Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100798 PC AgendaTemecula, CA 92390 PUBLiC=COMMENTS 3. Dimctor's Heai'ing Update APPROVE the bNenty-saven foot (27') high free-standing s;gn for The Promenade in TemecU~. REVIEW ANDAPPROVE the career mom. mentat!on Iocalsd al ~he ~ulhwest ~rner of '~lln~ster and Marga~la Roads; - Ynez Roads; and PROVIDE DiRECTION !o staff ,"e. galding the preferred option for the cornel monumen'.afic.:; Iocn'e:j ai hie SoutheaS~comerof Winchestel anc Ynez Roads (PA98-0369) APPROVE Ranning Application No. PA98-0371 [Development P an) - &'sign G.J~":{}! ne5 Findin9 of Public Convemence or Necessity for Step Quick Market on Rancho Calibrnia and Lyndie Lane. ................ · ......... ." "~':~tmet, QQdh of E~tem Street ' '" ' -"., . Proposal: To subdivide 2 85 acres into four (4) msident[a~ R~mend'ati~n':": N~mbe~'4, 1998' " .'CaSe~NQ: ' ' . ' Appli.nt: 'B~6 P~ehi~/'~. B~n ~esko. Location: At the no~hea~[ ~mer of Loma Linda and Ppla Proposal: The.desert, ~nstru~ion and operation of a ~nior Cam f~i:iN inch:din~ an 12! b;:jl pa~ ng and landspaping... '"":. :' Environmental Action: Mitiga=.ed Negat~e Deda~tion Plannec Pa~-Andem, A~istant Planner · " Re~reaEonal Vehicle'Briefing' . ..... :, . "'~"* C~MMISSlONE~REPdR~S Ne~t:redUlame~ng: Ocbber 21, 1998, 6:00 PM, Ci~ Council Chinhers, 43200 Business ~rk Ddve, Temecula, California CALL TO ORDER: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate In this meeting, please contact the office of the Co ramunity Devdopment Department at (909) 694-6400. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 7, f998, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Chairman Slaven Reso NextIn Order#98-035 ROLL CALL: Guerriero, Naggar, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to throe (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissionere about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name 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 ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 Minutes from August 5, 1998 ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 Minutes from August 19, 1998 ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 Director's Hearing Update ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 APPROVE the twenty-seven foot (27') high free-standing sign for The Promenade in Temecula. (PA984:)370). ACTION: BRING BACK REVIEW AND APPROVE the corner monumentation located at the southwest corner of Winchester and Margadta Roads; ACTION: BRING BACK REVIEW the three options for the corner monumentation located at the southeast corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads; and ACTION: BRING BACK PROVIDE DIRECTION to staff regarding the preferred option for the corner monumentation located at the Southeast corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads. (PA98-0369) ACTION: BRING BACK 1 R:/WIMBERVG\PLANCOMM'~AGENDAS\I0-7-98 11/5/98 vgw REVIEW Planning Application No. PA98-0371 (Development Plan) - Design Guidelines; and ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 APPROVE Planning Application No. PA98-0371 (Development Plan) - Design Guidelines. ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Stop Quick Market on Rancho California and Lyndie Lane. ACTION: DENIED 4-1, WEBSTER APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 8. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner. Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257) William and Michael Peruchetti South side of Pauba Road, west of Showalter Road, east of La Pdmavera Street, nodh of Estere Street To subdivide 2.85 acres into four (4) residential parcels Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Recommend Continuance to November 4, 1998 CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 4, 1998 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: PA97-0420 (Development Plan) B&B Properties / Mr. Brian Sesko At the nodheast corner of Loma Linda and Pala Roads. The design, construction and operation of a senior care facility including an 121 unit assisted care facility building, an 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical office buildings total 27,700 sq. ~., an alzheimer facility of 7,200 sq. ft., 69 independent care housing units with a detached dubhouse and pool, and associated parking and landscaping. Mitigated Negative Declaration Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Approval APPROVED 5-0 PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT · Recreational Vehicle Briefing COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: October 21, 1998, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 2 R:/WIMBERVG\PLANCOMMXAGENDAS/10-7-98 11/5/98 vgw CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS In compihnce with the Americana with Dinabiitles Act, If you need special assistance to paffidpate la this roesUng, please Contact the office of ~e Community Devdopment Department at (909} 694-6400. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeUng will enable ~e City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that roesUng [28 CFR 35.t 02.35.t04 ADA TIUe Iq TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 7, t998, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Chairman Slaven Guerdem, Nagpar, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster Reso NextIn Order#98-035 A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that am not listed on the Agenda. Speakers am limited to throe (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you am called to speak, please come fortNard and state your name and address. For aJl other agenda items a "Request to Speak" fon~ must be tted with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. Them is a throe (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Minutes from August 5, 1998 and August t9, 1998 3. Olmctor's Healing Update 4. APPROVE the twenty-seven foot (27') high fme-standing sign for The Promenade in Temecula. (PA98-0370) 5. REVIEVV AND APPROVE the comer monumentation located at the southwest comer of Winchester and Margadte Roads; REVIEVV the throe options for the comer monumentation located at the southeast corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads; and PROVIDE DIRECTION to staff regarding the preferred option for the comer monumentation located at the Southeast comer of Winchester and Ynez Roads. (PA98-0369) 6. REVIEW Planning Application No. PA98-0371 (Development Ran) - Design Guidelines; and APPROVE Planning Application No. PA98-0371 (Development Plan) - Design Guidelines. 1 PUBUC HEARING ITEMS 7. Case No: Applicant: Location: Pmposah Planner. Recommendation: Plsnnlng ApplicsUon No. PA95-0079 (TentaUve Parcel Map No. 28257) William and Michael Peruchetti South side of Pauba Road, westofShowalterRcad, east of La Primavem Street, north of Estero Street To subdivide 2.85 acres into four (4) residential parcels Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Recommend Continuance to November 4, 1998 Case No: Applicant: Location: Pmposah Environmental Action: Planner. Recommendation: PA97-0420 (Development Plan) B&B Properties / Mr. Bdan Sesko At the northeast comer of Loma Linda and Pale Roads. The design, construction and operation of a senior cam fadlity including an 121 unit assisted cam facility building, an 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical of Fm buildings total 27,700 sq. ft., an alzheimer fadlity of 7,200 sq. ft., 69 independent care housing units with a detached dubhouse and pool, and asacdated parking and landscaping, Mitigated Negative Dedaraticn Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Approval PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT · Recreational Vehicle Bde~ng COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: October 21, 1998, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecule, California ITEM #2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FROM AUGUST 5, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:03 P.M., on Wednesday, August 5, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Naggar, Soltysiak, Webster, and Vice Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Chairwoman Slaven. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Diaz. Project Planner De Gange, Associate Planner Fagan. Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Aqenda MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Chairwoman Slaven who was absent. 2. Approval of Minutes of June 3, 1998, June 17, 1998, July 1, 1998, and July 15, 1998 Due to the absence of Chairwoman Slaven, approval of the June 3, 1998, and June 17, 1998, minutes was continued to the August 19, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes of July 1, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Chairwoman Slaven who was absent. Commissioner Naggar requested to amend the minutes of July 15, 1998, regarding page 5, paragraph 5, to reflect that he concurred with the comments of Chairwoman Slaven in regard to the Oveday Zone. Due to the absence of Chairwoman Slaven. approval of these minutes was continued to the August 19, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. 3. Director's Hearincl Ul~date No additional comments. Revision of Elevations and Site Plan for the Power Center (Plannincl Al~lolication No. PA97-0118, located on the southwest comer of Winchester and Marqarita Roads) Assistant Planner Fagan presented the staff report (of record) and reviewed the changes to the previously approved site plan, as well as the elevations; advised that the intent of the additional 2' of landscaping was as a result of the developer requesting to delete a row of parking in the back and relocate the buildings closer to Margarita Road; and therefore, staff requested more depth into the landscape setback. In terms of screening of the loading areas, Mr. Fagan reviewed measures to achieve this goal, noting the berm will be retained. By way of the originally approved plans, Mr. David Rhodes of Excel Architects, representing the applicant, reviewed the site plan modifications, advising that this request is before the Planning Commission as a potential site plan; that it is not final because the tenant has not signed the deal; and that it can't be signed without Planning Commission approval; relayed no objection to the additional 2' of landscaping as per staff recommendation, in order to provide dense landscaping along Margadta Road to further screen the truck loading dock; and advised that because of security concerns the applicant would not be desirous of the Planning Department's recommendation to construct a 6' foot high wall, due to security concerns. With regard to Commissioner Naggar's comments concerning parking, Mr. Rhodes clarified that parking was reduced from 287 parking stalls to 268, but that the overall square footage was reduced. Vice Chairman Guerriero reiterated his desire to ensure solid and dense landscaping along Margarita Road, specifically the area between Winchester Road and North General Keamy Road, where the elevations are at street level. Commissioner Soltysiak suggested that staff reviews the relationship of the meandering sidewalk and the berm to ensure the effects of the berm will not be reduced. In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments with regard to landscaping, he recommended the construction of a solid wall if there could be no assurance that the truck loading area would be obscured. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that staff would address his concern. Commissioner Webster commended the proposed changes, citing the revision as an improved proposal, which will break up the mass of the buildings and provide visual interest, recommending that this, or a similar site plan be used as a final plan. Following the review of the proposed revisions, it was the consensus of the Commission to concur with staff recommendation to direct staff to make a determination of substantial conformance with the previously approved Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Elevations for Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Regional Mall); and to direct staff to require the applicant to submit an Administrative Development Plan for the modifications. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5, Plannin.q Application NO, PA98-0046 (Development Plan1 A request for Elevations and Landscape Plan approval for a 126,328 square foot JC Penney Department Store RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. By way of overheads, Associate Planner Fagan presented the staff report (of record) and reviewed the proposed landscape and elevation plans for consistency with the previously approved JC Penney footprint. Mr. David Hoffman, representing the applicant, informed the Commissioners that he was present and available to answer any questions. Mr. Hoffman praised Associate Planner Fagan and staff on a job well done. Vice Chairman Guerriero commended the project. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to dose the public headng; adopt Resolution No. 98-028, approving Planning Application No. PA98-0046 (Development Plan) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-028 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0046, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR A 126,328 SQUARE FOOT JC PENNEY DEPARTMENT STORE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND YNEZ ROADS. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Chairwoman Slaven who was absent. 6. Plannin.q Application No, PA98-0149 (Development Plan) A request to construct two 8,570 square foot industrial buildings on two 0.58 acre parcels. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Project Planner De Gange presented an overview of the staff report (as per' agenda material) addressing access, circulation, architecture and landscaping, noting that staff and the applicant have worked closely together on the site design. In response to Commissioner Webster's comment, Mr. De Gange clarified that the existing and surrounding zoning was incorrectly indicated in the staff report and the actual zoning is Light Industrial. In an effort to resolve the Commissioners' concern with regard to the setback and screening, Mr. James Horecka, representing the applicant, explained the challenges of the project such as, the easements, the small size of the lots, and meeting the development Code criteria; noted that to maximize the building space, a zero foot setback (as zoning permits) was utilized at the front of the buildings, mitigating the negative aesthetic effect through adding landscaping for screening, adding articulation to break up building's mass and enhancing the interest; and noted that the adjacent parcels, will be developed by Mr. Alfred the applicant, as economics permit. Mr. Horecka thanked staff for their input on the project. In response to Commissioner Naggar's request Mr. Horecka advised the applicant would be willing to add landscape buffering on the adjacent property (owned by applicant) on an interim basis. Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that staff will address landscape buffering with the contract landscape architect. With regard to Commissioner Soltysiak's concem, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, elaborated on the drainage easement for flood control purposes, clarifying that the applicant has voluntarily installed a storm drain which has not yet been accepted by the City; noted that the City has received the plans and approved them; and advised that staff would review future impact within the easement in this area. in light of explanations provided, Commissioner Webster noted his satisfaction with the setbacks on this particular project. In response to Commissioner Naggar's querying with regard to the allowable zero foot setback for industrial buildings, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified this provision as an option for maximizing building size due to the constraints of square footage of the buildings and other Development Code criteria (FAR, parking and iandscaping limits,); and concurred with Commissioner Webster's recommendation to add a paragraph, addressing zero foot setbacks, in the Design Guidelines of Industrial Buildings. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98-0149; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0149; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-029 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, amended as follows: 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-029 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0149 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TWO 8,570 SQUARE FOOT BUILDINGS ON ADJACENT 0.58 ACRE PARCELS, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BLACKDEER LOOP, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD (43095 AND 43135 BLACKDEER LOOP), AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.'S 909-030-014 AND 909-030-015 Add additional landscaping to the adjacent lot on an interim basis, as per staffs recommendation The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice reflected unanimous vote approval with the exception of Chairwoman Slaven who was absent. 7. Planninq Al~plication No. PA98-0297 (Zonin~l Amendment, Develoloment Code) Request to amend the City's Development Code, adding Section 17.08.050.S (Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards) to the Development Code. RECOM M ENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. By way of photographs, Associate Planner Fagan presented the staff report (per agenda material) reviewing the proposed recommendations, and clarifying stafl"s rationale based on meetings with the auto dealers. For Commissioner Naggar, with regard to the disparity of existing frontages, Associate Planner Fagan advised that the intent of the amended Code would be to establish conformity on new applications for car dealerships. Further addressing the proposed revisions, Mr. Vincent Didonato, architect representing the auto dealers, clarified unique considerations of auto dealers as to landscaping standards, as follows: that most of the auto dealership business is completed in the parking lot; that shade trees in the display area cause maintenance problems; that that the service parking lot not have the same landscape standards as the customer parking lot. Mr. Didonato commended Mr. Fagan and staff for the great work on the project. 5 Commissioners Webster and Soltysiak suggested deleting Item 2 f., advising that the language with regard to Landscape Design Guidelines adequately addresses the issue of landscaping. With regard to Commissioner Webster's querying of the term "new" in section 1, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that an existing dealership making substantial alterations, with extensive rnodifications, would De required by s~aff to suDmit a new application, and would then De governed by the new proposed standards. For aesthetic purposes, Commissioner Webster recommended that specific language be added to provide a mixture of landscape (shrubs, ground cover and turf) versus landscaping with just grass. