Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040401 PC Agenda~"~' 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] 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) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APRIL 4, 2001 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2001-008 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Commissioner Mathewson Roll Call: Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so 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 not 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. 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 4, 2001. R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~001\4-4-01 .doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 31, 2001 COMMISSION BUSINESS Clarification of the use approved with PA00-0260 - Outback Restaurant location 40275 Winchester Avenue - Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Provide direction to staff 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. 4 Planning Application 00-0427 (Development Plan) Davcon Development Inc. to design and construct two adioinin.q industrial buildinCls on two separate lots with the buildinq on lot 6 totaling 18,787 square feet on 1.08 acres, and the building on lot 7 totalinq 16,381 square feet on 1.01 acres located on the south side of the Winchester Road west of Diaz Road across from Rancho California Water District (RCWD) [APN 909-310-006 (Lot 6) & 909-310- 007 (Lot 7)]. - Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner - Continued from March 28, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0427 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADJOINING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING ON LOT 6 TOTALING 18,787 SQUARE FEET ON 1.08 ACRES, AND THE BUILDING ON LOT 7 TOTALING 16,381 SQUARE FEET ON 1.01 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WINCHESTER ROAD, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 909-310-006 (LOT 6) & 909-310- 007 (LOT 7). R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas\2001~4-4-01 .doc 2 5 Planning Application No. 00-0417 (Development Plan) Margarita Medical Condo Development, LLC, c/o Edward Anderson, to design, construct and operate two medical office buildings, with three suites in each, totaling 13,257 square feet of floor space, (Bldg. "A" with 5,987 square feet and Bldg. "B" with 7,270 square feet) on a 1.5 acre lot located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road. - Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner - Continued from March 28, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0417 (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. 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. 00-0417 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS ON 1.5 ACRES WITH BUILDING "A" HAVING 5,987 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" HAVING 7,270 SQUARE FEET, TOTALING 13,257 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-090-087. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next Regular Meeting: April 18, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 R:\PLAN COM M~Agendas~001\4~.-01 .doc 3 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 31, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:04 P.M., on Wednesday January 31, 2001, 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. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Commissioner Mathewson. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Diaz, Senior Planner Hogan, Senior Engineer Alegria, Associate Planner Anders, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, Project Planner Naaseh, Fire Captain McBdde, Fire Marshal Norris, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Planning Commission heard the Public Comments during consideration of Agenda Item 3; see page t2. CONSENT CALENDAR Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 31, 2001. 2 Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of November 15, 2000 Chairman Guerriero relayed that the Fire Department would provide a presentation after consideration of Agenda Item No. 5 if the Commission concurred with the need for this presentation to be placed on the Agenda; and relayed that it had been recommended that Agenda Item No. 3 be considered after that presentation. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to add the Fire Presentation to the Agenda due to the need for consideration of this Item not being brought to the attention of the Planning Commission until after the posting of the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar item Nos. 1 and 2 inclusive of the modifications to Item No, 1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Harveston Workshop - Traffic/Circulation This Agenda Item was considered after Agenda Item No. 5, and subsequent to the Fire Depaf[~iient presentation; see page '11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planninq Application 00-0213 (Development Plan) to desi.qn and construct a 116,375 square foot retail center, on an 18 acre site located within the Reqional Center Specific Plan on the west side of Mar.qarita Road, between North General Kearny Road and Overland Ddve - Saied Naaseh - Project Planner IV - continued from RECOMMENDATION 4.1 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 EIR's and Negative Declarations. 