Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
010301 PC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-8-H~.. Notification 48 hours pdor 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] AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JANUARY 3, 2001 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2001-001 Commissioner Guerriero Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided ~o members of the public may address the Commission on items that are listed on the Agenda.. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no__t 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 for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A,qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 3, 2001. R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~001101-03-01 .doc 1 2 Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 18, 2000 COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) To design and construct four (4) multi-tenant speculative buildings totaling approximately 88,083 square feet of office1 manufacturing, distributing and warehouse uses on 6.09 vacant acres, located at the southeast corner of Business Park Drive and Rancho Way, within the Rancho California Business Park - Carole Donahoe 3.1 ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan); 3.2 ADOPT the Mitigated Monitoring Program for Planning Application No.00-0367 (Development Plan); 3.3 ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0367 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) - THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) MULTI-TENANT SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 88,083 SQUARE FEET ON 6.09 VACANT ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND RANCHO WAY, WITHIN THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PARK, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-061. R:~PLANCOMMV~,gendas~2001\01-03-01 .doc 2 4 P annin.q Application No. 00-0094 (Development Plan), to construct and operate a 12,215- square foot industrial building on 0.92 acres located on the south side of Roick Drive approximately 200 feet west of Winchester Road - Michael McCoy 4.1 ADOPT a Resolution entitled: 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0094 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 12,615 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 0.92 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROICK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WEST OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-05'1. Planning Application No. 00-0213 (Development Plan) for the design and construction of a 116,375 square foot retail center, on an 18 acre site located within the Regional Center Specific Plan on the east side of Margarita Road, between North General Kearny Road and Overland Drive - Saied Nasseh 5.1 ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0213 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EI R's and Negative Declarations. 5.2 ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 1t6,375 SQAURE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN 18 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 92'1-090-63,71,72, AND 78, AND LOTS 7, 61, 62, 53, AND 54 OF PARCEL MAP NO 28530. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: January 17, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200'Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 R:~LANCOMM~Agendas~2001\01-03-01 .doc 3 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday October 18, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Doug Haserot, 40976 Avenida Alvarado, representing Temecula Valley Soccer Clubs, noted the desperate need for ball fields in the City of Temecula, specifically lighted fields, relaying that he was a proponent of the Wolf Creek Project due to the proposed sports park included in the project plan. Mr. Mark Bailey, 44763 Calle Banvelos, representing Temecula Valley Pop Warner Football, relayed his desire for the Wolf Creek Project to be approved, noting the need for lighted ball fields for football. Ms. Katherine Runkle, 32070 Corte Bonilo, noted that she was a proponent of the Wolf Creek Project for the following reasons: 1) this was a great in-fill development, 2) with respect to densities, relayed that in the City of Temecula, there existed a need for a wide range of densities, 3) the amenities the project proposed, including the dedication of a 40-acre sports park, 4) with respect to Pala Road, noted the need for the proposed road widening associated with this project plan, 5) the proposed fire station, 6) the proposed senior housing, and 7) the proposed commercial area which was needed in this area of the City. Mr. Mark Broderick, 45501 Clubhouse Drive, thanked the Planning Commission for the efforts to hear the citizens concerns regarding the Wolf Creek Project, and for the · thorough review of the plan; and relayed that he was opposed to the project due to the proposed densities, and the traffic impacts. R:PlanComm/minute~101800 CONSENT CALENDAR It was noted that the Consent Calendar Items were considered separately by the Commission. 1 ARenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 18, 2000. MOTION: Chairman Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar No. 1 (the Agenda), noting that Item No. 3 would be considered after item No. 4. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2 Director's Hearing Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and file. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to receive and file the Director's Hearing report. Commissioner Telesie seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Workshop This Agenda Item was considered out of order, after consideration of Item No. 4; see page 7. 4 Planning Application No. 98-0481 (VVolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12); No. 98-048d (VVolf Creek General Plan Amendment); and No. 00-0052 (VVolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) on parcels totaling 557 acres located on the east side of Pal,q Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donaho~ 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 2 R:PlanComnVminutes/101800 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484), AND DENY THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PROPERTY TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 980-t80-00t, -005, - 006 AND -010; FOR AND UPON THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE SET FORTH HEREIN. 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0052 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305) TO SUBDIVIDE 557 ACRES INTO 47 PARCELS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-'110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-t80- 001, -005, -006 AND -0'10. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING AGAINST THE CITY COUNCIL'S CERTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that he would be abstaining from this issue, and therefore left the dais at this time. Attorney Curley noted that at the October 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the public comment portion of the meeting was closed with regard to this item, relaying that subsequently the Commission deliberated, and directed staff to return with resolutions, recommending denial of this project; advised that since the Commission desired to have the resolutions brought back in final form to ensure that the Commission's input was correctly reflected, that these resolutions were before the Commission for review and 3 R:PlanC omrrdminutes/101800 action at this time; confirmed for Chairman Guerriero, that this was not the final action for this project, but that this was the Commission's recommendation to the City Council; relayed in response to Chairman Guerriero's query, that since this action was a recommendation, that if it was the Commission's desire after weighing the evidence and reviewing the resolutions, to reconsider the recommendation, that it was within the Commission's jurisdiction to do so. MOTION: Chairman Guerriero moved to reconsider the Commission's action on this item. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 5.) Commissioner Webster relayed that he had no desire to reconsider this issue, noting that the Commission had examined all the data, and had provided clear comments in response; and advised that in his opinion the Commission's recommendation for denial should be forwarded to the City Council. Chairman Guerriero relayed the reasons for his desire to reconsider this matter: 1) the phasing of the project would provide an opportunity for the City to review each phase of development prior to proceeding further, 2) the high quality of the proposed project with numerous amenities, and 3) noted that the project plan met the criteria of the City's General Plan, the Growth Management Plan, and the City's mission statement. Commissioner Mathewson commended staff for the excellent work in drafting the resolutions of denial in a brief turnaround time, which accurately reflected the Commission's input. For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley noted that if it was the Commission's desire to reconsider this matter, that the reconsideration tonight would be based on the data, analysis, and evidence that has already been presented to the Planning Commission regarding this issue; and advised that if it was the Planning Commission's desire to reopen the public comment portion of the meeting, and/or to obtain new information and additional analysis, he would strongly recommend that the matter be re- noticed. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that based on the issues previously addressed by the Planning Commission which have been accurately contained in the resolutions, that he would not support a reconsideration of the matter, while advising that if it was the applicant's desire to address the concerns contained in the resolutions, he could support a continuation. Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the project being presented to the City Council, noting that the City Council would take into consideration the recommendation of the Planning Commission, relaying that the City Council could reverse the decision, agree with the decision, or the decision could be modified; noted that if the modifications were substantial the City Council would redirect the issue back to the Commission; and clarified the purpose of the Planning Commission's recommendation and the associated resolutions. Commissioner Telesio relayed that it was his opinion, after further consideration, that the action, of the Planning Commission should have been to continue the matter until the issues of concern could be further explored, noting that various issues of concern were 4 R:PlanComm/minutes/101800 brought forward for the first time at the last meeting which did not provide the applicant the opportunity to address the concerns; noted that the Commission should have taken additional time to review the project rather than moving the project forward with a recommendation at that time; and relayed that he supported the motion to reconsider the Planning Commission's action. Commissioner Webster relayed that City Council direction was necessary with respect to this project; with respect to approval of the proposed densities, noted the confusion with the Council's departure from the General Plan in the guidelines sefforth in the GMP; and advised that it was not a prudent use of time for the Commission or for the applicant to attempt to fine tune this project, recommending that this matter be forwarded to the City Council. Chairman Guerriero relayed the benefits to the City this project would provide, noting, among other elements, the 40-acre sports park; and advised that he queried the detail in which the Commission had addressed the specific housing product at this early stage in the process. Noting that after re-reading material (per agenda material regarding Agenda Item No. 3) regarding the role of the Commissioner, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Planning Commission should not anticipate the Council's direction, but make an independent determination based on whether the project is consistent with the General Plan, and the guidelines setforth in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). In terms of the GMP, and its relationship to the General Plan, Commissioner Mathewson noted the Council's struggle with these important issues, relaying the Council's arduous process of reviewing a project last week until 1:30 A.M.; concurred with Commissioner Telesio's comments, noting that it was the Planning Commission's charge to make a determination based on the General Plan, and the GMP guidelines, and not to simply forward the project to the City Council; relayed hopes that the City Council would recognize that the Planning Commission has been struggling to meet the intent of the GMP, recommending that there be direction provided with respect to resolution of some of the vital issues; and advised that if it was determined by the Planning Commission that this issue be continued, that the applicant address the numerous concerns setforth by the Planning Commission, noting his willingness to continue this matter. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting a split vote, Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Telesio voting yes, Commissioner Mathewson and Commissioner Webster voting no, and Commissioner Chiniaeff abstaining. (Ultimately this voice vote was amended.) In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley clarified the motion being voted on at this time, noting that prior to moving to continue this matter the Commission first needed to move to reconsider the Planning Commission's past action regarding this project. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he had misunderstood the motion and requested to modify his vote. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who voted n._~o and Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item, directing the applicant to work with staff to address the issues encompassed in the resolutions of denial. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion was amended.) In response to Attorney Curley, Mr. Bill Griffith, representing the applicant, thanked the Commission for the vote to reconsider the Commission's past recommendation regarding this project; highlighted various positive aspects of the project plan, noting the comments relayed during the public comment portion of the meeting regarding the much-needed sports park; relayed the applicant's desire to move forward to the City Council with a clearly defined project, noting that at this point, the Commission's input had not been fully addressed; and advised that the applicant would support continuing the matter in order to address the issues that remain outstanding. In response to Attorney Curley, Mr. Alhadeff, attorney representing the applicant, relayed that the applicant would address the issues denoted in the findings (per the findings encompassed in the resolutions of denial), and would respond to these concerns without reopening the public hearing. Attorney Curley relayed that the applicant was asserting that the record was complete, advising that if the resolutions contain further new information it would require reopening the public comment portion of the meeting at the continued meeting. In response, Mr. Alhadeff relayed that the applicant would submit to re-opening the public comment portion of the meeting if it was determined that this was necessary, noting that it was his understanding that keeping the public comment portion closed was the desire of the Planning Commission. Attorney Curley provided clarification regarding the criteria determining whether the public comment period should be re-opened when this matter was brought back before the Commission. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he was of the strong opinion that the public should have an opportunity to address the information presented to the Commission, noting that he would amend his motion to include this element. AMENDED MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this matter to the December 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, and to reopen the public comment period at that time. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 7.) Commissioner Webster relayed that it was his opinion that continuing this matter would not be prudent without gaining City Council input, querying whether there would be an opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive input prior to this item being brought back to the Planning Commission. Attorney Curley advised that the City Council would ultimately be considering this item in a deliberative adjudicative basis, noting that if specific input was received prior to that time it would askew the process. Commissioner Webster clarified that he was recommending a joint workshop. Attorney Curley noted that there were alternative methods of receiving direction from the City Council (other than polling the City Council with respect to this project), reiterating Director of Planning Ubnoske's suggestion that a Subcommittee could be formed, noting that staff would explore the alternatives. Director of Planning Ubnoske recommended that there be a Subcommittee rather than a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop due to the timing issues. Commissioner Mathewson noted his desire to provide ample time for the applicant to address the previously mentioned issues, and for staff to schedule a meeting between the Planning Commission and the Subcommitee. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that on November 15th staff would provide an update on this project; and in response to Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that she understood the Commission's desire (per Commissioner Webster' s comments) to gain input from the Subcommittee. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained. It was noted that at 6:56 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:06 P.M. At this time the Commission considered Item No. 3 (Workshop). 3 Workshop Director of Planning Ubnoske recommended that as staff proceeded through the Workshop Agenda (as per agenda material), that the discussions be interactive, inviting the Commission to provide comments. Topic of discussion: The Role of the Plannin,q Commissioner Attorney Curley provided an overview of the Planning Commission's role (per agenda material), noting that under State Law the Planning Commission was the body charged with carrying out a city's planning function, noting that these determinations were final in some cases, and advisory in others. Commissioner Chiniaeff provided an overview of his understanding of the role of the Planning Commission, noting that the GoVernment Code provides the City Council the authority to approve certain matters, and to delegate various responsibilities to a lower body (i.e., the Planning Commission) relaying that some issues were delegated for final approval, while others were finally approved by the City Council, advising that various issues were mandated to be dealt with at a City Council level; noted that the Planning Commission was to advise the City Council with respect to the issues directed to the Planning Commission body for recommendation; and relayed that the Planning Commission follows the guidelines setforth via the laws and ordinances passed by the City Council. Attorney Curley noted that there were also certain abilities of the Commission to adopt its own procedural guidelines, providing additional information. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Attorney Curley confirmed that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to set land use decision policies. 7 R:PlanComm/minutes/101800 Discussion ensued regarding the $100 payment the Planning Commissioners received monthly as project employees of the City. Topic of discussion: The 8 Step Approach of the Plannin,q Commission Director of Planning Ubnoske presented the 8 Step Approach regarding the Planning Commission (via workshop material). With respect to Step 4, Chairman Guerriero recommended that if a Planning Commissioner had numerous queries regarding aspects of a project, that the Commissioner schedule a meeting with staff prior to the hearing. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that staff would be holding Workshops to aid in the review process of the Planning Commission, specifically, as two additional Specific Plans move forward in the review phase, noting that clarification would be provided with respect to the role of the Commissioner, the review process, and the product review phase; relayed that rather than presenting a Specific Plan in its entirety, that there would be a series of workshops to consider smaller components of the Specific Plan; advised that the Commissioners could schedule a time to discuss with staff issues regarding the plans, noting that she and Deputy City Manager Thornhill would be willing come in early, or stay late to accommodate the Commissioners schedules. Attorney Curiey advised that the Planning Commission could also contact him by email or at his office, noting that if a question posed was not regarding a personal conflict of interest, that he would respond to the entirety of the Commission. For Commissioner Telesio, Attorney Curley advised that the General Plan, any Specific Plan, the GMP, and alternate instruments utilized were tools to assist the Planning Commission in making a finding, providing additional information regarding the Planning Commission actions and its associated findings, relaying that the action needed to be supported by logical and supportable findings which are setforth in the resolutions in order to undergird the action. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that per discussions with the General Plan Subcommittee, there was a consensus that there existed confusion between the General Plan and the guidelines of the GMP, advising that the General Plan may be amended at this point in time to provide clarification. Commissioner Mathewson concurred with the plan to present the upcoming Specific Plans in smaller components. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she could email the Planning Commissioners with upcoming controversial projects. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, Chairman Guerriero noted that the Planning Commission needed an updated staff contact list, Commissioner Chiniaeff relaying that he had not received this list. 8 R:PlanComm/minute~101800 Topic of discussion: The Responsibilities the City Council has delegated to the Plannin.q Commission (i.e., Findin.qs of Public Convenience or Necessity, and Compliance with the Growth Manaqement Action Plan) Director of Planning Ubnoske presented the City Council delegated responsibilities of the Planning Commission, relaying the data (of record) regarding the Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN), and compliance with the Growth Management Action Plan. Chairman Guerriero commented on granting alcohol licenses, the ABC's role in this matter, and the recent modification in the census tracts; relayed his opposition in making the PCN Findings based on the applicant's desire to raise the value of his property; advised that with each granted license there was another opportunity for an minor individual to buy and consume alcohol; and queried how many licensed alcohol establishments were needed in the City of Temecula by build out. In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the zoning ordinances be revised if there was a desire to not allow liquor licenses in certain areas due to a saturation of such uses, in order to provide property owners and developers with this information in advance. Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), noting that these permits can be revoked. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that at the DRC level, staff clarified to applicant's proposing alcohol serving uses, that the Planning Commission was concerned with alcoholic establishments in the City. Commissioner Telesio noted that the establishment of uses selling alcohol was market driven, relaying that the City had a successful program to detect uses that would sell to minors, noting that the incidents were rare; and advised that it was his opinion that the policing of the uses was effective, relaying that the CUPs could be pulled for uses not in compliance with the standards. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff had implemented a new component in the process of obtaining a license to sell alcohol, noting that the plan was routed to the Police Department who held meetings with the applicants to discuss training, hours of operation, and security. Chairman Guerriero relayed that with a proliferation of uses selling alcohol, there would not be adequate numbers of Law Enforcement Officers to control the liquor sales to minors. Commissioner Telesio commended uses that had a self-regulating program within their company policies. With respect to licensed uses, Commissioner Webster advised that making the PCN Findings was a subjective process, providing additional information. At this time discussions ensued regarding the Growth Management Action Plan (GMP). 9 R:PlenComm/minutes/101800 With respect to the GMP, Commissioner Webster noted that there was direct conflict with the guidelines setforth, and the General Plan; relayed that there was a Growth Management Element encompassed in the General Plan which included policies and goals; and relayed that in his opinion the City Council should introduce new policies when the General Plan was updated, noting that he was pleased that there was a plan to update the General Plan with respect to the GMP guidelines at this time, advising that this was necessary. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that Section 2A, subsection 2a and c (regarding redistribution of land uses, and review multi-family housing issues throughout the City) of the GMP was unclear. Commissioner Telesio relayed that there was still uncertainty with respect to qualifying "amenities" per the GMP. Commending Deputy Director of Public Works Parks who sat on the original City Council for the City of Temecula, Chairman Guerriero relayed that the list of amenities denoted in the General Plan was the specific document that he utilized as a guide, noting that the GMP was too vague. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that if the General Plan was amended to reflect the Council's desired policy standards, the Planning Commission and the development community would have the necessary guidance. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff had relayed to the Subcommittee that staff was unsure how to direct developers, advising that Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero concurred that there needed to be some rules in place in order for the Planning Commission, staff, and the City Council to all be on the same page. In response to Commission comments, Attorney Curley relayed that the Findings associated with the Commission's action would articulate the Planning Commission's interpretation of acceptable amenities to the City Council; clarified that Council would then be able to view in the written findings the Commission's concepts, and subsequently address points of disagreement; noted that at the joint meeting, the City Council had relayed that the Council trusted the Planning Commission to apply the guidelines and move forward with recommendations. Commissioner Mathewson noted that with the Temecula Ridge Project, the City Council determined that the amenities encompassed in the project did not meet the criteria, although the Planning Commission had recommended approval (noting that the vote was not unanimous). In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley noted that as the Council considers the Planning Commission's action and subsequently responds, that new information is obtained which aids staff in further defining the City Council's desired direction. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with the Temecula Ridge project the City Council did not specify amenities that would meet the criteria, advising that political issues also play a part in the approval of projects, reiterating that a true definition of a qualifying amenity was not revealed. 10 R:PlanComm/minutes/101800 Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the Subcommittee had also discussed dividing the in-fill projects from the large Specific Plan projects, recognizing that the amenities associated with a Specific Plan would be quite different than for an in-fill project. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley advised that a General Plan revision would come before the Planning Commission for recommendation. Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the Zoning Map and the Land Use Map be explored in order to identify the remaining vacant parcels in the City. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if the Planning Commission had a desire for provision of a GIS map at any time that requests be relayed to staff, advising that this was a helpful tool. Commissioner Telesio noted that one of the individual speakers during the public comment portion of this meeting had referred to the Wolf Creek Project as an in-fill project, relaying that there was a broad understanding of what constitutes an in-fill project. Additional discussion ensued regarding in-fill projects. For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that during the Subcommittee meetings, the request for the City Council to learn more in order to address the genuine lack of knowledge with respect to planning issues had been relayed, advising that the City Council desired information to aid in making more informed decisions. Topic of discussion: Ex Parte Communications Attomey Curley provided an overview of ex parte communications, and due process, which ensured that all parties rights were protected; (referencing the agenda material) provided a definition of due process; advised that if a Planning Commissioner meets with an applicant, visits a project site, or receives information outside of the public hearing, it should be disclosed during the hearing, for the record, noting that the applicant should be provided an opportunity to rebut or provide an explanation regarding the disclosed information prior to Commission deliberations. With respect to ex parte communications, Attorney Curley clarified that while the Planning Commission and the City Council could participate in these meetings, that it was optional, relaying that if an individual elected not to participate in ex parte communications, this was also acceptable; reiterated that if there were meetings, that the Planning Commissioner disclosure could be relayed at the onset of the hearing also, providing additional information. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff expressing his fear that he would forget to relay the disclosure, noting that he wrote memos as reminders, Attorney Curley noted that if it was the Commission's desire, he could question the Commission at the hearing as to whether there were any disclosures. 11 R:PlanComm/minutes/101800 (Per the provided agenda material), Attorney Curley relayed helpful tips regarding ex parte communications. For Commissioner Telesio, ,Attorney Curley advised that the Planning Commissioners could make the applicant aware of the fact that no input would be provided to the applicant during the meeting; and clarified the information that should be disclosed at the hearing. In order to establish the applicant's motivation for the meeting, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he questioned the applicant as to the purpose of the meeting. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that since it had been established that the applicant might attempt to influence the Planning Commissioners, in his view this corruPts the process, noting that the Commission can receive information from staff. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the applicant was oftentimes concerned about the Planning Commission not getting enough information regarding the project. Attorney Curley provided information regarding an alternate city's process of holding an informal period after consideration of the regular agenda items to discuss upcoming projects, noting that this period was held in a less formal manner (i.e., at times pizza was provided during the presentation); relayed that the applicant could present the project plan in an approximately 30-minute period and would gain initial Commission input; and relayed that while he was not recommending this procedure for the City of Temecula, it was his intent to let the Commission be aware that there were alternate avenues. With respect to ex parte communications, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that there was a fine line between education from an applicant and influence; and noted the benefits of the Planning Commissioners taking the tour to Orange County to visit development projects, advising that this type of knowledge and experience could be utilized while reviewing projects. For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks explained the philosophy of the City Council when setting up the ex parte meeting policy; advised that at that time there were time limits placed on the developer's presentation to the Planning Commission or the City Council, and that due to the complication of the projects and the limited time staff could spend on the presentation, it was the applicant's desire to familiarize the approving body with the project; advised that the City Council was of the opinion that the applicant could explain the project in greater detail during the ex parte communications; and noted that information could be gained regarding architecture, land planning or alternate elements. It was noted that at 8:11 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:19 P.M. Commissioner Webster noted that at times during the hearing, there were questions that the Commission should direct to the applicant instead of to staff. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that various questions could also be directed to the department staff that had the most expertise in certain areas (i.e., traffic questions to Public Works staff). t2 R: PlanCom rn/minut e~101800 Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that on many occasions the applicant had their engineers, architects, and alternate consultants present who were available for questions from the Commission; and relayed that the Public Works Department thoroughly reviewed the applicant's' submitted traffic analysis. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that there had been discussions regarding including in the staff report additional traffic data (i.e., an executive summary). Chairman Guerriero relayed the benefits of the ex parte communications, noting that numerous developers were upfront and honest with a desire solely to provide additional information; and noted that it was his opinion that the additional data was helpful in making a more informed determination on the project. In his experience with ex parte communications, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that applicants had requested him for information regarding what issues he had with a development plan, and what he would desire to see included in the project, advising that he would not provide this input outside of the hearing setting. Chairman Guerriere noted that there seemed to be a lack of knowledge within the community with respect to the planning process, property rights, and land use, advising that there would be a positive affect if additional education were provided. Commissioner Telesio concurred with Chairman Guerriero, noting that it would be helpful if there could be an informational source that provided the fundamental elements of the planning process. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it was unfortunate that the public did not call staff if there were concerns or questions, advising that one-on-one communications were helpful in informing individuals. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Public Works Department received numerous calls form public members. Additional discussion ensued regarding avenues to educate the public. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that for larger projects, public meeting have been held to inform the community, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relaying that several community meetings were held regarding the Wolf Creek Project. With respect to relaying information to the public, Commissioner Webster relayed that it appeared at this point in time that numerous residents had the understanding that projects would only be approved at the lowest densities, advising that these misconceptions needed to addressed. Attorney Curiey relayed that a City newsletter was an avenue that could be utilized for providing the public with information (i.e., frequently asked questions). Commissioner Webster suggested that City Manager Nelson could write a letter to the editor of the newspaper, clarifying issues such as the GMP. In response, Commissioner Telesio relayed that since the data was coming from the City it would most likely be perceived as biased. 13 R:Plan Corn m/minu[es/1018(30 Topic of discussion: The Results of the Questionnaire Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she had highlighted approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the questions (where there were two or more points assigned to a question) answered by the Planning Commission; provided an overview of the issues associated with these particular questions (per the questionnaire material which had been distributed to the Planning Commissioners); and advised that she would forward these specific questions to the Planning Commission for additional review and input. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's queries, Commissioner Mathewson noted that it would be helpful if staff could provide additional information in advance for the larger projects with respect to the issues or elements that staff was struggling with. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff could provide this data to the Planning Commission. Director of Planning Ubnoske suggested that it might be helpful for staff and the Planning Commission to set aside a half a day for a retreat-type setting at which time goals could be established, topics for upcoming workshops could be discussed, and the upcoming year could be programmed. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that it would be helpful if staff could prepare an annual report whereas various elements could be evaluated (i.e., the time it takes a project to be processed through the Planning Commission). Commissioner Webster relayed that in his opinion the aim of the Planning Commission was to implement the goals of the General Plan. With respect to topics for future workshops, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the Planning Commissioners could call or email suggestions. Additional discussion ensued regarding the Planning Commission receiving additional training, Director of Planning Ubnoske noting the budget constraints, relaying the potential for additional opportunities in the future; and advised that if the Planning Commission obtained information of interest regarding conferences or workshops that this data could be forwarded to staff, relaying that at times conferences could be attended within the parameters of the budget. For informational purposes, Attorney Curley relayed that if the Commission had interest in obtaining information with respect to legal topics, that a workshop could be scheduled with members of the law firm's staff. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Chairman Guerriero requested staff to address the landscape issue at the Cosco site, in the vicinity of the gas station. In response to Commission queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks providing information regarding the grading at Margarita Road and Overland Drive, noting that there was an approved tentative map with grading at this site. 14 R:PlanComm/miNates/101800 Commissioner Mathewson requested staff to investigate the sign at the Cosco site. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that landscaped medians throughout the City are installed, as funds become available, providing additional information. Commissioner Telesio queried whether the issue regarding landscape parkways could be addressed since it seemed to be the consensual desire of the Commission to install this element in new developments. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that this issue would be addressed, relaying that there would be an upcoming policy developed for Citywide implementation. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional input. ADJOURNMENT At 8:56 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, November 1, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 3, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0367 {Development Plan) - Temecula Corporate Centre Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan); 2. ADOPT the Mitigated Monitoring Program for Planning Application No.00-0367 (Development Plan); 3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0367 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) MULTI-TENANT SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 88,083 SQUARE FEET ON 6.09 VACANT ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND RANCHO WAY, WITHIN THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PARK, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-061. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: MKJ Temecula Business Park LLC, Michael B. Mueller, Managing Member REPRESENTATIVES: McArdle Associates Architects, Inc., Edward J. McArdle Keeton Construction Co., Inc., Bruce Keeton Alhambra Group Landscape Architecture, Vince DiDonato K & S Engineering PROPOSAL: To design and construct four (4) multi-tenant speculative buildings totaling approximately 88,083 square feet on 6.09 vacant acres. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Business Park Drive and Rancho Way, within the Rancho California Business Park R:\D P~00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 1 EXISTING ZONING: LI Light Industrial SURROUNDING ZONING: North: LI Light Industrial South: LI Light Industrial East: LI Light Industrial West: LI Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: Not Applicable GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP Business Park EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Multi-tenant industrial buildings Steris industrial business Ferguson Plumbing & HVAC Industrial business Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Area: Building Footprint: Landscaped Area: Paved Area: 265,437.4 s.f. = 6.09 acres 73,899 s.f.= 28% 55,280 s.f.= 21% 121,996 s.f.= 46% 33% Floor Area Ratio Parking Required: Office Use: Manufacturing Use: Warehouse Use: Total: Total Bicycle: 11 50,947 s.f. : 170 spaces 8,808 s.f. = 22 spaces 28,328 s.f. = 28 spaces 88,083 s.f. = 220 spaces Total Motorcycle: 5 Parking Provided: Standard: 284 spaces Compact: 0 spaces H/C Accessible: 8 spaces Total: 292 spaces Bicycle: 12 Motorcycle: 6 BACKGROUND On September 12, 2000, the applicant submitted Planning Application No. 00-0367. A Development Review Committee meeting was held on October 12, 2000, and staff offered 45 comments in their DRC Comment letter dated October 20, 2000. The applicant resubmitted the project on November 7, 8, and 17, 2000, and the project was deemed complete on December 1, 2000. R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant expects to meet the needs of several components of business and industry by proposing a campus of buildings at the corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive. The project provides a two-story office building that fronts both Rancho Way and Business Park Drive, which has the capability of offering up to eight suite spaces on both floors. Adjacent to the east is a single story industrial building, which provides office and warehousing with interior loading areas. Buildings "C" and "D" are single-story which run the length of the site along its southem boundary. The end units which front on Business Park Drive have been enhanced, with their offices facing the street. Buildings "C" and "D" can offer a variety of suite sizes, with all loading areas at the interior drive aisle and office spaces facing the exterior sides of the building. ANALYSIS Access and Circulation The project site, though vacant, has existing driveway entrances along both Rancho Way and Business Park Drive. The applicant, at staff's request, removed parking spaces across from the Rancho Way entrance, to facilitate circulation at this interior intersection. On Business Park Drive, the applicant will add another entrance so that truck traffic will primarily utilize the southernmost entrance, and customers will generally utilize the new entrance immediately to the north. Drive aisles are ample both in size and length to provide convenient circulation throughout the site. Architectural Design Buildings are positioned and designed to optimize their street frontages. Attention is given to planter areas along the buildings, and to entrances as focal points. The architect utilizes three types of glass and two shades of concrete to provide contrast to building walls. Changes in building heights and wall popouts break up the building massing. Landscaping The existing streetscape along Business Park Drive shall remain and be protected in place, except where the second driveway is constructed. Six (6) Purple Leaf Plums are proposed to be removed at that location, but the applicant has provided 11 new Purple Leaf Plums outlining both entrances on Business Park Drive and 11 new Purple Leaf Plums at the corners of all buildings fronting this street. A sidewalk shall be added to Rancho Way, and existing landscaping shall be removed and replaced in this location. The applicant is providing additional perimeter landscaping along all sides of the project site to screen parking spaces and trash enclosures with shrubs and trees. All buildings have planter areas adjacent to offices, entrances, and other walls to break up massing. Landscaping is omitted only at loading areas. At staff's request, the applicant increased the size of the Chinese Flame trees at the focal points at the ends of buildings to achieve instant visual interest and plantings that are in better scale with the architecture. Outside Storage The project does not provide for outside storage of equipment or materials. Staff has conditioned the project to ensure compliance with Code requirements that any outside storage be screened. R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT,PC 1-3-01.doc 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Environmental Study (lES) was prepared for this project. The lES determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment with regards to aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning. However, due to the design of the project and mitigation measures imposed upon the project through conditions of approval and the project's Mitigation Monitoring Program, environmental effects are not considered to be significant. Any impacts will be mitigated to levels less than significant. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is (BP) Business Park. Zoning for the site is (LI) Light Industrial. Office/manufacturing/warehouse uses are permitted in these designations with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.08 of the Development Code. The project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the policies contained in the General Plan and with the requirements of the Development Code and the City Design Guidelines. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is proposed within an existing business and industrial park that is partially developed. The project is compatible in use and design with existing development in the area. Staff recommends approval of 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 General Plan designation on the property is (BP) Business Park, which permits, with the approval of a Development Plan, the office/manufacturing/warehouse uses proposed by the project. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Development Plan for the project has been reviewed by City Departments and outside agencies whose responsibility it is to ensure protection, and the project has been conditioned based upon their requirements. Staff has determined upon review of the project, that it is consistent with the City Development Code and General Plan policies, documents designed to ensure protection of the general public. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 4 Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7 Initial Study - Blue Page 8 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 9 Exhibits - Blue Page 10 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Floor Plans H. Grading Plan R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001 - R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0367 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) MULTI-TENANT SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 88,083 SQUARE FEET ON 6.09 VACANT ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND RANCHO WAY, WITHIN THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PARK, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-061. WHEREAS, MKJ Temecula Business Park LLC filed Planning Application No. 00-0367 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application, on January 3, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That ihe above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code; 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 General Plan designation on the property is (BP) Business Park, which permits, with the approval of a Development Plan, the office/manufacturing/warehouse uses proposed by the project. R:\D P\004)367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre RES-DP.PC.doc B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The Development Plan for the project has been reviewed by City Departments and outside agencies whose responsibility it is to ensure protection, and the project has been conditioned based upon their requirements. Staff has determined upon review of the project, that it is consist with the City Development Code and General Plan policies, documents designed to ensure protection of the general public. C. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application for the design and construction of four (4) multi-tenant speculative buildings totaling approximately 88,083 square feet on 6.09 vacant acres, located at the southeast corner of Business Park Drive and Rancho Way, within the partially developed Rancho California Business Park, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-020-061subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. pASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this third day of January, 2001. Ron Guerriero, 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 third day of January, 2001 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: R:\D P\00~}367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre RES-DP.PC.doc 2 Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 7 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0367 - Development Plan Project Description: To design and construct four (4) multi-tenant speculative buildings totaling approximately 88,083 square feet of office, manufacturing, distributing and warehouse uses. Development Impact Fee Category: Business Park / Industrial Assessor's Parcel No. 921-020-061 Approval Date: Expiration Date: January 3, 2001 January 3, 2003 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy- Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. Ifwithin said forty-eight (48) hour periodthe applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division 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 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. R:~D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\COA-DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre.doc 1 10. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project. Additional onsite parking spaces shall be provided should changes to the square footage allocated to land uses increase the need for vehicular parking spaces. A new Parking Analysis shall be submitted to ensure that adequate onsite parking is available for the uses as modified. If existing parking fields do not meet the tenant's parking needs, additional spaces shall be installed. Outside storage of equipment or materials shall not be permitted as part of this approval. Should the applicant desire to provide outside storage areas, he shall submit a revised development plan, indicating compliance with the City's Development Code and Design Guidelines regarding proper screening of such areas. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Wheel stops shall be installed wherever vehicle overhang encroaches upon walkways used for handicapped accessibility which do not provide a minimum 4-foot width. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "G" (Landscape Plan) or as amended by these Conditions of Approval. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "G" (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. R:~) P~00-0367 MKI Bldgs\COA~DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre.doc 2 Material Color Concrete walls Concrete walls - accent Aluminum mullions & metal doore Storefront glazing Frazee #8692W "Bauhaus Buff" Frazee #8680 "Aria Ivory" Painted to match "Aria Ivory" PPG Azurlite "Green Reflective" 11. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 13. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 14. The applicant shall revise if necessary Exhibits "D, E, F, G," "H," to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "H" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 16. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). R:~D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\COA-DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre.doc 3 Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. An Administrative Development Plan application for a comprehensive Sign Program for the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning prior to the installation of any signage. All signage in compliance with the approved Sign Program shall require a separate building permit prior to installation. 18. 19. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 20. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 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." 21. 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. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 22. 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. R:~D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\COA-DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre.doc 4 General Requirements 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 26. 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. 27. The Developer shall post secudty 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. 28. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 29. 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. 30. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works 31. 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. 32. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 33. 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. R:~D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\COA-DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre.doc 5 34. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 35. 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: 36. a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. The proposed driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard. c. A Street light shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site at the southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive in accordance with Ordinance 461. d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400.401and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. 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 in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. 37. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: sidewalks, drive approach and street light as appropriate. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 38. 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 site conditions. 39. 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. 40. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. R:~D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs~COA-DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre.doc 6 Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 41. As deemed necessary, by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 42. a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 43. 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. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 44. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 45. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 46. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 47. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 48. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building(s) is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope, stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility 49. All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998. 50. Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the main entries in accordance with California building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan as requested above which indicates compliance with this. 51. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. R:'~D P~00-0367 MKI Bldgs~COA-DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre,doc 7 52. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 53. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. 54. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed by an appropriate registered professional. 55. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 56. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays 57. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 58. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. 59. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site disabled accessibility. 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. 60. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 61. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 2 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. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) R:'~D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\COA-DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre.doc 8 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fr0e hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located 0n Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no moro than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fr0e flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 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 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) Prior to building construction, dead end read ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 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. (CFC 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 plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) R:~D P~00-0367 MKI Bldgs\COA-DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre.doc 9 72. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 73. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbem, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 74. 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. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 75. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 76. 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. (CFC 902.4) 77.. 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 fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 78. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 79. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81) 80. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901:3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 81. Prior to building permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each on 8 % X 11 inch paper must be submitted. An electronic version may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for acceptable file formats and approval. R:~D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\COA-DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre,doc 10 82. 83. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT GENERAL CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of building permits or installation of street lights, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street lights into the TCSD maintenance program. OTHER AGENCIES 84. 85. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated October 3, 2000, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated September 27, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 86. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Districts transmittal dated September 28, 2000, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above 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 Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:~D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\COA~DEVPLAN for Temecula Corporate Centre.doc 11 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 . _ 909/955-1200 /~'3"~ 909/788-9965 FAX VERSIDE CO TY FLOOD CONTROl,. " WATER CONSERVATION DIST . Attention: .T)/M/c. kJO~ Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: ~ O 0 - O '2~ ~ '7 The Disthct does nqt normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities._The Distdc, t also 9o9s not ,elan check cit~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate le~ers or, other hood hazard reports for SUCh cases, uisthct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally ~imiteo to items of specific Lnter,est to.th,e Disthct including Disthct Master Drainage Plan facilitie, s, other regional flood control and drainage facilities wnicn could be considered a logical componen[or extension or a master p~an system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The Disthct has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply Disthct approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: _ v// This pr,oject wo. uld not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regiona~ interest proposed. This project involves District Ma.,ster Plan facilities. The Disthct will accept ownership of such facilities on wdtten request Of the City. Families must be. constructed to District stannards and Disthct plan. check and inspection will be required for uistrict acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative tees will be required. This p,rojec, t propos,es cha. nnels s, torm .drains. 36.inches or !arger,in dis.meter or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature ancuor a logical extension of me aaopteo Master..D..rainage.Plan. The Distdct .wou. lfl cons_tale, r a, ccgpfi.ng .ownership pt s, uc.n tac, JlJtte. s on.written .reque.s,t, of the ~Jity. Fac_ilities must be constructed to uistricz stanaaros and Disthct p~an cnecK and inspection be required for u stdct acceptance. P an check, nspecfion and adm n strat ve fees wi be requ red. v/ This project is located within the Ii.mits 9f the. District's Hl.~e.l~rt~ ~.E~,~/'1'81'~ C. UL.~ I/P'uC'~ea ' Drainage Plan mr which drainage tees nave oeen adoptea; applicable tees ~oul(~ be paid .gY cashier's check or money order only to me Flood Control Disthct prior to issuance of building or gra(3ing permits, whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of[he actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project_may r,e~uire a National Pqllutant ..Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources uon[rol ~oard. Clearance to.r grading recordation or other final approva~should not be given until the City has determined that the project has oeen granted a perm t or s shown to be exempt. If this Project involves a Federal Emergen,c.y Man.age.ment Agency (FE.MA). mapped flood plain, then the City should require me appli.can, t to provide all studies, camum~ons, plans and_diner ~nformation required to meet FEMA requirement,s, and sno,ul,d further require .that the a, ppficant obtain a ~Jond!tional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) . prior to grading, recomation or other nnal appreva~ of the project, and a Letter of Map Rev s on (LOMR) pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the apRlicant to obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from_ the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean water Act Se,.ction 4.0,4 Permit. from the. ,U.S...Army uorps of .Engi.ne..e.rs o.r w. dtte.n..o, orrespondence fro..m t..hese a~encies indicating me Pr0jec[ is exempt rrom ~nese reqmremems. A ~J~ean water Act ~ection 401 Water uuafity 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: .1.0- COU FY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTh oERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF EN¥IRONMEN L HEAILTR Ci~ ofTemecma manmng ~epamnent '~-~.~ P.O. Box 9033 '"~./ Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Plot Plan No. PA00-0367 Dear Dave Hogan: 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0367 and has no objections. ~anitary scxxcr and water services may be avaiiabie ill this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, lhe 15)lloxving items are required: a) "Will-serve" leuers fi'om the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) A clearance letter fi'om tile Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Undergronnd storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2. · Waste Rednction Management 3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/Lea). Sincerely, ~~nmental Health SM:dr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Specialist Any current additional requiremeuts not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan rex few for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. Cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Local Enforcement Agency * P.O. Box 1250. Riverside. CA 92502-1280 * !909! 955-$9S2 × F.%X (9091 78!-9653 * 40S0 Lemon S~eet. 9th Floor. Riverside. CA 9250: Land Use and Water Engineerin__. ' EO. Box i 206. Riverside CA 92502- ! 2,96 · ~9~39} 955-89S0 * F-kX {9©9} 955 S903 * ~'-0S01 emon SrreeL 2nd Fleer. Ri,.'~!rsid¢ CA 9250 September 28, 2000 Dave Hogan, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 19580 APN 921-020-061 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0367 MKI INDUSTRIAL BUILDING Dear Mr. Hogan: 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 that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Represent?.t.ve at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 00\SB:at 177\F012-T6\FCF ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL STUDY R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01,doc 8 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) for the Temecula Corporate Centre Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location Southeast corner of Business Park Dr. & Rancho Way, within the Rancho California Business Park Project Sponsor's Name and Address MKJ Temecula Business Park LLC; Michael Mueller 13215 E. Penn Street, Suite 300 Whittier, CA 90602 General Plan Designation BP - Business Park Zoning LI - Light Industrial Description of Project To design and construct four (4) multi-tenant speculative buildings totaling approximately 88,191 square feet on 6.09 vacant acres Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The site is located within the partially developed Rancho California Business Park, with existing industrial uses to the south, east and north. The site has been previously graded. Access driveways, meandering sidewalk, and street landscaping have already been installed. All utilities are available at the site. Other public agencies whose approval Southern California Edison, the Gas Company, Eastern Municipal is required Water District, Rancho California Water District, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (Health and Hazardous Materials Sections). R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\ceqa initial study.doc 1 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 Planning Hazards Population and Housing Noise Geologic Problems Public Services Water Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources Biological Resources Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance X None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not X be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated~ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Carole K. Donahoe Printed name December 13, 2000 Date For: The City of Temecula R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\ceqa initial study.doc 2 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supportin~ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the X area? Comments: No Impact. The project will not affect a scenic vista. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. It is located in an existing industrial park. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.5. No Impact. There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site. There are no scenic resources within the project site, nor is the site within the view of a state scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to scenic resources will result from the proposed project or the future development of the site. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately 6 acres of vacant property. The site has been previously graded in preparation for an industrial user within a developing industrial park. The proposal will be similar to surrounding industrial development, and will enhance the site in terms of visual character and quality. The proposed buildings offer architectural treatment, particularly along street frontages, and utilizes appropriate landscaping to breakup expanses of walls. Therefore, the project as designed will not have a significant adverse impact. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. 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 City Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With this mitigation measure in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated. R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Eva uat on and S te Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant WithLess Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, ' to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: 2a.-c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past has not been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Less Than PotentiallySignificant With Less Than SignificantMitigation Significant No issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 2 Comments: 3.a.,b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed will comply w!th State and National ambient air quality standards. The project does not exceed the daily thresholds of potential significance for air quality as noted in Table 6-2 of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and emissions thresholds established in South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). Furthermore, the City of Temecula's General Plan EI R has addressed development of the site for industrial uses and anticipated a target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.40. The General Plan established target floor area ratios within various land uses in order to determine the intensity of uses and the impacts upon the environment. The General Plan EIR evaluates the impacts of development at the target FAR. The analysis conducted for this project indicates that the project has a floor area ratio of 0.33, below the target. Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans are anticipated from the proposed project. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may generate some pollutants and thereby contribute to the cumulative impact to air quality. However, as noted above, the General Plan EIR evaluation of impacts by development at the target FAR specifically references cumulative impacts. No air quality standard violations are expected from this project. Because the project FAR is below the target, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. No Impact. The project Will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants. The project shall comply with the environmental standards as detailed in the Development Code for industrial development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may create objectionable odors, particularly during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be or short duration and ara not considered significant over the long term. The project shall comply with the environmental standards as detailed in the Development Code for industrial development. Therefore, less than significant long-term impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 3 4. BIOLOGICAL REsouRCES: Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact incorporated Impact impact d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting × biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Commen~: No Impact. The site has been rough graded previously into developable industrial pads. The General Plan does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site. The site is outside the habitat area identified for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and the California Gnatcatcher, and does not contain wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. There is no anticipated biological impact associated with this project. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephan's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. As a consequence, with mitigation measures incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project, a less than significant impact is anticipated. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5.a-d. No Impact. The site has already been rough graded and resoume mitigation was addressed at that time. The General Plan does not identify this area as containing sensitive archaeological or paleontological resources. There has been no evidence that resources have been found nearby nor are likely to be found on site. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 4 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~r, pact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning X Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?. Comments: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.. There are two known earthquake fault, the Willard Fault and the Wildomar Fault, delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. A Fault and Seismicity Investigation by Shaefer Dixon Associates, Inc. dated June 30, 1989 for the proposed site and adjacent area identifies the Wildomar Special Studies Zone as being 3,500 feet to the northeast. The Investigation identifies the Willard fault's Restricted Use Zone as encroaching 20 feet on the western portion of the project site. The design of the development has maintained the minimum 50-foot setback from the faultline, with the nearest building being over 66 feet beyond the fault setback zone where human inhabited structures are prohibited. A Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study dated September 1, 2000 was prepared for the project by EnGEN Corporation, which references the Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc. Investigation, as well as the Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc. Grading Report dated March 13, 1990. The EnGEN Study states that active faulting does not occur on the site. With the project design in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.a.ii, iv, b., and d. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. There may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, soil erosion, or expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area that is seismically active. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report are complied with during construction. The soil reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant R:\D P\00-O367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study OO-O367.doc 5 ,6, impacts from seismic grob~l~'shaking, seismic ground failure, liq subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development of the site may be affected by liquefaction, subsidence or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. However, the EnGEN Study provides specific recommendations that address these concerns. After mitigation measures are performed, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Recommendations include the following: 1) Clearing the site so that no disking or mixing of organic material into the soils is performed. Fill material shall not contain rocks or clumps greater than 6-inches. Man-made objects encountered shall be overexcavated and exported from the site. 2) To mitigate for the potential hazards associated with liquefaction, removals below the proposed structure area shall extend to a depth of ten (10) feet below proposed pad grade or ten (10) feet below existing grades, whichever results in the deeper removal. Horizontal extent of removals shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet beyond the perimeter footings. All exposed removal bottoms shall be inspected by the Soil Engineer's representative prior to placement of any fill. 3) The approved exposed bottoms shall be scarified 12 inches, brought to a near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction before placement of fill. 4) Compaction equipment used shall include rubber-tired or track-mounted equipment and sheepsfoot rollers to achieve proper compaction. 5) Average shrinkage of soils shall be on the order of 10 to 15 percent. 6) Finished fill slopes shall not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Fill slopes shall be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction, constructed in a skillful manner so that they are positioned at the design orientations and slope ratio, and shall be backrolled with suitable equipment for the type of soil being used during fill placement at intervals not exceeding 4.0 feet in vertical height. 7) Expansion potential shall be conducted to identify the potential for each pad and to assign appropriate foundation and slab-on-grade recommendations for construction. No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The ultimate development of the site will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system in Business Park Drive. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D P\00-O367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study OO-0367.doc 6 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: , Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~m,act Incorporated Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proJect area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 7.a.,b. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Tenants in the proposed project may utilize and store hazardous materials. Any future tenant will be required to comply with all applicable City and State Fire Code requirements prior to occupancy in order to mitigate any significant impacts regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials. The project shall be required to obtain clearance from both the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and the County Fire Department. With this mitigation measure in place any potential impact shall be mitigated. No Impact. This project site is not located within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school site, Temecula Elementary School, is a mile away. No impact is anticipated. 7.d. No Impact. The applicant has certified that the project site is located within a one-mile radius of an identified hazardous waste site, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, the site itself is not an identified R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 7 hazardous waste site by the Secretary of Environmenta~Frotection. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e.,f. No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. The nearest airport is French Valley, whose runway is more than 5 miles to the east. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. 7.9. No Impact. The project will take access from two maintained public streets and will therefore not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is an industrial building for manufacturing and warehousing in an area of similar Business Park/Light Industrial uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 8 Inundation by seiche, 'hi, or mudflow? Comments: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project is required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. With mitigation a less than significant impact is anticipated as a rasult of this project. 8.b.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with greundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local greundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of greund waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of greundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. The applicant proposes to use reclaimed water and provide a demonstration garden onsite to mitigate water consumption and promote water conservation. No impacts ara anticipated as a result of this project. 8.c.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The preposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable greund. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances are required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created. An existing three-foot wide concrete drainage channel traverses the eastern boundary of the site, and shall remain in place. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the existing storm drain facilities. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the development of the subject site. In addition, the project is conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is associated with this project. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for an industrial user within an industrial park. No residential property is affected; no impact is associated with this project. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project may expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. According to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the project site is in area that is subject to severe flood hazard from Murrieta Creek. This project as conditioned requires the developer to pay flood mitigation fees to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The project is also located within the dam inundation area identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. However, impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency response systems. Less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project because mitigation measures are in place for the site and general area of the site. 8.j. No Impact. The project site is not subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudfiow as these events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study O0-0367.doc 9 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the proJect: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~r, pact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or~ X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Comments: No Impact. The project includes office and industrial buildings designed to accommodate manufacturing, warehousing and office uses within an industrial park containing similar uses. There is no established residential community on the site nor in the vicinity. Therefore, no impacts as a result of this project are anticipated. No Impact. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park) and the zoning designation of LI (Light Industrial) which call for the development of well designed business and employment centers. Typical uses include light manufacturing, storage, industrial supply and wholesale businesses. The proposed development plan meets the intent of these designations. Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. These agencies were given the opportunity to comment on the project and their comments are made a part of the Conditions of Approval for the project. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended to the area. As a result, the project is not anticipated to conflict with existing land uses. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephan's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. With this measure in place, the project is anticipated to have less than significant impacts. R:\D P\00-O367 MKI 81dgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 10 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 10.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, it has been determined that this area contains no deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in a report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County., California, Special Report 165, prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~mpact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of X standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proJect? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proJect? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitiat Study 00-0367.doc 11 Comments: 11 .a.,d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short term). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and not long- term. Construction hours are regulated by the City Development Code, to which the applicant shall comply. Therefore noise as a result of construction will not be considered significant. Some of the proposed uses may generate interior machinery noise, which may make conversation difficult. However, it is anticipated that exterior noise levels will be no different than other adjacent industrial uses. In any event, the project's manufacturing operations must comply with the City Development Code with regard to noise. Any use which generates sounds that are or may be considered a nuisance or hazard to any adjacent property due to the intermittence, beat, frequency, or shrillness of the sounds, shall have the source of the noise muffled or otherwise controlled so that the noise is subdued to acceptable levels. Therefore, noise generated by the project is anticipated to be within industry standards, and impacts of this project are less than significant. 11.b.,c. Less Than Significant Impact. While industrial development will create noise levels greater than the currently vacant land, long-term noise generated by this project shall comply with the limits of the General Plan and Development Code standards. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 11.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. As mentioned in response 11.a. construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A less than significant impact would be anticipated. 11.e.f. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, employees working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 12 Comments: 12.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of BP (Business Park) and Zoning Designation of LI (Light Industrial). The proposed industrial development will cause some people to relocate to, or within the Temecula area. However, it will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan. Further, the project is anticipated to create jobs for existing local residents, which would contribute to the favorable balance of jobs to housing ratio for the City. 12.b.c. No Impact. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is vacant properly zoned Light industrial (LI). Additionally, the project site is located within an existing industrial park which does not permit residential development. The project will neither displace housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13. 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: Less Than PotentiallySignificant With Less Than SignificantMitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~mpact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fire protection? X c. Police protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X Comments: 13.a.,b.,c.,e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered tire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through City Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable School Fees. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 13 13.f. Less Than Significant llt. The project will have a less than sl~ficant impact upon, or result ina need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District, in correspondence dated September 28, 2000, indicates that the project site is located within the boundaries of the District. Water and sewer service is available upon completion of financial arrangements. The Riverside Department of Environmental Health, in correspondence dated September 27, 2000, that their Department has no objections, and anticipates "Will Serve" letters will be provided to this project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. t4. RECREATION. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact incorporated Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the X facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 14.a.b. Less than Significant Impact. The project is not likely to have an impact in the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. The project may cause some employees to relocate from existing facilities elsewhere to the City of Temecula. However, due to the size of the project, the impact to recreational facilities is minimal. Furthermore, the proposed project is subject to Development Impact Fees, which contribute towards the provision of recreational facilities in the City. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of this project. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact impact a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on reads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? R:\D P\00-0367 MK[ Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~r, pact Incorporated Impact impact d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks? Comments: 15.a,b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is an inflll site in an existing business park, in which the uses proposed were anticipated. While more traffic will be generated by the development of the site, it is not expected to be any greater than anticipated by the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Existing roadways fronting the site and in the surrounding vicinity are capable of handling the additional traffic that may be generated by the project. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. 15.c.d. No Impact. The proposed development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns by increasing the traffic levels in the vicinity. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district. The design of the project will not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the people utilizing the roads in the vicinity of the project because there are no sharp curves or dangerous intersections proposed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.e. No Impact. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project consists of office and industrial buildings for manufacturing and warehousing use in an existing industrial park. The project, as designed, complies with current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.f. No Impact. The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking requirements for office, industrial and warehouse uses. The project is conditioned to update the project's parking analysis should the allocation of building square footages to these uses change. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.g. No Impact. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project provides motorcycle and bicycle parking. As a consequence, the project supports alternative transportation, and no impact is anticipated. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation S~gnificant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources impact Incorporated impact impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 15 facilities, the constructio~ could cause significant --' environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a.,b., e. Les~ Than Significant Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.c. No Impact. The amount of runoff from the project is not anticipated to be any greater than what was anticipated by construction of the site. Consequently construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities are not anticipated. 16.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The Rancho California Water District, in correspondence dated September 28, 2000, indicates that the project site is located within the boundaries of the District. Water and sewer service is available upon completion of financial arrangements. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f.g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waster created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which ara implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D P\00-0367 MI(I Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 16 ~ ~' 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~r, pact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population ' to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively X considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: 17.a. No Impact. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The site lies within a partially developed business/industrial park and has been rough graded to accommodate industrial development. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife because plants found on the site are limited to residential/urban/exotic non-native grassland, which is not particularly suited for protected species. No historic resources are anticipated to be impacted because the site is not identified as having the potential for resources, no significant resources have been found in the vicinity, and grading has already occurred on the site. 17.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property, and as such, impacts generated by the proposed development are no greater than what is anticipated at buildout of the City. 17.c. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project was analyzed with regards to aesthetics, biological resources, land use, hazards, hydrologic and geologic events, in all aspects, the project has been designed or conditioned to reduce impacts with certain mitigation measures. With these measures in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to incorporate all mitigation measures imposed on this project. The Mitigation Monitoring Program accompanies this document. R:\D P\00-0367 MK[ B[dgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 17 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 18.a, Reference was made to the Schafer Dixon Associates Fault and Seismicity Investigation, dated June 30, 1989, and the EnGEN Corporation Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study, dated September 1, 2000. Copies of both documents are in the Planning Department caseflle for this project. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study. 18.b. There were no earlier impacts which affected this project. 18.c. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for this project and is attached to this document. SOURCES 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The City of Temecula Development Code. Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study, prepared by EnGen Corp.- September 1,2000 Fault and Seismicity Investigation, prepared by Schaefer Dixon Associates, dated June 30, 1989 for a portion of Parcel Map No. 19580 R:~D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\lnitial Study 00-0367.doc 18 ATFACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING STUDY R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 9 AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA00-0367 (Development Plan) The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare which would affect Palomar Observatory and day or night time views. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES General Impact: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation Measure: Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Specific Process: Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department. GEOLOGY AND SOILS General Impact: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Mitigation Measure: Habitable structures shall be constructed outside the 50-foot setback from the fault line, and in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the EnGEN Corporation Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study Specific Process: Submit building plans consistent with proposed site plan for the project, and which incorporates these recommendations. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Mitigation Monitoring Program-MKJ.doc 1 Responsible Monitoring Party: Public Works, Building and Planning Departments General Impact: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Mitigation Measure: Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards, and in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the EnGEN Corporation Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study. Specific Process: 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. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Mitigation Measure: Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code and with the recommendations set forth in the EnGEN Corporation Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study. Specific Process: Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Mitigation Measure: Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Specific Process: Submit erosion control plans to the Depart.ment of Public Works for approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works. R:\D P/00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Mitigafion Monitoring Program-MKJ.doc 2 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of 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. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS General Impact: Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transportation, use or disposal, upset or accident of hazardous materials, or involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measure: Comply with all applicable City and State Fire Code requirements prior to occupancy. Specific Process: Submit building plans consistent with proposed floor plans, elevations and site plan for the project. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Fire Department. General Impact: Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transportation, use or disposal, upset or accident of hazardous materials, or involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measure: Comply with all applicable City and State Fire Code requirements prior to occupancy. Specific Process: Inspection and clearance from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, HazMat Division required. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate Of Occupancy. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building Department R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Mitigaflon Monitoring Program-MKJ.doc 3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY General Impact: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). Mitigation Measure: An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Specific Process: The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). General Impact: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of sur[ace runoff. Mitigation Measure: Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent prOperties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Specific Process: Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works General Impact: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. Mitigation Measure: Make a fair share contribution toward regional flood control facilities. Specific Process: Payment of flood mitigation fees to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permitsl Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Mitigation Monitoring Program-MKJ.doc 4 LAND USE AND PLANNING General Impact: Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measure: Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. Specific Process: Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat habitat. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs~Mitigation Monitoring Program-MKJ.doc 5 A'n'ACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 10 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:\D P\00-0367 MKI B[dgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 10 CITY OF TEMECULA - ' Project Site EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI Light Industrial Project Site OOO EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP Business Park CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 R:\D P~00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 12 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 SITE PLAN R:~D P\00-0367 MKI BIdgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 14 ClTYOFTEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 17 CITY OF TEMECULA NORTH~EVA~ON EAS~ELEV~flON ~*SOUTH~EVA~ON WEST ELEVATION ' CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Pla'~)* EXHIBIT - F 1 - Building A ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 15 CITY OFTEMECULA WEST ELEVATION SOUTH £LEV.4TION EAST ELEVATION NORm ELEVATION CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - F 2 - Building B ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 R:\D P~00-0367 MKI Bldgs~Temec~la Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC %3-01.doc 15 ClTY OFTEMECULA NO{TH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION WEST E~EV.4TION CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - F 3 - Building C PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA NORTH EEV4~ON $OUTH~WA~ON CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - F 4 - Building D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA BUILDINC 'A' FII~ST F~OOR PI. AN CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G1 - Building A, First Floor FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs~Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA BUILDING ',4' SECOND FLOOR Plan CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G2 - Building A, Second Floor PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 FLOOR PLAN R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT. PC 1-3-01.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA BUILDING 'B' FLOOR PLAN CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G3 - Building B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 FLOOR PLAN R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G4 - Building C PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 FLOOR PLAN R:~D P\00-0367 MK[ Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre ST^FFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G5 - Building D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 FLOOR PLAN R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 GRADING PLAN R:\D P\00-0367 MKI Bldgs\Temecula Corporate Centre STAFFRPT.PC 1-3-01.doc 18 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Janua~ 3,2001 Planning Application No. 00-0094 (Development Plan) RECOMMENDATION: Prepared By: Michael McCoy, Project Planner The Community Development Department Planning Division Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0094 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0094 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 12,615 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 0.92 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROICK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WEST OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-051. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: A & E West Dave Madden, A&E West To design, construct and operate a 12,615 square foot industrial building on 0.92 vacant acres within the Light Industrial (LI) Zone. Generally located on the south side of Roick Drive approximately 200 feet west of the Roick DriveNVinchester Road intersection BP Business Park LI Light Industrial R:\D P\00-0094 Regency\PC staff report final draft.doc 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Light Industrial South: Light Industrial East: Light Industrial West: Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: Not applicable GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Industrial West: Vacant BACKGROUND The applicant submitted the project on March 14, 2000. A Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting was held on April 13, 2000. A DRC comment letter was sent to the applicant on May 10, 2000. Revised plans were submitted to the City on June 22, 2000, August 9, 2000, September 11,2000, and October 23, 2000. The application was determined to be complete on November 14, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a 12,615 square foot tilt-up concrete speculative industrial building on a 0.92-acre vacant pad on Roick Drive. According to the applicant, the first tenant will probably be Quality Structures, Inc., a general contracting and framing contractor for industrial office and storage of supplies. Quality Structures will occupy all of the building and has nine operational employees who will occupy the 1800 square feet of office space. PROJECT STATISTICS Total Acreage: 0.92 acres, Building coverage: Landscaping: Hardscape: 39,905 square feet 12,615 square feet 32% 11,452 square feet 29% 9394 square feet 24% Parking Required: Office Use: Manufacturing: Warehouse: Total Vehicles 2,295 s.f. = 6,345 s.f. = 1,590 s.f. = 8 spaces 16 spaces 2 spaces 26 spaces R:\D P\00-0094 Regency\PC staff report final draft.doc 2 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PROVIDED Standard 26 23 Compact 0 3 Motorcycle 1 2 Bicycle 1 5 Accessible 2 4 ANALYSIS Site Design The site is rectangular from north to south and will take access from Roick Drive. The building site is on a prominent view location overlooking the Temecula Valley. However, the site design plan indicates that the primary entrance and area of human interaction will derive from the west side of the building, thus preventing the opportunity to realize the benefits of prominent eastward views. The applicant indicated that due to the contour constraints of the small site, the easier approach from the west side of the site for fire service vehicles, the ADA access requirements, and the need to avoid excessive grading and site improvement expenses, makes it prohibitive for the building to be sited with an east facing access. The plan does show an outdoor lunch area for employees on the east side of the proposed building that should create a pleasant break area with a panoramic valley view. Access Access to the site is off of a 24-foot concrete driveway entrance from the south side of Roick Drive, a 66 foot industrial collector street, approximately 200 feet to the west of Winchester Road. Employees, visitors and truck deliveries will all share the single access into the site. The front of the building leading to the office entrance has an 8% sloped disabled access ramp off the adjacent street sidewalk. The parking area is situated along the western and southern perimeter of the project site, parallel to the proposed building's west elevation. Two double loading areas with metal roll-up doors are evenly spaced near the front and rear of the west side of the building. Elevations The exterior building material is comprised of tan colored split face and v-grooved split face concrete masonry unit block. The front and rear entrances both feature a four-sided arched entryway with 16-inch diameter light tan sandblasted concrete columns. The east elevation features a 24 foot wide recessed arch with an indented square patterned interior surface, The top of the building's parapet wall is finished with a tan colored cornice around the building perimeter. Both the front and rear of the building offer storefront twin door entrances with narrow blue aluminum door frames. The building has several 5.5-feet x 4-feet blue aluminum framed fixed glass windows on all sides. Four ivory colored metal roll-up doors that serve the loading areas are positioned along the west side of the building. The proposed warehouse building height is 27 feet from ground level to the top of the perimeter cornice cap. The architect proposes three roof-mounted HVAC equipment in the center of the building along the west elevation, A 4-foot to 6,5-foot perimeter parapet wall above the building roofiine will ensure proper visual screening of the HVAC equipment. R:\D P~00-0094 Regency\PC staff report final draft.doc 3 Landscaping The project site is comprised of 11,452 square feet of landscaped area (29% of the overall site), which exceeds the minimum coverage requirements per the City Development Code. The proposed landscape plan includes 44 trees of various species of both 15 gallon and 24-inch box size. Groundcover includes a large variety of both 1 and 5-gallon shrubs, hydroseed, wood mulch and yellow gazania evenly distributed around the building and project site perimeters. A landscape setback ranging from 25 feet to 5 feet encircles the project site perimeter, which includes 24-inch box size Fern Pine and Red Crepe Myrtle trees, shrubs and groundcover. The west-facing portion of the site has a steep slope between the property line and the parking area that will be landscaped with a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover. Two ten-foot wide trash enclosures are located on the west side of the parking area, which are surrounded by double-sided landscape fingers containing several shade trees and shrubs. A third landscape finger is located in the rear of the parking area. Landscaping along the Roick Drive project frontage is enhanced with 15- gallon London Plane trees and 24-inch box size Red Crepe Myrtle trees, as well as a variety of shrubs and groundcover to provide greater focus and aesthetic appeal. Three landscape planters each featuring a 24-inch box size Red Crepe Myrtle tree and various shrubs are evenly positioned in front of the two loading areas and warehouse area along the west side of the building. The City's Landscape Architect consultant supports the landscape plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the application and recommends that a Categorical Exemption, in accordance with Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 32 In-Fill Development project be approved. The proposed development is within the City limits on a 0.92-acre site, and is substantially surrounded by developed and vacant urban industrial uses. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. The project site is already served by all required utilities and public services. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The BP Business Park General Plan designation views industrial warehouse buildings as a typical land use. The (LI) Light Industrial zoning code designation lists office/manufacturing/warehouse uses as a permitted land use with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.08 of the Development Code. The proposed project as conditioned is consistent with the policies contained in the General Plan and with the requirements of the Development Code and City Design Guidelines. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends that the Commission approve Planning Application 00-0094 (Development Plan) as designed and conditioned because it is a permitted use within the zone and complies with applicable development standards and regulations. R:\D P\00~0094 Regency\PC staff report final draft.doc 4 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 General Plan designation on the property is (BP) Business Park, which permits, with the approval of a Development Plan, the office/manufacturing/warehouse uses proposed by the project. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The Development Plan for the project has been reviewed by City Departments and outside agencies whose responsibility it is to ensure protection, and the project has been conditioned based upon their requirements. Staff has determined upon review of the project, that it is consistent with the City Development Code and General Plan policies and documents designed to ensure protection of the general public. 3. The designs of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off- site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Exhibits - Blue Page 20 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Elevations F. Floor Plan G. Mezzanine Floor Plan H. Landscape Plan R:\D P\00-0094 Regency\PC staff report final draft.doc 5 A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t- R:',D P\00-0094 Regency~°C staff report final draft.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0094 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A t2,615 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON APPROXIMATELY 0.92 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROICK DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WEST OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-051. WHEREAS, A & E WEST filed Planning Application No. PA00-0094 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application, on January 3, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; 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 and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code; 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 General Plan designation on the property is (BP) Business Park, .which permits, with the approval of a Development Plan, the office/manufacturing/warehouse uses proposed by the project. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The Development Plan for the project has been reviewed by City Departments and outside agencies whose responsibility it is to ensure protection, and the project has been conditioned based upon their requirements. Staff has determined upon review of the project, that it is consistent with the City Development Code and General Plan policies, documents designed to ensure protection of the general public. R:~D P\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report final draft.doc 7 C. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0094 was made per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 Class 32, as the project does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Department shall retain and preserve the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application for the design, construction and operation of a 12,615 square foot building on 0.92 acres, located on the south side of Roick Drive, approximately 200 feet west of Winchester Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No.909-320-051, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this third day of January, 2001. Ron Guerriero, 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 Third day of January, 2001 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: pLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report final draft.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~ P\00-0094 Regency~C staff report final draft.doc 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0094 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of a 12,615 square foot industrial (tilt-up concrete) building on a .92 acre vacant lot located on the south side of Roick Drive, approximately 200 feet wes~ of Winchester Road. Development Impact Fee Category: Business Park I Industrial Assessor's Parcel No: 909-320-051 Approval Date: January 3, 2001 Expiration Date: January 3, 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division 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 1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. R:~D P\00-0094 Regency~C staff report final draft.doc 10 This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; othewvise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially to Exhibit D (Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. 00-0094, or as amended by these conditions. Building elevations shall conform substantially to the approved to Exhibit E (Elevation Plans), or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structures. Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit F, or as amended bythese conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and the Development Code. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. All roof-mounted equipment shall be visually screened by parapet walls as high as or higher than the tallest piece of equipment. The colors and materials used for this industrial building shall conform substantially to the approved color and material board, or as amended by these conditions. Material Concrete walls Accent Trim Storefront doors and window frames Overhead roll-up doors, trim and misc. metals Color Orco "Tan" Concrete Block Dunn Edwards Q13-55D "Tempest Blue" Dunn Edwards Q13-55D "Tempest Blue" Dunn Edwards 60 Navajo White Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 10. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural Elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. R:~D P\00-0094 Regency~C staff report final draft.doc 11 Prior to 11. 12. the Issuance of Building Permits A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and conform substantially to the approved Exhibit "F" Conceptual Landscape Plan or as amended by these conditions. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 13. Separate building permit applications for the installation of signage shall be submitted in conformance with City Ordinances, Design Guidelines, and Development Code. 14. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Director. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 15. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plans, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. 16. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles 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." R:~D P\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report final draft.doc 12 In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 17. Landings at exterior doors shall be level except that exterior landings may have a slope not to exceed ¼ unit in 12 units horizontal. (2% slope) California Building Code Section 1003.3.1.6 18. Landings at doors shall not be more than % inch lower than the threshold of the doorway. Please look at Unit A. California Building Code Section 1003.3.1.6 19. Ali design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 20. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 21. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 22. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 23. 24. 25. 26. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 27. 28. 29. 30. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Obtain the Division of the State Architect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the Building Official, to implement in the building design. R:~D P~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report final draft.doc 13 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. ^ pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 39. Show all building setbacks Post conspicuously at the entrance to the project the hours of construction as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and specifically Section G (1) of the Riverside County Ordinance # 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Construction hours are as follows: Monday - Friday 6;30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Code Holidays PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 40. 