Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091597 PC AgendaCALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1997, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecuh, CA 92390 Chairman Fahey Fahey, Guerriero, Miller, Slaven and Soltysiak A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fried out and fried with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Minutes from August 18, 1997 and August 25, 1997 3. Director's Hearing Update PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA97-0235 (Conditional Use Permit) Larry Lang East side of Jefferson Avenue, south of the extension of Overland Drive To construct and operate a three-story, 43,654 square foot, 90-unit hotel with swimming pool, and to erect a free-standing freeway-oriented sign measuring 12 feet in width and a height of 45 feet. Negative Declaration Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner Annie Bostre-Le, Assistant Engineer Approval PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTWF, R BUSINESS Next meeting: October 6, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission Meeting ADJOURNMENT ITEM #2 INDEX CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1997 SUBJECT CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS COMMISSION BUSINESS APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- July 21, 1997 OLD TOWN ENTERTAINMENT PROJECT WORKSHOP 1 2 1,2, 11-13 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. 6. 7. 8. PA97-97-O174 (Development Plan) Construction of two office buildings PA97-0129 AND PA97-0224 (Tentative Parcel Map & Variance) Subdivision into four lots PA97-0266 (Variance) Construct a 9' high monument sign PA97-0221 AND PA97-0267 (Amendment to Old Town Plan) Establishing parking in-lieu program incentives PA95-0127 (Sign Ordinance) 2-4 4-5 5-6 7-9 9-10 PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT 13 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION 13 OTHER BUSINESS 13 ADJOURNMENT 13 Planning Commission August 18, 1997 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1997 CALLTO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:02 P.M., on Monday, August 18. 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS None. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Soltysiak, Slaven, and Chairwoman Fahey. None. Planning Manager Ubnoske, Principal Engineer Parks, Attorney Estrada, Associate Planner Naaseh, Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Miller requested that the order of the Agenda be amended, placing Agenda Item No. 3 (Old Town Entertainment Project Workshop) after Agenda Item No. 7. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the Agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Planning Commission 2 August 18, 1997 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 21. 1997 ~ Commissioner Guerriero moved for the approval of the July 21, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the ~ of Commissioners Fahey and Slaven who ~. 3. OLD TOWN ENTERTAINMENT PROJECT WORKSHOP (Postponed to later in the meeting; see page 1, 10-12.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0174 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Planning Commission consideration of a request to construct two office and manufacturing buildings totaling 13, 108 square feet. RECOMMENDATION To adopt the Negative Declaration for PA No. 97-0174; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA No. 97-0174; and to adopt Resolution No. 97- approving PA No. 97-0174 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Assistant Planner Anders reviewed the staff report (of record), clarifying that project access would be achieved by way an existing 40' shared access easement off Ridge Park Drive -- a 20' easement located on the southern portion of the subject site and 20' on the adjacent parcel. Commissioner Slaven stated that the proposed structures will not be architecturally compatible with neighboring buildings. In response to Commissioner Slaven, Mr. Lon Bike, architect representing the applicant, Irvine, relayed the applicanrs desire to construct a contemporary structure to accurately reflect the nature of the business and stated that a structure of such architectural design would be compatible with the contemporary-designed building across the street. Advising that, as per Code. no setback would be required at the rear southwest corner of the building, Mr. Bike informed the Commissioners that a 1 '6" setback is being proposed and that a concrete collector could be considered for this particular area to ensure proper drainage. Mr. Bike Planning Commission 3 August 18, 1997 noted that the applicant would not be willing to make major architectural changes to the design but would willing to make some subtle color changes. Because improved access to the property has already been dedicated and because no new access would be created, Mr. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, stated that there would not be a nexus to impose recommended Condition No. 57 (the developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney). City Engineer Parks advised that all properties south of Rancho California Road are located in Assessment District 95-1, which is an active Assessment District. With regard to the architectural design of the building, Mr. Mark Esbensen, 27311 Jefferson Avenue, #103, Temecula, noted that the existing Mediterranean-styled office buildings were approved and built prior to the enactment of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; that the City has since rezoned this particular area to Business Park (BP Zone), denoting a more hi-tech type of approach. Noting that the proposed architectural design was discussed by staff during the preapplication process, Assistant Planner Anders relayed staffs opinion that the proposed design would be more architecturally compatible with the Business Park Zone than the existing Mediterranean style; advised that, therefore, staff had encouraged the applicant to proceed with this type of design; and noted that the proposed structure would be compatible with the existing building across the street as it relates to bulk, mass, and overall architectural style. Although she is not requesting the applicant to redesign the structure to comply with the existing Mediterranean architecture, Commissioner Slaven, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, advised that she could not support the construction of these structures unless some architectural changes were made to create more compatibility with the existing buildings in the neighborhood. Advising that she would concur with the proposed architectural design of the buildings and considering this design to be more compatible in the Business Park Zone, Chairwoman Fahey noted that although the appearance of the proposed structure, in her opinion, will be too plain; therefore, she suggested that some minor architectural modifications be made to the front facade and noted that such Planning Commission 4 August 18, 1997 modifications would also make the structure more compatible with neighboring buildings. Mr. Esbensen relayed an unwillingness to totally redesign the proposed structure, detracting from the desired contemporary appearance. In light of Mr. Esbensen's comment, Commissioner Slaven offered the following motion: MOTION.' Commissioner Slaven moved for the denial of PA97-0174. This motion died for the lack of a second. Chairwoman Fahey recommended that the applicant and staff readdress the compatibility issue as well as the aesthetics of the building. Concurring with Chairwoman Fahey, Commissioner Soltysiak noted that minor enhancements to the structure would eliminate the sterile appearance of the building. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved that PA97-0174 be continued to the September 8,1997, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Although she supported the continuance, Commissioner Slaven reiterated that the applicant had stated that he would not be desirous of making any changes, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 97-0129 AND 97-0224 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCE) Planning Commission consideration to allow an existing commercial center of 4.59 acres to be subdivided into four parcels, and a variance request to allow two of the parcels to be smaller than the minimum lot size requirement of 30,000 square feet. RECOMMENDATION To adopt the Negative Declaration for PA No. 97-0129 and No. 97-0224; to adopt Resolution No. 97- approving PA No. 97-0129 and 97-0224 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of approval. Commissioner Miller noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this request. Planning Commission 5 August 18, 1997 Assistant Planner Anders informed the Commissioners that the applicant has requested a continuance to the August 25, 1997, Planning Commission meeting in order to complete a traffic study as requested by staff. With regard to the traffic study, City Engineer Parks relayed staffs desire to ensure adequate distance for proper stacking and for a left-turn lane. For Commissioner Slaven, Ms. Anders advised that the applicant will be submitting a landscaping plan in an effort to revitalize the existing landscaping and that the reciprocal parking agreements among parcels 2, 3, and 4 will ensure adequate parking. MOTION: Chairman Fahey moved to continue PA97-0129 and PA97-0224 to the August 25, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Miller who abstained. In response to Commissioner Slaven, Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, voiced no objection to being placed last on the agenda of the August 25, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 97-0266 (VARIANCE) Planning Commission considering to allow the construction of a nine foot high monument sign - Old Town Specific Plan permits a maximum height of six feet for monument signs. RECOMMENDATION To adopt Resolution No. 97- approving Planning Application No. PA97-0266 (Variance for McDonald's Monument Sign) based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. Associate Planner Naaseh reviewed the staff report (of record), advising that the proposed monument sign will exceed the allowable height limit by 3' and noting that a higher sign would be needed because of the visual impairment as a result of the handicapped ramp/railing By way of overheads, Mr. Naaseh described the location of the boardwalk as well as the location of the proposed sign; advised that this particular location was chosen for the sign in order to keep the boardwalk clear; clarified that because of the newly constructed ATM, the proposed sign could not be moved further north; and noted that because the sign will be placed in the planter area, landscaping of the planter will be designed to ensure maximum visibility of the sign. Planning Commission 6 August 18, 1997 Mr. George Adams, Supedor Electrical Advertising, 1700 W. Anaheim Street, Long Beach, representing the applicant, confirmed that the drawings accurately reflect the proposed sign, noting that the background color will be brown, the arches will be yellow, and that the McDonald's letters will be white. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Considering the existing Development Code, Commissioner Slaven expressed concern with granting a variance for new development in the Old Town area and the potential of setting a precedent by such action and, thereby, increasing the demand for such requests. Because the actual sign will only be 4'9" high (remainder block wall),Commissioner Miller, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, voiced no objection to approving this variance. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to reopen the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. In response to Chairwoman Fahey's comment, Mr. Ed Dool informed the Commissioners that by way of a 45-year lease, he is the legal owner of the 28642 Front Street property; noted that in order to ensure proper visibility, the sign will be needed; confirmed the location of the sign; and advised that a tree will be planted in the planter area (location to be determined). Advising that it is important for the Commission to ensure that appropriate findings exist in order to support any variance, Chairwoman Fahey noted that, in her opinion, those findings do not exist to support the requested height increase; therefore, she spoke in opposition of the request. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 97- approving Planning Application No. PA97-0266 based upon the analysis and findings of fact contained in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Fahey and Slaven voting no. Although she would view the approved monument sign as architecturally pleasing, Commissioner Slaven noted that a Development Code has been established in order to maintain a level of consistency and that, therefore, this request should not have even been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Planning Commission 7 August 18, 1997 Because of the grade separation between the parkways and buildings in the Old Town area, Commissioner Soltysiak expressed his anticipation that the issue of visual impairment will be a recurring issue. PI ANNING APPLICATION NO.97-0221 AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0267 Planning Commission consideration of an amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan for establishing the Parking in-lieu Program Incentives for the Sixth Street Parking Lot. RECOMMENDATION To adopt Resolution No. 97- recommending approval by the City Council of Planning Application No. PA97-0021 (Old Town Specific Plan Amendment establishing the Parking in-lieu Fee Program and revising the parking requirements) based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. To adopt Resolution No. 97- recommending approval by the City Council of Planning Application No. PA97-0267 (establishing the parking incentives for the Sixth Street parking lot) based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. Associate Planner Naaseh reviewed the staff report (as per written material of record). noting the following: that the proposed program would only apply to the Tourist Retail Commercial Zone (TRC Zone); that the existing parking standards, as set forth in the Development Code, are not applicable to Old Town; that a parking standard, in the commercial zone, of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area be imposed; that the Incentive Program is being proposed in an effort to promote development in Old Town; that 80 spaces are available at the Sixth Street Parking lot but that at this time only 50 spaces are being offered toward the Incentive Program; that once these 50 spaces are taken, the merchant could either pay the parking in-lieu fee or provide on-site parking; that the City Council may offer the remaining 30 spaces toward the Incentive Program; that any fees generated by the parking in-lieu fee would be set aside for the acquisition/engineering/construction of additional parking lots; Planning Commission 8 August 18, 1997 that depending on the funds generated, it would be anticipated to construct one parking lot at each end of Old Town and one in the middle; that specific qualifications must have been met in order for a merchant to participate in the Incentive Program; that the cost of each parking spaco is approximately $12,000 to $15,000, including land cost, design, and construction. At $15,000 per perking spaca, Commissioner Miller expressed strong opposition to waiving this fee for 50 spaces, totaling to $750,000, considering such action a gift of public funds. Housing and Redevelopment Manager Meyer reiterated that staffs intent by waiving such a fee would be to further promote development in the Old Town area and, thereby, increasing property values. Mr. Meyer advised that the City has contacted property owners expressing an interest in acquiring property in order to provide additional parking facilities in the Old Town area, noting that the Specific Plan indicated the need for an additional 360 parking spaces prior to buildout; that the Sixth Street Parking lot would be providing 78 of those needed spaces; that the payment of the parking in-lieu fee would be voluntary, clarifying that it would not be a tax; that the funds in the Capital Improvement Program ($875,000) will be applied toward the acquisition of additional land for parking; and that additional necessary monies are unfunded at this time. Viewing the proposed program as creative and in compliance with the Specific Plan, Chairwoman Fahey relayed support of the request. Commissioner Soltysiak requested that staff further research whether the determined $15,000 per parking space may be excessive. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt Resolution No. 97- recommending approval by the City Council of Planning Application No. PA97-0221 (Old Town Specific Plan Amendment establishing the parking in-lieu fee program and revising the parking requirements) based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA Planning Commission 9 August 18, 1997 AMENDING SECTION III. F. 2., PARKING, OF THE OLDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM AND REVISE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97- 0221 ) MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt Resolution No. 97- recommending approval by the City Coundl of Planning Application No. PA97-0267 (establishing the parking incentives for the Sixth Street parking lot) based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice voted reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Miller who voted no. PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF TEMECULA THE SIXTH STREET PARKING LOT INCENTIVE PROGRAM (PLANNINGAPPLICATION NO. PA97-0221) Because monies from the Redevelopment Agency are for the purpose of assisting property owners in developing their property and improving economic viability in the City, Commissioner Slaven viewed the parking incentive program as an appropriate use. At 8:05 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:16 P.M. Because Commissioner Soltysiak will not be participating in the Old Town Entertainment Project Workshop discussion (Agenda Item No. 3), it was the consensus of the Commission to change the order of the Agenda as follows: MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved that Agenda Item No. 8 (Sign Ordinance) be discussed prior to Agenda No. 3 (Old Town Entertainment Project). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0127 Planning Commission consideration to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a ComDrehensive Sign Ordinance. Planning Commission 10 August 18, 1997 RECOMMENDATION To adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Comprehensive Sign Ordinance. Chairwoman Fahey noted that the Section with regard to Temporary Signs has been deleted from this Ordinance. Commissioner Miller commented on problems associated with temporary signs and, therefore, requested that the City Council resubmit this matter to the Planning Commission for further review. By approving this Ordinance, Commissioner Miller clarified that he would not intend to imply that the then non-conforming signs be removed and replaced considering the hardship such action would have on the businesses. Associate Planner Naaseh advised that an inventory would be taken of all non-. conforming signs at which time a recommendation would be made as to how to deal with those signs. For Commissioner Soltysiak, staff noted that the comment group which had addressed the Commission at previous meetings with regard to the Sign Ordinance expressed satisfaction with the proposed changes. MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 97- PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.28 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, A COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY SCHEME FOR SIGNS AND OTHER ADVERTISING DEVICES, AND MAKING RELATED CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 95-0127) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Planning Commission 11 August 18, 1997 The Commissioners commended Associate Planner Naaseh on a job well done. At this time Agenda Item No. 3 was considered. 3. OLD TOWN ENTERTAINMENT PROJECT WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive the staff report and provide direction and comments regarding that EIR Consistency Report, Specific Plan Consistency Report, Traffic Analysis and Exhibits for Zed Buffman's proposal (Westside Specific Plan/Old Town Entertainment Project/Rogersdale, U.S.A.) Commissioner Soltysiak advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this matter. Chairwoman Fahey clarified for the attending audience that this is not a public hearing but encouraged those individuals desirous of providing specific input with regard to this project to submit those comments to staff prior to the upcoming public hearing. Planning Manager Ubnoske briefly reviewed the case after which Associate Planner Fagan, by way of overheads, provided the staff report (of record), advising that staff will work with the applicant in order to refine the Plan, as recommended by the Commission this evening, and stating that a formal public hearing would be scheduled in the near future. Having carefully listened to the Commission's previously noted concerns with regard to the initial project, Mr. Zed Buffman, applicant, in detail, reviewed the proposed modifications to elevations, architectural style, location of buildings, type of entertainments, etc, noting the following: that the Wild West Arena has been lowered by 15'; that it will have a hard roof, will be heated/air conditioned, and will be sound proofed; that although no formal application will be made for a hotel at this time, it will be located further back and the size has been reduced to 250 to 275 rooms; that the larger structures have been reduced in height in an effort to limit imposition on Pujol Street residents (25' - 30'); Planning Commission 12 August 18, 1997 - that the newly prepared traffic study does not reflect the upcoming Rancho California Road and SR 79 improvements; that the proposed project will be linked to Old Town by way of a covered escalator; that parking for the project has been condensed; that any project advertising will promote Old Town events/activities; that although the project will be divided into Phase 1 and 2, both phases will be completed and open to the public at the same time; that a sculpture or water feature will be placed in the circular area of the access road; that the Western Bypass Corridor Slope will match existing native vegetation. Mr. Randy Fleming, 43500 Ridge Park Drive, tr202, Temecula, civil engineer for the project, advised that the project will exceed the imposed parking requirements (2,755 parking spaces), with overflow parking to the north. Principal Engineer Parks advised that the realignment of Moraga Road permits the additional overflow parking to the north. The Planning Commissioners made the following comments with regard to this project: that adequate screening be provided for the residential units located below the project site; that no palm trees be used; that proposed subspecies of tree choices be specified; that because of pests/disease, the use of pine trees be carefully reviewed; that the use of decomposed granite as a mulch would be satisfactory as long as it is not utilized in place of plant material; that larger stucco samples (12"x12") be provided for Commission review; that non-reflective roof materials be used for the arena; Planning Commission 13 August 18, 1997 that the newly proposed elevations appear to be acceptable; that detailed information be provided with regard to the traffic study and the methodology used to derive at these traffic results and whether or not the impact from the Mall has been incorporated in these studies; that no concerns were raised with regard to the EIR Consistency Report as well as the Specific Plan Consistency Report; that alternative transportation means to the subject site be explored such as a hiking/bike trail; that the use of a tram system be explored for the use of parking lot shuttling and for those individuals who are unable to walk from the escalator to Main and Front Streets. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the Specific Plan would permit flexibility with regard to the height of the entry monument. Although there are still impacts as a result of this project, Chairwoman Fahey viewed the revised Plans as an improvement from the originally submitted plans and encouraged the public to send their concerns/comments to the Planning Department staff prior to the upcoming public hearing to ensure that all issues are properly addressed. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT None. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None. OTHER BUSINESS None. Planning Commission 14 August 18, 1997 ADJOURNMENT At 10:00 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned the Planning Commission meeting to Monday, August 25, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. Linda Fahey, Chairwoman Planning Manager Ubnoske Planning Commission 15 August 18, 1997 INDEX CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1997 SUBJECT PAGE CALLTO ORDER ROLLCALL PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 1 1 COMMISSION BUSINESS APPROVAL OFAGENDA DIRECTOR'S UPDATE 1 1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. 5. 6. PA NO. 96-0270 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - REVISION) To relocate the north access driveway PA NO. 97-0036 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT) Approval of an amendment to the Development Code PA NO. 97-0127 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) To construct and operate a self-storage facility PA NO. 97-0138 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) To construct and operate an industrial warehouse and office building PA NO. 97-0129 & PA NO. 97-0224 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCE) To allow an existing commercial center to be subdivided. 2-3 3-5 5-8 8-9 9-11 PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT 11 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION 11 OTHER BUSINESS 11 ADJOURNMENT 12 Planning Commission August 25, 1997 1 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular session at 6:00 P.M., on Monday, August 25, 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and Chairwoman Fahey. None. Planning Manager Ubnoske, Principal Engineer Parks, Senior Planner Hogan, Attorney Curley, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Slaven, moved for the approval of the Agenda as submitted. Voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE Received and filed. No additional information. Planning Commission August 25, 1997 2 PUBLIC HFARINGS P! ANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0270 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - REVISION Planning Commission consideration to relocate the north access driveway southerly and to modify the design of both driveways to allow full movement at the south driveway and right-turn only on the north driveway. RECOMMENDATION To grant the Categorical Exemption for Planning Application No. PA 96-0270 and to adopt Resolution No. 97- approving the revision to Planning Application No. PA96-0270 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Reviewing the staff report (of record), Senior Planner Hogan advised that because of the proposed location of the Overland Drive extension and Margarita Road, a relocation of the northern driveway is being requested by the Public Works Department as well as a restriction to right-turn only in and out movements of the subject site. Principal Engineer Parks noted that minimal changes to the plan will address the above-mentioned issues. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. There being no public input, Commissioner Guerriero offered the following motion: MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing and to grant the Categorical Exemption for Planning Application No. PA 96-0270 and to adopt Resolution No. 97- approving the revision to Planning Application No. PA96-0270 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A REVISION TO PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0270 TO RELOCATE AND REDESIGN THE ACCESS DRIVEWAYS FOR THE SOLANA APARTMENTS, A 312-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH RECREATION AMENITIES ON FOUR Planning Commission August 25, 1997 3 PARCELS CONTAINING 18.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF $OLANA WAY AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSE$SOR'S PARCEL NOS. 92-090-023, -024, -025, AND -039 PII ANNING APPLICATION NO. 97-0036 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT) Planning Commission consideration of an amendment to the Development Code to revise the Approval Authority Table. RECOMMENDATION To adopt PC Resolution No. 97- amending Chapter 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code to revise the Approval Authority Table. Associate Planner Naaseh reviewed the staff report (as per written material of record), noting the following: that the current parking standards for a self-storage facility is 1 space per 25 units plus two spaces for each caretaker; that the proposed amendment would modify the parking standards to 1 space per 200 units; that staff derived at the proposed standard by researching standards of other cities; that usually individuals park in front of each individual unit to load and unload; that because the new Development Code requires the filing of two applications (Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit ) and in order to expedite the approval process, staff is requesting that the Director be allowed to approve Conditional Use Permits for new buildings under 10,000 square feet; that there would be no additional cost to the applicant for filing two applications; that Director hearings are public hearings and that notification is within 300' of the subject site; that Planning Commission projects are notified 600' from the subject site At this time, Chairwoman Fahey invited public input to which there was no response. Planning Commission August 25, 1997 4 Commissioner Slaven voiced no objection to the Director approving Conditional Use Permits for new buildings under 10,000 square feet as long as the notification requirement is expanded to 600' instead of 300'. Although voicing no objection, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the Development Code reflects a notification requirement for Director Hearings at 300'. It was noted that if it were the consensus of the Commission to extend this requirement to 600', Section 17.03.040 of the Development Code will have to be amended. Commissioner Miller relayed concam with regard to the proposed parking standard (1 spaca per 200 units) and recommended that a minimum of four parking spaces be provided (3 regular parking spaces and 1 handicapped parking spaca). Because the requirement of 20% landscaping of open spaca would economically prohibit the construction of storage facilities, Senior Planner Hogan advised that this percentage was reduced to10%. In response to Commissioner Millers comments, discussion ensued with regard to the flexibility of the 10% requirement in the industrial zone where, for instance, a particular site may not have a rear setback and, therefore, in order to meet the 10% requirement, may provide landscaping in locations where not appropriate just to meet the requirement. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the applicant be required to landscape setbacks. Referencing Agenda Item No. 5 (construction of a self-storage facility),Commissioner Miller noted that the proposed 10' rear setback would be creating a no man's land; therefore, he suggested that the 10' rear setback be eliminated by moving the project further back and increasing the front setback to MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing and to approve PC Resolution No. 97- as amended. PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY TABLE, REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR RECREATIONAL ZONING Planning Commission August 25, 1997 5 DISTRICTS, INDOOR SWAP MEETS IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND AUTOMOBILE OIL CHANGE/LUBE SERVICES IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND PERMIT THEM IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMIT GREATER SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CUL-DE-SAC LOTS, ESTABLISH MOTORCYCLE PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND STANDARDS, ESTABLISH SELF-STORAGE/MINI-WAREHOUSE STANDARDS, AND OTHER MINOR CLASSIFICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0036). Amend O O O that the notification requirement for Conditional Use Permits be extended to 600'; that the parking standard for self-storage/mini-warehouse standards be amended to a minimum of four spaces (3 regular parking spaces and one handicapped space); that all setbacks be landscaped. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0127 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) Planning Commission consideration to construct and operate an 85,487 square foot self-storage facility (580 units) including an office and managers residential unit on a 3.26 acre site for Temecula Self Storage. RECOMMENDATION To adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0127; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0127; and to adopt Resolution No. 97- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0127 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record), advising that those amendments approved in Agenda Item No. 4 (Development Code Amendment) are reflected in the staff report, including the 10' landscaped setback; that the proposed Planning Commission August 25, 1997 6 use would be an appropriate use for this particular area; that the subject use would provide some additional screening to the residential units (to the rear) from other future commercial activities on Ynez Road; that the subject building will not block the residents current mountain view; that approximately 12% of landscaping has been proposed; and that lot coverage will be within approved standards (60%). Planner Hogan advised that staff had received four letters of opposition to the proposed use from the neighboring auto dealers, noting their concern relative to the approval of non-automotive use. He noted that auto dealers are of the opinion that the entire Ynez Road Corridor should be automobile-oriented developments. Having reviewed the auto dealers' request, Planner Hogan stated that staff was of the opinion that the proposed use would be a better transitional use to the neighboring residential units and noted that the approval of the proposed use would have no future impact on a continuation of automobile-oriented businesses along the Ynez Road Corridor. Providing additional information with regard to the proposed project, Planner Hogan noted the following: that there is an existing Preschool located to the north of the subject site; that the site of discussion has already been graded; that the existing private road is approximately 400' from Ynez Road; that an application has been submitted for the operation of a restaurant to the northwest of the subject site; that the General Plan does no designate any specific area for auto sales only; that efforts will be undertaken to ensure proposed landscaping will be compatible with the existing landscaping at the Preschool. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. By way of handouts, Mr. Ken Honig, applicant, 123 E. Bay Front, Balboa Island; Mr. Ariel Valli, 19700 Fairchild, #200, Irvine, architect representing the applicant; and Mr. Randy Fleming, 43500 Ridge Park Drive, #202, Temecula, reviewed the proposed project, highlighting the following: that a facility such as the proposed is needed in the community; that because of accessibility, the proposed location is ideal for the proposed use; that the project will be low in profile and will be a quiet use; that the maximum amount of traffic generated will be 6 to 9 vehicle trips on a Saturday and Sunday mornings; that adequate screening will be provided; that by way of design and actual maintenance, the 10' rear setback will be maintained to ensure appropriate aesthetic appearance; that although not visible to the public, some landscaping would be necessary in the rear setback to ensure proper root structure; that this 10' rear setback (no man's land) is not desirous but is being constructed as the request of the City; that the proposed landscaping plan is strictly Planning Commission August 25, 1997 7 conceptual; that each unit has an alarm; that the alarm, during business hours, will only be activated in the office with no audible sound and that after hours, the alarm, if activated, would be audible for approximately 30 seconds outside of the building; and that all lighting will be directed down and not visible off site. Chairwoman Fahey clarified that because of the previously taken action with regard to the Development Code (Agenda Item No. 4), moving the structure 10' further back, eliminating the 10' rear setback, would not be a feasible alternative at this point. It was noted by staff that if it were determined that the amended Development Code standards were not effective for one or any site, the Code could again be amended and/or a variance may be requested. Staff clarified that the Development Code requires a 25' setback when a commercial use abuts a residential use (such as proposed) but that this setback requirement was amended to 10' in the previous action (Agenda Item No. 4), noting that the Director would have the flexibility between the minimum of 10' and the maximum of 25'. It was staffs opinion that a 10' setback would be adequate for the proposed use. To ensure building joints are properly covered, especially on the front wall of the building, Commissioner Miller suggested the imposition of a Condition requiring the applicant to plaster the front wall if joints were not properly coated. The applicant voiced no objection to such a condition. Commissioner Miller, echoed by Commissioner Soltysiak, encouraged the Building Department to address the effectiveness of proposed drainage at the rear of the subject site. Commissioner Miller as well expressed concem with regard to there being no deterrent preventing children from jumping onto the roof at the rear of the subject site. Mr. Valli apprised the Commissioners of the existing 6' wall behind the proposed facility; noted that an additional wall would be constructed behind the facility; and advised that undesirable plantings (thorn bushes, etc.)would be planted in the rear setback to eliminate any undesirable element. Mr. Honig noted that on the north and south sides of the facility, wrought iron fence would be constructed. For Commissioner Miller, it was noted by staff that wall caps on the roof were provided for accent purposes. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing and to approve staff recommendation with the addition of one condition, as follows: Planning Commission August 25, 1997 8 Add O that if the coating matedal used on the exterior surface of the front wall fails to properly eliminate the visibility of joints, the applicant be required to plaster the front wall. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Although he supported the motion, Commissioner Guerriero noted concern with the imposition of such a condition, noting that, in his opinion, the Commission would have to place such a condition of all future projects. At 7:37 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 7:45 P.M. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0138 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Planning Commission consideration to construct and operate a 18, 160 square foot industrial warehouse and offace building. RECOMMENDATION To adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0138; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0138; and to adopt PC Resolution No. PA97- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0138 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Senior Planner Hogan provided the staff report (as per written material of record), advising that the proposed architectural enhancements will be set away several feet from the building; that these enhancements are made of concrete; and that they will be attached to the building. Mr. Russell Rumansoff, architect representing the applicant, noted that the architectural enhancements were proposed in order to define the entryway of the building; confirmed that the enhancement extends out from the buildings; that they are attached to the building; advised that at the entryway, the roof extends over to Planning Commission August 25, 1997 9 the enhancement, providing coverage; and briefly reviewed the color board as well as the landscaping plan. In response to Commissioner Soltysiak's noted concern with regard to the grading plan, Principal Engineer Parks ensured that these issues would be properly addressed in the Precise Grading Plan. Chairwoman Fahey, echoed by her fellow Commissioners, commented on the difficulty of understand the submitted plans. Concurring with Chairwoman Fahey's comment, Commissioner Slaven stated that any future applications with similar difficulties will be tabled until complete. MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing and to approve with the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0224 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) Planning Commissioner consideration to allow an existing commercial center of 4.59 acres to be subdivided into four lots, and a Variance request to allow two of the parcels to be smaller than the minimum lot size requirement of 30,000 square feet. RECOMMENDATION To adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0129 and No. 97-0224; to adopt a PC Resolution No. 97- Approving Planning Application No. 97-0129 and No. 97-0224 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATIONNO. 97-0129 FOR A FOUR LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 97-0224 FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO OF THE PROPOSED PARCELS TO BE SMALLER THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD Planning Commission August 25, 1997 10 BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND MORAGA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-310-019. Commissioner Miller noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this request. Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record), advising that proposed Condition No. 15a should read as follows: The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: The Developer shall install or provide a cash deposit for half-width raised landscaped median on Ranch California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) from Morega Road to Lyndie Lane. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. A left turn in movement from Rancho California Road to the existing driveway will be allowed upon construction of the raised median. A left turn out movement onto Rancho California Road will not be allowed with the installation of the raised median. Senior Planner Hogan advised that the original plans reflected a Speedy Lube for the undeveloped parcel but noted that currently no such application has been submitted; that the requested variance is for the lot size; and that parking requirements are met by way of reciprocal parking agreements throughout the site. Principal Engineer Parks, for Commissioner Soltysiak, advised that until the raised medians are constructed, no left-turn in and out movements will be restricted. For Commissioner Guerriero, Engineer Parks noted that because Lyndie Lane is a T- intersection at Rancho California Road, a signal is provided, making it safer to complete left-turn movements. Mr. Parks also advised that Lyndie Lane could handle the additional traffic potentially generated as a result of this approval. Mr, Larry Markham, representing the applicant, requested that the following verbiage be added to the end of Condition Nos. 15a and 15b: "...will not be allowed with the installation of the raised median as determined by the Director of Public Works," Planning Manager Ubnoske requested that Mr. Markham's recommended verbiage be further amended to also include the Director of Community Developments. No objection was noted by the Commissioners. Because of limited spaca and because of associated cost, Mr. Markham suggested the use of cobble stone instead of actual landscaping in the median. Planning Commission August 25, 1997 11 Chairwoman Fahey, echoed by her fellow Commissioners, advised that the proposed conditions of approval will assist with accomplishing very needed improvements. MORON.' Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing and to approve staff recommendation as amended. Add o that the verbiage Directors of Public Works and Community Developments be added to the end of Condition Nos. 15a and 15b. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Miller who abstained. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that Mr. Knute Noland has been hired as the City's Development Processing Coordinator. She also advised that a Fire Marshal, as a contract position, has been hired. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Slaven requested that staff investigate those parking lots which have been newly slurry sealed to ensure that the required handicapped parking spaces are appropriately restriped and signs are reposted. Commissioner Slaven requested that once the Development Code Amendments are completed and appropriate corrections have been made, she be given a hard bound copy. For clarity purposes, Commissioner Miller requested that any future amendments to the Code be clearly spelled out (currently existing and proposed). Commissioner Miller apprised staff that the trash enclosures, located behind the theaters, are not being appropriately used. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's request to provide larger sample boards to the Commission, Planning Ubnoske apprised the Commissioners of changes that will have to be made to the City's filing requirements and that once these changes have been made, the Commission could expect to see larger sample boards within Planning Commission August 25, 1997 12 the next two to three months. In closing, Commissioner Guerriero requested that staff provide information with regard to the different types of texture coatings used in the industry in an effort to keep the Commissioners apprised. ADJOURNMENT At 8:40 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned the Planning Commission meeting to Monday, September 8, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. (Because of the Labor Day Holiday, the September 1, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was canceled and rescheduled to September 8, 1997). Linda Fahey, Chairwoman Planning Manager Ubnoske Planning Commission August 25, 1997 13 ITEM #3 MElVIO~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commissi.o~/ Debbxe Ub ~J~ · noske, Planning Manager September 15, 1997 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda item for August, 1997. C~:N~:~,~::!i:!!! ::,: ::::i :~::::: ~:~i!!;:~::::::!::;!!Z;i!:!!::~i~ :!;~::::::::: :!ii~:ii~ppn~ Z::: Z August 14 PA97--0189 Developmere Plan Brooks~one Comtru~tion Approved Construct an 8,000 square foot warehouse building. Attachments: 1. Action Agenda - Blue Page 2 R:~DIP, HEARXMF. MO\9-15-97,DH 919197 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDA R:\DIRHEAR'~VIEIdO\9-15-97.DH 9/9197 k~ 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR*S HEARING REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 1997 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HAIJj MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be ~led out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: l~ecommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA97-0189 (Development Plan) Brookstone Construction Company At the intersection of Enterprise Circle North and Enterprise Circle South. The design and construction of a 8,000 square foot warehouse building. Categorical Exemption Patty Anders Approval APPR 0 VED ADJOURNMENT ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0235 - Conditional Use Permit (Temecula Valley Inn) Prepared By: Carole Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 97-0235; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. 97-0235; ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving Planning Application No. 97-0235 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. DIRECT staff to approve a freestanding freeway-oriented sign for Temecula Valley Inn measuring 27 feet in height, located on the west side of Interstate 15, at the southeast corner of the subject property. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Larry Lang REPRESENTATIVE: Markham & Associates PROPOSAL: To construct and operate a three-story, 43,654 square foot, 90- unit hotel with swimming pool and a freestanding, 45-foot high, 12-foot wide freeway oriented sign on 2.61 acres. LOCATION: East side of Jefferson Avenue, south of the extension of Overland Drive. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial) EXISTING ZONING: CC (Community Commercial) R:\STAFFRPT~33pA~7.pC 9/10/9'7 kib 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: CC (Community Commercial) CC (Community Commercial) Interstate 15 CC (Community Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant (Proposed Golden Corral Restaurant) Wendy's Restaurant w/drive-through Interstate 15 Adobe Plaza retail commercial center, across Jefferson Avenue PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Building Area: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Floor Area Ratio: Building Height: Parking Required: Parking Provided: 113,504 square feet 14,594 square feet first floor w/1,305 square ft canopy 14,530 square feet second floor 14,530 third floor (14%) 26,260 square feet (23%) 65,4B8 square feet (58%) 38% 42 feet 101 spaces 99 auto spaces, 2 bus spaces, 5 motorcycle spaces, 5 bicycle spaces BACKGROUND A pre-application meeting was held for this project on March 26, 1997. The application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on July 11, 1997. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 24, 1997. The project was deemed complete on August 21, 1997. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a conditional use permit to allow a hotel/motel use in the CC Community Commercial Zone, and a development plan application for the operation, design, and construction of the three-story, 90-unit hotel building with canopy entrance, swimming pool and spa, associated parking, landscaping, road and drainage improvements on three parcels. ANALYSIS Site Design The subject site is accessed from two existing 46' driveway approaches on Jefferson Avenue. These driveways are part of the circulation system for the properties north and south of the site. The driveways are connected via an ingress/egress easement that traverses the site parallel to Jefferson Avenue. The applicant has designed the project to accommodate and enhance the circulation system already in place by single-loading the connecting drive aisle, providing a separate, drive aisle to the main entrance for hotel patrons, and by providing access to the rear of the hotel with a complete circular drive. Additionally, the project design encourages pedestrian circulation between the properties with access walkways both to the north and south. The building has been designed approximately 150 feet from Jefferson Avenue in order to accommodate the circulation easement. The applicant's architect also feels that the three-story building at its proposed location would be less likely to dwarf other buildings along Jefferson. The applicant has addressed staff's concern regarding the privacy of hotel swimmers and bathers adjacent to the drive-through aisle for Wendy's by providing fencing and landscape screening on both sides of the drive aisle adjacent to the pool. The design does not include sidewalks adjacent to the building in order to discourage foot traffic by the individual rooms on the first floor, as well as to provide ample landscaping along the building. The target floor area ratio for the CC (Community Commercial) Zone is 0.30 and the range is 0.25 to 1 .O FAR. The project, at an FAR of 0.38 does not meet the target but is well within the range for the zone. Section 17.08.050 of the Development Code allows development to occur at an intensity between the target and maximum level at the discretion of the Planning Commission/City Council in exchange for special, identified public benefits which satisfy a need over and above the minimum requirements of the General Plan and other City policies and regulations. As noted previously, the project's design enhances the circulation system for the area. The project also addresses an economic need for affordable transient housing in proximity to shopping and employment. Overall, the design of the site is consistent with the provisions of the Development Code and the Design Guidelines. Architecture & Colors The applicant has achieved a building design that breaks up the mass of the three-story structure with extended "pop-out" portions both at the front and rear. Arched lines and pillar lines are also used between windows and at the building edges. Individual room air conditionors are proposed to be hidden behind decorative balcony grills. Because of its strategic location adjacent to the freeway and the Overland overpass, the applicant provided building articulation on all four sides. All entrances are covered with arched and tiled canopies. The proposed building is in French Vanilla stucco with a Tangerine concrete tile roof. Dark bronze aluminum window frames and grills and bronze solar glass are proposed to complete the color palette. Landscaoing The project proposes to landscape 23.1 percent of the site which exceeds the minimum requirement of 20 percent in the CC (Community Commercial) zone. The site provides landscaping around its perimeter, with an 18-20 foot landscaped setback from Jefferson Avenue. Berming with lawn is proposed adjacent to the freeway that will effectively screen the trash enclosure and bus parking, R:\STAFFRPT~235PA97,PC 9/10/97/r~ 3 Signaae Included in the Development Ran application is a proposal to erect a freestanding, 45-foot high freeway oriented sign at the southeast corner of the project site. The sign structure incorporates all the architectural features of the building including arches and pillars, French Vanilla stucco with Tangerine concrete tile. The proposed sign and logo will be illuminated channel letters and an illuminated oval insert respectively. On August 11, 1997, staff met with applicant Larry Lang and Steve Etchison of Country Signs at the site in order to conduct a flag test. Both northbound and southbound photographs were taken of tests conducted at two different locations on the property. Both locations provided visibility to northbound motorists, however the locations differed significantly for southbound motorists. The first location was at the northeast corner of the site, at the southernmost edge of the future Overland overpass, which would have been the first unobstructed glimpse of the sign. However, this location was entirely inadequate because of the mature growth of trees adjacent to the future Golden Corral property. A second test was conducted with the sign rocated at the southeast corner, approximately 15 feet west of the Caltrans right-of-way fence line. Photographs indicate that motorists would have a clear line of sight once past the group of trees, approximately 405 feet north of the sign location. Staff reviewed the photographs taken during the flag test to determine the minimum height necessary for visibility as well as to ensure that the existing Wendy's sign on the adjacent property to the south, permitted at a height of 28 feet 4 inches, would not be obstructed. Staff believes that the proposed sign structure for the Temecula Valley Inn would be visible both northbound and southbound at a height of 30 feet and would matchup to other signs in close proximity, the Wendy's sign and the In 'N' Out sign approved at 30 feet in height. Given the proposal to berm the landscaping in this area to a height of three feet, the maximum height of the sign should be 27 feet. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation and the zoning classification for the site is CC (Community Commercial). Hotels and motels 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 proposed land use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed architecture complements buildings that line Jefferson Avenue. The proposed site design contributes to the circulation pattern for the area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed project 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 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the pubtic 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 Droject design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, street improvements have been installed, and the site is within an urban, commercially developed area and can therefore be considered infilL 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 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Initial Study - Blue Page 21 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 22 Exhibits - Blue Page 23 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevations F. Floor Plans G. Landscape Plan H. Flag Test Photographs R:\STA~SpA97.pC 9/10/97 klb 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A'ITACI-IMFNT NO. 1 PC ItP-qOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COIVIMI~SION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AlPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0235 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMEaNT PLAN TEMECULA VALLEY INN) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A THREE STORY, 43,654 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING WITH SWIMMING POOL ON 2.61 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF JEFFERSON AVENUE SOUTH OF THE EXTENSION OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-480-063, -64 AND -065 WHEREAS, Larry Lang filed Planning Application No. PA97-0235 (Conditional Use Permit) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97--0235 (Conditional Use Permit) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA 97-0235 (Conditional Use Permit) on September 15, 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. PA97-0235 (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. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA97-0235 (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:~STAFPRY/~235pA97.PC 9/10/97kro 7 Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 15th day of September, 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 15th day of September, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: A YES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT~235PA97.PC 9/10/97 Idb 9 5. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. 97-0235, or as amended by these conditions. a. A minimum of ninety nine (99) automobile parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. c. Five (5) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. d. Five (5) motorcycle spaces shall be provided. Compact automobile parking spaces shall be clearly marked 'COMPACT CARS ONLY." Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit G (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 elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E (Color Elevations) and Exhibit I (Color and Material Board), or as amended by these conditions. Air conditioning units for individual rooms shall be hidden and screened from public view with metal grills to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be low pressure sodium, and so indicated on building plans. 10. Within seven (7) days after the approval of this project, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Material Board. All labels on the Color and Material Board shall be readable on the photographic prints. 11. The colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit I (Color and Material Board), or as amended by these conditions. Stucco Finish Glass Windows Aluminum Windowframes and Metal Grills ConcreteTile Roofing Color La Habra X-55 French Vanilla (Base 100) Solar Bronze Dark Bronze Anodized Lifetile//634 Tangerine Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:'~STAFFRPTX235pA97.PC 9/10/97 klb 10 22. 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. 23. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 24. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 25. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 26. 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 27. The swimming pool facility must be accessible to the handicapped. 28. Facilities must meet requirements established by the Department of Environmental Health, 29. 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. R:\STAFF~SPA97.PC 9/10/97 klb 14 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0235 (Conditional Use Permit - Temecula Valley Inn) Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit end Development Plan to operate and construct e three sto~/, 43,654 square foot 90-unit hotd for Temecula Valley Inn Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 921480-063, -064, -065 Approval Date: September 15, 1997 Expiration Date: September 15, 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. 97-0235 (Conditional Use Permit) is for the operation, design and construction of a 90-unit hotel with swimming pool. 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. 97-0235 (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. 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:\STAFF~SpA97.PC 9/10/97 General Requirements 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. 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. 53. 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 downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 54. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works R:~STAFFP, PT~35PA97.PC 9/10/97 klb 16 13. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 15. The applicant shall merge all individual lots upon which this project is located. 16. 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. 17. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. 18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. 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. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecuta Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan so that cross checking for erosion and dust control can be performed. c. Trash enclosure and all utility equipment shall be screened with landscaping and shown on the Construction Landscape Plans. d. Plantings shall not interfere with traffic sight lines or utility lines. e. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). f. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 19. 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 20. Any roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 21. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. R:\STAFFRPT~35PA97.1~C 9/10/9'1 klb 13 64. The Developer acknowledges that left turning movements are not restricted at the driveway locations at this time, however the driveway accesses to the site maybe restricted to right in/right out upon completion of an independent access study along the Jefferson Avenue corridor. 65. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 66. 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 67. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 68. 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. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau. 69. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy and use and Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 70. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM for a two(2) hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 71. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 '~" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access ]t:\STAF~SPA97.PC 9/10/9'7 Idb 16 30. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 31. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 32. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 33. The occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be R-1. 34. All building and facilities must comply with applicable Disabled Access Regulations. 35. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 36. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 37. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 38. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 39. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 40. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 41. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 42. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 43. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 44. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 45. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. R:'xSTAFI~,FI~235PA97.PC 9/10/97 klb 15 supervised by the alarm system and a Knox-Box padlock shall be provided for emergency access by firefighting personnel on all exterior security gates. (UFC 902.4) OTHER AGENCIES 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Police Department transmittal dated July 18, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 21, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 83. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 16, 1997, a copy of which is attached. By my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant Name R:',STAFFRPT~35pA97.PC 9/10/97 k~ 20 55. 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. 56. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 57. 58. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 59. 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. Commercial driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 60. The Developer shall design and construct or provide a cash deposit for half width raised landscape median on Jefferson Avenue (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) along property frontage. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 61. Coordinate site design with the proposed Overland Drive Overcrossing (PW95-11) which raises the elevation of Jefferson Avenue from 0 to 4 feet. 62. 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, 63. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. R:\STAFF~PA~7.PC ~/10~/kIl> 17 (Friday JuLy 18, lgg7 3:581a -- From '90~50~ ~' -- Page 87/1811997 1~.: 45 989506z,~O P,b, GE 83 12, Aplxopdate nta~kings for the 'Bus Perking' stall located in the rear d l~e hotwl shall be vistle with an appfoP~lte lign indicating the m~ked ftal is for buses erdy. A~ questions regarding these concl'rdons shall be weircried to the Po~ce Department Clime Prevention Unit |909) 506-2626. Lynn Famine S~, 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building. Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) (BP) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydr~%nts shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) (CO) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) (CO) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side and any rear access. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the name of the business on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) (CO) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) (CO) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10) (CO) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be R:XSTAFFRFI~ZlSPA97.PC 9/10/eflklb 19 July 16, 1997 Ms, Carole Donahoe, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCELS 3, 4, AND 5 OF PARCEL MAP 23830 APNS 921-480-063, 921-480-064, AND 921-480-065 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0235 Dear Ms. Donahoe: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 97/S B: eb 131/FO 12/FCF c: Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Supervisor PAGE 02 City of Temecula Temecula Police Department Judy 18. 1997 Planning Department RE: PA97~)235 TemecuLa Veby Inn (3-story, 90 unit I~tel wllh swimming pool) Case Planne: Carok Doetahoe With respect to the condbs 04 approval fe the above talefenced project, the PoDce Department recommends the foliowin9 'offre safety' measures be provided in accordance with City of Ternscala Ordinances and/or recognized law enforcement safety standards: 1. Apprmam shal ensure all hedges on the ;fropeTty Natsanding the main hotel d~aR be maintained at a height nO Fete titan thity-six (36) inches, 2. Applicant shag ensure ell trees on the property are kept away from the main bm'kJ'mg as to deter roof acceseabillty. 3- All parking lots. driveways, and pedestrian walkways shag be illuminated with a mlnknum maintained one (1) foot-candle of ight at ground loyal, eveehf dispersed, eliminating eg shadows. All exterior lighting fixteens shall be vandal resistant. AID extedor re31Tdng shall be controlled by photocalls, ljrne~s, or nthe roeells to prevent baacDvation by unauthorized persons, 4. AI extede doors ahal have thek own vandal resistant light foelure installed above. The doors shall be iUuminated with a minimum maintained one {1l foot sandie of fight at ground level, evenly dispersed. 5. Any pubGc telephones located on the exterior of the hotel shaft be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a 'Call-Out Only' feature to dote~ loitering, 6- Atl doors, windows, locking mechanisms. hinges, ned other mlscelbnenus hardwee shag be of commercial ot institutional grade. 7. Any graillid painted or marked upon the premises shag be removed or painted over wTthln twenty-foUr (24| hours of being disearNed. 8. The address for the badon chol be psimad on the roof using numbel no leas then two 12l feet Tad. in · odor which contrasts the background. 9. Roof hatches shall be pointed 'International Orange*. 