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A tt6,375 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN 18 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE WEST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-090-63, 7t, 72 AND 78 AND LOTS 7, 51, 52, 53 AND 54 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28530. Project Planner Naaseh provided a detailed overview of the staff report (of record), noting that this Item was continued from the January 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to work with staff to modify the site design, and the architecture of the buildings; presented the major revisions, as follows: 1) in the area of the kiosks, the pedestrian area has been expanded to include a plaza, noting that staff was recommending that the driveway be closed to vehicles in this area, relaying that a driveway would be added to separate Building K and the kiosks, 2) provided additional information regarding the redesigned parking plan, noting that the parking in front of the buildings would be angled-parking, relaying that to eliminate the parking in this area completely would reduce the parking by approximately 60 spaces which could cause a negative impact due to the proposed restaurant uses, 3) in the area of the access link road, noted that this drive aisle has been eliminated subject to the approval of Rancho Water District and the Fire Department, 4) with respect to fire access behind Buildings F, G, H, and I, noted that based on discussions with the Fire Department a connection in this area was not necessary for fire access to the buildings, 5) with respect to the berming and screening of the parking lots from the perimeter of the project, relayed the plan to install a 3-foot high berm (measured from the pad elevations) and the installation of shrubs on top of the berm which would address this issue; noted that along North General Kearny Road, the loop road, and the access link road, the 3-foot berm was not feasible in this area due to inadequate space, relaying that the applicant would provide cross sections of these areas, noting that there would be a 2-to-1 slope with shrubs at the top of the slope to screen the parking lot, 6) with respect to the pedestrian connections, specified the area proximate to the creek, noting that the applicant proposed to improve the 15-foot access road to a Decomposed Granite (DG) trail and would maintain this area, relaying that this path would connect to the mall access link road sidewalk and the sidewalk from Margarita Road to the project; relayed that the pedestrian connections to Margarita Road have been widened to a ten-foot width, noting that these connections would be further defined with landscaping and pedestrian lighting, 7) with respect to the sidewalk on the loop road, noted the revised condition to require that the sidewalk be installed adjacent to the curb which would address the screening of the parking lot, 8) with respect to the architecture of the tsar of the buildings, relayed that the applicant has added enhancements inclusive of the use of tiles, false windows, and detailing around the arches and the doors, 9) with respect to the signage visible from Margarita Road, noted that halo lighting with backlit channel letters would be utilized, relaying that the number of colors permitted have been limited with the exception of national tenants who would be permitted to utilized additional colors, and 10) a condition has been added to require the applicant to add landscaping within the creek inclusive of trees and shrubs, noting that the bottom of the channel would remain natural due to maintenance issues. Project Planner Naaseh relayed that staff has received elevations for the proposed Macaroni Grill Restaurant use which will be located proximate to North General Kearny and Margarita Roads, recommending that approval of this particular proposal be continued in order for staff to review the data; and in light of Commissioner Mathewson's absence, advised that per discussions with Commissioner Mathewson it had been requested that his concerns and recommendations be relayed to the Commission, listed, as follows: 1) the recommendation to add false windows at the rear of Building F (It was cladfied at a later point in the meeting that Building F was a one-story building), 2) the recommendation to eliminate a portion of parking spaces which has been accomplished with the applicant's revised site plan, and 3) noted his support of the site design. For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh presented the exhibits which revealed the proposed articulation at the rear of the buildings; with respect to the DG trial, relayed that the Planning Commission could specify that the polymer be a natural color; in response to Chairman Guerriero's queries regarding the landscape plan for the slope on the south side of the creek bed adjacent to Margarita Road, noted that this area was outside of the project perimeters, relaying that the adjacent project would be landscaping this area. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's queries regarding the proposal to landscape the sides of the creek bed, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the hydrology issues would be investigated prior to planting in this area. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the slope planting of the creek was required to be re-vegetated to the natural species, recommending that this plan be reviewed with the Resource Agencies prior to conditioning this applicant; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted that this applicant would be responsible for the maintenance of one side of the creek. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Project Planner Naaseh confirmedthat the proposal to enclose the pedestrian walkway would limit the access to the buildings behind this area, advising that there would be negative impacts if the tenants in this area were automobile-oriented uses (i.e., video rental, cleaners); and confirmed that it was staff's recommendation that the plan to have angled parking should be revised to be 90- degree angled parking spaces, noting that there would be no significant negative impacts regarding the 90-degree angled parking. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that staff supported the applicant's revised parking plan with the exception of the angled parking, which staff recommended to be 90-degree angled parking spaces. Commissioner Telesio relayed that since this drive aisle provided for two ways of traffic, that the purpose of the diagonal parking would be defeated, concurring that the parking should be at a 90- degree angle. R; PlanCc~lm/minutesJO13101 4 With respect to the planting on the creek, Commissioner Telesio recommended that this condition be subject to further analysis of the hydrology study. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that there would be no compact parking spaces included in this project; for Chairman Guerriero, with respect to the landscaping in front of the buildings, noted that the applicant has added additional landscaping, advising that since staff was of the opinion that this plan may not be adequate there was a condition allowing staff to request additional landscaping; relayed that there had been no discussions with the applicant regarding widening the sidewalk and adding a treescape (in front of the buildings), advising that if it was the Commission's desire, a few parking spaces could be eliminated in this area in order to add additional landscaped fingers. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he was concerned with the proposal to have parking located in front of the buildings (whether angled or 90-degree angled) due to safety issues. Project Planner Naaseh specified the modifications to the conditions-(per supplemental a.qenda material), as follows: With respect to Condition No. 27q., (regarding berming along Margarita Road), noted that a 3-foot berm would not be feasible in this area, and therefore there would be a 2-to-1 slopes with shrubs on top of the slope; With respect to Condition No. 27 aa., (regarding landscaping of the channel), relayed that language has been added requiring landscaping the sides of the entire channel with shrub and trees, in addition to the grass; With respect to Condition No. 27 h., the phrase decorative paving has been added regarding the plazas surrounding Building K; With respect to Condition No. 33, relayed that this condition would address the channel landscaping and trail maintenance; With respect to Condition No. 41a., (referencing the sign program) relayed that this condition stated that national chains could modify the types of signs placed on the rear of the buildings on Margarita Road; With respect to Condition No. 43, relayed that this condition was added to require Rancho Water District to conduct a study for the well site, noting that originally this project was conditioned to prohibit the issuance of building permits until the study was completed; and advised that due to the lengthy time schedule of conducting the study (approximately one year), the Fire Department relayed that there would be direct contact with the Water Distdct regarding the study in order to not hold up this project for the completion of the study; and With respect to Condition No. 49c. (regarding the timing of the construction of the plaza proximate to Building K) noted that this condition ensured that the plaza and Building K would be constructed with Building F, G, H, or I dependent upon which building was constructed first. In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries regarding the elimination of the cut-out on the Cosco road, Project Planner Naaseh noted that this proposal was represented in an exhibit in the staff report along with staffs alternate recommendations, relaying that staff would ensure that this issue was included in the conditions; advised that the applicant had relayed that the alternate cut-outs were required by the Water Distdct while Commissioner Webster had advised that access would be adequate with the alternate driveway; and clarified that the applicant has revised the site plan to eliminate this cut- out. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the project was 50 spaces over-parked, noting that after additional revisions this number would change; and relayed that the elimination of all of the angled parking spaces would encompass approximately 50 spaces. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that Condition No. 23 addressed the condition to close the driveway on the loop road. The applicant's representatives presented the followin,q information: Ms. Vandana Kelkar, representing the applicant, relayed the process of negotiating with Macaroni Grill as a tenant, noting the parking needs for this use; relayed the revisions of the building layout, noting the pedestrian links, the expended plaza area, the DG path, the reduced parking, the improved circulation, and the increased landscaping; relayed that the applicant was in favor of 90-degree angled parking at the front of the retail buildings; advised that the driveway width could be increased to 28-feet in response to Chairman Guerriero's concerns; noted that to attract restaurants to a retail complex, parking was a vital issue; relayed that the rear of the buildings have been fully articulated, noting that berms and landscaping will be located along the rear elevation, and the mall link road; advised that the applicant agreed to close the third mall link access; specified the access routes; with respect to Commissioner Webster's recommendation to include passive solar design elements, noted that this issue would be addressed via building orientation, abundance