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 41. A Grading Permit for 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. 42. 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. 43. The grading plan shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. R:'~D P\00-0094 Regency~C staff report final draft.doc 14 Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 48. 49. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Planning Department b. Department of Public Works The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 50. 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. 51. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 52. 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. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207^. R:~D P~00-0094 Regency~PC staff reporl final draft,doc 15 53. 54. 55. 56. c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps near the driveway opening shall be constructed in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. e. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Drive approaches b. Under sidewalk drains c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 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 site conditions. 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. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 57. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 58. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 59. 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 Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: R:~D P\00-0094 Regency~C staff report final draft.doc 16 60. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at the time of building, plan submittal. 61. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 2 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. (CFC 903.2, Appendix II1- A) 62. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a 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. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 63. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 64. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 65. 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 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 66. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 67. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 68. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) 69. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) R:~D P~00-0094 Regency~°C staff report final draft.doc 17 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 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 plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 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. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 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. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire alarm system monitored by a Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the 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. (CFC 902.4) 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 fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. R:~D P~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report final draft.doc 18 78. 79. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and ail applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. (CFC Article 81) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) OTHER AGENCIES 80. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated March 22, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 28, 2000, 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's Signature Date Nameprin~d R:~D P\00-0094 Regency~PC staff repod final draft.doc 19 Board of Directors Dougla~ V. Kulberg E.P. '~Bob" Lemons Director of Engineering Kenneth C. Dealy March 22, 2000 Denice Thomas, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 J · SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABIL!'.'rY. PARCEL NO. 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28471 APN 909-320-051 Dear Ms. Thomas: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site water and sewer facilities and the 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. Di.*trict Se er et a w/AcLminis tr at ire s~ce,~,=.g~,. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an B..,Be.,~,,,,....~ Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to o~=r., c,,~..-~ RCWD. c..nt,..., an '~ you have any ,,.~ p,e~..... Engineering· ,, q,~..s.,.., ,s, Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 00\SB:rnc076\F012-CI\FCF -'/ County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Ii ... DPiTE:..March 28, 2000 TO: CIT~ OF TEMECULA PLANNINO DEPARTMENT . AT'N: Denice Thomas / K~olfe Preisendanz ]?ROM ironmental Health Specialist III RE PL(~T PLAN NO - : . PA00 0094 1. The Departm4t of En,Aronmental Health ha~ reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00:0094 and has no ' objections. S~i' 'ta~ sewer and water services my be available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO J~IY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the foll~wi, ng items are J'eqtfired: a) "Will-serx :" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) 'Du'ee con ~lete sets of plato for each food establishment (to in¢l.ude vending machines) will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, ,and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure co ~aPliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference >lease contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022). c) ^ clearm letter from the Ha~m'doua'Matcrials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required ~ idicating that the project has been cleared for: · Unde?rmmd.: storage tm~s, Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordimmce # 615.3. · Emcr~ncy! Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordtmxnce # 651.2.) * Wast!ireduction management. d) A letter flbm the Waste Regulati.on Branch Cggaste C°llecti°n/LEA)' CH:dr (909) 955-8980 !:~ : NOTE: Plhy current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building P[~ review for final Department of Envh'onmental Health Clearance. CC: I~pug'Thompson, Hazardous Materials ~nnie Diet!ring, Supervising E.H.S... ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:~D P\00-0094 Regency~C staff reporl final draft,doc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT SITE CASE NO. - PA00-0094 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:\D P\00-0094 Regency\PC staff report final draft.doc 23 CITY OFTEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI Light Industrial PROJECT ..... ,, ..... , SITE EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP Business Park CASE NO. - PA00-0094 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 R:~D P~00-0094 Regency Ind. Bldg.~STAFFRPT. PC.doc 15 CiTY ~OF TEMECULA CASE NO, - PA00-0094 ' '" EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 SITE PLAN R:\D P\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report final draft.doc 25 CiTY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0094 EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:\D P\00-0094 Regency\PC staff report final draft.doc 26 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0094 EXHIBIT - F FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 R:\D P\00-0094 Regency\PC staff report final draft.doc 27 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0094 EXHIBIT - G MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 R:\D P\00-0094 Regency\PC staff report final draft, doc 28 CITY OFTEMECULA C C C CASE NO. - PA00-0094 EXHIBIT - H LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 R:\D P\00-0094 Regency\PC staff report final draft.doc 29 ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 3, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0213 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Project Planner IV RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0213 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 116,376 SQAURE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN t8 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 92'1- 090-63,71,72, AND 78, AND LOTS 7, 51, 52, 53, AND 54 OF PARCEL MAP No 28530. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: MCA Amhitects, INC. PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a Development Plan for construction of the BeI-Villaggio retail center with 116,375 square foot of retail area within several buildings on an 18- acre site. LOCATION: Located within The Regional Center Specific Plan on the east side Of Margarita Road, between North General Kearny Road and Overland Drive. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Professional Office and Community Commercial R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SClC Staff report.doc 1 EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS Total Project Area Net: Total Building Areas: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Hardscape: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Building Height: Site SP (Mixed Use, Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) North: SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) South: SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) East: SP (Campus Verdes Specific Plan) and Low Medium Density Residential West: SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) Vacant (Planning Area 1) North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Promenade Mall West: Residential and Detention Basin 772,755 square feet 116,375 square feet 120,000 square feet 471,380 square feet 65,000 square feet 17.74 acres 15.0 % 15.5 % 61.0 % 8.5 % 582 spaces, 5 spaces/1000 square feet, including restaurant uses 697 spaces 40 feet BACKGROUND The application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on May 25, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was held on June 22, 2000. The applicant has cooperated with staff in revising the Site Plan a number of times. Compromises have been made by both sides to make the project both consistent with the Regional Center Specific Plan and a viable project to construct and operate. The Specific Plan requires a pedestrian oriented design for this project, refer to Attachment 2 for the Specific Plan Standards. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to construct an 116,375 square foot retail center known as BeI-Villaggio. The site is surrounded by Margarita Road, the Mall Loop Road, an existing drainage channel, the Mall Access Link Road that connects the Mall Loop Road to Overland Drive (adjacent to Costco), and the mall entrance from Margarita Road which is the extension of North General Kearny Road. An existing EMWD well site, the drainage channel, and the limited width of the site provide some development constraints on the site. R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 2 The project has four basic building clusters: 2. 3. 4. Buildings A, B, and C are designed around an approximately 6,000 square foot pedestrian plaza. Buildings D, E, F, and J are designed around a roundabout. Buildings G, H, I, and K are designed around an approximately 2,500 square-foot pedestrian plaza. Buildings L, M, N, and O are designed as a conventional strip center development. These four clusters will be built in three phases. Phase I includes Buildings L, M, N, and O, all associated parking and landscaping. It also includes the drive aisle between Building L and Building I along with the landscaping along this drive aisle. Phase II includes Buildings F, G, H, I, and J, all associated parking and landscaping. It also includes the drive aisle between Building L and Building E along with the landscaping along this drive aisle. Phase III includes buildings A, B, C, D, and E, and all associated parking and landscaping. ANALYSIS Site Design As mentioned earlier, the site is designed with four building clusters. Each cluster has unique design features, but at the same time, is designed as part of the entire project with consistent architecture, landscaping, and signage. The project is further unified by the pedestrian plazas which are connected to each other and to the walkways surrounding the site. Each of the four building clusters is further connected to the perimeter sidewalks by walkways. A uniform lighting scheme further provides a cohesive design. Vehicular Access and Circulation Access is provided to the site from seven points: One (1) right-in and right-out from Margarita Road · Two (2) from the Mall Loop Road · Three (3) from the Mall Access Link Road which connects the Mall Loop Road to Overland Drive (adjacent to Costco) · One (1) right-in and right-out from the mall entrance from Margarita Road which is the extension of North General Kearny Road The internal circulation is less than desirable and may cause some bottlenecks within the site. Therefore, staff has conditioned the project to eliminate these bottlenecks and the potential traffic conflict points, Condition No. 21. Parking The Specific Plan requires 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of retail space including restaurant uses. Six hundred ninety seven (697) spaces are provided where 582 spaces are required. The site is approximately 20% over parked. R:',D P~00-02t3 Margarita Village SC~°C Staff report.doc 3 Pedestrian Plazas and Circulation Careful attention has been made to make this project pedestrian odented as required by the Specific Plan. This task has been accomplished by a web of pedestrian walk'ways that connect buildings and pedestrian plazas with each other and with the existing and proposed walkways within the mall project. These walkways are defined and highlighted by their decorative concrete texture through the parking lot and the landscape planters. In addition, pedestrian level lighting will be provided within the pedestrian plazas and the walkways. Pedestrian Plazas Two major pedestrian plazas and several minor plazas are proposed as a part of this project. The plaza adjacent to Building K is approximately 2,500 square feet. The second major plaza is adjacent to Buildings A, B, and C at approximately 6,000 square feet. Additional detail including benches, trash receptacles, shade structures, and pedestrian level lighting will be provided for the pedestrian plazas. These pedestrian areas will be connected to each other and to the other sidewalks on the perimeter of the project by walkways. Pedestrian Circulation Walkways Connectin.q the Buildin.qs A comprehensive walkway system connects the four building clusters together by three visually and/or physically defined walkway systems. One minor connectior~ is between Buildings L and I. This connection is approximately 28' wide and is visually defined by decorative concrete. The other two pedestrian connections between the building clusters are more visually and physically defined. In addition to the decorative concrete, the connection between Building K and J is visually and physically defined by a 6" high curb and a 42" high wrought-iron fence on one side and landscaping on the other along with pedestrian level lighting. Similarly, in addition to the decorative concrete, the connection between Buildings D and C is visually and physically defined by landscaping and pedestrian level lighting. On Site Pedestrian Circulation All four clusters of buildings will be connected to all the project perimeter sidewalks by the following six (6) connections: · A connection from Building N to Building O through landscape planters and from Building O to the sidewalk on Mall Loop Road. · A connection from Building I through the landscape planter to the Mall Loop Road. · A connection from Building E through the landscape planter to the Mall Loop Road. · A connection from Building A to the Mall Loop Road through the landscape planter. · A connection from Building D or Building F through the 32' LDZ to the Margarita Road sidewalk. · A connection from the pedestrian plaza between Buildings G and Building F through the 32' LDZ to the Margarita Road sidewalk. R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC'~PC Staff repo[t.doc 4 Perimeter Sidewalks Three project perimeter sidewalks are proposed along N. General Kearny Road, the Mall Loop Road, and the Mall Access Link Road. In addition, there is an existing sidewalk along Margarita Road. The sidewalk along N. General Kearny Road will match the existing sidewalk on the opposite side of this road which is adjacent to the curb. The existing portions of Mall Loop Road have a 5' sidewalk adjacent to the curb which is separated by a 10' landscape planter from the parking areas. Existing light poles adjacent to the Mall Loop Road along the project boundary make this design undesirable. The project is conditioned to provide a 5' sidewalk separated from the curb with a 5' planter and separated from the parking lot with another 5' planter. If desired by the Planning Commission, a meandering 5' sidewalk through a15' area surrounded by landscaping is also a possible design solution. Pedestrian Connections to Theaters and the Future Mall Pad The Sidewalk Plan for the mall includes two sidewalks that are adjacent to this site. The sidewalk connecting the Mall Loop Road to the theaters is already built, The second sidewalk will be built with the future phase of the mall. This project is designed to connect to both of these sidewalks to complete the pedestrian linkages envisioned in the Specific Plan, Staff is confident that this comprehensive pedestrian system meets the intent of the Specific Plan by making this development a pedestrian oriented project. However, a pedestrian connection is desired over the wash connecting this retail center with the proposed offices and the hotel on the other side of the wash. There is no requirement for this connection in the Specific Plan. In fact, the Specific Plan did not contemplate this at grade wash; therefore, it did not provide staff with the language necessary to require this connection. Staff has discussed this connection with the applicant; however, the applicant is not prepared to make a financial commitment to this connection. Landscapin.q The project's landscaping will be consistent with the existing landscaping of the retail area surrounding the Mall Loop Road. The landscape plan needs to be modified to provide the detail necessary to ensure this consistency. These modifications are specified in the Conditions of Approval. More importantly, the Conditions of Approval will ensure a cohesive design theme that will further enhance this project. Staff is recommending the following enhancements to the project through the Conditions of Approval: Main Entries The project has been conditioned to enhance both entries from the Mall Loop Road by adding a mw of trees which lead the eye into the project as one enters the site from these drive aisles. Staff envisions these trees to be medium size upright trees. Entry Monuments The two existing entry monument landscaping features on both corners of N. General Keamy Road are approximately 40' deep. This project will further enhance its corner on Margarita and N. General Kearney Road by increasing it to 75'. In the future, staff will ensure that the project on the opposite side of N. General Kearny Road will make similar enhancement to its corner. R:'~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC'~PC Staff report.doc 5 Screening the Rear of Buildings from Margarita Road Additional architectural features have been added to the rear of Buildings D, F, G, H, and I to present an acceptable rear fa(;ade to Margarita Road. No roll-up doora are proposed in the rear of these buildings. The building pads along Margarita Road are generally proposed approximately 3' higher than Margarita Road which should assist in screening the rear of the buildings and the loading doors. However, Margarita Road's elevation rises as it approaches N. General Kearny Road. Therefore, staff is recommending adding a 3' high berm or wall, where a berm is not feasible, plus landscaping along Margarita Road. EMWD Well Site The existing EMWD well site provides an aesthetically unpleasing element within the Specific Plan area. This project has been conditioned to provide additional landscaping to effectively screen this area from its surroundings. Landscaping Adjacent to Buildings The proposed landscaping adjacent to the buildings has been deemed inadequate by staff and the City's landscape architect. The Conditions of Approval require this project to provide additional planters adjacent to the buildings which provide enough space for medium size upright trees. Staff and City's landscape architect will determine the number, the location, and the plant palette for this additional landscaping. Plant Sizes The Specific Plan does not provide minimum sizes for the plants. However, this project has been conditioned to provide minimum 24" box trees, minimum 5-gallon shrubs, minimum of 15-gallon vines, flat and one-gallon ground cover. Architecture Elevations have been provided for all the buildings with the exception of Building A, B, and C. An Administrative Development Plan will be required for approving the final design of these buildings. The proposed elevations include articulation and relief. The result will be an architecturally pleasing project which will be consistent with the rest of the center, but at the same time, will stand out as an individual project. Si.qna,qe The applicant has submitted a Sign Program that will be approved as part of this project. The Sign Program proposes one center identification sign at the corner of Margarita and N. General Kearney Road. In addition, four multi-tenant monument signs are proposed-one for each frontage. In addition, all wall sign areas have been identified on the buildings. All buildings include signage in the rear including those along Margarita Road. The variety and the quality of the proposed signage should add to the over all quality of the project. R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC'CC Staff report,doc 6 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project is within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified. Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent E IRs and Negative Declarations)' this project is exempt and a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for Planning Application No. 00- 0213. Section 15162 applies when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. The affected area of the site development meets the criteria noted by developing consistent with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 land uses which anticipated retail and office uses. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The project is consistent with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263, Community Commemial (CC) and Professional Office (PO) land use designations of the Temecula General Plan and the Development Code. Upon approval of the Development Plan as conditioned, the project will meet all of the guidelines and standards for commercial development prescribed by the Development Code and Design Guidelines. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards and guidelines. We believe it is compatible with the nature and quality of surrounding development, and will represent an attractive, functional and economic addition to the City's commemial and employment base. FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies refiected in the Community Commemial (CC) and Professional Office (PO) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Specific Plan No. 263 contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. R:'~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC'PC Staff report.doc 7 Attachments: 1. 2. 