 Section 3. l~.nvironment~l Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that aithough 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 Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0087 to construct and operate two (2) shell buildings each at 41,000 square feet for office, warehouse, manufacturing, distribution, research and development uses located south of County Center Drive, east of Ynez Road, and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 910-110-044 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 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 19th day of May, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRFI~87pA97.PC 5/14/97 klb 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0087 - Development Plan, Fast Track Project Description: A Devdopment Plan to construct and operate two (2) shell buildings each at 41,000 square feet for office, warehouse, manufacturing, distribution, research and development uses on 5.49 gross acres. Assessor'a Parcel Approval Date: Expiration Date: 910-110 -044 May 19, 1997 May 19, 1999 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 Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and 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. PA97-0087 (Development Plan, Fast Track). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. R:~STAFFRPT~87PAg?.I~C 5/14/9'/klb 9 4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "D" approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0087, or as amended by these conditions. a. A minimum of one hundred eighty-eight (188) parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of six (6) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. A minimum of nine (9) bicycle spaces and six (6) motorcycle spaces shall be provided. Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with Exhibit E (Landscape Plan), or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Building construction shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan) and Exhibit F (Color Elevations), or as amended by these conditions. Colors and material for building construction shall conform substantially with Exhibit H (Color Board and Materials), or as amended by these conditions. Materials Painted tilt-up concrete panels Painted tilt-up accent panels Painted tilt-up entry walls Painted metal entry canopies Window system Windows Roll up doors/man doors Building I Building II Building I Building 11 Benjamin Moore #BM-904 Benjamin Moore #BM1044 Benjamin Moore 8BM498 Benjamin Moore #BM395 Benjamin Moore #BM501 Benjamin Moore #BM367 Factory finish to match BM879, Anodized bronze Green tinted glazing Factory finish to match BM879, Anodized bronze 8. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required if signage is proposed. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 10. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code, regarding Habitat Conservation. 11. 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. R:~STAFFRPT~87PA~7.PC 5/14/97 klb 10 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 Planning 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. These plans shall include planting on slopes. 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. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view, in accordance with Exhibit F which indicates that roof-mounted units are screened by parapets. 16. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation plans. 17. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 18. 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 R:~TAFFRP~87pA97.PC 5/14/97 Idb 11 19. 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 removal of the maintenance and operations trailers, the temporary parking, and the temporary landscaping. 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 23. 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. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations and must be fully detailed for plan check submittal. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. Prior to building permit issuance, approval must be obtained from the Water District, Sanitation District, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Planning Department and Building Department. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. R:',STAFFRFB87pA~7.PC 5114197 klb ],:2 34. Based on submitted documents, the occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be B, F-1 & F-2 (Shown on submittal). 35. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 36. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 37. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturers engineer, and that have been plan checked and stamped by the plan check agency and the city are required before sheet and shear inspection. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of R:\STAI~FP, lFI~87PA97.PC 5114197 klb 13 downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 45. 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. 46. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 47. 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. 48. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 49. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 50. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Street light shall be installed along the public street adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under sidewalk drains. 51. Improve County Center Drive along property frontage to include installation of street light and drainage facilities 52. 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. 53. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per gross acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. R:XSTAFFP, F~8?pA97.PC 5/14/97 PJb ~4 54. 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; ~ that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 55. 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 56. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 57. 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 58. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated April 7, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 59. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated April 1, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 60. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation set forth in the California Historical Resources Information System transmittal dated April 7, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 61. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Fire Department transmittal dated April 10, 1997, a copy of which is attached. R:~TAFFRPT~g7PA97.17C 5114197 klb 15 62. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated April 11, 1997, a copy of which is attached. R:~STAFFRPT~g7pA97.PC 5/14/97 Idb TO: FROM: RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT : ale e orla oe PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0087 (Development Plan) DATE: April 7, 1997 By Department of Environmental Health has received and reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97- 0087 (Development Plan) and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, "will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies will be required. CH:dr (909) 275-8980 John F, Hennigar Philllp L. Forbes Kenneth C, Deaiy Linda M, Fregoso C, Michael Cowerr Best Best & Krieger LLP April 1, 1997 Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 21361 APN 910-110-044 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0087 Dear Ms. Donahoe: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of ~nandal arrangements between RCWD and the properly 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 dghts, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 971SB:mg015/F012/FE F c: Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Supervisor Services CALIFORNIA IISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION IYSTEM MoNo INYo RIVEIilDE Department of Anthropology University of C..4slifomla Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW DATE: 4pr;I '~, Xctq:~ RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: ~A Records at the Eastern Information Center of the Cat ifornia Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed proj~t m has not ~ surveyed for cultural rnsour~e~ and contains or i. adjacent to known cultural reanuroe(s). A Fnue i ~_'dy is recommended, Bas~l upon exiting ~ the propos~ ptoj~t area hu the potential for conmining cultural tceoumas. A Pha~ I study is r~oommended. A Plmsc I cultural resource study (MF// ) identified one or mote cultural rnsout~s. The project am contains, or has the possibility of ~ontainlnI, oulmral msout~s. Hmvsvsr, due to the nature of the project or prior dam ranovary studies, an adverse eff4s:t on cultural msmt,~ss is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. ~/A Phuc I cultural resource study (MF # c} ~t ) identified no eulmnl resources. Fut~sr study is not lled. There is a low probab!lity of cultural r~soure~s. Further study is not recommended. |f, durms constmetioni cultural resources am enoountered, work should be blind or diverted in the iramedia,',- area a qusli~ed ashecologist evilusers the finds and makes recommendations. Due to the amha~logi~l sensitivity of ffit area, earthmoving during construeion should be monitored by a pmhslonal amhaeologist. The submission of a cultural resource management rapon is meommeaded following guidefines for Archaeological Re. no ur~ Management:Reporu prepared by th= California Of~ce o f Hislo~¢ Preservation, Preservation Planning Builtan 4(a). Dc~mbff 1989. m Phase I Phase il Phase IIi Phase IV Re.~ords uar~h m~d field survey Testing [Evaluate mjoutce significence; proFoes mitigation messurns for "signi~eant" sites.] Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, prierraYon in place, or a combination of ~e two .] Monitor sarthmovlng a~tiviti~a COMMENTS: 'I'~ ~u'~cl ix ~Sec~CJo~c t-n c~, If you have ~y quitions, pl~e contact us. Eastern Information Center City of Temecula 4~00 Business Park Drive - PO Boz g053 - Temecula, California 92589-90~3 (909) 694-64Z9 FAX (909) 694-6478 April 10, 1997 TO: Planning Department Z66t S g ATF: Carole Donahoe RE: PA97-0087 With teapea to the conditions of approval for the above referenced development plan, the Fire DepaxUneat reconunends ~ following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with 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 City of Temecula Ordinances and recognized fire protection standards. A fire flow of 2750 G.P.M. 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 potdon of the building as measured along approved vehicular navelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. Applicant/developer shall fixmish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Depathnent 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 n~quired water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the agpwptia~ 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. 6. 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. InsUdl a complete fire sprinkler system in aH 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 fife sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring 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 I4~rClous M~tedal 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 ~l~rm system, the boxes will require 'Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. 10. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. 11. Install portable fire exfin~,i~hers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. 12. It is pwhibited to use/proce~ or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as an 'H* occuF~ncy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code. 13. Blue dot refieaors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street direc~y in line with fire hydrant. 14. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Depiuhuent for appwval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 15. Street address shall be posted, in a vhible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting backgwund. 16. ALl buildings shall be contacted with fire retardant roofing :,,t--ials as described in The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes 5h:mll be a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation. 17. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. 18. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. All que~iona regarding th~ meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section (909)693-3974. Laura Cabral F~re Safety Specialist DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer City of Temecula Plannin Department 43200 ~usiness Park Drive Temecula, Califomia 92590 Attention: C/~F~O I,, E- Ladies and Gentlemen: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT OH HoE 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 7829.1 By 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 Reel Estate letters or other flood hazard repods for such cases. District comrnents/mcommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Draina · Plan facilities, other regional flood control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a master plan system, and Distdct Area ~?~ainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the roposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa constitute or imply District approv~aVor endorsement of the proposed project path respect to flood hazard, public heal~ and safety or any other such issue: I//Thispr~jectw~u~dn~tbeimpactedbyDistdctMasterDrainagePlanfaci~itiesn~rare~therfacilities~fregiona~ interest proposed. This prdJect involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stangrds, 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 wntten request of the Ci . Facilities must be constructed to District standar?s, and District plan check and inspection wtll be required%r District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. ,/This prejact is Io ted Draina e Plan forwhich drainage fees have been adopted; a p~c~/~'~ fees shoul be paid to the Flood Control DistricPor Ci dot to final ap royal of the pro'ect, or in tf~e case of a md~m~ap or subdivision prior to ,":',? be "the rata ,.., the ,,me o, record.tip.. o, GENERALINFORMA~ON as determined that the project has beeEgranted a permit or is shown to De exempt. If this pro* involves a Federal Emergen.cy Management Agency (FEMA) mapped ficod plain, then the City should require ~'te applicant to rovlde all stuffies, calculations, plans and other ~nformation required to meet FEMA requirements, and should t~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 prejecL the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the Ca~i~rnia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~;ter 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. A Glean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer pete: + - ~ i - ~ q ATTACHMENT N0.2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:~TAFFIIPT~87PA97.PC 5/14/97 klb 17 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. Project Title: Planning Application No. PA97-0087 (Development Plan - Fast Track) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: Carole Donahoe, Project Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location: South side of County Center Drive, east if Ynez Rd., within the Winchester Highlands Business Park Project Sponsors Name and Address: SPT Holdings, 2398 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110 General Plan Designation: BP (Business Park) Zoning: LI (Light Industrial) Description of Project: To construct and operate two (2) shell buildings each at 41,000 square feet, for office, warehouse, manufacturing, distdbution, research & development uses on 4.59 net acres Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Industrial buildings to the north and east, institutional complex to the west, Santa Gertrudis Creek and commercial uses to the south Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, and General Telephone Company R:\ceqa\87pa97.F~ 5/12/97ckd ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise IX] Geologic Problems IX] Public Services [X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality ['X] Aesthetics IX] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources IX] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [X] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory 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 measurer described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bs prepared. Signature Date: April 29, 1997 Printed Name: Carole K. Donahoe For: City of Temecula R:\ceqa~87pa97.EA 5/12/97 ckd Issues and Supporting Infmmation Sources 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6) b. Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6) c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R :\ceqa\87pa97.EA 5/12/97 ckd Issues and Supporting Information Sources h. Expansive soils? I. Unique geologic or physical features? WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4, Pages 7-10 and 7-12) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 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 aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? I. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? AIR QUAUTY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 5, Table 6-2, Page 6-10) b. Expose sensitive receptors to pol lutants? c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? Create objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Impa=t X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:\ceqa\87pa97.EA 5/12/97ckd Issues and Supporting Information Sources Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses (e,g. farm equipment)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source 2, Table 17.24(a), Page 17.24-9) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 2, Chapter 17.24, Page 12) g, Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X X X X X X X X X X X X b. Use non-renewable 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 region and the residents of the State? HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: X X R:\c~qa\87pa97.EA 5~2797ckd Issues and Supporting Information Sources se.ak~t .,,eeme. · sarabeat br~e~t bmep.,--:--~- bpaa A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Page 7-14) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source 1, Figures 8-3, 8-4, and 8-5, Pages 8- 11, 8-12 and 8-14) 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 of public facilities, including reads? e. Other governmental services? 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. Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:\ceqa\87pag7,EA 5/12~)7 ckd Issues and Supporting Information Sourues e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-7, Page 5-22 and Source 4) b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21 and Source 4) c. Affect historical resources? (Source 3, Page 281 ) d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X X X X X X X X X X e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? X X b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 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 wildlib species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X X R:x, ceqa\87pa97.EA 5/12/97 ckd Issues and Supporting Information Sources b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None X X X SOURCES: 1. City of Temecula General Plan 2. City of Temecula Development Code 3. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 4. University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center Cultural Resource Review, dated April 7, 1997 5. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook 6. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, by EnGEN Corporation, dated November 8, 1996 R:\ceqa~87pa97,EA 5/12/97ckd DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning l.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of BP (Business Park) as well as the zoning of LI (Light Industrial). Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be apptied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project, and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or policies. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any, effects on adopted environmental plans or policies. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. I.C. The project will be compatible with existing land use in the vicinity. The project site is located within the Winchester Highlands Business Park, the majority of which has been built out with similar industrial, office, warehouse, and distribution facilities. Adjacent to the west is a public institutional complex that houses Riverside County satellite facilities such as the Assessor's Office and Library. The project proposes compatible uses. No significant effects are anticipated. 1 .d,e. The project will not affect agricultural resources nor disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority communities). The project site is within the already existing Winchester Highlands Business Park where similar uses already surround the project site. There are no agricultural uses in the area. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority communities) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Population and Housino 2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. R:Xcr, qaM]7pa97.xsp ckd - 1 - The project is a warehouse, distribution, manufacturing, office and research facility consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of LI (Light Industrial). Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for Light Industrial, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly. The project site is within the Winchester Highlands Business Park which is partially developed, and infrastructure exists to the site. 2.c. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems 3.b,c,~h. The project may expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure and expansive mils, and less than significant impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. The site lies within Ground shaking Zone II which is expected to vary from moderate to intense in the event of an earthquake, depending on the composition of unde~ying geologic formations, the earthquake's epicenter and the order of magnitude of the seismic event. The site is located near the Santa Gemdis Creek which is an area of potential liquefaction. Potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction consistent with the most recent Uniform Building Code seismic design standards. Furthermore, preliminary soils reports are required and reviewed as pan of the application submittal, and recommendations contained in these reports are used to determine appropriate conditions of approval for the project. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. 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 R:~,qaX87pa97.rsp ckd - 2 - 3.d. 3.e. 3.i. Water 4.a 4.c. for the project. In the long-ran, harriscape and landscaping will serve as penanent erosion control for the project. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the mils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Temecula General Plan did not identify any known landslide or mudslide hazard areas on or near the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. The project site contains a portion of the Santa Gemdis Creek, as does developed sites both east and west of the project. Similar to adjacent development, the project proposes buildings outside of the existing easements that protect the creek area. Mature existing landscaping in this area is proposed to remain and enhanced. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will result in changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, 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 hardscape 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. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharge into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required RAceqaX87pa97. rsp ckd - 3 - 4.d,e. 4.f,g,h. 4.i Air Quality 5.a. to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (hIPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No Fading 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. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact on changes in the amount of surface water in any water body and on changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements. Additional surface ranoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying harriscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, however, the additional amount of drainage into Murrieta Creek or Santa Gertrudis Creek will not be considered significant. No significant impacts am anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity, direction or rate of flow, or the quality of ground water. Limited changes will occur; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. According to Rancho California Water District records, groundwater in this area is more than 200 feet deep, and perched groundwater conditions may be encountered at a lesser depth. Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground water. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicates that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Water service will be provided by Rancho California Water District upon completion of financial arrangements between the District 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. R:\ceqaX87pa97. mp ckd - 4 - The proposed project of 82,000 square feet of industrial or manufacturing uses falls well below the thresholds for potentially significant air quality impacts established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in their CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. The project does not propose to generate significant pollutants. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.c. 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 with regards to climatic conditions in the area. No significant impacts am anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. The project will create some objectionable odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. No other objectionable odors are anticipated as a result of this project. Transportation/Circulation 6.a. The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips, but will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute 55 to 185 vehicle trip ends per day. Congestion at the intersection of Ynez Road and County Center Drive, as well as the intersection of Ynez Road and Winchester Road will increase. However, Ynez Road and Winchester Road in the vicinity of the project is designated and designed to handle the build-out of the industrial park. The applicant will be required to provide facilities for motorcycle parking and bicycle racks, and to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant 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. No significant impacts am anticipated as a result of this project. 6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to R:\ceqa~87pa97. rsp ckd - 5 - nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not interfere with access to nearby uses, which are similar business park/industrial uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers are not proposed for the project. The project is designed to current City standards requiring sidewalks and bicycle racks. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. The project will not result in raft, waterborne or air traffic impacts. Rail, waterborne or air traffic do not exist in the immediate proximity of the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources 7.a,e. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. According to the Phase I study done on the site, the site was previously disturbed and graded in 1990. Streetscape was installed on site as part of the development of the Winchester Highlands Business Park. The site is primarily flat and there is a light growth of vegetation consisting of native grasses and weeds. The site is an infill location within the business park. There is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area, however, and Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy and Mineral Resources 8.a. The project will affect adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage of development. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. After mitigation is performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\ce, qa\87pa97. tsp ckd - 6 - 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact upon the use of non- renewable resources. There will be an increase in the rate of use of natural resources and in the depletion of construction materials, fuels for daily operation, asphalt, and lumber. However, because of the scale of the proposed project, these impacts are seen as less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the ragion and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and to the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.a. 9.b. 9.c,d,e. The project will result in a tess than significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset. According to the Phase 1 study conducted for the project, there are no operations involving the transportation or storage of regulated materials being conducted on the subject property. Project operations shall be regulated by both the Fire Depa~ h~ent and the Department of Environmental Health. The applicant must receive clearance, including any storage or use of hazardous materials, from the Department of Environmental Health prior to any plan check approval, and clearance from the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard, nor expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards, nor increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check and occupancy stages of development. No permits will be issued R:\ceqa~87pa97. rsp ckd - 7 - Noise 10.a. lO.b. unless the project is found to be consistent with these laws. No health hazards are known to be in proximity to the project site. The project site is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project 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 by this project would be similar to existing and proposed business park uses and expected in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, either short or long-term. The project will result in some severe noise levels. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the construction phase of development. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ dBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady eight-hour exposure. However, the source of such noise at the project site will be of short duration, and not considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to severe noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11. a,b. ll.c. The project will have an impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection. However, the developer will contribute his fair share of development impact fees earmarked for such services. After mitigation is performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have an effect upon, or result in the 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. However, some indirect impact of business and industrial use upon school facilities is expected. The developer will contribute his fair share of development impact fees earmarked for the school district. After mitigation is performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\ceqa~87pa97. rsp ckd - 8 - ll.d. The project will have a less than significant impact upon maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for the maintenance of roads is derived from the State of California gasoline tax, which is distributed to the City of Temecula. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of the project will be incremental, and not considered significant. The gasoline tax is sufficient to provide for maintenance expenses. No significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. ll.e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. The project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area. The effect upon governmental services is expected as pan of the buildout of the business park. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a,b. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas or communication systems. These systems are curren~y being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c,d,g The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, or local or regional water supplies. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City of Temecula General Plan (p. 39) states: "Both Eastem Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their service areas." Furthermore (p. 40), "Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result. 12.e. The project will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will provide some additional onsite drainage systems, and tie into existing systems adjacent. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.L The project will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. R:\ceqa~87pa97.np ckd - 9 - Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be addressed through participation in a Source Reduction and Recycling Program implemented by the City. No significant impacts am anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The City does not have any designated scenic highways. However, the applicant has designed the project to ensure the existing landscaping along the Santa Gertrudis Creek remains and is enhanced so that the viewshed from Winchester Road is not adversely affected by the project. The applicant has also designed the buildings to set back from County Center Drive, with an extended front yard landscaped area separating the street from the parking area. Loading docks are designed to the rear of the buildings, with enhanced landscaped sideyard setbacks to block them from public views. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. The project will have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Warehouse/distribution facilities necessarily have long expanses of building walls, and loading docks for trucks. However, the developer has designed his building with loading bays at the rear of the building, away from the public way. He has provided architectural enhancements to emphasize the front entrance and break up the wall expanse on the other throe sides. He has blended color schemes that both individually identify the two buildings on the site as well as link them together by the shades and intensity of the colors selected. Landscaping plans also mitigate the negative aesthetic impact. After mitigation is performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light and glare with the installation of new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to comply with Ordinance No. 655 Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution. After mitigation is performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.d,e. The project will not cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultoral values or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. R:XceqaX87pa97.rsp ckd - 10- Recreation 15.a,b. The site has been previously graded and resources would have been disturbed at that time. No resources or religious uses exist at the site. According to the Eastern Information Center of the University of California at Riverside, the parcel is very close to a prehistoric site, and any changes to the size or dimensions of the pamel requires additional review. As currently proposed, the project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts. The project will have a less than significant impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. The developer has designed several outdoor lunch areas for his employees within the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\ceqa~87pa97. rsp ckcl - 11 - ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:~TAFFP, FI~S7PA97.E 5/14Ff/Idb 18 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA97-0087 (Development Plan - Fast Track) Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. Expose 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 Department 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. 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. R:\ceqa\87pa97.MM 5/12/97 ckd ] Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: R:\ceqaX87pa97.MM 5/12~7ckd Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works 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 fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. 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 patterus and the rate and amount 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 Department of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. 2 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: 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) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWOCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: Increase in vehicle trips 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. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-rata share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works. Biological Resources General Impact: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). R:\ceqa~87pa97.MM 5/12~7ckd' 3 Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and planning Department Ener~,v and Mineral Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: Affect upon energy conservation plans. Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation. Submit energy calculations and pertinent data for review. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding tim protection. The project will incrementally increase the need 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 Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. The project will incrementally increase the need for additional school facilities. However, the project will contribute its fair share to the construction of school facilities. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District. R:\ceqa\87pa97.MM 5/12/97ckd 4 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: Aesthetics General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00, and execute agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. The project will have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Warehouse and distribution facilities necessarily have long expanses of building walls and loading docks for tmcks. Retain as much of the existing landscaping as possible. Retain as much of the existing landscaping as possible. Prior to project approval Department of Public Works. The project will have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Retain as much of the existing landscaping as possible. Transplant as many mature trees as possible. Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Department of Public Works. The project will have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Retain as much of the existing landscaping as possible. Hant new trees that are 24" box or larger and are consistent with the existing plantines. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy. R:XceqaX87pa97.MM 5/12/97ckd 5 Responsible Dept.: Department of Planning. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Dept.: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. R:\ceqa\87pa97.MM 5/12/97ekd 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CORRESPONDENCE FROM GARY NOGLE DATED APRIL 17, 1997 REGARDING PARKING PLANTERS R:~STAI;I~UvI~87PAg"/.l~C 511419"/klb 19 D'D DD DD [] [] NOGLE ONUFER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS April 17. 1997 Ms. Carole Donahoe Project Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 APR i 7 1 County Center Plaza Winchester Highlands Business Park Lot 2 Ms. Donahoe. Our application for Design Review of the County Center PlaTa project contains two areas that may be a technical deviation from Temecula's Development Standard. The following explanation shall itemize and justify these issues: 1. Front Parking Planter Islands A portion of the street frontage parking area has 5' square tree wells in lieu of planter islands. This is proposed to afford more convenient off-street parking at County Center Plaza, while still providing an attractive parking area. To compensate for this deviation, additional landscape fingers (4 total) are provided at the street-front parking bays. Also, the front landscape parkway is 46' in depth, where 26' is required. The proposed additional landscape parkway depth and additional landscape fingers provided should more than compensate for the tree wells which are proposed in lieu of landscape fingers. 