of landscape, water features, shading devices, and locations and types of windows used with variant building materials and installations; and relayed that the width of the sidewalks in front of the buildings would be between 15-20 feet, noting the landscape planters, and landscaped fingers located approximately every 10 parking spaces. Mr. Mike Levin, representing the applicant, via overheads, presented a series of seven cross sections of the project, noting the berming, the planting proposed adjacent to the curb line, the grade differentiation, the elimination of parking spaces in order to pull the parking 32 feet away from the curb, and the screening of the well site; specified that the material sprayed on the DG path would be clear; concurred with the issues restricting landscaping in the channel; noted the connection linkages, and additional pedestrian paths; clarified that the applicant was not in opposition to closing an access point to the well site, if the Water District was agreeable; and with respect to the concept of closing the access loop, relayed concern regarding Fire access. Mr. Reid Cooper, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the revised sign plan, highlighting the standard to solely allow halo lit letters at the rear of Buildings A-G which back up to Margarita Road, noting the exception for regional and national chains due to their established sign programs; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's R: PlanComnVminute~013101 6 comments regarding pedestrian-oriented signage, noted that language has been added requiring the tenants to have one of two types of pedestrian-oriented signs; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the pedestrian-oriented signage would not preclude the tenants from having an illuminated sign, clarifying that with respect to the pedestrian signage, the intent was for the tenant to have one type of sign, relaying that the tenant would not be prohibited from having both types of pedestrian signage as long as the signage was within a maximum footage limit. The applicant's represented the Planning Commission's concerns and comments, as follows: Referencing the cross-section data, Commissioner Webster noted that there was no bench area at the top of the slope in Sections 1, 4, and 5, querying the manner in which the parking lot would be screened. In response, Mr. Levin noted that there was two-foot planting area behind the curb before the slope drops; and relayed that in the parking lot there were no proposed wheel stops. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the pedestrian path from Building N to the five-foot sidewalk along the north mall access link read, Ms. Kelkar relayed that an additional pathway could be provided. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Levin relayed that it was his understanding that reclaimed water would not be available in this area for the landscaping. In response, Commissioner Webster noted that at Margarita Road/North General Kearny Road there was a reclaimed water access line. For Commissioner Telesio, Ms. Kelkar relayed that the proposed Macaroni Grill use was requesting 120 parking spaces. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Levin noted that the entire berm would be landscaped. In light of the Commission's concern regarding landscaping between the front of the buildings that back up to Margarita Road, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried whether the applicant would be willing to install grated tree wells along the edge of the sidewalk, in front of the cars in order to provide landscape shading. In response, Ms. Kelkar noted that there would be six-foot planters along the building, advising that their landscape amhitect had relayed that if the trees were located proximate to the vehicles that the vehicles would consistently hit the trees, restricting growth. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the trees could be planted far enough back so as to prevent a vehicle from being able to hit it, noting that a few parking stalls could be removed in order to install landscaped fingers with walkways, noting the desire to prevent a visual appearance of a large mass of asphalt. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Kelkar noted that the landscape plan could be revised. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Kelkar noted that Buildings B and F were one-story buildings. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Levin relayed that the applicant was not in agreement with Condition 27aa., regarding landscaping the sides of the channel. Chairman Guerriem noted his concurrence with Commissioner Chiniaeffs recommendation to landscape the sidewalk area. Mr. Levin reiterated that the creation of access from the link road to Buildings M and N would be feasible. Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the Fire Department was in agreement with staffs circulation modification (closing off the access at the front of the buildings). For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Fire Marshall Norris provided an overview of the access that the Fire Department would utilize. The Commission relayed closin,q comments, as follows: With respect to Fire access, Commissioner Telesio relayed that it would appear to be a distinct advantage if there was no access at the rear of the building, acknowledging that this was a Fire Department determination; and with respect to parking, recommended that the parking in front of the buildings be eliminated, suggesting that if it was imperative that some parking remain at this location that there be handicapped parking provisions, noting that this front parking area would have negative