10. DUring constnaction. this project shell be surrounded by fencing not less than height with leckbKJ gates, so es to preclude human intrudes. The hoeing shall remain in place until constmct]cxl is sampleted and ell construction equipment amd storage oontekteeroulldlngs hove been ren~ved from the 11. Upon commencement of centalsatian, a s39n shag be plaoed at the site sirewing the mama of the eppllcent (business rams), 24~our telephone number led point of eastact Desert to he c,ntacted in the event of an emergency. County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: July 21, 1997 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Carde K. Donahoe FROM:/GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA97-0235 The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA97- 0235. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE REQUIRED: a) "Will-serve" letters from the watering and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans for the swimming pool/spa will be submitted. in order to ensure compliance with the California Administrative Code, California Health and Safety Code and the Uniform Building Code. GD:dr (009) 275-8980 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 [X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services [X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics IX] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] ' 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 measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~Tg'nature Printed Name: Carole K. Donahoe Date: August 21, 1997 For: City of Temecula R:',CEQA\235PA97.IES 8/21197 klb 2 ATTACHMENT N0.2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT~35pA97.PC 9/10/97 klb 2 1 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Impact potentially Significant UnJess Mitigation Incorporated 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? c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? c. 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 Akcred direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othcnvise available for public water supplies? S. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d Create objectionable odors? [1 [] [] [3 [1 [] [] [] [] Ix] [x] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [1 Ix] Ix] Ix] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [1 [1 Ix] [] [] [] [~ [] [] i] [~ TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curx,es or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [] [] [] [x] R:\CEQA\235PA97.17cS 8/21/97 klb 4 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 5 10. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setling: Other public agencies ~vhose approval is required: Planning Application No. PA97-0235 (Conditional Use Permit) City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner (909) 694-6400 East side of Jefferson Avenue, south of the extension of Overland Drive Larry Lang 41919 S.kywood Drive Temecula, CA 92591-1877 CC (Community Commercial) CC (Community Commercial) The project consists of the design and construction of a three-story, 43,654 square foot hotel building, swimming pool, associated parking, landscaping, road and drainage improvements on 2.61 acres. The north propen3' is presently vacant but proposed for commercial development (restaurant); the site is bounded by Interstate 15 to the east and Jefferson Avenue to the west and the Adobe Plaza retail commercial center. The south propera.' is already developed with a Wendy's fast food restaurant with drive-through. Riverside County Fire Department, Health Department, and Flood Control; Temecula Police Department; Eastem Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southem Califomia Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. R:\CEQA\235PA97.IF3 8/21/97 klb ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Impa~t Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact NO d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sources ofpotential health hazards? e. Increase lure hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads? 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? e. Storm water drainage? 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? [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [1 [x] Ix] Ix] [x] [x] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [l [] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] Ix] [x] [x] Ix] Ix] [x] [x] R:\CEQA\235PA97.IES 8/21/97klb 6 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Sil~,~Ukant Impact Potentially Signflicant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sig~ficant Impact No 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source l, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b. Conflict with apphcable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 4, p. 17.02-3) d. Afrect agncultural resources or operations (e.g impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-16) c 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 projects? b 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? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-5) b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? g Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) h. Expansive soils? i Unique geologic or physical features? [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [l [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [1 [l [I [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ix] Ix] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [1 11 [] [1 [] [1 [1 [l 1] [] [] [] [] [x] [] Ix] [] Ix] [x] Ix] Ix] Ix] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [] [x] [x] [] [x] [l [x] R:\CEQA\235PA97.1ES 8/21/97 klb 3 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Signifieam Unless Mitigation L~..sThan Signi~cant Impact d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly7 [] [] [] [x] 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None SOURCES 1 City of Ternecula General Plan. 2 City of Temecula General Plan Fmai Environmental Impact Report. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. City of Temecula Development Code R:\CEQA\235PA97.IES 8/21197 klb 8 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES C. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g Rail, waterbome or airtraff~c impacts? 7. 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, ammals and birds)? b Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? c Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. Ariskofaccidentalexplosionorreleaseofhazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? b.Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? potentially Signilicanl Irnpacl [] [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [1 [l [] [] [1 Potetaially Significant Mitigation lncorpora~d [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [1 [] [1 [1 [1 L~.,sThan Significant Impac~ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [] [x] [~ [~ ix] [x-] [x] [x] [x] ix] Ix] ix] [] [~ Ix] Ix] [xl R:\CEQA\235PA97.IE~ 8/21/97 klb 5 The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems 3.b,f, h. The project will have a potentially significant impact (unless mitigation is incorporated) on people involving seismic ground shaking, erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as pan of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, 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 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 though the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.c. The project is potentially located within an area delineated as a liquefaction hazard zone. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. In addition, a soils report shall be required to be submitted prior to the issuance of grading permits. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will be utilized in the development of this site which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from liquefaction. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\235PA97.IES 8/21/97 Idb l0 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significam Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Impact NO c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a, Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-7, Page 5-22) b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21) c Affect historical resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21 ) d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21) e Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] ix] { ] [ ] [1 [1 [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ b Affect existing recreational opportunities? [1 [] [] [~ 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or 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 histon' 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 cnmulatively considerable? CCnmulatively 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). [] [1 [] [x] [1 [] [] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] R:\CEQA\235PA97.IES 8/21/97 Idb 7 4.f,h. 4.g,i. Air Quality 5.a. 5.b. 5.c. 5.d. project, the additional amount of drainage will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project have a less than significant impact with respect to the change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of Foundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not alter the direction or the rote of flow of groundwater or result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (213 rooms) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-10, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in the immediate proximity to the project and it is not anticipated that this type of project would generate pollutants which would be harmful to sensitive receptors. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will cream objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. R:/CEQA\235PA97,IES 8/21/97 klb DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning 1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of CC (Community Commercial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The site has been previously graded and services are within proximity of the project. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.e. The project will no impact in terms of disrupting or dividing the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations. These designations were established though both the General Plan Program and Development Code process to insure the logical and orderly development of the City. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Population and Housing 2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is a commercial project which is consistent with the City 's General Plan Land Use Designation of CC (Community Commercial). Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is within the range of the floor area ratio for Community Commercial, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which could cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. The project may cause some employees to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\235PA97.1E,S 8/21/97 klb 9 The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources 7.a. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are none located anywhere else in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat, There is no wetland habitat on-site or within proximity to the site that would be affected by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7¸e. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy and Mineral Resources 8.a. The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the R:\CEQA\235PA97.IES 8/21/97 Idb 14 3.h The project could potentially have a significant impact on people with respect to expansive soils. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. In addition, a so'~s report shall be required to be submitted prior to the issuance of grading permits. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will be utilized in the development of this site which will serve to mitigate any potentially sigrfificant impacts from expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Water 4.a. The project will have a less than significant impact with respect to changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b. The project will potentially have a significant impact on people or property relative to water related hazards such as flooding. The project site is located outside the 100 year floodway; however; the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision as the City develops. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.c. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. 4.d,e. The project will have a less than significant impact in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body or impact to water currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff 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 R:/CEQA\235PA97,IES 8/21/97 klb 11 pedestrians using the site and ancillary equipment (i.e., air conditioners) used by the tenants of the building, Because the site is separated from immediate residential development and is in an area of similar uses, no significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. lO,b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the developmentJeonstruction phase (short run). 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 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. Furthermore, the Temecula Police Department has detailed "Officer Safety Measures" in their correspondence dated July 18, 1997, and these standards shall be made a requirement of the development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.c. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. School Mitigation fees will be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project to mitigate any incremental impacts associated with this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.d. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of Califomia. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. ll.e The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services~ No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\235PA97.1ES 8121197 Bb 16 Transportation/Circulation 6.a. The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. A Traffic Letter dated June 5, 1997 from RKJK & Associates indicates that the project is projected to generate approximately 910 trip- ends per day with 55 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 55 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. These project impacts are below the five percent (5%) threshold used by the City to determine the need for further analysis. Presently, the intersection of Jefferson and Winchester operate at a Level of Service A (LOS A) or the lowest level of impact. LOS categories range from LOS A (free-flow condition with no congestion) to LOS F (gridlock condition with severe congestion). It is anticipated that in the future, Jefferson at Winchester and Overland will operate at a LOS B. As for the construction of improvements in this area, this project will be not be required to construct any street improvements. The conditions of approval will, however, require the project to pay signal mitigation fees and development impact fees. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. Ihe project design complies with an existing 25' ingress/egress easement that ensures direct access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. Sufficient on-site parking spaces shall be provided for vehicles, buses, motorcycles and bicycles. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will result in a less than significant impact from hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. The project has been designed to provide walkways to adjacent businesses to encourage pedestrian access. Because the project is designed to current City standards, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:/CEQA\235PA971F3 8/21/97 Idb 13 design of the building and signage address aesthetic impacts by providing architectural features, landscaping and accent articulation on all sides of the building. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c, The project will have a potentially significant impact fi-om light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.b,c. The project will not have an impact on historical resources. No historic resources exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area, No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 15.a,b. The project will not have a significant impact or will not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it may result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\235PA97,1ES $/21197 klb 1~ Hazards 9.a. 9.b. 9.d. 9,e. Noise subsequent depiction of these non-renewable natural resources, due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Typically, large quamities of these types of substances are not associated with uses permitted in the Community Commercial Zoning Designation. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from two maintained streets and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10.a. The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise would be generated from automobiles, trucks, R:\CEQA\235PA97.1ES 8/21/97 klb 15 12.b. 12.c. 12.d 12.g. Aesthetics 13.a 13,b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. However, because it is adjacent to State Highway 15, the design of the building and signage was developed with particular concern for the viewshed from the Highway, as well as Jefferson Avenue. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project not have any significant aesthetic effect on the surrounding properties. The project is a commercial use located on a General Plan Circulation Element roadway and backs up to Interstate 15. The site is highly visibly from all sides and the R:\CEQA',235PA97IES 8/21/97 klb 17 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: 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. Planning Department and Department of Public Works. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. Exposure of people seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or expansive soils. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to 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. R:\CEQA\235PA97.IES 8/21/97klb 21 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAPF~SPA97.PC 9/10/9"] ]db 22 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 shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION General Impact: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Mitigation Measure: Payment of the City Public Facilities Development Impact Fee to address road improvements and traffic impacts. Specific Process: As required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Building and Safety. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of the City Public Facilities Development Impact Fee to address road improvements and traffic impacts. As required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Building and Safety. R:\CEQA\235PA97,iES 8/21/97 klb 23 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure or expansive soils. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department WATER General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface ranoff. Methods of controlling ranoff, 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. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. Payment of Area Drainage Plan Fee for flood mitigation. Pay charges to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan Fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:\CEQA\235PA97.1ES 8/21/97 klb 22 AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: The project will potentially have a significant impact through the creation of light and glare. The use of lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance 655. Submit a lighting plan with the submittal of building plans for review and approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department and Building and Safety Department. R:/CEQA\235PA97.IES 8/21/97 klb 25 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES General Impact: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Mitigation Measure: Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Specific Process: Pay $500.00 per gross acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire 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 the City Public Facilities Development Impact Fee to address the need for fire protection. As required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipa Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District. R:\CEQA\235PA97,1ES 8/21/97 klb 24 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFI~PTL235pA97.I,C 9/10/9"/klb :2~3 CITY OF TEMECULA SP EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) F C-'1. _jf~.,~/./ EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0235 (Conditional Use Permit) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 15, 1997 R:\STAFFRPT'x235PA97.PC 9/9/97 klb CITY OF TEMECULA ........ INTEFt~I'A'T~ ~5 L PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0235 (Conditional Use Permit) ~XHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 15, 1997 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRPT~235PA97.PC 9/9/97 RIb CITY OF TEMECULA WEST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION - ENTRY WEST ELEVATION - POOL SOUTH ELEVATION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0235 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 15, 1997 ELEVATIONS CITY OF TEMECULA k CASE NO. - PA97-0235 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXI~IBIT - FI PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 FLOOR PLANS R:XSTAFFRPTX235FA97.PC 9110/97 CITY OF TEMECULA I ILl © A2.2 CASE NO. - PA97-0235 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT - F2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 FLOOR PLANS' R:\STAF~5PA97.PC 9110/97 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA97-0235 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT - F3 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 FLOOR PLANS R:\STAFFRPTX235pA97.PC 9110197 CITY OF TEMECULA INTERSTATE 15 PLANTING LEGEND JEFFERSON AVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0235 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT G LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 15, 1997 R: ',STAFFP, PTX235pA97.PC 9110197 klb EXHIBIT H FLAG TEST PHOTOGRAPHS TEST SITE # 1 Mature trees obscure view to northeast portion of the site. Flag visible only at fence line. Southbound TEST SITE # 2 25' Height 30' Height Southbound ~~,,,,!~., TEST SITE # 2 ?_" :'~ "'~.~j~~~ 35' Height 40' Height 45' Height Southbound 50' Height TEST SITE # 2 25' Height 30' Height Northbound TEST SITE # 2 35' Height 40' Height Northbound TEST SITE # 2 / 45' Height 50' Height Northbound 12'-0" TEMECULA VALLEY INN 'x FRONT MONUMENT 81GN SIDE PLANNING MANAGER ' S REPORT 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 design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, street improvements have been installed, and the site is within an urban, commercially developed area and can therefore be considered infill. The 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. F, nvironmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for this project and 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby adopted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0235 to construct and operate a 90-unit hotel for Temecula Valley Inn on a property totaling 2.61 acres located on the east side of Jefferson Avenue, south of the extension of Overland Drive known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 921-4804363, -064 and -065 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:~STAFFRPT~35PA97.B2 9/10/97 klb 8