2. Side and Rear Landscape at Building In lieu of a strip of landscaping at the side and rear building walls, County Center plaTa provides overall site landscape coverage at 35%, which is well in excess of the required landscape coverage. Also, the truck loading areas have been planned to be well out of visibility of the public R.O.W., and further screened with appropriate perimeter shrub massing to buffer the views from adjoining properties. I trust these two issues have been properly addressed, as full consideration has been given to each development standard issue. Thank you, NOAA, Inc. Gary Nogle President ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CORRESPONDENCE FROM GARY NOGLE DATED APRIL 17, 1997 REGARDING TRUCK DOCKS R:\STAFFRPT~B7PA~7.1~C 5/14/97 klb 20 NOGLE ONUFER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS ApriI 17, 1997 Ms. Carole Donahoe Project Planner City of Temeeula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 APR 17 I Re: County Center Plaza Winchester Highlands Business Park - Lot 2 Landscape Screening of Truck Docks and Substitution of Palms in Lieu of Front Canopy Trees Ms. Donahoe, In response to comments by the Planning Department. the following are our comments on the screening of the truck docks and use of palms at County Center Plaza: 1. Screening of Truck Docks The walls of the building along the west elevation are proposed to be screened at the property line along Parcel I by a solid line of Aleppo pines and Pomegranate shrubs, in conjunction with the existing pines and shrubs which are already part of the library landscaping. The south elevation is screened at the property line area by another line of Pomegranate shrubs and California Sycamores. The areas between the border planting and building have been left open to accommodate the requirements of the tracks serving the loading docks. The east face of the building is already partially screened by the existing tree masses planted along the slope. A continuous line of Pomegranate shrubs and California Sycamores will fill in any visual gaps left through the existing planting. Use of Palms Palms are specified in the front of County Center Plaza. We are requesting their approval in lieu of broad leaf trees for the following reasons: The building is set back 180+ feet. Due to this large front setback, user visibility would be severely impaired if the entire front of the project were concealed by a canopy of broad leaf trees. The perimeter landscape has provided broad leaf trees to meet the standard. Overall site landscape and tree cover is well in excess of Planning Department requirements. We believe the final landscape product will meet or exceed all neighboring property standards, and we ask your approval. Thank you, NOAA, Inc. Gary Nogle President ATTACHMENT NO. 6 COUNTY CENTER PLAZA I POTENTIAL USE RATIOS BASED ON PARKING R:~STAFFP, F~87PA97.1~C 5/14/97 ITuesday Nay 13, 1~7 4:23pm -- Page rf:lY-13-19°j? 17: :~ COUNTY CENTER PLAZA Potential Use Ratios Based on Parking Building I - Bas~ S!ieH 41,000 SF with 80 parking spaces May 1.3, 1997 OfficeJWarchousc with 5,000 SF Mezzanine added 5,000 SF Offict~ Mezzanine ~ 3.3/! ,000 = 9,750 SF Office ~ 3.3/1,000 31,000 SF Warehouse 16.7 spies 32.2 space~ 31.0 spaces 80 required park;rig spaces Combination Office/Manufacturing & Waghouse with 5,000 SF Mezzanine added 5,000 SF O~ce Mezzanine ~ 3.3/1,000 = 2,000 SF Office (~ 3.3/1,000 ~ 12,000 SF Man~ ~ 2.511 ,~0 ~ 27,~ SF W~ ~ 1/1,~ = 16.7 spaces 6.6 spaces 30.0 space~ 27 spaces 80 required parking spages R~D/War~hous~ with 5,000 SF Mezzanine added 5,000 SF R&D M~v'mnine ~ 2.85/1,000 13,000 SF R~D ~ 2.g6/1,000 25,~ SF Wm~ ~ 1/1,~0 14.1 spaces 37.2 spac~ 28.0 soa~s 80 r~quired parking slmces FTUeSday Hay 13, '1997 ~,:2~i~ -- Page COUNTY CENTER PLAZA Potential Use Ratios Based on Parking Building H - Base Shell 41,000 SF with 101 patting spaces May 13, 1997 OfficcJWarehouse with 3,000 SF Maine added 8,000 SF Office Mezzanine ® 3.3/1 15,000 SF Office (~ 3.311,000 25,000 SF Warehouse (~ 1/1,000 26.4 spaces 50.0 spaces 25.0 spaces 101 tequixed parIcing spaces Combination Offic, eJMan,,fa~a-ing & Warehouse ,afttlt 7,500 SF ]vfeT~an]nt5 added 7,500 SF Office Maine ~ 3.3/1,000 = 6,O00 SF Office (~ 3.3/1,000 = 14,000 SF Manufacturing ~ 2.5/1,000 -- 21,500 SF Ware. house ~ 1/1,000 = 24.8 spaca 19.8 sps_~ 35.0 spaces 17.5 ms 101 ~equir~ parking spa R&D/Ware, house with 8,500 SF Merra.ine. addal 8,500 SF R&D Mc'nat~inc (~ 2.85/1,000 = 19,000 SF R&D (~ 2.85/1,000 = 22,000 SF Warehouse (~ 1/1,000 = 24.2 spaces 54.3 spaces .22.0 s'DImes I 01 roquirod parking spaces ATTACHMENT NO. 7 EXHIBITS P,;~TAFFRPT~87PA97.1~C 5/14/97 kib :~2 CITY OF TEMECULA ',TEMEC Planning Application No. PA97-0087 (Development Plan, Fast Track) EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP ~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 19, 1997 R:~STAFFRFTX87pA97.FC 5/12/97 CITY OF TEMECULA E S EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI (Light Industrial) SC SC CC cc / / -? M ~) /' EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP (Business Park) Planning Application No. PA97-0087 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 19, 1997 R:~TAFFR~87PA97. PC 5112/97 klb CITY OF TEMECULA olanning Application No. PA97-0087 (Development Plan, Fast Track) ~:XHIBIT - D SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 19, 1997 R:XSTAFFRPTX87PA97,PC 5/12/97 klb CITY OF TEMECULA Cc~ C~ P~A~A Planning Application No. PA97-0087 (Development Plan, Fast Track) EXHIBIT- F ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 19, 1997 R:~STAFFRPTX87pA97.pC 5/12/97 klb II CITY OF TEMECULA Planning Application No. PA97-0087 (Development Plan, Fast Track) EXHIBIT - G FLOOR PLAN LANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 19, 1997 R:~STAFFRPT~87PA97.PC 5/12/97 klb CITY OF TEMECULA Cot,~ C~'N'r~ P~ Planning Application No. PA97-0087 (Development Plan, Fast Track) EXHIBIT - E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 19, 1997 R:~STAFFRPT~87PA97.pC 5/12,97 klb ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 19, 1997 Planning Application No. PA95-0127 Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission oontinue the discussion of the Sign Ordinance. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: A Request to Recommend Approval of a Comprehensive Sign Ordinance LOCATION: Citywide BACKGROUND This item was continued by the Planning Commission from the May 5, 1997 meeting. At that meeting, Planning Commission continued the discussion of the Sign Ordinance and recommended a number of changes to the Ordinance. The only change at that meeting which required further staff analysis was the percentage of window sign coverage. Other changes recommended by the Commission will ultimately be incorporated into a redlined Ordinance prior to the final action by the Commission. DISCUSSION At the last meeting, the Commission stopped their discussion on Page 27, Section 17.28.300. This Staff Report includes all the issues that needed to be researched by staff at two previous Planning Commission meetings. These issues include prohibiting painted window signs, reducing the permitted area for window signs to less than 10% of the window area, and the height of freeway signs in relation to the landscaping along the freeway. Window Signs Window signs are considered temporary signs which were the center of great controversy when the City Council adopted the Temporary Sign Ordinance in 1993. Through the process of drafting the new ordinance, Staff directed the Sign Committee not to recommend changes to the Temporary Sign Ordinance. Staff has made only minor clarifications to this part of the ordinance with the exception of modifications to the provisions for window signs and adding provisions for temporary banners for apartment complexes. The following discussion provides staff's recommendation on window signs. The detailed provisions for the apartment complex banners is included in Sections 17.28.700 (b) and (c). R:'~TAFFRPT~I27PA95.p10 5/151rl sn 1 The changes to the existing window signs section included in the proposed Ordinance are recommended by staff and the Sign Committee for easier enforcement of the Ordinance. The existing temporary sign ordinance exempts window signs including painted signs with less than 10% coverage from obtaining a permit and prohibits window signs with over 75% coverage. In addition, it allows window signs between 10% and 75% for a 90 day period annually with a permit. The enforcement of these I~rovisions has been difficult, since it is necessary to keep track of three different sizes for window signs, less than 10%, more then 10% but less than 75%, and more than 75%. In addition, it is necessary to keep track of number of days the window signs are displayed. Therefore, staff has recommended language in the proposed ordinance which exempts window signs with less than 25% coverage