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0297 (Zoning Amendment, Development Code); and to adopt Resolution No. 98-030 based upon the Analysis contained in the Staff Report, amended as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-030 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, CAUFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE, MOTORCYCLE AND TRUCK DEALERSHIPS. Add Delete requiring a mixture of landscape (low growing shrubs, ground cover, and turf) language to Item 1. to clarify substantial modifications or remodeling encompasses the application of conformance to the amended Landscape Requirements Section 2 f. (landscaping pertaining to buildings accessible to the public) The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Guerriem and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Chairwoman Slaven who was absent. At 7:45 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting was reconvened at 7:50 P.M. 8. Planning Application No. PA98-0171 (Tentative Tract Map) Request to subdivide 20.83 acres into 141 detached condominium lots, as well as product review for the condominium elevations and project landscaping. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Commissioner Webster notsd that he would be abstaining with regard to this project. By way of overheads, Associate Planner Andera presented a detailed overview of staff report (per agenda material); commended the applicant, Mr. Howard Omdahl, on efforts undertaken to address and mitigate the concerns of the adjacent homeowners; clarified that although staff recommended the addition of a pool or recreation room, the applicant was under the opinion that additional amenities would render Association fees too high. With regard to Commissioner Naggar's comments, Mr. Howard Omdahl, the applicant, clarified that although originally the adjacent homeowners requested a block wall, they seemed to be satisfied with the installation of a new wood fence. For Robin Findl, 21225 Humber Ddve, representing the adjacent homeowners, advised that the homeowners were in agreement with the proposed project dependent on the following changes: that the existing fence would be replaced with a new wood fence; that the pad elevations on the perimeter of the project would not be graded higher than the current grade; that the parks will not have bright lights or barbecues; that there will be added 24" boxed trees between existing homes and proposed condominium projects. In response to Mr. Robert VanKirk's (4176 Humber Drive) specific concems with regard to landscaping bordering his property, Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape architect, stated that the tree landscaping will be implemented as follows: that trees will be clustered to provide a view pocket; that screening for privacy would be insured; that the use of evergreen-type trees (specifially not deciduous trees with a lot of leaves) would be used for easier maintenance of his pool. Mr. VanKirk stated that Mr. Omdahl has been wonderful to work with. For Dr. Urie, owner of Parcel No. 8, it was noted, by Mr. Mecklenburg, that at the toe of the slope a concrete V-ditch storm drain will be installed to handle the flows. Addressing Mr. JOhn M. Mecklenburg's concerns, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that Condition No. 41 (bus bay) will be deleted; clarified that staff would not object to crediting the applicant for the Development Impact Fee with regard to half of the raised landscape median, and adding that as a part of the Conditions. Mr. Mecklenburg thanked staff for their helpfulness on the project, stating that it has been a pleasure working with the City. Further elaborating on the landscaping, Mr. Vincent Didonato, dadfled that 24-inch box trees provide instant impact, but they won't grow to the intensity of a 15-gallon or a 5-gallon tree; therefore, the eventual screening impact of a smaller tree has better impact; and stated that there will be 24-inch box trees planted where the slopes change height. In light of the detailed discussions, Mr. VanKirk and Ms. Final relayed satisfact,on with the proposed plans, and it was the consensus of the Commission that any further input could be addressed to the applicant through staff. Commissioner Naggar expressed enthusiasm over the project, commending the change in the density (allowable 12 units per acre to 7 units per acre). Commissioner Soltysiak commended the project as a tremendous improvement over the last proposed project. With regard to the Commissioner's traffic concerns, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks dadfled that Margarita Road will be widened to 110' wide, with two lanes in each direction with a raised median; that there is adequate stacking distance, in and out of both directions, as well as on Margadta Road; dadfled that there will be signalized crosswalks at the school sites; and advised that the acceleration lane will be addressed while reviewing the median design. Vice Chairman Guerriero requested that the deletion of Condition No. 41 be discussed with the School District. Although not making it a condition of this project, Vice Chairman Guerdero expressed concem with cut-through traffic to the adjoining neighborhood, and requested that traffic studies be completed on Avenue Barca and Humber Drive. Planning Manager Ubnoske suggested to address the general area's traffic impacts, not solely this project. In response to Vice Chairman Guerriero's request that additional amenities be provided, Mr. Mecklenburg advised that his goal was to make the project as affordable as possible. Commissioner Sotysiak voiced support of the project. MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved to close public hearing; adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0171; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No PA98-0171; and adopt Resolution No. 98-031 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, amended as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO PA98-0171 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28850) TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.83 ACRE PARCEL INTO 141 CONDOMINIUM UNITS INCLUDING PRODUCT REVIEW AND PROJECT LANDSCAPING LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN AVENIDA SONOMA AND AVENIDA BARCA AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921- 370-004 Delete Condition No. 41 (conditions set forth by the Department of Public Works) Add adding language to Condition No. 30.a (clarifying the crediting to applicant for development impact fee for half of the raised landscape median) adding language to Condition No. 8 ( to require the construction of a pool or recreation room to the amenities) that there will be no pad elevation changes along the perimeter of the project The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who abstained and Chairwoman Slaven who was absent. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT No additional comments. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION A. Commissioner Naggar clarified, in response to phone calls he had received, and media reports that at the July 15, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, with regard to the recommendation for approval of the Ordinance for Sexually Oriented Businesses, no major changes were proposed; that the proposed Permanent Ordinance will replace the Interim Ordinance which will elapse in October of 1998, and would basically maintain the status quo of those regulations which have been in existence for the past 11/2 years. B. For Vice Chairman Webster. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that the City- wide traffic program had been activated, but that after the bereavement absence of the Traffic Engineer, it would be further addressed. C. Vice Chairman Guerriero requested that staff address contractors working in trenches without shoring. In response to Mr. Guerriero, with regard to re-fencing the Mall property after grading, Deputy Director of Public Parks clarified that open areas, areas with building structures, and all trenches would be fenced. ADJOURNMENT At 8:56 P.M., Vice Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, Auclust 19, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager lo PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FROM AUGUST 19, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, August 19, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, Califomia. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerdero, Naggar, Soltysiak, Webster, and Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: None. Also Present: Senior Planner Hogan, Senior Engineer of Public Works Alegrea, Attorney Cudey, Project Planner Thomsley, Associate Planner Fagan, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. AI31~roval of A.qenda MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Al~l~roval of Minutes - June 3, 1998, June 17, 1998 and July 15, 1998 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the June 3, 1998 Planning Commission minutes as written-. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the excel~tion of Commissioners Naggar and Webster who abstained, MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the June 17, 1998, Planning Commission minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioners Naggar and Webster who abstained. Commissioner Naggar moved to amend the minutes of the July 15, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, regarding page 5, paragraph 5, to reflect that he concurred with the comments of Chairwoman Slaven in regard to the Oveday Zone. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the July 15, 1998, Planning Commission minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice reflected unanimous approval with the exceOtion of Commissioners Soltysiak and Guerriero who abstained. Revision of Entry for the Promenade in Temecula (Plannina Application No. PA97-01181, located south of Winchester Road and east of Ynez Road Advising that during staff review, an inconsistency was noted at Mall Entry No. 2, Associate Planner Fagan presented the staff report (per agenda material). By way of overheads, he displayed the approved and proposed revised entry designs, which has been scaled down from 51' to 19' in width, and from 52' to 35' in height; clarified the applicant's rationale for revising the plan, commenting on the proper'h/line constraints as a result of the Robinsons-May Department Store to the west as well as the grade elevation to the east and advising that the typical half-circle entrance will not fit in the area of discussion. Mr. Tom Gruber of KA, Inc., architecture representing the applicant, presented the proposed revised plans for Entry No. 2, reiterating the building constraints. The general consensus of the Commission was disapproval of the proposed entry, requesting that more of the original design be implemented into the entry. In light of the Commissioners' dissatisfaction with the proposed revision, Mr. Gruber, by way of overheads, presented a second revision plan that reflected an entry design 50' in height. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Mr. Gruber affirmed that the primary construction and development constraints were due to the grade break in elevations, and that it was an oversight to not note this in the early development stages. Because of the location of the proposed entrance (off Ynez Road), Commissioner Guerdero, echoed by Chairwoman Slaven, advised that Entry No. 2 indicated high usage due to this entrance being aligned with the Palm Plaza entrance. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Gruber voiced no objection to reverting to the originally presented lettering "The Promenade in Temecula" versus the currently proposed verbiage "The Promenade." Commissioner Webster commended the revisions and had no objection to either modification plan. After careful review of the revised Entry design for the Promenade in Temecula (Planning Application No. PA97-0118), the general consensus of the Planning Commission was as follows: that the proposed revision was not acceptable; that although the second proposed modification offered more detail and depth, it was disproportionate; that, therefore, the Commission directed staff to work with the architect to create a revised entry design - one more similar to the originally approved entry design but scaled down as necessary but as equally enhanced; that the recommendation is justified by the fact that it will be a heavily utilized ent~. 4. Proposed Elevations for Circuit City. located within the Power Center Associate Planner Fagan presented an overview of the staff report (of record), noted that the proposed modifications are consistent with the approved elevations for the Power Center; clarified that it was staff's intent to retain the elements of the proposed design; and advised that the reason for bringing the revision to the Commission was due to the color change (to red) of the entry. Following Commission discussion, Mr. David Rhodes, from Excel Architects, provided detailed information with regard to the following: material, color, and the view of the entry from Winchester Road. Mr. Rhodes displayed the originally proposed design for Circuit City, highlighting modifications made to the design. Commissioners Soltysiak and Guerriero commended Mr. Rhodes for the great work, noting that his thorough explanation allayed their concerns. Although Chairwoman Slaven and Commissioner Naggar stated that it was their utmost intent to ensure the Power Center would not be encroached upon by other corporate entity designs, thereby, diminishing the identity of the original concept. Due to the location of Cimuit City within the canter and the specific modifications, it was the consensus of the Commission to concur with the proposed elevation plan. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the elevations for Circuit City as proposed and to direct staff to require the applicant to submit an Administrative Development Plan for the development. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Plannin,cl Al~plication No. PA98-0206 {Develol~ment Plan) Request for construction of a 17,000 square foot store forthe sale of books and other merchandise with a religious theme RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. Reviewing the staff report (per agenda material), Project Planner Thomsley addressed accass, site design, architecture, and landscaping, noting that the project will exceed the minimum requirement of 20 percant in the CC zone. Mr. Edward McArdle, representing the applicant, stated that he was available for Commission questions and concerns. Commissioners Naggar and Guen'iero commended the plan as a fine project. MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-026; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0206; and adopt Resolution No. 98-032 approving Plannino Application No. PA98-0206 Dased upon the Analysis anct Finoings contained ~n the Staff Report anci subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0206 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - SOLID ROCK CHRISTIAN SHOPS), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SINGLE STORY, 17,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL STORE FOR THE SALE OF BOOKS AND OTHER MERCHANDISE, ON A 1.55 ACRE LOT, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND SOUTH OF SOLANA WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-750-007 AND 008. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 6. PlanninQ Application NO. PA98-0227 (Development Plan) Request to install a 2,840 square foot Farmer Boys fast food restaurant RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. By way of visuals, Project Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (of record), highlighting access and circulation, site design, architecture, and landscaping, noting that the project will exceed the 20 percent requirement in the SC zone; clarified Commissioner Webster's concern as to cut- through traffic accessed from Winchester Roari at the rear driveway, anvising that the visual line will go all the way through to the next street. With regard to Commissioner Guerriero's recommendation to impose a condition requiring the applicant to install delineators in order to direct in and out traffic flow during the interim period, pdor to the completion of the proposed raised median on Winchester Road, Mr. Richard Green, the applicant, voiced no objection. With regard to landscaping, Commissioner Webster suggested that an additional strip of landscaping be added along the southern portion of the drive-through area. Commissioner Soltysiak clarified that this modification could be implemented by shortening the parking stalls by two feet, and Mr. Green was agreeable to this condition. With regard to traffic and circulation, the Planning Commission requested that review the traffic impact, in general, on Winchester Road. Further addressing this issue, Commissioner Naggar referenced a newspaper article from The Californian that specifically commented on the heavy congestion on Winchester Road and noted that traffic on Winchester Road is a concern of the community. 4 With regard to Condition No. 42 (regarding vehicular movement from Winchester Road), Commissioner Soltysiak requested that staff ensure the design of the median will properly incorporate this Condition, allowing left-in turns only and restricting full movement. Commissioners Guerriero and Naggar praised those individuals involved with this project and the restaurant. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0227; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0227; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-033 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0227 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, amended as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0227 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 2,840 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE, ON A 1.1 ACRES LOT; AND (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD SOUTH OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-270-052. Add to temporarily install delineators until the proposed median on Winchester Road has been completed; to provide additional landscaping at the southern portion of the drive-through, as per the Public Works Department. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice reflected unanimous vote approval. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Senior Planner Hogan introduced newly hired Project Planner Thomas K. Thomsley. Chairwoman Slaven welcomed Mr. Thomsley to the City and commended him on the fine work he has done. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Chairwoman Slaven informed staff and the Planning Commission about an audio-conference training series, specifically related to the Planning Commission, and requested that staff provide copies of this information to the other Planning Commissioners and noted that registration deadline is September 11, 1998. 5 Due to phone calls from the public, Commissioner Guerriero commended the contractors at the Spanos Project at Solana Way and Margadta Road for their efforts with regard to traffic control in the area of discussions. ADJOURNMENT At 7:47 P.M., Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to the September 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 P.M. Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ITEM #3 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPlvtF~NT DEPARTIVIFNT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager October 7, 1998 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for August, 1998. ].)aae Case No. August 6, 1998 PA98-0224 August 6, 1998 PA98-0254 August 6, 1998 PA98-0319 August 20, 1998 PA98-0234 August 20, 1998 PA98-0305 August 27, 1998 pA98-0242 August 27, 1998 PA98-0338 Pnq~osal To design, construct and operate a 4,298 square foot automotive (muffler) business. To reconstruct a 4,538 square foot south portion of the first floor of an existing Wells Fargo Bank Building The construction of single family homes with three floor plans and t~ee alerations on 26 lots in Tract Map 21818 To subdivide a portion of the Winchester Meadows commercial center The design and construction of 13 residential fill-in lots. To operate an equipment aid tool rental facility in conjunction with a hardware store in an existing building To construct 24 single family residential lots with 4 different floorplans known as the Masters Applicm~t Action Mufflers West Approved Russell Rutnan~off Appruved Meadowview Partners, LLC Approved Cahan Properties Approved U.S. Homes Approved Excel Rental Center Approved Temeku Hills Development Parmen, LP Approved R:\DIRHEAR\MFaMO\1998\7-15-98.MEM 9/29198 klb i Planning Director's Agenda items for August, 1998. Date Case No. September 10, 1998 PA98-0328 September 17, 1998 September 17, 1998 PA98-0316 PA98-0351 To construct and operate an unmanned substation, consisting of a 65 foot tall monopole The construction of single family homes with four floor plans and three elevations per floor plan To install a wireless PCS facility consisting of four antennas to mounted onto an existing 80 foot high monopole Applicant Action Cox Communications Approved Continental Homes Approved Cox Communications Approved Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO\I998\7-15-98.MEM 9/29/98 klb 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R:~DIRHEAR\MEMO\1998\7-15-98.MEM 9/29/98 klb 3 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 6, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desu'e to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are caIled 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: EDvironI]lerltal ActIon: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0224 (Development Plan) Mufflers West Via Dos Picos, behind the DMV office. To design, construct and operate a 4,298 square foot automotive (muffler) business. Mitigated Negative Declaration Patty Anders, Assistant Planner John Pourkazemi, Associate Engineer Approval APPROVED Case No: Permit) Applicant: Location: Proposal: Enviromnental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0254 (Minor Conditional Use Russell P. Rumansoff, for the Peggy J. Duncan Trust 41530 Enterprise Circle South, at the southeast comer of Winchester Road and Enterprise Circle South To reconstruct a 4,538 square foot south portion of the first floor of an existing Wells Fargo Bank building, and add a 4,449 square foot expansion of the second floor office area Categorical Exemption Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Approval APPROVED -' C' Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0319 (Development Plan for Product Review) Meadowview Partners, LLC, 11025 Ice Skate Place, San Diego, CA 92125 West side ofDel Rey Rd. at Kawea Rd. The construction of single family homes with three floorplans and tlTree elevations per floorplan on 26 lots within Tract Map No. 21818 This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA due to the previous certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this site. Thomas Thomsley Approval APPROVED ADJOUI~"4MENT ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S REARING REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL ~ CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled 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 1. Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0234 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28939) Cahan Properties Northeasterly of Margarita Road and Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) To subdivide a portion of the Winchester Meadows commercial center Into five (5) lots Negative Declaration Carole Donahoe, AICP Annie Boster-Le Approval APPROVED Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: PA98-0305 (Development Plan - Product Review) U.S. Homes / Bill Hartill North of the intersection of Calle Katefine and Klarer Lane The design and construction of thirteen (13) residential fill-in lots. Two lots are remainder lots of Tract Map 23220 and eleven lots of Tract Map 24232. Categorical Exemption - Class 5 Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Ward Maxwell, Assistant Engineer Approval APPROVED M)JOURNMENT ACTION AGENDA TENIZECULA DZRECTOR'S HEARI3rG REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 1998 1:30 PM TE}EECL~A CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROO~I 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC CONIM2ENTS A total of I5 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 no_.St listed on the Agenda, a pirdc "Request to Speak" form should be filled 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 HZEARrNG Case No: Applicant: Location: ProposaI: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0242 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Excel Rental Center, Lynn LaDenes 28115 Del Rio Rd., Temecula, CA 92590 28115 Del Rio Road (west of Front St.) To operate an equipment and tool rental facili~ in conjunction with a hardware store in an existing building. Categorical Exemption Thomas Thornsley Approval ACTION: APPROVED Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0338 (Product Review) Temelcu Hills Development Parmers, LP On the east side of Temeku Drive, north of Royal Birkdale Drive and south of La Serena Way To construct 24 single family residential lots ~vith four (4) different floorplans within Tract Map No. 23371-I4 and kinown as "The Masters" subdivision within Temelcu Hills Categoncai Exemption, Class 5 Carole K. Donahoe, AiCP Approval ACTION: APPROVED AI) JOLrRNMENT ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DLRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temeeula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item no__t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled 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: Case Engineer: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0328 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Cox Communications PCS, L.P. 26201 Ynez Road, the Magnecomp Building, in front of Gold's Gym To construct and operate an unmanned substation, consisting of a 65-foot tall monopole with top-mounted antennas camouflaged as a simulated palm tree (monopalm), and associated ground mounted BTS equipment within a concrete block, 185 square foot, 7-foot high enclosure. Categorical Exemption, Class lb, Section 15301 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Gerry Alegria APPROVAL ACION: APPROVED ADJOURNMENT ACTION AGENDA TE1VIECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled 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: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0316 (Development Plan for Product Review) Continental Homes, 12230 E1 Carnine Real. Ste 3000, San Diego. DA 92130 Noah side of State Hwy 79 S., east of Meadow Pkwy., and south of De Portola Rd. The construction of single family homes with four floor plans and three elevations per floor plan on 95 lots within Tract Map No. 24182 This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA due to the previous certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this site. Thomas ThornsIcy Approval APPROVED Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planning Application No. PA98-0351 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Cox Communications PCS, L.P. Paloma del Sol Park, 32099 De Portola Road To install a wireless PCS facility consisting of four antennas to be mounted onto an existing 80 foot high ballfield light standard, eight Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: antennas to be mounted onto an 80 foot high monopole similar in appearance to the existing ballfield light standards, six ground- mounted BTS equipment cabinets and one GPS antenna mounted onto the primary power cabinet. Categorical Exemption, Class lb, Section 15301 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Approval CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 1, 1998 ADJOURNMENT ITEM #4 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager October 7, 1998 A Twenty-Seven Foot High Free Standing Sign for The Promenade In Temecula (from the Sign Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0370) Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff Recommends That the Planning Commission: 1. APPROVE the twenty-seven foot (27') high free-standing sign for The Promenade in Temecula. BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA97-0370 (Sign Program) was submitted for The Promenade in Temecula on August 28, 1998. One of the components PA98-0370 is a proposal for a twenty- seven foot (27') high free-standing sign which will be located on Winchester Road. Staff is bringing this before the Planning Commission per the requirements of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. All other signs within the sign program will be approved at a staff level. ANALYSIS According to Section III. C. 1 .I (Development Standards, On-Site Signs) of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan: "no more than one (1) primary entry monument sign with a maximum height of thirty-six feet (36') may be erected pursuant to approval of the Planning Commission." The applicant is proposing a twenty-seven foot (27') high sign, which will be located along Winchester Road (reference the location depicted on Attachment No. 1 .B). The sign contains eight panels which will be used to identify tenants within the Entertainment Plaza" component of the mall. The top of the sign will identify the Promenade Mall, with the mall's logo atop the sign. Colors are consistent with the other signage contained in the overall sign program and will complement the colors used for the mall. The sign as proposed is consistent with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Attachments: Exhibits -Blue Page 2 A. Sign Elevation B. Site Plan - Sign Location R:~staffvpt~370pa98 freestanding sign.doc 09/25/98 ] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBITS R~staff~t~370pa98 freestanding sign.doe 09/25/98 CITY OF TEMECULA OP~*~ - AIR THE PROMENADE- EDWARD'S CINEMA FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE / \ / \ / \/\/\/\~ CASE NO, - PA98-0370 (SIGN FOR THE PROMENADE IN TEMECULA) EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 7, t998 SIGN ELEVATION R stafl~t'370~a98 fleestanding sign,doc 09/25/9~ 3 // CITY OF TEMECULA w · -<'1~ ~T#oAJ / CASE NO. - PA98-0370 (SIGN FOR THE PROMENADE IN TEMECULA) EXHIBIT - B SITE PLAN - SIGN LOCATION PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- OCTOBER 7, 1998 R:staffrpt/370pa98 freestanding sign.doc 09/25/98 4 ITEM #5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager~__________~r October 7, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0369 (Corner Monumentation for Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Regional Mall) Prepared by; Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission: REVIEW AND APPROVE the corner monumentation located at the southwest corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads; REVIEW the three options for the corner monumentation located at the Southeast corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads; and PROVIDE DIRECTION to staff regarding the preferred option for the corner monumentation located at the Southeast corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads. BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA98-0369 (Development Plan - Comer Monumentation) was submitted to the Planning Department on August 28, 1998. Per Condition of Approval No. 29 of Planning Application No. PA97-0118, staff is bdnging the corner monumentation for the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads before the Planning Commission for review and approval. The Applicant was given direction by the Commission to provide something grand at the intersection of Winchester and Ynez Roads, as this intersection is a "gateway" for people arriving into the City from I-15 and points west. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission, at their hearing of July 7, 1998 added the following Condition of Approval to Planning Application No. PA97-0118: "Pdor to the issuance of a building permit for any component of the project, the applicant shall submit detailed landscape and monumentation plans for the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads to the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Said plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission." R:\staffrpt\369pa98.doc 09/25/98 The applicant has submitted one (1) option for the intersection of Winchester and Margadta Roads and three (3) options for the intersection of Winchester and Ynez Roads. These are discussed in detail below. Winchester and Margarita Roads This monumentation will be located on the southwest comer of Winchester and Margarita Roads and will serve to identify the Power Center component of Planning Application No. PA97-0118. Potential space has called out on the monumentation for the name of the center and its logo since the exact name of the center and its logo has not been identified at this time. This option proposes turf, annual color, a thirty-eight foot (38') curved block wall (36" in height) that is flanked on both sides by two 18" high rock/boulder walls. Atop the walls will be two 72" box Quercus Ilex (which flank the logo) and two groupings of three 24" box Lagerstroemia Xfaudei 'Tuscadora'. Staff feels that this design is appropriate for this corner in terms of scale and design. Winchester and Ynez Roads This monumentation will be located on the southeast corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads and will serve to identify the Mall component of Planning Application No. PA97-0118. The applicant has been directed by the Planning Commission to provide a "grand statement" at this corner. Staff has also re-iterated this desire to the applicant on several occasions. All Options are included in Attachment No. 1. Option No. 1 This option is the same design used at the southwest comer of Winchester and Margarita Roads and which is proposed to identify the Power Center. Staff feels that this option does not meet this direction provided by the Planning Commission for this corner. Option No. 2 This option is similar to Option No. I above; however it proposes the following: the thirty-eight foot (38') curved block wall will be raised to a height of 60" and will be flanked on both sides by a 36" high rock/boulder wall that will have a large potted plant atop the wall. The sign and the logo will be the same scale. Option No. 2 provides a grander scale than Option No. 1. Option No. 3 This Option utilizes tuff and annual color similar to the previous two Options. Two 48" high monument walls are proposed, with the logo to be place atop both of these walls. Three 72" box Quercus Ilex are proposed between the two walls. Option No. 3 also provides a grander scale than Option No. 1, Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review these three options and provide direction to staff regarding the preferred Option. R:\staffrpt\369pa98.doc 09/25/98 2 Attachments: Exhibits - Blue Page - 4 A. Sign Perspectives 1, Option No. 1 (Winchester/Margarita & Winchester/Ynez) 2. Option No. 2 (Winchester/Ynez) 3. Option No. 3 (Winchester/Ynez) B. Signs - Plan View 1. Option No. 1 (Winchester/Margarita & Winchester/Ynez) 2. Option No. 2 (Winchester/Ynez) 3. Option No. 3 (Winchester/Ynez) R:\staffrpt\369pa98.doc 09/25/98 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBITS R:\s~ffrpt~369pa98.doc 09/25/98 4 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA98-0369 (SIGN PERSPECTIVES) EXHIBIT - A1 OPTION 1 (WINCHESTER/MARGARITA & WINCHESTER/YNEZ) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 7, 1998 R:\staffrpt\369pa98.doc 09~25/98 5 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA98-0369 (SIGN PERSPECTIVES) EXHIBIT- A2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 7, 1998 OPTION 2 (WINCHESTER/YNEZ) R:\staffrpt\369pa98.doc 09/25/98 6 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA98o0369 (SIGN PERSPECTIVES) EXHIBIT- A3 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 7, 1998 OPTION 3 (WINCHESTER/YNEZ) R:/staffrpt\369pa98.doc 09/25/98 7 CITY OF TEMECULA +-38' (72' BOX) ANNUAL FLOWERS CASE NO. - PA98-0369 (SIGNS - PLAN VIEW) EXHIBIT - B1 OPTION 1 (WINCHESTER/MARGARITA &WINCHESTER/YNEZ) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 7, 1998 R:\smffrpt\369pa98.doc 09/25/98 CITY OF TEMECULA -+38' Box) CASE NO. - PA98-0369 (SIGNS - PLAN VIEW) EXHIBIT- B2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 7, 1998 OPTION 2 (WINCHESTER/YNEZ) R:\sraffrpt\369pa98.doc 09/25/98 9 CITY OF TEMECULA +63' BOX) CASE NO. - PA98-0369 (SIGNS - PLAN VIEVV) EXHIBIT- B3 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 7, 1998 OPTION 3 (WINCHESTER/YNEZ) R:\staffrpt\369pa98.doc 09/25/98 10 ITEM #6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Debbie Ub oske, Planrang Manager October 7, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0371 (Development Plan) - Design Guidelines for Outlot Buildings for the Promenade in Temecula (Planning Application No. PA97- 0118) Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission: REVIEW Planning Application No. PA98-0371 (Development Plan) - Design Guidelines; and APPROVE Planning Application No. PA98-0371 (Development Plan) - Design Guidelines. BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA98-0371 (Development Plan) - Design Guidelines was submitted to the Planning Department on August 28, 1998. Per Condition of Approval No. 18 of Planning Application No. PA97-0118, staff is bringing the Design Guidelines before the Planning Commission for review and approval. In addition, staff would like the Commission to provide any input they may have on the Guidelines at this time. ANALYSIS Requirement for Design Manual The specific location- and design of the outlots were not included in the preliminary approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Regional Mall). Condition of Approval No. 18 was added to Planning Application No. PA97-0118 and reads as follows: "Prior to any application submittal for any of the periphery developments along Winchester and Ynez Roads, Pads A, B, and C, Major Retail F, G, H, and I, the applicant shall submit five (5) copies of a Design Manual for review by the Community Development Department - Planning Division and approval by the Planning Commission. Said Design Manual shall enumerate the design elements which are appropriate for the development." The Condition further states: "The Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve any development which is consistent with the Design Manual without a public hearing. If the Director determines the project is not consistent with the Design Guidelines, or the project would require a Conditional Use Permit (per Specific Plan No. 263), the matter will be set for a Planning Commission hearing and the appropriate full Application Fee will be required." R:\staffrptX37[pa98.doc 09/25/98 Contents of the Design Manual The Design Manual will apply to all perimeter development along Winchester and Ynez Roads (see Exhibit D of the Design Manual). The Design Manuel provides design cdteda for the following areas: Site Design: · Site Access and Traffic Flow · Site Parking · Site Paving · Site Lighting · Site Utilities · Site Grading and Drainage Building Design: · Architectural Design · Entrances · Building Wall Height and Treatment · Screen Walls · Materials and Colors · Screening · Orientation · Prohibited Exterior Elements Sign Criteria: · Freestanding Monument · Building Signs · Traffic Directional Signs · Prohibited Signs and General Specifications · Temporary Signs Landscaping: · Landscape Zones · Plant Material Standards · Maintenance Standards · Guarantees and Warrantees · Irrigation Standards · Construction Document Approvals Staff has reviewed the Design Guidelines for consistency with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and Planning Application No. PA97-0118 and has determined that they are consistent with both of these items. The Design Guidelines are comprehensive, will provide clear direction to potential developers of the outlots and will insure consistent and quality development adjacent to the mall development. Attachments: 1. Design Manual- Blue Page 3 R:xstaffi~tX37 lpa98.doc 09/25/98 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 DESIGN MANUAL R:~sraffi-pt~371pa98.doc 09/25/98 3 7' X .