3. PC Resolution - Blue Page 9 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12 Specific Plan Standards - Blue Page 30 Exhibits - Blue Page 31 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Floor Plan R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- R:\D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 9 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A t16,375 SQAURE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN 18 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921- 090-63,71,72, AND 78, AND LOTS 7, 51, 52, 63, AND 64 OF PARCEL MAP No 28530. WHEREAS, MCA Architects, filed Planning Application No. 00-0213, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0213 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 00-0213 on January 3, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0213; 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 and are hereby incorporated by reference. Sect on 2 F ndin.qs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00- 0213 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) and Professional Office (PO) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Specific Plan No. 263 contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping previsions, and fire and building codes. R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 10 B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00- 0213 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. The subject site complies with these criteria and therefore the exemption can be applied to this project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0213 for a Development Plan to construction of the Bel- Villaggio retail center with 115,375 square foot of retail area within several buildings on an 18-acre site, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A (Development Plan), hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of January 2001. Ron Guerriero, 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 3rd day of January, 2001 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~ P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 11 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:'~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 12 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0213 - Development Plan Project Description: A Development Plan for construction of the Bel-Villaggio retail center with 116,375 square foot of retail area within several buildings on an 18-acre site. Development Impact Fee Category: $2.00 per square foot (pursuant to the Development Agreement for the Promenade Mall Project PA96-0333) Assessor's Parcel No. 921-09-63,71,72,78 Approval Date: Expiration Date: January 3, 200t January 3, 2003 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The ~pplicant shall deliver to the Community Development'Department- Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy- Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division 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 permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said ' R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 13 amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project. a. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall not be placed in prominent locations visible to the public. This equipment shall be screened from view. b. The double detector check assembly must be installed underground. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of the transformer and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. d. Label the work limit line for this project site including the street landscaping zone. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "G" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Planning Director, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Grading shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit 'T' (Grading Plan). The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "H" (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Planning Director: R:~ P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 14 Material Wall, Stucco Accent architectural features, Stucco Cornice where walls are Ecru Bead, Stucco Cornice where walls are Cedar Dust, Stucco Canopy, Cloth or Fiberglass Columns, Stone Arch Trims, Stone Tinavera Color Dunn Edwards, Ecru Bead Dunn Edwards, Cedar Dust Dunn Edwards, Cedar Dust Dunn Edwards, Ecru Bead Dunn Edwards, Edgewood American Slate, Rajah Red Cantera Especial, Blana All the applicable provisions for the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Forest City Development, Inc. dated December 30, 1996 shall be applied to this project. 10. The development of this project shall be consistent with all the provisions of Specific Plan No. 263, Regional Center Specific Plan. 11. This project shall meet all the applicable Mitigation Measures from EIR No. 340. 12. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for weed abatement and lifter removal. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 13. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G, H, and I", (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Color and Material Board, and Grading Plan) to be consistent with each other and to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "H" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Failure to revise plans in accordance with the Conditions of Approval and the consent of the Director of Planning shall constitute a Planning Commission review of these plans. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "H" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "G", the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 15. 16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department- Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff rePort.doc 15 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. The soil on all graded slopes shall be strengthened by planting to reduce the potential for erosion. During the interim period before the ground cover takes hold effective methods as determined by the City's Landscape ,Architect shall be implemented. These measures shall be submitted as part of the Grading Plans. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. To screen the loading areas from the street, a minimum 3' high berm or wall, where a berm is nor feasible, shall be installed in the rear of buildings D, F, G, and H along the proposed landscape planter with shrubs. As deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning additional landscaping shall be provided to sufficiently screen the loading areas from Margarita Road prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any of these buildings. A Pedestrian Walkway/Sidewalk Plan shall be submitted and incorporated into the Grading Plan to provide a minimum 5' wide walkway/sidewalk for the following: a. From Building N to O and from O to the sidewalk on the Loop Road. b. From Building I to the sidewalk along the Loop Road. c. From Building E to the sidewalk along the Loop Road. d. From Building ,A to the sidewalk along Mall Loop Road. e. ,A connection from Building D or Building F through the 32' LDZ to the Margarita Road sidewalk. f. A connection from the pedestrian plaza between Buildings G and Building F through the 32' LDZ to the Margarita Road sidewalk. g. Along the northerly mall access road (extension of North General Kearny Road). This walkway shall be next to the curb. h. The Mall Loop Road and the Mall Access Road including along the frontage for the EMWD Well Site. Two 5' planters shall separate this walkway from the Loop Road curb and the parking lot curb for a total of 15' for the walkway and the two landscape planters. i. All hash marks shown on the Site Plan are walkways constructed with decorative concrete. The Site Plan, Grading Plans, and Landscape Plans shall be revised to extend the landscape planters to eliminate the access from the drive aisles to the main access point drive for the following access points: a. The Mall Loop Road entrance with the roundabout b. The North General Kearny Road entrance c. The Mall Access Link Road, the middle entrance. R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 16 22. The applicant shall submit a report indicating how they have complied with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 23. 24. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). 25. d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). The construction landscape plans shall include the following to the satisfaction of the City's Landscape Architect and the Director of Planning: a. Appropriate landscaping acceptable to the Director of Planning shall be provided on the perimeter of the RCWD well site. This landscaping shall be consistent with the site's plant palette and shall include trees, shrubs, ground cover, and automatic irrigation. The planter area shall be a minimum of five (5') wide and shall include a 6' curb to separate it from the pavement area. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. The soil on all graded slopes shall be strengthened by planting to reduce the potential for erosion. During the interim period before the ground cover takes hold effective methods as determined by the City's Landscape Architect shall be implemented. These measures shall be submitted as part of the Grading Plans. The plans shall comply with Figure 23 of Specific Plan No. 263 for the major project entry from Margarita Road: i. Seventy-five foot (75') radius corner cut-off landscape threshold. ii. Two (2) formal curvilinear planting rows of intersection theme trees. iii. Turf grass threshold introducing the streetscene treatment and creating a park-like threshold. R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 17 iv. Formal shrub row treatment-minimum 3' high. A minimum 32' wide LDZ shall be provided along Margarita Road. This landscaping shall be consistent with Figure 18 of Specific Plan No. 263. Proposed plantings along Margarita Road shall be revised to provide a consistent streetscape with the existing street plantings to the north. f. All trees shall be minimum 24" box, all shrubs shall be minimum 5 gallon, all vines shall be a minimum of 15 gallon, and all ground cover shall be fiat and one gallon. Detailed plans shall be provided for the hardscape areas including the pedestrian plazas. Benches, trash receptacles, shade structures, pedestrian level lighting shall be included for the pedestrian plazas and shall be delineated on the plans. h. Additional landscaping and/or shade structures shall be provided for the plaza adjacent to Building K. Pedestrian level lighting shall be provided. i. All retaining walls shall be screened with landscaping at the base as deemed appropriate by the City's landscape Architect. j. All slopes shall be landscaped appropriately to ensure a consistent landscape design and ensure permanent erosion control for the slops. Show locations of all utilities and trash enclosures and provide screening as required. Label loading areas and provide appropriate screening. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that they do not conflict with plantings. I. Incorporate required plantings at perimeter of the parking areas as required by the Specific Plan. All parking areas are required to be screened. A minimum 5' wide landscaped planter shall surround all trash enclosure walls. Landscaping should include a combination of vines, shrubs, and ground cover. Trees shall be provided where appropriate. A 6" curb and 42" high wrought iron fencing shall protect the 5' walkway/sidewalk connecting Buildings J and K. The combination ofthe landscaping and thewrought iron fencing shall define an inviting pedestrian corridor. Pedestrian level lighting shall be provided. The 5' walkway/sidewalk shall connect Buildings D and C through the landscape planter. The combination ofthe landscaping and pedestrian lighting shall define an inviting pedestrian corridor. The walkway shall be kept clear of the cars' overhang by placing a wheel stop or by other means. A walkway/sidewalk shall be shown on the grading plans along the northerly mall access road (extension of North General Kearny Road), the "E" and "N" Mall Access Road including in the frontage for the EMWD Well Site. ^ 5' planter shall separate this walkway from the Loop Road curb and the parking lot curb for a total of 15' for the walkway and the two landscape planters. A meandering sidewalk could be substituted for this design within the 15' wide area. q. The landscaping plans shall be modified to provide continuity where it needs to tie into the neighboring parcels/streetscape. R:~ P\00-0213 Margarita Village SClC Staff report.doc 18 To screen the loading areas from the street, a minimum 3' high berm or wall, where berm is not feasible, additional landscaping shall be installed in the rear of buildings D, F, G, and H along the proposed landscape planter with shrubs. As deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning additional landscaping shall be provided to sufficiently screen the loading areas from Margarita Road prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any of these buildings. All landscape planters shall contain at least a minimum of one tree. The Site Plan shall be revised to include additional plantings at all building bases in order to soften and enhance architectural elevations as directed and approved by the City Community Development Department. In addition: The planters shall be of sufficient size to allow the installation of medium size upright evergreen trees. These planters shall include trees, shrubs, and ground cover as required by the City. ii. The entry from the Mall Loop Road which goes through Building I and L shall be lined with trees. This shall be accomplished by moving Buildings L, M, and N to create a p anter/wa kway combination that is a m n mum of 15 w'de. iii. The main entry from the Loop Road to the site shall be lined with trees. This shall be accomplished by adding landscape planters to the side of Buildings E and J. iv. A landscaped planter shall be added around the roundabout for building D to match the landscaped planters fronting buildings F, J, and E along the roundabout. The Site Plan and planting at all vehicular entries to the site shall be revised to conform to Specific Plan No. 263 requirements and existing adjacent developments. Required corner cut-off landscape thresholds shall be provided. All parking row ends shall have a minimum 5' width planting area provided with the length of the planter equal in length to the adjoining parking space. The 5' planting width shall be clear of any hardscape including curbs. The planter is to include a minimum of one broad canopy type tree along with shrubs and ground cover. Area lighting locations shall be revised as required to allow street trees along the E. Mall Loop Road to be planted at required uniform spacing. All utilities shall be screened. All utilities will be required to be shown on the landscape plans be appropriately screened by landscaping. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Planting beds shall be planned and designed around utilities to work with the overall design of the project. Light poles shall also be shown on landscape plans to insure that there are no conflicts with trees. y. All requirements of the City Water Efficient Ordinance shall be met. z. Parking areas shall be designed so that car bumpers do not over-hang into the 32' wide Landscape Development Zone along Margarita Road. R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SClC Staff report.doc 19 aa. All walkways within the parking lot shown as hash marks on the Site Plan shall be decorative hardscape. 26. The trash enclosure doors shall have a smooth face to avoid the typical industrial style doors that creates a harsh contrast with the fiat stucco finishes. 27. The parapets for all the buildings shall be raised by 1' in order to screen the roof top equipment from ground elevation view to a minimum site distance of 1320'. 28. An Administrative Development Plan shall be filed for buildings A, B, and C prior to issuance of building permits for the buildings. The following shall be completed: a. The buildings shall be architecturally compatible with the buildings within this Project' b. The landscaping shall be consistent with this center. c. The approximately 6,000 square foot plaza area shall be developed to create a pedestrian gathering place with fountains, landscaping, pedestrian lights, benches, shade structures, and other amenities. d. Kiosks may be allowed if proposed as part of the Development Plan approval. e. A walkway needs to be provided from the pedestrian plaza in the area of building A, B, and C to the walkway on North General Kearny Road. f. A continuous landscape planter shall be provided for future phase along the edge of the parking and drive aisle areas with the exception of pedestrian walkways. g. All signage shall be consistent with the rest of the center. h. If the Site Plan changes substantially or the square footage of the buildings exceed 10% of the square footages shown on the approved Site Plan for this project, a Development Plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission. i. No loading doom or storage areas shall be permitted in the rear of Buildings A, B, and C. This area shall be fully landscaped except for a required walkway leading to the rear of the buildings. j. The rear of all the buildings shall provide adequate architectural relief and detail to provide a pleasing fa(;:ade towards the street. 29. No drive-thru establishments shall be allowed within this development. 30. CC & Rs shall be established for the maintenance of the common areas and reciprocal access and parking agreements. 31. Class II Bike Racks shall be provided on the plans for all the buildings. 32. Class II bike lanes shall be provided along Margarita Road. 33. Trash enclosures shall be amhitecturally compatible with the buildings and use design features from other trash enclosures within the center. R:'~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC'PC Staff report,doc 20 34. A Lighting Plan shall be provided and incorporated into the landscape plans to provide the following: Lighting for the pedestrian walkway lighting with zero cut-of fixtures mounted at a uniform height no more than 8' above the walkway shall be provided for all walkways including the walkway connecting Buildings K and J. b. Building entries shall be illuminated with soffit, bollard, step, or comparable lighting. c. Step or bollard lighting will be used to clearly illuminate level changes and handrails for stairs and ramps. Courtyards, arcades, and seating shall be lighted to promote pedestrian use and safety. A variety of Iow-level lights shall be used to accomplish this task. Bollards maybe used to supplement and enhance other pedestrian area lighting. Bollard height may not exceed forth-two inches (42"). f. Architectural lighting, service area lighting, and accent lighting shall be provided consistent with the provisions of Specific Plan No. 263. 35. g. Parking light heights shall be a maximum of 20'. h. Parking lot illumination shall be a minimum of 1foot-candle maintained throughout the parking lot. i. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance N. 655. Wheel stops shall be added to all the parking spaces that over hang a walkway and as a result reduce the minimum width of the sidewalk/walkway to less than those required by ADA. 36. The applicant shall file and recorded Parcel Merger/Parcel Map to eliminate construction of structures on established property lines. 37. The applicant shall submit a report indicating how they intend to comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 38. 39. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Director. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. The developer shall install all landscaping for each phase on the perimeter on the phase, all parking areas, and any associated landscaping with buildings that a Certificate of Occupancy is being requested. Landscaped planters on both sides of the entry points shall be provided where the entry R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC'~PC Staff report.doc 21 point includes a landscape planter, in situations where a building is adjecant to the drive aisle, a 6" curb shall be installed. 40. As deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning additional landscaping shall be provided to sufficiently screen the loading areas from Margarita Road, and the Mall Access Road prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any of these buildings A, B, C, D, F, G, H. L, M, and N. 41. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. 42. The soil on all graded slopes shall be strengthened by planting to reduce the potential for erosion. During the interim period before the ground cover takes hold effective methods as determined by the City's Landscape Architect shall be implemented. These measures shall be submitted as part of the Grading Plans. 43. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Director, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Director, the bond shall be released. 44. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles 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. 45. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 46. The applicant shall submit a report indicating how they intend to comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340. R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 22 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 47. 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 48. 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. 49, 50. 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. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to 51. Issuance of a Grading Permit 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. 52. 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. 53. 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. 54. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 55. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 56. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. R:~D P\00~213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 23 57. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 58. 59. 60. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Planning Department Department of Public Works The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. Issuance of a Building Permit 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. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections. 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. 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 site conditions. 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. The Developer shall have a study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer to identify the potential for erosion along the Long Canyon Channel. The study shall provide recommendations for setback from the channel bank and/or special foundation design to protect proposed buildings and parking areas from undermining that may occur due to bank erosion along the Long Canyon Channel. R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SClC Staff report,doc 24 Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 70. Parcel Map 28530-3 shall be recorded. 71. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 72. 73. 74. Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 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. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 75. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 76. For determination of allowable building area, all assumed property/parcel lines and permanently established property/parcel lines shall be clearly shown on site plan submitted for plan review. 77. Buildings G, H and I shall be considered as one building unless building area and exterior wall protection analysis for separate buildings is submitted with plan review submittal. 78. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 79. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 80. 81. 82. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope, stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998. R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 25 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the main entries in accordance with California building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan as requested above which indicates compliance with this. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed by an appropriate registered professional. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site disabled accessibility. FIRE DEPARTMENT 93. 94. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans ara reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fira Code (CFC), and ralated codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fira flow for the ramodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CF(:; Appendix Ill.A, Table A-III-A-I. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 700 GPM for a total fire flow of 2200 GPM with a 2 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. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) R:'~3 P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC'~PC Staff reporLdoc 26 95. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix l ii-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 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. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). 96. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 97. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 600 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020) 98. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 99. 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 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 100. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 101. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 102. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) 103. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 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. (CFC 902.2.1) 104. 105, 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 plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire R:',D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC'PC Staff reportdoc 27 Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 106. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 107. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or mad fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 108. 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. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 109. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 110. 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 (8) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) 111. 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 fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 112. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 113. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81) 114. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC'PC Staff reporLdoc 28 115. Prior to building permit issuance, a Risk Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau addressing all hazardous materials at the well site, shown as 'not a part' on the site plan. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures. POLICE DEPARTMENT 116. 117. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any uses planning to serve alcoholic beverages, the owner/operator shall meet with the Special Teams Sergeant to provide information and discuss responsible business practices. Personnel from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) will also be invited. Prior to issuance of any building permits schedule a meeting to review security needs as well as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). OTHER AGENCIES 118. 119. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated 7-21-00, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated 6-14-00, a copy of which is attached. 120. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Districts transmittal dated 6-7-00, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above 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 Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 29 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SPECIFIC PLAN STANDARDS R:~ P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC'PC Staff report.doc 30 1. Plannine Area 1 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 1, as depicted in Figure 12A, consists of 71.97 gross acres, devoted primarily to mixed uses including retail, office, hotel, institutional, and residential uses. The commercial, office, and institutional development within this planning area will serve the needs of area residents, while maintaining compatibility with a residential environment. A maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units shall be permitted in Planning Area 1. These dwellings may either be constructed as free-standing structures or integrated into the same building with office and commercial uses. 1) Mixture of Uses It is the intent of the mixed use development in Planning Area 1 of the Temecula Regional Center to allow for a mixture of commercial/office/institutional and residential uses. The mixed use development is designed to encourage active street frontages and a comfortable, human-scaled environment that creates a fully functioning shopping street complex (i.e., a "Main Street"). This Main Street will be integrated into the overall mixed use development in Planning Area 1 and will be connected by both streets and pedestrian walkways to the planned retail development in Planning Area 2. The Main Street will be an easy and quick walk away from offices and residences in the Temeeula Regional Center, allowing both workers and residents to take advantage of the convenient, locally available shopping opportunities. A conceptual illustrative site plan depicting the Main Street concept in Planning Area 1 is shown in Figure 12B. A detailed view of the Main Street is illustrated in Figure 12C. While retail deveiopment may be the primary land use in Planning Area 1, it is envisioned ' that this planning area will also include additional employment opportunities such as offices and personal service shops and businesses. Institutional and hotel uses may be integrated physically into mixed use structures or constructed as separate buildings. Residential uses may be integrated into the same structure as non-residential uses. Residential uses and entries should constitute not more than 30% of the ground floor of any of these buildings. In areas which do not directly face onto the shopping street(s), freestanding residential buildings may be constructed. It is also anticipated that some free- standing residential structures will also be erected in Planning Area 1. 111-32 ~u ~6 focal point MAIN STREET CONCEPT (DETAIL) storefront areas pedestrian orientation TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 1II-35 FIGURE 12C 2) In planning for mixed use development, consideration shall be given to joint use of parking, common areas, landscaping, specific types of uses, housing types and sizes of units, and overall architec- tural design. Planning Area 1 development is pro posed as a logical extension of the central commercial core activity in planning Area 2, and a transition be- tween Planning Area 2 and the adja- cent residential property to the east. Institutional uses to be encouraged within Planning Area I include local, state or federal level services (i.e., postal service, economic development, social service, library, museum, etc.), if there is a need or demand for such uses. Pedestrian connection to adjacent Tcmecula Regional Center uses and to nearby Building Scale and Planning Area Design Development in Planning Area 1 should not resemble a typical suburban shopping center or strip commercial plaza. The retail and office uses in Planning Area 1 may be arranged in a "U"-shaped configuration around a.~~ public green similar to traditional pub- E lic greens, or in a linear fashion to form a "Main Street" with shops and offices oriented directly onto the street. Internal roadway circulation (which may be implemented by a perimeter ring road or other similar roadway configuration) will be provided around the Main Street area to facilitate traffic flow in and through Planning Area 1. The internal roadway system will dis- tribute traffic to and from principal access points on the site 4 - lane capacity (typ.) Conceptual Internal Roadway UI-36 3) rather than on nearby arterial streets. This ring mad may also connect Planning Area 1 with Planning Area 2. L'nnited on-street parking may be provided on portions of the internal roadway system, but in areas where the roadways cross parking areas, no on-street parking shall be allowed. The primary internal access roadway system will most likely be four lanes in width. The Main Street, on the other hand, will be limited to two through lanes (one in each direction) in order to foster a pedestrian scale. Individual buildings within Planning Area 1 may range in height up to 120 feet, provided that building setbacks and configurations for all structures in excess of 50 feet in height shall be determined by the City during Development Plan Review to ensure that adequate light access and air is available to adjacent structures. Typically, buildings should maintain a pedestrian scale adjacent to the shopping street. For example, the portion(s) of a building that abuts a public street may be two or three stories in height. Additional building stories could progressively step back as the building height and number of stories increases. Not only will such architectural design permit light and air access to surrounding areas and ensure a pedestrian scale near ground level, but the massiveness of the building will be substantially reduced. Separate building entrances shall be required for commercial/office/institutional and residential uses when occupying the same structure; provided that this provision does not preclude internal connections between residential and non-residential uses. Intensification In order for the concept of a "Main Street" to truly function, development of a certain density and intensity is necessary. Greater intensification of land use in this planning area provides the opportunity for innovative architectural design and landscap'mg. The' higher concentrations of people will also increase the feasibility of mass transit to serve the site. Residential uses will be limited to free-standing buildings containing single family attached or multi-family homes or vertically integrated buildings containing residential units over office and/or commercial uses. Because of the increased residential density in this area, it is important that recreational amenities be provided for residents. Freestanding residential structures, in particular, should contain recreational facilities such as spas, swimming pools, basketball courts, and weight rooms. These facilities may be provided within buildings or, if provided outside, may be arranged in interior courtyards or in walled-in enclosures in interior parking lots. Special consideration should be given to locating facilities with respect to the noise, activity, and light that they will generate. ~I-37 f~estanding multi-family with internalized parking commcrcial/officrdinstitutlonal uses (typ) with optional residential on upper story 4) 5) Freestanding Residential Buildings & Vertically Integrated Buildings (Residential Over Commercial/Office Uses) with Recreational Facilities Parking Design Limited on-street parking may be provided in Planning Area 1, particularly along the "Main Street." On-street parking spaces are intended for people running errands and are "short-term" spaces. These spaces may be metered to discourage people from parking in them for longer than an hour or two. Parking lots should be placed in the interior of individual parcels so that the appearance of the development from the street is of buildings and plazas, not parking lots (see Figure 12B). These interior parking lots are intended for "long term" parking. The parking facilities should not be the dominant visual image of the project. Vast expanses of paving for parking, without the visual relief of landscaping, are highly discouraged. Joint-parking arrangements between commercial, office, and institutional uses are encouraged to minimize the number of parking spaces required to serve the development and avoid proliferation of parking lots. In addition, completely separate parking areas should be provided for residences. Incentives for Innovative Design Up to 300 multi-family dwellings can be erected in this planning area to provide housing opportunities for employees of the various businesses within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Conversely, the planned commercial uses will enable project residents to do their shopping by foot. The mixture of residential and non-residential land uses are designed to decrease the traffic generated by project development. 111-38 6) The pedestrian scale of the project will be enhanced by plazas, courtyards, sidewalk cafes, public mini-parks, pedestrian easements, and overall project landscaping. Pedestrian linkages will be provided between uses within Planning Area 1 and between Planning Area 1 and the larger retail uses in Planning Area 2. Retail and service commercial uses could predominate on the fa'st floor of the buildings, with offices and/or residential uses concentrated on the upper floors or behind the commercial uses. Vertically-integrated buildings offer the opportunity to provide affordable housing. Pedestrian-Oriented Design The small size of Planning Area 1 will encourage pedestrian movement between uses, while de-emphasizing automobile use. Retail uses are encouraged on street level to provided streetscape contiguity and visual interest for pedestrians. Continuous expanses of blank walls or sharp unbroken vertical surfaces create an uncomfortable atmosphere for the pedestrian. The mixed use area should incorporate the following elements of good pedestrian-oriented design: Pedestrian Circulation: Link interior parking areas and lots to city streets, city- wide open spaces (e.g., plazas, mini-parks, pedestrian malls, etc.) and the City's trail system to facilitate travel by walking, biking, or other non-motorized means. Building Facades: The design of building facades, particularly those facades that face public streets, should be architecturally interesting and in scale with the pedestrian. Storefront windows are encouraged in retail shops and, in most cases, should begin within 18" to 24" of the pavement. Typically, storefront windows help to entice customers into stores, stimulate visual interest, create "defensible space" by enhancing public views of store interiors and streets, and establish a predictable rhytlun for passers-by. The scale and width of each storefront should be limited to establish an intimate scale that is more conducive to the pedestrian and cyclist than to the automobile. In general, storefront widths should relate to a human scale. Where storefronts must be large to accommodate specific uses, the building facades could be articulated with windows, insets, pillars, columns, arcades or other decorative architectural features to maintain the overall intimacy of the shopping street. Signage: A coordinated signage plan for development can facilitate pedestrian and vehicular movement throughout the planning area, without "visually assaulting" the senses. Signage should be designed at a scale that is not overpowering from the pedestrian's perspective. For example, small signs with a unique texture, shape, or interesting features can be more effective than large, massive, or glaring signs. This Temecula Regional Center Zoning Ordinance 111-39 7) 8) contains comprehensive signage criteria for uses within Planning Area 1 (see Section III.CA. in this Specific Plan). Streetscape Design: To encourage human activity and movement, streets should be designed with the pedestrian in mind. Continuity in landscape design, placement of street furniture, sitting areas, covered arcades for shelter against the sun and inclement weather, lighting, and paving patterns all contribute to creating a rich, functional, and aesthetically pleasing environment for pedestrians. Pedestrian Plazas: All areas of Planning Area 1, and the Main Street in particular, should be designed with pedestrian gathering spots and should include plazas and pocket parks for resting, eating, conversing, and people watching. Pedestrian plazas that are effectively placed within retail and office districts can be pleasant spaces for resting or having lunch between shopping trips or errands. Placement of pedestrian plazas must be carefully planned to assure their most effective use. For this reason, consideration must be given to the location of plazas relative to the pedestrian circulation patterns, sunlight conditions, wind patterns, and the selection of building and landscape materials. Organization of Activities: The most important element in creating viable pedestrian spaces has little to do with the actual physical design of the space; if a space is to be conducive to pedestrian activity, there must be opportunities for pedestrian events and activities. Therefore, efforts to planning and organizing festivals, events, special sidewalk sales, entertainment, and cultural displays should be made to help create desired pedestrian activity. Private marketing efforts should be encouraged to promote these types of community events. Siena~e This Specific Plan includes a comprehensive signage program for the mixed use development. The program includes retail commercial entry monumentation, building identification signage, marquee signage, and directional signage. Although the signage criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance in this Specific Plan includes maximum permitted sign sizes, the individual sign that identifies a given use should be consistent with the scale and mass of the building on which it is located or which it identifies. Specific signage materials should be uniform throughout each individual development within Planning Area 1. Transit Alternatives/Options One of the primary objectives of establishing mixed use development within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is the creation of a density threshold and a mixture of uses that is capable of supporting transit alternatives to the automobile. Bus turnouts shall be provided at appropriate locations within Planning Area l, subject to approval by the City 111-40 9) Please ¢. l) of Temecula and, if necessary, the Riverside Transit Agency. Additional transit corridor right-of-way adjacent to Winchester Road on the western edge of the planning area will allow space for development of a mass transit system (e.g., light rail, etc.) should such a system ever be constructed. Center/Main Street Development Area The Village Center/Main Street concept shall apply to between 10 to 15 acres within Planning Area 1. Blocks within the Main Street area shall be defined by a public street grid system. The remainder of the planning area could be developed in a conventional fashion pursuant to market demand if a continuation of this concept is determined to be infeasible by the City. Land Use Development Standards refer to the Zoning Ordinance in Section III.C of this Specific Plan. Planning Standards In compliance with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, Village Center Overlay and Land Use Element Goal 5 - Policies 5.5 through 5.10, it is important to create a quality environment which establishes a sense of place through careful consideration and integration of the following design elements: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Pedestrian orientation. Pedestrian linkage. Narrow streets and driveways with pedestrian paseos and wide sidewalks. Features such as paseos, arcades, plazas, courtyards, squares, galleries and outdoor cafes to encourage gathering. Gathering places such as pavilions, parks and bandstands. Festivals, entertainment, street vendors, outdoor markets and other special events should be encouraged. Incorporation of fountains and water bodies. Unique architectural and landscape architectural themes for identity. Careful parking orientation. m-41 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) It is important to note that not all uses allowed in Planning Area 1 are necessarily expected to occur. For this mason, some of the above design features may not be appropriate nor economically feasible. For this reason, only the concept of a "Main Street" is discussed in depth above. Additional options for possible development in Planning Area 1 are discussed in Section IV, Design Guidelines, in this Specific Plan. Access into Planning Area 1 will be provided from Margarita Road, Overland Drive, and Winchester Road. One (1) minor entry crossing is proposed through the Winchester Road transportation corridor into Planning Area 1. This minor crossing would provide right-tom-only access into this Mixed Use Planning Area (see Figure 12A). This proposal shall comply with the current oI I emecula anu ~.axuans as tu uA,, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City ............ ~ location and spacing of m/nor access points along Winchester Road. Special roadway landscape treatments, as those depicted in Figures 14, 18, and 20, Landscape Architecture Guidelines (Sec. IV.E.) shall be provided along Winchester Road, Margarita Road, and Overland Drive. Major Entry Monumentation as depicted in Figure 23, Landscape Architectural Guidelines, shall be provided at the intersections of Winchester Road and Margarita Road, and Margarita Road and Overland Drive, and along Margarita Road and Winchester Road. Minor Entry Monumentation, as depicted in Figure 25, Landscape Architectural Guidelines, shall be provided along Winchester Road, Margarita Road, and Overland Drive. Please refer to Sec. IV. for Specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. Please refer to Sec. III.A. for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site- wide: m.A. 1 - Specific Land Use Plan m.A.2 - Circulation Plan m.A.3 - Drainage Plan III.A.4 - Water and Sewer Plans III.A.5 - Project Phasing Plan III.A.6 - Grading Plan III.A.7 - Landscaping Plan m.A.8 - Maintenance Plan m-42 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 31 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 200t VICINITY MAP R:~D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 32 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION - SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263) ZONING MAP ~00000 ,OOO~ EXHIBIT C DESIGNATION - CC (Community Commercial), PO (Professional Office) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 200'1 GENERAL PLAN R:\D P\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report,doc 33 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 SITE PLAN R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report,doc 34 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E1 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 35 CITY OF TEMECULA o~,~o Dt~'~ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:'~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC'~PC Staff report.doc 36 CITY OF TEMECULA ~< _m Z 0 ® ® ?z PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT FI PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 Floor Plan R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 37 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 Floor Plan R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 38 CITY OF TEMECULA ???? ® - ~ ' ~'~',"1'~ -'- .-~ ~ ~~'-" PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0~15 {Do¥~lopm,nt ~lan} EXHIBIT F3 Floor Plan PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 R:',D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 39 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F4 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 3, 2001 Floor Plan R:~ P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 40