from obtaining a permit and prohibits window signs with more than 25% coverage. The down side of this provision is that it potentially turns temporary window signs to a more "permanent" signs. Furthermore, the Sign Committee added a provision to prohibit ~day glow" colors for window signs. Staff believes these provisions are reasonable and allow the business owners to place advertisements on windows, including painted window signs, without obtaining a permit as long as the signs are less than 25% coverage and are not 'day glow" colors. Further restriction of window signs as proposed by the Planning Commission will probably cause further controversy once staff attempts to enforce these provisions. Height of Freestanding Freeway Sians The Planning Commission expressed a concern regarding the height of freeway signs as the height seems to be dictated by the height of the trees within the CaI-Trans right-of-way. Staff proposes two solutions to resolve this issue. One solution involves re-vegetation of the Cal- Trans right-of-way along 1-15 to remove the eucalyptus trees and replace them with trees having a broader canopy and less height at maturity. This solution could take a long time to develop and will have substantial cost to the City. The other solution is placing a maximum height for the sign regardless of the visibility of the sign and eliminating the flag test procedure. If the sign is not visible at the maximum permitted height, the applicant needs to work with Cal- Trans to trim the trees, remove the trees and re-plant them as required by CaI-Trans, lace the trees, or raise the skirt of the trees. Staff recommends a maximum height of thirty (30) feet for freestanding freeway oriented signs. This recommendation is based on the height of the following existing freeway signs: In and Out Burgers 30'-00" Jan Weilert/ Hungry Hunter 25'-00" Texaco 55'-00" Wendy's 28'-04" Denny's 41 '-06" Midas 30'-00" Palm Plaza 36'-00" Arby's 28'-00" R:\STAFFRF~I27PA95.P10 5/15/cY7 mn 2 The down side for a 30 foot maximum is that the owners of existing freeway oriented signs with heights less than 30 feet could apply to raise the height of their signs to 30 feet. Freeway Oriented Si0ns in Commercial Districts The Ranning Commission has not discussed the freeway signs section for commercial districts, Section 17.28.210 (a). The following is a modified version of this section which incorl~orates some new ideas. New text is shown in bold and deleted language is shown in ~! ~ text. Staff would like to receive Planning Commission input on these ideas. After staff receives direction from the Planning Commission these changes will be incorporated into the Ordinance, including clarifications to other parts of the Ordinance. The following is staff's recommendation for Section 17.28.210, Freeway Oriented Signs in Commercial Districts: Freeway Oriented Signs in Commercial Districts Freeway oriented signs are only permitted for parcels or shopping centers with freeway frontage. They are permitted as freestanding or wall mounted signs. Freestanding signs may identify centers, multiple tenants, and/or single tenants. Wall mounted signs may identify single tenants occupyin~ an entire building and located on a parcel. (a) Requirements for Freestanding Freeway Oriented Signs in Commercial Districts (1) Number of signs permitted: One single tenant identification sign per parcel not located in a shopping center that is occupied entirely by one business. These business shall not be permitted a single tenant identification monument sign along their street frontage. However, if three or more parcels join together to erect a multi tenant freeway oriented sign, they all shall be allowed single tenant identification monument sign along their street frontage and shall be permitted a total of four signs including the freestanding freeway sign, wall mounted signs, and freestanding tenant identification signs. One multi tenant identification sign per shopping center if the shopping center is larger than 7 acres. Two multi tenant identification signs per shopping center if the center has greater than 1330 feet of frontage. (2) Maximum sign area shall be: 50 square feet for single tenant identification signs. 100 square feet for multi tenant identification signs. may include the center's name. The permitted sign area (3) Maximum sign structure height shall be 25 30 feet, except that higher signs may be justified through the use of a flag test. However, the signs shall never exceed 45 feet in height. For flag test procedures refer to Section 17.28.070 (a) {3) e. 2:',STAFFR~T~I27PA95.p10 5115/97 sn 3 (4) A freestanding freeway oriented sign shall only be allowed as a pylon sign. Pole signs shall not be allowed. (5) Multi tenant signs shall identify a maximum of three tenants. (6) Businesses with freestanding freeway signs shall only be permitted a maximum of three signs, or four signs as permitted by Section 17.18.210 (a) (1) (a), which may include a freestanding freeway sign, a wall mounted sign ~, and a monument sign identifying the business on a street oriented single or multi tenant sign. {hi Requirements for Wall Mounted Freeway Oriented Business Identification Signs in Commercial Districts Same as Section 17.28.240. Freewav Signage for Small Centers A member of the public requested the Planning Commission ensure adequate freeway signage for small commercial centers along the freeway. The proposed Ordinance provides for this signage in terms of wall mounted signs along the freeway for each tenant in multi tenant commercial buildings. However, the proposed Ordinance in its current form only permits freestanding freeway oriented signs for centers larger than 7 acres. Staff included an inventory of all parcels and centers along the freeway in the April 21, 1997 Staff Report which revealed there are three centers and two vacant parcels in the City between 3 and 7 acres in size. The following list represents these centers and parcels: Carl's Jr. and Kragen Center Tony Romas Mini Mart, Around a Buck Winchester and Ynez 3.52 Acres Jefferson south of Winchester 4.56 Acres South Front Street 4.48 Acres The following represents the individual vacant parcels between 3 and 7 acres that could be developed as centers: West of Ynez north of Gold's Gym West of Ynez between the car dealers and Tower Plaza 6.5 Acres 4.5 Acres Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the discussion of the Ordinance until the entire Ordinance is discussed by the Commission. Multi Tenant Office Buildings In addition, another member of the public requested the Planning Commission to ensure adequate signage for multi tenant office buildings. Section 17.28.250 is specifically written to address the signage needs of multiple story office buildings. This section provides for two signs for the primary tenant and one sign for four secondary tenants in the building. Proliferation of signs is strongly discouraged as it detracts from the architectural design of the building. However, Section 17.28.325 of the Sign Ordinance needs to be deleted which prohibits wall mounted freeway oriented signs for multi tenant buildings. R:\STAFFP,~T~I27PA95,pI0 5/15/97 sn 4 Attachments: 1. May 5, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 6 R:XSTAFFRPT~I27PA9S.pI0 511519'/m ATTACHMENT NO. 1 APRIL 21, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R:',STA~I27PA95.PI0 5/15/97 sn 6 STAFF REPORT o PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 5, 1997 Planning Application No. PA95-0127 Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the discussion of the Sign Ordinance. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: A Request to Recommend Approval of a Comprehensive Sign Ordinance LOCATION: Citywide BACKGROUND This item was continued by the Planning Commission from the April 21, 1997 meeting. At that meeting, Planning Commission took public testimony, initiated the discussion of the Sign Ordinance and recommended a number of changes to the Ordinance. Some of these changes will require further staff analysis and will be presented to the Commission as soon as the analysis by staff is complete. The items to be researched by staff include: stricter requirements for vehicle signs and the height of freeway signs in relation to ever growing landscaping. The changes recommended by the Commission will ultimately be incorporated into a redlined Ordinance prior to the final action by the Commission. DISCUSSION At the last meeting, the Commission stopped their discussion on Page 12, Section 17.28.070 (a) (4). The discussion of the Planning Commission included prohibiting painted window signs, exploring other means than the Sign Ordinance to prohibit certain vehicle signs, reducing the permitted area for Window Signs to less than 10% of the window area, and the height of freeway signs in relation to the ever growing landscaping. The members of the public requested the Ranning Commission to ensure adequate signage for multi tenant office buildings and adequate freeway signage for small commercial centers along the freeway. In addition, creating an aesthetically pleasing community through appropriate sign regulations will make Temecula an inviting place for businesses to relocate. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the discussion of the Ordinance, until the entire Ordinance is discussed by the Commission. Attachments: 1. April 21, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 APRIL 21, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1997 Planning Application No. PA95-0127 Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Commission adopt PC Resolution No. 97- APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: BACKGROUND This item was continued off-calendar from the February 12, 1997. Planning City of Temecula A Request to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Citywide At that meeting staff requested Planning Commission's direction on six issues regarding the Sign Ordinance. The following summarizes the Planning Commission's direction on these issues: Non-Conforming Signs The Planning Commission determined that all legal non-conforming signs should be permitted to exist without starting any amortization period until a sign inventory has been completed. After the inventory, the Ordinance will be amended to add provisions relating to the removal of non-conforming signs, refer to Section 17.28.960. Uniform Real Estate Signs The Planning Commission determined that real estate signs do not need to follow a uniform design standard. As a result, this provision has been deleted from the Ordinance. Placement of Freestanding Signs either Parallel or Perpendicular to Streets The Planning Commission determined that most signs should be placed perpendicular to the street; but that the Ordinance needs to be flexible to permit other orientations. As a result, changes have been made to Section 17.28,070 (a) (1) d. R:~TAFFRFrXI27PAgl.PC7 ~/ll~f/k~ Minimum Size of Centers for Permitting Freestanding Freeway Oriented Signs The Planning Commission was split on this issue and requested staff to provide information regarding undeveloped parcels along the freeway. This information is discussed in more detail later in the Staff Report in the Discussion Section. Minimum Letter Sizes for Multi Tenant Signs The Planning Commission determined that five inch (5") minimum letter sizes with ten inch (10") panels and one panel per line should ensure the visibility of the tenants on multi tenant signs. This has been addressed in Sections 17.28.230 (a) (5), (6), and (7). Multi Tenant Signs in Industrial Districts The Planning Commission determined that multi tenant signs are appropriate for industrial districts and directed staff to bring back the standards for these signs for the Commission's review. This is also discussed later in the Staff Report in the Discussion Section. DISCUSSION The first time the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Sign Ordinance was in October 21, 1996. Since that time, the ordinance has been modified substantially as a result of Sign Committee, Comment Group, and City Attorney recommendations. As a result, staff has included a redline/strike out version of the current Ordinance in Attachment 2. This version shows only the major changes to the original ordinance and does not include minor grammatical modifications. In this Ordinance, the new language is shown as ~ and deleted language as E~i~':~ (shadow). In addition, Attachment 1, Exhibit A includes the most up to date version of the Ordinance that is being recommended for approval by the Sign Committee and staff. Permitting Multi-Tenant Signs in Industrial Districts At the previous meeting, the Commission stated that multi tenant signs in industrial districts should be allowed and requested that staff develop standards for these signs. Staff has evaluated some of the existing signage and recommends the following standards: Each center shall be allowed one multi tenant sign. However, if the center has more than one street frontage, one multi tenant sign per street frontage shall be allowed. Maximum sign structure height shall be 6 feet. Maximum sign area shall be 20 square feet. The center name may be added to multi tenant signs but the total sign area including the center name shall not exceed 20 square feet. The maximum number of signs per panel shall be one. The minimum panel width shall be 5 inches. The minimum letter size shall be 3 inches. Minimum Size of Centers for Permitting Freestanding Freeway Oriented Signs The Planing Commission requested staff to provide vacant parcel and existing center sizes along the freeway. This information is provided in Attachment 3 along with the frontage for each parcel, Staff continues to recommend a minimum 7 acres for centers in order to permit multi tenant signs. The following represents the acreage of the existing centers adjacent to the freeway that are between 3 and 7 acres: #5 Carl's Jr. and Kragen Center //36 Tony Romas //72 Mini Mart, Around a Buck Winchester and Ynez 3.52 Acres Jefferson south of Winchester 4.56 Acres South Front Street 4.48 Acres The following represents the individual vacant parcels between 3 and 7 acres that could be developed as centers: #3 //16 West of Ynez north of Gold's Gym 6.5 Acres West of Ynez between the car dealers and Tower Plaza 4.5 Acres Attachment 4 includes correspondence from the Chamber of Commerce supporting Mr. Fred Grimes's position on the six remaining issues discussed in the previous Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Grimes was a member of the Comment Group and the Chamber of Commerce had a representative on the Sign Committee to represent the interests of the Chamber. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Planning Commission hereby determines that the provisions of this Ordinance will have no effect on the environment and the proposed Ordinance is therefore exempt from requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3). This section indicates that, 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 the provisions of CEQA. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY This project is consistent with the General Plan since the General Plan implementation program requires the City to adopt sign standards for residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Through the adoption of this Ordinance, General Plan goals relating to the urban design and community character are being fulfilled. FINDINGS Adoption of the Ordinance would: 1. Provide for effective business signage; Assure that signs are compatible with the character of their surroundings and the community as a whole; Preserve and improve the appearance of the City as a, place to live, work, trade, do business and visit; Protect the City from the blighting influence of excessive signage so as to preserve and enhance the economic base of the City and safeguard property values within the City; Assure that signs are appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain; Regulate signs so as to avoid increasing the hazards to motorists and pedestrians caused by distracting signage; Recognize that the eventual elimination of existing signs that are not in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter requires further analysis of the existing signs in the City. Attachments: PC Resolution No. 97-. - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Ordinance No. 97- - Blue Page 9 Redlined Copy of the Sign Ordinance - Blue Page 10 Inventory of Vacant Parcels and Existing Center Sizes - Blue Page 11 Chamber of Commerce Correspondence o Blue Page 12 R:L~TAPFRFI',I27PA95.PC7 4111/eJ'/klb 4