~uO .0 .0 -~ ~: --..~ o--, o--, oa.. o ~-,a Oaa,. Oaa~ o ._ 0 f,J 0 .,.c · = 0 0 - 0 0 2 ,.. ,_ o r, fd · E~,.~ c U ::~ .~ 0 ~ ~ o 0 D w ._u 0 ~ I--.,c I--_c E I-..,c:'- --Z ,.-- E ~0 e.o S0 e-~. -~ o 0 ,o -- -J ~ '8 a}<'~n o~n x c o ~ ,_E c:i, m ~ ,--_ ,__ · *~ '.; ~ = ~ ® o ._ ~o..c o .- E u.,:.,.=_ o'~c~ ,.-~ u o ,~';, -- o ~ .--_._o ,g E v := o c U--- ~ ~ o'~.-c'~_ o ~= E~ >,v E ® o w~--o:y_~ ~'-0 ~ o..,c w"o o o,,-- w__Se~ o o ~.'="o -- -*'= ~- ~ "" "~2~.,~ o o, o o: o o o _ E = Z O< "'0 ~...,~ .i, ITEM #7 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager October 7, 1998 Planning Application No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257) The applicant has requested another continuance to the November 4, 1998 Planning Commission. Subsequent to the Commission hearing of September 2, 1998, staff met with the applicant and outlined requirements and timelines necessary to continue the processing of this case. Staff concurs with the request for continuance to November 4, 1998 in order to provide sufficient time to complete these requirements. lHonday Septew~er 28, 1~98 2:/,3p. -- Page City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula,CA 92589 Attn: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Project Planne~ 9-23-98 I am requesting the case be continued from the October 7, 1998 Planning Commission bearing to the November 4, 1998 Planning Commission agenda. Sincerely, Hr. Hichael Peruchetti ITEM #8 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date: October 7, 1998 Planning Application No. PA97-0420 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0420; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0420; and ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0420 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, public testimony received at the public hearing, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Brian Sesko, B&B Properties REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Markham, Markham & Associates PROPOSAL: The project consists of the design, construction and operation of a senior care facility consisting of a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical office buildings totaling 27,700 square feet, an Alzheimer's facility of 7,200 square feet, 69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool, with associated parking and landscaping on a 22.62 acre site (380,859 total building square footage). LOCATION: The northwest corner of Loma Linda and Pala Roads. EXISTING ZONING: PO (Professional Office) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: LM (Low Medium Residential ) Specific Plan - Wolf Valley PO (Professional Office) LM (Low Medium Residential) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: O (Professional Office) EXISTING LAND USE: Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Existing residential tract development Vacant land Community park and some existing large lot, ranch houses Across Pala Road is an existing residential tract development. PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 22.628 gross acres 20.398 net acres Total Site Area: Building Area: 380,859 square feet Landscape Area: 413,400 square feet Paved Area: 139,000 square feet Parking Required: 348 parking spaces Parking Provided: 400 parking spaces Building Height: Medical Buildings: Alzheimer Clinic: Assisted Care Facility (ACF): Senior Apartments: Independent Care Housing (Condos): Club House: Thirty Seven (37) Feet Eighteen (18) Feet Forty-One (41) Feet Forty-One (41) Feet Twenty-Seven (27) Feet Twenty-Two (22) Feet Unit Sizes: Assisted Care and Apartment Buildings: Studio: 398 square feet Alcove: 500 square feet One Bedroom: 625 square feet Two Bedroom: 925 square feet Attached Condominium: Two Bedroom/1.5 Baths: One car garage: 900 square feet 250 square feet BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA97-0420 was submitted to the Planning Department on December 4, 1997. The application was scheduled for a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on January 15, 1998, and a community workshop was held on January 10, 1998. Staff had several subsequent meetings with the applicant and his team of representatives to work out the issues associated with this project. The project was deemed complete on September 15, 1998. R:\STAFFRPT\420PA97FC..doc 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is for the design, construction and operation of a senior care facility consisting of a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical office buildings totaling 27,700 square feet, an Alzheimers facility of 7,200 square feet, 69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool, with associated parking and landscaping on a 22.62 acre site. The total square footage of building area is 380,859 square feet. The proposed senior care facility is an age-in-place concept development. The theory is that this project could be the final location for the eldedy by providing a variety of housing types to service the needs of seniors as they age. For example, the project provides condominiums for seniors that are completely independent and ambulatory, smaller apartment units once the condominium becomes too large or too much to care for, and assisted care units for seniors that require additional or continual medical assistance. The project also provides on-site medical offices and an Alzheimer clinic to service the needs of the residents so they do not have to travel. The assisted care and apartment buildings offer a variety of units with different sizes. The smallest unit is a studio with a combined living/sleeping area with approximately 398 square feet. The next size is an alcove unit which offers a small, separate bedroom and a living area with approximately 500 square feet. The one bedroom unit offers approximately 620 square feet, and the two bedroom offers 925 square feet. The attached condominium units are all 900 square feet and offer two bedrooms and one and a half baths with a one car garage of two hundred and fifty square feet. Due to the age-in-place concept of this development, this project is intended to service the needs of the elderly on-site. Therefore, the project provides extensive on-site amenities such as walking paths with benches; garden areas; outdoor activity areas such as croquet or lawn bowling; large, park-like landscaped areas, water features and health and personal hygiene services such as barber and beauty salons. There will also be a variety of bus and shuttle services to meet any off- site needs of the residents. ANALYSIS Site Design In terms of the physical site layout, the site has been designed to blend with the existing built environment. The one-story condominium units were specifically located adjacent to the existing single family structures to the north to create an appropriate interface and transition with the existing residential development. The two medical buildings have been located at the corner of Pala and Loma Linda Roads with the Alzheimer clinic behind the medical buildings to create a concentrated area of medical services near the corner. The three-story assisted care building is located further east of the medical buildings, at the corner of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane. The three-story apartment building is located along Temecula Lane between the condominiums and the assisted care facility. The project is providing access points off of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane. The southerly access point, closest to the corner of Pala Road and Loma Linda Road, is restricted to right out only. The other two access }oints are full turning movements. Architecture Staff has worked very closely with the applicant and his architect to ensure a quality, compatible architectural design throughout the site. The three-story assisted care and apartment buildings were designed with a residential character, not an institutional design. The three-story structures and the AIzheimer clinic have been designed to be compatible with the condominium units by utilizing the same building and accent colors, similar roof color and architectural elements such as metal railings and window treatments. The similar colors and architectural elements ensure compatibility and continuity of structures throughout the site. The condominiums were designed as typical, residential, attached condominium units with very neutral colors that blend with the existing residential development to the north. The applicant has done extensive research on the color scheme of senior developments and would like to keep the two color themes for the condominium units as proposed. However, staff feels that additional trim colors should be added to the sixty-nine (69) condominiums to create visual interest and diversity within the condominium portion of the development. Staff feels that the colors and trim colors proposed for the medical, assisted care and apartment buildings are appropriate given the type of uses of these structures, but feels additional trim colors for the residential condominium units are needed. The applicant has designed the three-story assisted care and apartment buildings to be interchangeable due to the uncertainty of the market demands for assisted care and apartment units. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the flexibility to change the unit mix, floor plans and square footages (including the condominium units) as the market dictates. Staff feels that the applicant should be granted this flexibility as Temecula is a new market for senior facilities and the construction will need to be responsive to the market demands. In order for this development to be successful and meet the needs of the community, the developer should be granted the flexibility to respond to the market demands. Moreover, varying the unit mix or changing the number of bedrooms or square footage will not affect the parking or the Development Code as the parking requirements are based on a per unit count, not a bedroom or square footage amount. Staff feels that any changes to the unit mix, floor plans (including square footages and number of bedrooms) or exterior structural changes could be reviewed administratively for approval by the Community Development Director. Staff added condition of approval No. 9 to grant the applicant this flexibility. Compatibility with Surrounding Development As stated above, staff has worked very closely with the applicant throughout the process to ensure appropriate interfacing with the existing development. The architecture is compatible with the surrounding development in terms of overall design, colors, materials, bulk and mass, and proper placement of the structures. In addition, the extensive landscaping around the perimeter and throughout the site creates a natural screening, buffering and large open space areas which softens and enhances the development and surrounding area. Landscaping The proposed project far exceeds the 25% landscaping requirement for the Professional Office zoning classification by providing 46% of the site to be landscaped. Due to the age and mobility of the residents, the applicant has provided numerous on-site recreational facilities which results in a large percentage of landscaped area. The project is providing substantial park-like amenities R:\STAFFRPT\420PA97PC..d~c 4 such as walking trails, benches, shaded seated areas, croquet or lawn bowling areas, garden areas, water features, and a pool and clubhouse to specifically accommodate the residents' recreational needs on-site. The proposed landscaping also includes streetscapes along Pala Road, Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane which will serve as perimeter screening to the project and a buffer to the existing residential development to the north. Traffic The site is located in an area that currently has level of service (LOS) "F" at the intersections of Pala Road and Loma Linda dudng peak traffic hours. The traffic report submitted for this project states that the proposed development will generate approximately 2,214 trips per weekday with 128 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hours and 205 vehicles per hour dudng PM peak hours, an increase of 4.4% to 11%. The recent traffic counts for this intersection warrant installation of a traffic signal with the existing traffic, even if the proposed project is not built. The signal has been included in the 1998/99 Capital Improvement Program. The City has agreed to allow the developer to install the signal with the construction of this project, and to reimburse the developer for the cost of the signal. In addition to the installation of the traffic signal, the project will be conditioned for the following road improvements: to construct the portion of Pala Road adjacent to the subject site to create four through lanes and a left turn lane; to construct the portion of Loma Linda Road adjacent to the subject site to its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary Highway (88 foot right-of-way); to construct the portion of Temecula Lane adjacent to the subject site to its ultimate half-section width as a residential street (60 foot right-of-way); to provide a two-way left turn median on Loma Linda Road for eastbound vehicles desiring to turn left into the project site; to participate on a pro-rata basis of funding city-wide traffic improvements based upon adopted City fees; and to agree not to oppose an assessment district or other funding mechanism to improve the Pala Road corridor street system to solve the ultimate traffic problem. The project will also be conditioned that Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted until all conditioned road improvements are completed. In addition to the above mitigation measures, additional off-site road improvements in the surrounding area will also help to accommodate the existing traffic as well as the incremental increase caused by the proposed project. The existing two-lane Pala Road Bridge will be widened to at least four lanes. The bridge improvements are anticipated to be completed in December 1999. The Highway 79 South interchange is currently being enhanced and construction is scheduled to be completed in March 1999. The future expansion of Highway 79 South between Interstate 15 and Pala Road is currently being designed and funding is being acquired to complete this expansion. This project is scheduled to go to bid in March 1999, and completion of this project is scheduled for the spring of 2000. After mitigation measures are performed, road improvements completed, and public facilities fees paid, the traffic impacts associate with this project are anticipated to be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Drainage A portion of the project site is encompassed by two FEMA 100 year flood plains as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060742 0010 B, dated November 20, 1998. The Temecula Creek flood plain crosses the area about 600 feet north of the site. The Flood Insurance Rate Map provides approximate flood plain limits and 100-year flood plain elevations to which buildings must be elevated. The flood plain approaches Temecula Lane and crosses the property in an east to west direction. The North side of Wolf Valley flood plain is shallow with approximate depths of up to one foot and crosses approximately the southerly 600 feet of the site. This flood plain has an expected 100-year flow of 3,129 CFS at the intersection of Pale Road and Loma Linda Road. The existing grouted rip-rap trapezoidal channel along the north side of Pala Road has a limited capacity. The remaining flows spread out as a shallow flood plain across the right of way of Pala Road. These overland flows approach Loma Linda Road as a relatively shallow and wide flood plain (about 750 feet across). To address and mitigate these potentially significant impacts, the project will be conditioned to provide a detailed hydrology study and grading plans, and receive City approval of the storm drain improvement plans to ensure that the on-site structures will be floodproofed and that tributary storm flows around the site will be conveyed to an acceptable outlet in accordance with the approved hydrology study, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The project will not be permitted to increase flows or divert flows to impact any adjacent properties, It is anticipated that a combination of barrier protection along the site perimeter and elevation of on-site structures will be utilized to protect the proposed development from offsite flows. It may also be necessary to install storm drain facilities or other improvements along Temecula Lane and through the site to protect the project and convey storm flows to an adequate outlet. In addition, it is also expected that coordination of the design with the adjacent landowners and some participation in a joint funding mechanism will be needed to construct the ultimate drainage facilities. Finally, the project will conditioned for the developer to record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District for the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities. Community Workshop The applicant conducted a community workshop on Saturday, January 10, 1998 at the Temecuia Creek Inn. City staff and approximately 30 people from the community attended the meeting. The primary concern of the people who attended the workshop was the increase in traffic. The people who artended the meeting were not in opposition to the actual project per se, but to any increase in traffic in this area because of the severe traffic congestion in the immediate area. In fact, some people who attended the meeting were there in support of the project. However, the consensus was opposition to any increase in traffic. Letters of Opposition/Support from the Community Staff received twelve calls regarding this project, six in opposition and six in favor of the project. Staff also received four letters from members of the community (see Exhibit G), Three letters were in support of the project citing the need for elderly housing and employment opportunities. One letter was received in opposition to the project due to the existing traffic problems for homeowners in the Rainbow Canyon tract. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Professional Office (O). Existing zoning for the site is Professional Office (PO), Senior Care Facilities are permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code, General Plan and Design Guidelines. 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 project is for the design, construction and operation of a senior care facility consisting of a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical office buildings totaling 27,700 square feet, an Alzheimer's facility of 7,200 square feet, 69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool, with associated parking and landscaping on a 22.62 acre site. The total building area is 380,859 square feet. The Initial Study prepared for the project 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 for the 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 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Attachments: 3. 4. 5. PC Resolution - Blue Page 8 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11 Initial Study - Blue Page 24 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 25 Letters of Opposition and Support - Blue Page 26 Exhibits - Blue Page 27 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan 1 and 2 E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98 - PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0420 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SENIOR CARE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 121 UNIT ASSISTED CARE FACILITY BUILDING, A 141 UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 27,700 SQUARE FEET, AN ALZHEIMER'S FACILITY OF 7,200 SQUARE FEET, 69 INDEPENDENT CARE HOUSING UNITS WITH A DETACHED CLUBHOUSE AND POOL (380,859 TOTAL SQUARE FEET) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.62 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOMA LINDA AND PALA ROADS, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.S 950-110-007 AND 950- 110-008. WHEREAS, Brian Sesko of B&B Properties filed Planning Application No. PA97-0420 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0420 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0420 on October 7, 1998, 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. PA97-0420; 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. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA97-0420 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. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project, as proposed and conditioned, 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. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded when construction of the existing structures occurred. 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. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby adopted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0420 for the design, construction and operation of a senior care facility consisting of a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical office buildings totaling 27,700 square feet, an Alzheimer's fadlity of 7,200 square feet, 69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool (total building square footage of 380,859), with associated parking and on a proposed parcel containing 22.62 acres located at the northwest corner of Loma Linda and Pala Roads, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 950-110-007 and 950-110-008, subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1998. Marsha Slaven, Chairperson 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 7th day of October, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT\420PA97PC. do¢ 10 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:'STAFFRPT/420PA97PC dec 1 I EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0420 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design, construction and operation of a senior care facility consisting of a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical office buildings totaling 27,700 square feet, an Alzheimer's facility of 7,200 square feet, 69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool with associated parking and on a proposed parcel containing 22.62 acres located at the northwest corner of Loma Linda and Pala Roads (total building square footage is 380,859). Assessor's Parcel No.: 950-110-007 and 950-110-008 Approval Date: October 7, 1998 Expiration Date: October 7, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The develope~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 appmved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA97-0420 (Development Plan). City shall promptly notify the developedapplicant 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 R I, STA FFR PT/420PA97PC .doc ] 2 pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 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. 5. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions. 6. A minimum of three hundred forty eight (348) parking spaces shall be provided. 7. Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit G (color rendering), or as amended by these conditions. If the assisted care, apartment buildings, or condominium units are converted to a different use as a result of local market demands, any exterior, structural, unit mix, square footage or floor plan changes shall be approved by the Community Development Director. 10. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials (A) Stucco (B) Stucco Reveal (C) Metal Railing (D) Architectural Ornaments (E) Window Frames (F) Fascia Board and Gutters (G) Roof Shingles (H) Doors and Frames (I) Balcony Scuppers (J) Timber Overheads (K) Architectural Columns, Downspouts & Flashing (L) Architectural Window Molding (M) Aluminum Storefronts (N) Aluminum Storefronts (O) Stucco (P) Concrete Roof Tile (Q) Garage Doors (R) Wood Siding Colors Ivory (#57) Cape Cod Grey Cape Cod Grey Grey White Cape Cod Grey Grey Blend White Terracotta Cape Cod Grey Ivory Cape Cod Grey White Dark Bronze Dark Ivory Grey Blend White Ivory Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation). R\STAFFRPT\420PA97PC.dCC 13 12. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a wdtten 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 13. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 14. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 15. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. 16. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a wdtten report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. An application for a comprehensive sign program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. 18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 19. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plants. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 20. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized 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 parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000. 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. R:XSTAFFRPT\420PA97PC..doc 14 21. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Direclor of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning, 22. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 23. 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 24. 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. 25. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 26. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 27, The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be R-I/B/I-1.1/A-3. 28. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 29. Provide demolition permits for all existing buildings that will be removed prior to the demolition (i.e. finaled building permits or Certificate of Occupancy) A. II building and facilities must comply with applicaia[e disabled access regulations. PTovide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994) 31. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of all building. 32. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 33. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 34. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 35. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the xovisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 36. 37. R:\STAFFRPT\420PA97PC..doc 15 38. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 39. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required at time of plan submittal for plan review. 40. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 41. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 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 site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 42. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 43. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 44. All improvement plans, grading plans, and raised landscaped median 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 roytars. 45. The vehicular movement for the proposed southerly driveway on Loma Linda Road is restricted to right in/right out only. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. R:\STAFFRPT\420PA97FC.dOc 16 49. 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 adjacent properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream faciiities caused by project impacts, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 50. Improve the existing channel along Pala Road as necessary to provide adequate capacity to safely convey tributary storm flows to an adequate outlet. The design of this facility shall also include an analysis of the impact to downstream facilities. If the downstream facilities are adversely impacted by this project, upsizing or the installation of additional drainage facilities may be necessary. 51. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 52. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 53. 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. 54. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 55. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone AE and Zone AH. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 56. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Street flowline grades along Loma Linda Road may be reduced to 0.35% minimum over P.C.C. R:\STAFFRPT\420PA97PC.doc 17 57. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401. e, Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. The centerline intersection between Temecula Lane and Loma Linda Road can remain at the current alignment. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 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 Director of the Department of Public Works: Improve Pala Road (Modified Arterial Highway Standard - 110' RAN) to include installation of half-width street improvements allowing for two lanes in each direction with a canter left turn lane, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Improve Loma Linda Road (Secondary Highway Standard - 88' PjVV) to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), Improve Temecula Lane (Local Road Standard - 60' R/W) to include installation of half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Widen the existing bridge at the intersection of Pala Road and Loma Linda Road to accommodate the project related street improvements. The Developer shall design and construct or provide a cash deposit for half width raised landscape median on Pala Road, along property frontage. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Pala Road to include signal interconnect with the signal at the intersection of Pala Road and Highway 79 South. The Developer is eligible for credit for regional signal facilities installed by her/him. R:!STAFFRPT\420PA97]~C. dOC 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Starttiaras ana subject to approval by the D~rector of the Department of Public Works. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works. 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 Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and s~.'-=~ conditions. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. The Developer shall 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. In compliance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the ultimate Pala Road is classified as a Urban Arterial Highway Standard - 134' R/W, therefore the developer shall record a written offer to dedicate additional right of way of 24 feet along property frontage on Pala Road. 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 Ultimate Storm Drain Facility and Pala Road Widening Improvements in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. R:\STAFFRPT\420PA97PC..doc ] 9 Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 67. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, The traffic signal at the intersection of Pala Road and Loma Linda Road shall be installed and operational. Pala Road improvements shall be complete Loma Linda Road improvements shall be complete Temecula Lane improvements shall be complete. 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 69. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 70. All public improvements, including traffic signals, shall be constructed and completed per the appreved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 71. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director 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 Fire Prevention Bureau. 72. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 73. 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-I, The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 3250 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 700 GPM for a total fire flow of 3950 GPM with a 4 hour duration. 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. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903,2, Appendix 74. 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 250 feet apart and shall be located no more R:/STAFFRPT\420PA971~C. {loc 20 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. than 150 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903,4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (UFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Ord 460) 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 construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 tbs GVVV. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have appreved Fire Department vehicle access reads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). 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 reads 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 95o15) Prior to building construction, dead end mad ways and streets in excess of one hundred aria fifty (150) feet which hav£ not been completed shall have -~ turnarcund capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC 902.2.1 ) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. 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 local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency pdor 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 ) 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) R\STAFFRPT\420PA97PC.dcc 21 85. 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 of the building. 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 suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) 86. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. 87. 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) 88. Prior to issuance of Cedi~cate 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 appreved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10) 89. 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 supervised by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4) 90. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4) TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 91. The City's park land dedication requirements will apply to the 141 unit senior apartment building and the 69 independent care housing units (210 units). Said requirements will be satisfied through the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to $90,000 per acre, and pursuant to the following formula: 2.34 x 210 units x .005 = 2.46 acres/park requirement 91. The City is willing to provide up to a 50% credit (1.23 acres) against the park land requirement for pdvate recreational areas provided on site. in order for the City to consider granting said credits, the developer will need to provide the TCSD with a written description of the acreage and amenities proposed for recreational use. Land exceeding a 10% slope, landscaped parkways and street scape do not qualify for park credit, Upon review of this information, the TCSD will determine the amount of the credit available to the developer and the amount of the remaining in-lieu fees. R/STA FFRPT/420PA97PC_ dcc 22 93. The TCSD will consider the developer's request to pay the in-lieu park fees prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. 94. Prior to the installation of arterial street lighting, the developer will be required to comply with the street light dedication process and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the transfer of said street tignting into the appro;:riate TCSD maintenance program. 95. All perimeter parkway landscaping and slope areas shall be privately maintained. OTHER AGENCIES 96 The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Districrs transmittal dated December 24, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 97. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated March 2, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 98. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated December 30, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 99. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control transmittal dated February 2, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 100. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information Center, University of California Riverside transmittal dated January 5, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 101. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Transportation transmittal dated February 2, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 102. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) transmittal dated FeSruary 23, 1998, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I 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\420PA97PC..dOC 23 P,,annho December 24, 1997 Ms. Patty Anders, Assistant Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TEMECULA SENIOR CARE FACILITY APN 950-110-007 and APN 950-110-008 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0420 Dear Ms. Anders: 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 97/SB:BJ:eb329/FEG c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor l~ednesdoy Septeuber 2, 1998 2:131au -- From ,o~96581803' -- Page 21 ~ENT BY:E i W O 9- 2-98; 3:03Pil; ' .' E.,:,,., 3 'I..,,;ip,,IW,.t.,. March 9098~ 03"* 90969464??;# 2 County o ~Riverside Health Sc trices Agency Depm-t:m~ nt of Envi.mmnentaZ Health P,O. Box '7600 Riverside California 92513-7600 RE: T .mecula Independent Care Fatfilly California (APN 950-110-007, 00S or ]'arceb 1 m d 2 of l'M 8856) Supplemental Requirements to Land Division Sewer Service Dee Co~ ~ty: We have evlewed the sewer service needs ofthe subject project at the northwesterly comer of Pals and ] oma Linda Road~ The subject project is reported to be a senior care futility with two medical o ~ice buildings totaling 27,700 sq. it, s Ahheimer facgity of 7,200 sq. t~, 121 unit assisted c xe facility building, 141 unit senior spa, b.ent building,. 69 independent care housing units witk dctachcd clubhouse and pool, and associated parking and landscaping. The subje ,~ project is within EMWD's Improvement District U-8 and Raacho Villages Ass~.~.,c tt Dist.~ No. 159 for sewer service. T;; e £oliow~g comments axe offerect to d~scribe sanitary s wet facilities necessary for service. Sanitary ;ewer ~lle antic~ disposed 1 Wi~tCWat' }ated average daily wastewater flow generated by the subject projea will be tr=ated and y EMWD's T~raccuh Valley Water Reclamation Faclty CFVRWRF). At this time the 'has sufficient capacity to provide treatment and disposal of the subject projet's r flow. subject pr Rancho ~ ~'om Loft gravity sewer pipeline in Loma Linda Road will bc available for connection afthe ~ject's onsite gravity me-wets. Sewer service will not be granted, hov~ver, unti. ~e llagos Auessmemt District No. 159, Pals Road Gravity sewer pipeline,is constructed Linda Road to the intersection of Z. i'vta/' 79 Sotlilt with Pala RoatL An onsite ~ublio gravity scwcr pipelinc shall be constructed to senm every privately own lot, as they may ~ist. Ifffie entire site is maintained under one ownership, then' onsite private sewer MaU to: poet O~ce Box S,~00 $tn ]~r.l~to, C~l;fornh 92}814500 * Tde~one (909) ~25-7676 * Pa (9~) 929-02S7 M~a Office 2045 ~ ~ J~ato ~ue. ~ ]~nto C~e S~ce I ~n,~ ~: 440 E. O~ud Avenue. ~tionl ~ M~' m~ce ~r~ 2270 ~bJ¢ ~id, P~b, G 92571 T~ho~ hdednesday Septeffber_~2.1~8 2:13pm -- From '~96581803' -- Page 3~ SENT BY:E i W D g- 2-96; 3:O3PN; 9096, ~03"' 90969464?'/;# 3 system' ,in be nee~sa~. The ava lable capacity ofEMWD's ssnitaty sewer system is continually changing due to the occurre ee of development within the District's service ar~a and pxograms of system improye nentt AS such, sttvi~ to the subject project is depeadent on the ~-ning of the subject project, '.he status of EMWD's permit to operate, and the sen, ice agreement with the District. Should I ~erc bc any qucs~on, picaso contaa this office at (909) 766-1810, extension 4,167. SiJlP-**~q~ I Warrcn L Back Custonu r Service Depmlme~ WAS/ rarkham & Associates creation: N'Ra Miller '[750 W'u~hester Road, SIc. L ~mecuia, California 92590 1'O: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: DECEMBER 30, I997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Patly Anders FROM: }REGOR DELLENBACH. Environmental Health Specialist IV RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0420 The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0420 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b t Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule. a finish schedule. and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the Califbrnia Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022. c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2). · Waste reduction management. 3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). Page 2 PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE REQUIRED: d) "Will-serve" letters from the watering and sewering agencies. e/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 (909) 275-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. cc: Doug Thompson DAVID P. ZAPPE G~neraI Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Plannin Department ~,3200 ~usiness Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 , tte.tio.: P TT7 AMbErS Ladies and Gentlemen: 1995 MARKET STREET ' RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 7829.1 Re: e 7-Dqz, O The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of spec ~c nterest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and draina e fac tes which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area ~raina9e Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature s prov ded. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the followin9 checked comments do not in any wa constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project w~th respect to flood hazard, public healt~ and safety or any other such issue: V//This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This pro ect involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrabve fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facfi~ties on written rec~uest of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Disthct standards, and Disthct plan check and inspection wfil be required for District acceptance, Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project is located within the limits of the Districrs Area h I Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees sou d be paid by cashier's check or money order only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of building or grading bermits, wn~cnever comes ;,rst. Fees to De papa snoulo De a[ the ra[e $n effect at the time or ~ssuance of the ac[uat permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other ~r~al approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. if this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require ~{~e applicant to rovide att studies calculations, plans and other ~nformation required to meet FEMA requirements and should 8urther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, STUART E, MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: Z. -/--' fi ~ CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM RFVERSIDE Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW DATE: ~ck~t,~.~-y S, Iqq~ RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cuimral resources: The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended. Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study is recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified one or more cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. __ A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. a qualified archaeologist evaluates the fmds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of H isto~c Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989. Phase I -. Phase I1 Phase III Phase IV Records search and field survey Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.] Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.] Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS: If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Inlbrmation Center STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATIUN AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, 464 W. 4th STREET, 6th FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 PETE WILSON, Governor February 2, !99P 08-Riv-79-19.07 Ms. Patty Anders Assistant Planner City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Ms. Anders: PA97-0420 We have reviewed the above-referenced documents and request consideration of the following comment: (909) Caltrans supports economic growth and orderly land use development; however, new development must pay its fair share for upgrading infrastructure facilities needed to serve the development. This infrastructure includes State highways and freeways. It also includes both direct and cumulative traffic impacts. All jurisdictions should take measures available to fund improvements and reduce total nrlps generated. In view of the fact there are limited funds available for infrastructure improvements, we recommend the City of Temecula take the lead in developing a fair-share mechanism in which each project can fund improvements for the decrease in Level of Service (LOS) for which it is responsible. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Grant at 383-4655 or FAX (909} 383-7934. Sincerely, CECIL FJLRSTENSEN, Acting Chief Office of Riverside County Transportation Planning :1 February 23, 1998 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street PO. Bo× 59968 Riverside. CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684 1007 Ms. Patty Anders City of Temecula Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Tcmecula, CA 92590 RE: PA97-0420 Dear Vivian: We do not currently provide service to the site memioned above but based on the size of the project and our own plans for future growth, we are requesting that a bus turnout or a pad for a bus stop be incorporated into the general design. To ensure accessibility to the available transit services for residents and visitors of this development, RTA would like to suggest that the following transit amenities should be provided by the owner/applicant to mitigate transportation impacts. Transit stop located at: Loma Linda Rd nearside Pala Rd. adjacent to Medical Bldg. A A bus turnout, should be provided at the above stop location, if determined by City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on roadway cross section, travel volumes and speeds. I can provide an exact location for the turnout/bus stop as the project progresses. We appreciate the opportunity to review this project. Please contact me or Fina Clemente at (909)684-0850 shou!~ you requite additional ~ntOrmation or specifications. Sincerely, . Stephen C. Oller Deputy General Manager SO/jsc PDEV#162 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R\STAFFRPT\420PA97PCdoc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist Project Tide: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is re~luired: Planning Application No. PA97-0420 (Developmere Plan) City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Patty Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400 The northwest corner of Loma Linda and Pala Roads. Brain Sesko B & B Properties 424 Stratford Court, B-10 Del Mar, CA 92014 PO (Professional Office ) PO (Professional Office ) The project consists of the design, construction and operation of a senior care facility consisting of a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical office buildings totaling 27,700 sq. ft., an Alzheimer's facility of 7,200 sq. ft. , 69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool, with associated parking and landscaping on a 22.62 acre site. The project is proposed on two legal parcels that will be merged to accommodate the proposed development. There are a few dilapidated buildings on the subject parcels. The area to the north is an existing residential development, to the south is vacant land, to the east is a community park and some existing large lot, ranch houses. To the west, across Paa Road is an existing residential development. Riverside County Fire Department, Health Department; Temecula Police Department; Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company and Riverside Transit Agency. R:\PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc 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 [ ] Population and Housing [X] Geologic Problems [X] Water [ ] Air Quality [X] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources DETERMINATION [X ] Hazards [ ] Noise [X] Public Services [X] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. Sig:mmrc Printed Name: Date: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner September 10, 1998 For: City of Temecula R:~LANNING\420pa97ENV..doc 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Significant Potentially Unless Less T~an Significant Mitigatmn Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact lmpacl a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 4, p. 17.02-3) [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. trnpacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-16) [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] e. Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement ofan established community (including low-income or minority community)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVLRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 a,b The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and has a Land Use Designation of PO (Professional Office). The proposed project is a senior facility which includes a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical office buildings totaling 27,700 sq. ft., an Alzheime~ facility of 7,200 sq. ft., 69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool, with associated parking and landscaping on a 22.62 acre site. The proposed project is apermitted use under the PO zoning classification. The overall 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 oppormmty 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. 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. The proposed senior facility will not be incompatible with existing land uses, and will not be considered incompatible or impact the existing single family developments, neighborhood parks or the limited neighborhood retail and commercial uses in the vicinity. The project has been designed so that the one-story condommium umts are located at the western portion of the site, adjacent to the existing, detached, single family residential development. The three story aparanent and assisted care buildings are located near the center and eastern portion of the site, away from the adjacent residential development. The medical buildings are clustered around the southeast corner of Pala and Loma Linda Roads, also away from the adjacent residential tract to the west of the subject property. The single story condommiums will serve as a good transitional product between the existing tract development to the west and the proposed three story apartment and assisted care structures. The project has been designed to comply with the City-Wide Design Guidelines, the Development Code and General Plan. The architectoral style was designed to be residential in nature and to be compatible with the surrounding residential developments. With the proposed site layout, architectural style and interfacing, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc ld, e The project will not affect agricultural resources or disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). The project is proposed on two parcels with an existing residential use and some accessory structures on site. However, there are no established residential communities (including low-income or minority communities) being disrupted or divided. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 2.3 2.b Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The proposed project is designed to accommodate senior citizens within Temecula and the surrounding areas. Although the project may provide housing for seniors currently living outside of Temecnia, it is anticipated that the project will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections due to the limited number of units being approved with this development application. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of PO (Professional Office) and is not exceeding lot coverage or floor area ratio requirements; therefore. no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent w~th the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of PO (Professional Office ~ and will pnrnaniy ser,,-e me housing and medical needs for people in the mediate and surrounding areas. The project may cause some people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housmg as the site does not have existing housing. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-I, Page 7-5) [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [xl [ ] Ix] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] R:\PLANNINGX420pa97ENV..dOC d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ } [ ] ix] f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, Fading or fill? [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] g. Subsidence ofthe land? (Sourcel, Figure7-2, Page7-8) [ ] IX] [ ] [ ] h. Expansive soils? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] i. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3.a,b The project is located in Southem California, in an area which is seismically active. The proposed development may have a sigmficant impact on people involving fault rapture, and seismic Found shaking as the site lies within Ground Shaking Zone II which is expected to vary from moderate to intense in the event of an earthquake, depending on the composition of underlying geologic formations, the earthquake's epicenter and the order of magnitude of the seismic event. A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation noted that Uniform Building Code (UBC) Seismic Zone 4 standards would apply to construction at this site. Preliminary soils reports am required and reviewed as part of the application submittal, and recommendations contained in these reports are used to determine appropriate conditions of approval for the project. The soils repom will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant unpacts from seismic ground shaking or erosion. 3 .c .d The project will not expose people to ground failure; including liquefaction; a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard; subsidence or expansive soils. The area is located in an area that the General Plan identified as having the potential for liquefaction. However, a Geotechnical Investigation Report that was submitted for the project indicated that the site has a very low potential for liquefaction and expansive soils. hi addition, no unique geologic or physical features or upstream water impoundments have been identified that could impact the site. As a result, 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 know~ landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3 .f,h The proposed development may have an impact on people involving changes in topography or unstable soil conditions fi-om expansive soils, excavation, grading or fill. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. In addition, a Geotechnical report was submitted and reviewed for the above conditions. Recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate construction practices and recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from grading, expansive soils, excavation, grading or ~l prior to the issuance ofpenmts. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with UBC and the approved Geoteclmical report which analyzed soil conditions and qualities. 3.i The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. The site lacks any notable existing sloped areas. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:'PLANNING\420pa97ENV,.doc 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] b. Exposure ofpeople or property to water related hazards such as flooding? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperarare, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? [ 3 [ ] ix] { ] d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] g. Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroundwater? [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] h. Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [ ] [ ] iX] i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies7 [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.a The subject site has limited stxuctures on site (one single family residential and dilapidated accessory s~'uctures). Some changes to absorption rates, drainage panems and the rate and mount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface mnoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated thxough site design and improvements. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle nmoff which is created. In addition, the project will be conditioned to participate in an assessment district or other funding mechanism to improve the drainage system in the mediate area. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b The project could have a significant impact to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding since a portion of the project site is encompassed by two FEMA 100 year flood plains as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060742 0010 B, dated November 20, 1996. The Temecula Creek flood plain crosses the area about 600 feet north of the site. The Flood Insurance R~te Map provides approxhmate flood plain limits and 100-year flood plain elevations to which buildings must be elevated. The flood plain approaches Temecula Lane and crosses the property in an east to west direction. The North Side of Wolf Valley flood plain is shallow with approximate depths of up to one foot. The North Side of Wolf Valley flood plain crosses approxmiately the southerly 600 feet of the site. This flood plain has an expected 100-year flow of 3,129 CFS at the intersection of Pals Road and Loma Linda Road. The existing grouted tip-rap trapezoidal channel along R:\PLANNING\420pa97ENV..dOC the north side of Pala Road has a limited capacity. The remaining flows spread out as a shallow flood phin across the right of way of Pala Road. These overland flows approach Loma Lmda Road as a rehtively shallow and wide flood plato (about 750 feet across). To address these potentially significant impacts, it is anticipated that a combmarion of barrier protection along the sire perimeter and elevation of onsire smactures will be utilized to protect the proposed development from offsite flows. In addition, it is also expected that coordination of the design with the adjacent landowners and some participation in a joint funding mechanism will be needed to construct the ulnmate drainage facilities. To mitigate these potentially sigmficant impacts to a level of insignificance, the project will be conditioned to provide a detailed hydrology study and grading plans, and receive City approval of the storm drain improvement plans to ensure that the on-site structures will be floodproofed and that tributar7 storm flows around the site will be conveyed to an acceptable oufiet m accordance with the approved hydrology study, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The project will not be permitted to increase flows or divert flows to impact any adjacent properties. It may also be necessary to install storm drain facilities or other improvements along Temecula Lane and through the site to protect the project and convey storm flows to an adequate outlet. Finally, the project will conditioned for the developer to record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District for the consreaction of the ulnmate storm drain facilities. With the conditions of approval and mitigation measures, 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 CNPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Cont7ol 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. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4. d.e The project will have a tess than significant impact in a change m the amount of surface water m any water body or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface rtmoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered Lrnpervious by conslruction of buildings, accompanying harriscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into the City's drainage system will not be considered significant. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4. f-h The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through mterceprion of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groandwater 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, construcUon on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. According to reformation 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 tmmediate proximity to the project. Water service will 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. R:\PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc 5. MR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollntants? [ ] c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? [ ] d. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] Ix] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL I/VI~ACTS 5.a The project is not expected to violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project is below the threshold (612 units) for potentially significant air quality impact established by South Coast Air Quahty Management District for retirement community projects (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There axe no significant pollutants nor sensihve recepturs in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.c The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The single- story, 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. 5.d The project may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the project, or, if the biohazaxdous materlai is not properiy stored or removed from the site in accoro. ance wltn the Medical Waste Management Act pursuant to the Health and Safety Code. However, this project will be conditioned to obtain all necessary penTtits and clearances from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health which enforces the state regulations in the handling, storage, removal, etc. ofbiohazaxdous materials. The construction impacts will be of short duration, and the biohazardous materials will be regulated by the Department of Environmental Health; therefore, no other odors are anticipated as a result of this project. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] Ix] [1 [] b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [] (] (x] [1 c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] R:~PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site7 [ ] [ ] [ e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [ ] [ I [ ] Ix] g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic irapacts? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6.a The site is located in an area that currently has level of service (LOS) "F" at the intersections of Pala Road and Loma Linda during peak traffic hours. The traffic report submitted for this project states that the proposed development will generate approximately 2,214 trips per weekday with 128 vehicles per hour dunng the AM peak hours and 205 vehicles per hour during PM peak hours, or 4.4% to 11%. The recent traffic counts for this intersection do warrant installation of a traffic signal--even fithis project is not built. The signal has been included in the 1998/99 Capital Improvement Program. The City has agreed to allow the developer to install the signal with the construction of this project, and to reimburse the developer for the cost of the signal. In addition to the installation of the traffic signal, the project will be conditioned for the following road improvements: to construct the portion of Pala Road adjacent to the subject site to create four through lanes and a left tam lane; to construct the portion of Loma Linda Road adjacent to the subject site to its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary Highway (88 foot right-of-way); to construct the portion of Temecula Lane adjacent to the subject site to its ulnmate half-section width as a residential street (60 foot right-of-way); to provide a two-way left mm median on Loma Linda Road for eastbound vehicles desiring to turn left into the project site; to participate on a pro-rata basis of funding city-wide traffic improvements based upon adopted City fees; and to agree not to oppose an assessment district or other funding mechanism to improve the Pala Road corridor street system to solve the ultimate traffic problem. The project will also be cunditioned that Certificate of Occupancy wilI not be granted until all conditioned road improvements are completed. In addition to the above mitigation measures, additional off-site road improvements in the surrounding area will also help to accommodate the existing traffic as well as the incremental increase caused by the proposed project. The existing two-lane Pala Road Bridge will be widened to at least four lanes. The bridge improvements are anticipated to be completed in December 1999. Highway 79 South interchange is currently being enhanced and construction is scheduled to be completed in Mamh 1999. The future expansion of Highway 79 South between Interstate 15 and Pala Road is curren~y being designed and funding is being acquired to complete this expansion. This project is scheduled to go to bid in March 1999 and completion of this project is scheduled for the spring of 2000. Aftermitigati~nmeasuresareperf~rmed~r~adimpr~vementsc~mp~eted~andpub~icfaci~itiesfeespaid~ the traffic impacts associate with this project are anticipated to be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 6.b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not interfere with access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project provides sufficient parking on-site. The project is providing parking that exceeds the required number of parking spaces for each use type. Overall, the on-site parking exceeds the Development Code parking requirements. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e. The project will not result hi hazards or barriers for pedestriaus or bicyclists. The project is designed to current City standards requiring sidewalks and bicycle lanes pursuant to General Plan Road standards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project will not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project will be conditioned to provide a bus ramout for a bus stop as requested by Riverside Transit Agency letter dated February R:\PLANNING\420pa97ENV..dOC 23, 1998. Therefore, the project will be supporting alternative methods of transportation. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. The project will not result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts. Rail, waterborne or air traffic do not exist in the mediate proximity of the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact lnco~orated Impact Impact a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, and anmmls and birds)? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? [ ] [ ] [ I ix] c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, fiparian and vernal pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] e. Wildlife dispersal or migration coredors? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] 7a. 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. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent m the site and there are no indications that any sensitive species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a burner to the migration of ammals or deteriorate existing habitat since it is not in a location m connect existing habitat areas. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area and Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts of urbanization on the species. No significant mapacts 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 m the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere m the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.c The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. d The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e The project will not resuh in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration coredors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corndot. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~PLANNING\420pa97ENV..dOC ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Irr~act Impact a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertang to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No penrum will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No sigmficant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8 .b The project will result in a less than sigm~cant 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 nomenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources, due to the small scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. 8.c The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State is located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles, chemical or radiation)? [1 [x] [1 [] b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [1 [] [] ix] c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sources ofpotentialhealth hazards? [] [] [1 [x] R:\PLANNING\420pa97ENV,.dOC e. Increase fire hazard in areas with figable brush, grass, or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 9.a The two medical office buildings and assisted care facilities will generate small mounts ofbiohazardous materials. However, the handling, storage, and removal of such materials is regulated by the Riverside County Department of Enviromental Health which ensures compliance with the Medical Waste Management Act of the Health and Safety Code. The Depam~ent of Environmental Health stated the applicant will be required to obtain a clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch for the following: Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinances #615.3, Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance 651.2) and Waste Reduction Management. The project will be cunditioned to obtain all necessary penruts and/or clearances from all pertinent local and state regulating agencies. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c,d,e The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard, nor expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards, nor increase fixe hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass or trees. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check and occupancy stages of development. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these laws. No health hazards are known to be in proximity to the project site. The project site is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco~orated Impact Impact increase in exi~ung noise levels? [ ] [ ] iX] [ ] b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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. This type of senior facility may result in more frequent exposure to sirens; however, the overall increase in siren noise is extremely incremental and therefore considered to be a less than significant impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. 10.b. The project will result in some short term severe noise levels. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the constructinn phase of development. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ clBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady eight-hour exposure. However, the source of such noise at the project site will be of short duration, and not considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to severe noise (reference 10.a above). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PI ANNING\420pa97ENVdoc 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: Potentially SIgnificant Potenually Unless Less Than Significant Mi~gation SIgnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Police protection? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] c. Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] e. Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 11 .a,b The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or resuh in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, the project is required to pay development impact fees which are utilized to help pay for these services. No additional personnel or equipment will be required as a result of this project. The project will pay its fair share to provide these services through the required development impact fees; therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.c. The project will not have a significant impacts on school facilities; however, in accordance with State Laws, the developer will contribute his/her fair share of development impact fees earmarked for the school dis~ict. After mitigation is performed and development impact fees paid, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.d. The project will have a less than significant impact upon maintenance of public facilities, including roads. FandUng for the maintenance of roads is derived from the State of California gasoline tax, which is disu-ibuted to the City of Temecula. impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of the project will be incremental, and not considered significant. The gasoline tax is sufficient to provide for maintenance expenses. In addition, the applicant shall pay applicable public facilities fees. No significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. ll.e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. The project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area. The effect upon governmental services is expected as part of the binld-out of the area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less TItan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Power or natural gas? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] R:/PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc b. Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. Local or regional water treaunent or distribution cities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Storm water drainage? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] f. Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] g. Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [XI DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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 m proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. The existing facilities in place can accommodate the additional meremental increase due to this project; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.d The project will not result m a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental irapact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EIvlWD 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 site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e The project will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the existing storm water drainage facilities. The existing grouted rip-rap trapezoidal channel along the north side of Pala Road has a limited capacity. The remaining flows spread out as a shallow flood plain across the entire road width of Pala Road. These flows approach Loma Linda Road as a 750 foot wide flood plain. The project will not be permitred to increase flows or divert flows to impact any adjacent properties. It may also be necessary to install storm drain facilities or other improvements along Temecula Lane and through the site to protect the project and convey storm flows to an adequate outlet. Due to a signi~caiat portion of the site being within a flood plain, the amount of CFS that crosses the site, and the limited capacity of the existing storm drainage facilities, the proposed project will be conditioned to provide a hydrology study and grading plans, and submit storm drain n'nprovement plans to ensure that tributary storm flows ar~undthesitewi~~bec~nveyedt~anacceptab~e~nt~etpri~rt~theis~uan~e~fagradingpermit. The project will also be conditioned for the developer to record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District for the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities for the Pala Road corridor area. Additional discussion of this issue is provided under Section 4.b. With the conditions of approval, mitigation measures and payment of development impact fees described in this Initial Environmental Study, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Rr\PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc 12 .f. The project 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 addressed through participation in a Source Reduction and Recycling Program implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 12. g The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial aberations to local or regional water supplies. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] c. Create light or glare? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 13 .a The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The site is currently vacant without any outstanding aesthetic qualities worth retaining. A landscape plan proposes a variety of trees shrubs and ground cover to enhance the site. The proposed landscaping also provides park-like settings, shade and erosion control. The proposed trees, shrubs and bushes are typical of the urban landscape in Temecula and will provide a visual link with the established residenhal uses. The design review process ensured the proposed structures were compatible with the existing development in terms of colors, materials, bulk and mass and overall architectural design. As proposed, the design is compatible with the existing development; therefore no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/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). With this condition hi place, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated lmpact Impact a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-7, Page 5-22) [ ] [ ] Ix] [] b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21) [ ] [ ] ix] [] R:\PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc c. Affect historical resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21) [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values (Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21) [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 14.a,b The project location was sent to and reviewed by Eastern Information Center at the University of California Riverside, Department of Anthropology. UCR reports that the project area has not been previously su~eyed for cultural resources and is located in a region known to contain cultural resources. Therefore, the project will be conditinned to have a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist on site during grading. As conditinned, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.c No historic resources exist at the site or are proximate to the site. The project will not have an impact on historical resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result ofthis project. 14.d The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values. 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 sigmficant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco~orated Impact Impact a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] b. Affect exisimg recreational opportunities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 15.a,b The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Although the subject site is located adjacent to the park, due to the age, health and mobility of the residents, it is anticipated that the impact to the park will be minimal. Moreover, the proposed senior facility is designed to provide substantial park-like amenities such as walking trails, benches, a croquet or lawn bowling area, garden areas, water features, a pool and clubhouse to specifically accommodate the residents recreationalneedson-site. Due to the large number ofrecreational amenifies provided for the residents on-site, it is determmed that the proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or adversely affect the existing recreational resources or opportunities. R:~PLANNING\420pa97ENV..dOc 16. 17. None. 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 ofresuict the range of a rare or endangered plant or anamal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califorma history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project is considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES. [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. City of Temecula Development Code [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] R:~PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R: ',STAFFRPT\420PA97PC. ,doc 25 Mitigation Monitoring Program PlSnning Application No. PA97-0420 (Development plan) Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Depa~ tment. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Departmere of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:\PLANNINGX420pa97ENV..doe General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Wltter General Impact: M itig ation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: 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. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface ranoff. The project will be conditioned to control runoff from the site and through the site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances and storm drainage facilities. The applicant shall submit a 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: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in changes to absorption rams. arainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. The project is conditioned for the developer to record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District for the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:XPLANNING\420pa97ENY. doc General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. The project will be conditioned to provide a hyclrology study and submit storm cdrain improvement plans to ensure that the on-site streetores will be floodproofed and that tributary storm flows around the site will be conveyed to an acceptable outlet. The applicant shall submit a 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 result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. The project may be conditioned to record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District for the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities. In addition, due to the magnitude of the storm flows tributary to this site and the size of the facilities necessary to convey these flows, it may be necessary for the developer to coordinate the design with the adjacent land owners to fund the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities. Submit signed conditions of approval for this project as approved by the Planning Commission within three days of approval of the project. Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Department of Public Works. R:M~LANNING\420pa97ENV..doc 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 shai: 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: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. Pay the appropriate fee in the amount in effect at the time of submittal. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. The project will be conditioned to improve their half of Pala Road (luterim improvements), and Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane to the ultimate General Plan build-out including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). The project will also be conditioned to widen the existing bridge at the intersection of Pala Road and Loma Linda Road to accommodate the project related street improvements and to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Pala Road to include signal interconnect with the signal at the intersection of Pala Road and Highway 79 South. Submit road improvemere plans (including widening of the bridge and the street light) as approved by the Planning Commission. Submit road improvement plans with precise grading plans prior to issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. R:\PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion and conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project will be conditioned m install a bus turnout as required by Riverside Transit Agency and bicycle lanes along Pala Road and Loma Linda Road as required pursuant to the General Plan Circulation Element. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Submit road improvement plans that comply with the approved site plan and the General Plan Circulation Element. Submit road improvement plans with precise grading plans. Department of Public Works. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department Energx and Mineral Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Affect upon energy conservation plans. Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation. Submit energy calculations and pertinent data for review. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department RrI~PLANNING~420pa97ENV..doc Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire and police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection: however. it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance o~ service provision. Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees. Payment of Development Impact Fee for fire mitigation. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the storm water drainage facilities. The project will be conditioned to provide a hydrology study and submit storm drain improvement plans to ensure that tributary storm flows around the site will be conveyed to an acceptable outlet with adequate capacity. Submit drainage improvement plans that illustrate an acceptable drainage facility with adequate capacity as stated in the hydrology study. Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the storm water drainage facilities. The project may be conditioned to record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formahon of an Assessment District for the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities. In addition, due to the magnitude of the storm flows tributary to this site and the size of the facilities necessary to convey these flows, it may be necessary for the developer to coordinate the design with the adjacent land owners to fund the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities. Submit signed conditions of approval for this project as approved by the Planning Commission within three days of approval of the project. Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Department of PublicWorks. R;\PLANNING\420pa97ENV .doc General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Pay the appropriate fee in the amount in effect at the time of submittal. Prior to the issuance of building penits. Department of Public Works. Aesthetics General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: The project will be compatible with the existing area and not have a negative aesthetic effect. Compliance with the approved elevations, colors and materials. Submit construction plans that are consistent with the approved elevations, colors and materials. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, review plans for compliance with Planning Commission approval. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: The project will create light and glare. Compliance with Mt. Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be low pressure sodium on building plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department. R!\PLANNING\420pa97ENV .doc Cultural Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Party: Disturb paleontological or cultural resources. Require a Paleontologist to monitor on-site during grading. The applicant and a qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist shall meet with the Planning Manager to discuss the potential for significant resources and m establish an on-site monitoring Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department Disturb paleontological resources. Require a Paleontologist to monitor on-site during grading. A qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist shall be present on site if necessary as determined by the pre-grading meeting with the Planning Manager. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department R:\PLANNING\42Opa97ENV doc A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 4 LE'I'I'ERS OF OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT R:\STAFFRPT\420PA97t~C.,cloc 26 February 4, 1998 Patti Anders Assistant Planner City of Temecula P O Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: Pala Road Senior Project Dear Ms Anders: As a long time resident of the Temecula Valley, I support the above referenced senior project. I know that many residents of the Valley, myself included, will be re-locating their elderly loved ones closer to their homes. I encourage you and the other members of Staff to support this very needed project. Very truly yours, Allyn J. Rosetta AJR/Ir February 4, 1998 Patti Anders Assistant Planner City of Temecula P. O Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Ms Anders: I have been following the progress of the Pala Road Senior Project with great interest as 1 would like to locate my Aunt closer to my home. If you are looking for input from the community, please consider my support for the project. Very truly yours, Linda Reynolds LP~'kv Harch 29,1998 City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box # 9033 Temecula, California 92589 Dear Patty Anders: I am a California licensed Health Care Administrator for the elderly, within levels of Residential and Assisted Living equity. ~y education and experience has given me twenty five years of a wonderful career working with seniors. I am a resident of San Diego, but my employment has been in the Los Angeles area for the past few years. ~(y commute is on Highway 15 and I am familiar with the City of Temecula~; In my opinion Temecula is in need of a Senior Health Care Center. It would ~enerate employment, growth and revenue for Temec.ula. The center would generate employment opportunities. It would create jobs for health care workers,vendors and other health care facilities, such as nurses, doctors, food distributors and clinics. Temecular is a growing community. Eventually your senior population will increase. 7here will be a need to house and care for seniors. The revenue aquired b~- the City of Temecula, from the operating center, would add to the outstanding quality of life for Temecula. i am writing this letter in support of the construction of the Senior Healti~ Care Center submitted by P~r. Brian. Sisko. in my opinion, Temecula is an ideal area for retirement living in the future years. Singerely, Willie F. Bruton 115198 Randy W. Baack 455~5 Gleneagles Ct. temecula, Ca 92592 Miss Pat~/Andors Case Planner Temecula City Hall P.O. Box 9033 Temeculo, CA 92589-9033 Dear Ms Andors: We are in rece,pt of your "Notice of Community Meeting" concerning Planning Application NO. PA97-0420-- -the Briar Sesko, B & g Properties project slated for construction on Pale Road. Please accept the following with all due respect. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? We live on bleneagles Rd. just across the street from this proposed project. Do you have any idea about the traffic on Pale Road? Do you know how dangerous it is to try to turn left out of Classic Way onto Pale g~oad now that the Casino has been built and is enlarging all the time? Do you have any idea how long we have to sit at the light at the intersection of Pale Road and State Highlway 799 Have you seen the traffic congestion on Highway 79 since those two other lights have been installed. Oftentimes, we can't even turn left onto "79" because the traffic is back up to this intersection from the next stop light. It has become a nightmoPe for the homeowner~ in the Rainbow Canyon tract and the other~ along Pate Road, Now someone wants to build 331 apartments of various descriptions as well as a 27,700 sq. foot Medical CenTer. VnbelievaOle!!!! Obviously, these individuals do not live here--nor do they care about the community. Anyone who would think about appraving this project could not possibly have to fight this traffic everyday In the strongest possible terms, we urge you not to allow this to happen. The traffic on this two lane road and the congestion already caused by the Casino would make life unbearable if this project wane allowed to go ahead. Please deny the "developer" permission to build on this site. incerely; c^ ' P-andy and Gloria gaack ATTACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS R\STAFFRPT\420PA97PC..doc 27 CITY OF TEMECULA CANYON LAKE LAKE SKINNER MURRIETA TEMECULA PROJECT LOCATION RANCH0 CAUFORNIA VICINITY MAP SCALE: NO SCALE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0420 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 7, 1998 VICINITYMAP R:\STAFFRPT\138PA97,PC 9F23/98klb CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - PROFESISONAL OFFICE (PO) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - PROFESSION OFFICE (O) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0420 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 7, 1998 R\STAFFRPT\138PA97.PC 9/23/98 Idb CITY OF TEMECULA PARTIAL SITE PLAN - AREA 1 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0420 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 7, 1998 SITE PLAN (',~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0420 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 7, 1998 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRPT\138PA97.PC 9/23/98 Idb CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0420 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 7, 1998 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:\STAFFRPT\138PA97PC 9/23/98 klb X LIJ ¢~ ,- 0 LI, V'I~391~9.1. f- 0 is .x iii r I ' iii 0 .Q UJ