impacts with respect to pedestrian, traffic, and circulation issues. Commissioner Webster recommended installation of a walkway to the parking lot from the mall access link read to Building N; with respect to the south elevation of Building N, recommended some container landscaped elements similar to the remainder of the project to soften the exterior of this building; with respect to the top of the sloped landscaping along the loop read and North General Kearny Road, recommended that this be a minimum of three feet in width at the top of the slope, recommending installation of wheel stops along this edge; with respect to landscaping within the creek area, concurred with the applicant that there should be no landscaping in this area; referencing the Specific Plan for the Regional Center, noted the requirement to utilize reclaimed water, if available, advising that reclaimed water was available, relaying that State Law now essentially requires the use of reclaimed water for landscaping these types of sites, recommending that a condition be added regarding this issue; with respect to the parking layout and the pedestrian plaza area, noted that he was not in complete agreement with closing this access and creating this plaza area, relaying that there were benefits to having this access read included in the plan, advising that the issue that was of greater importance was the recommendation to delete the parking stalls in front of the buildings, concurring with the previous recommendation to widen the sidewalk and to add landscaping to this front area when the parking stalls are removed; and with respect to the configuration of Buildings A, B, and C, recommended that staff work with the applicant to finalize the layout in order to maximize the parking in this area. Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the previous Planning Commission comments, specifically with respect to removing the requirement to landscape the creek, and to install a defined access from the mall access read inclusive of paving treatments to define the walkway; with respect to the plaza area, recommended compromising regarding this issue and keeping the plaza open to traffic, removing some of the parking in front of the buildings, designating certain areas (at this location) for handicapped parking, and adding trees; with respect to the reclaimed water issue, advised that it was his understanding that there was no reclaimed water use at the mall site, noting that the sole available line was located on Margarita Road; and noted that the applicant had made improvements in the revisions presented at this meeting, while relaying that it would have been his preference for there to be a deeper driveway access off of North General Kearny Road prior to the island area. · Chairman Guerriero noted the vision of the Planning Commission to have a pedestrian- oriented plaza concept throughout the entire project; and relayed that while he was in favor of opening up the pedestrian plaza area, he was more opposed to the parking in front of the buildings due to safety issues, recommending installation of wider sidewalks with an additional offset treescape in this area. Mr. Levin relayed that the applicant was willing to reduce the parking in front of the buildings and to add additional landscaped areas, noting that in place of the removed parking stalls the pedestrian path could be widened, recommending that the parking stalls be 90-degree angled spaces; and noted that the applicant would be willing to move the handicapped to this area but would desire to have some standard parking spaces. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Planning EIR Notice of Exemption and determination of consistency; and to adopt PC Resolution No. 2001-003, subject to the following modifications: Add- That the project be subject to the modifications to the conditions as presented in the supplemental agenda material (denoted on page 5 of the minutes) with the exception of Condition No. 27aa. (regarding landscaping the side of the creek) which should be deleted. That a condition be added requiring the installation of an access path from the mall access road to Building N along the southeasterly portion of the property with defined accent paving. That trees and grates be added in front of Buildings B, C, F, G, H, and I near the edge of the parking area. That 30 of the parking spaces be removed from the parking area along the front of the buildings between Buildings B, C, F, G, H, and I, and that handicapped parking be provided in this area with some standard parking spaces, with the widening of the walkways between the buildings and the parking, where the parking stalls have been removed. That there be some utilization of reclaimed water on site. That there be a three-foot wide (in lieu of the proposed two-foot wide) landscaped area on top of the slope at North General Kearny Road, if feasible, and That the approval of the Macaroni Grill use be continued to a later date. (Ultimately this motion was seconded; see page t0.) Commissioner Telesio relayed a desire to have solely handicapped parking in the area proximate to the buildings. For Project Planner Naaseh, Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that the motion did include closing the area between Building G, H, I, and K; and noted that the parking would be 90-degree angled. R: PlanComm/minutes~013101 9 For Director of Planning Ubnoske, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the motion included deleting Condition No. 27aa. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh reiterated Commissioner Mathewson's comments, which had been addressed. For Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Chiniaeff specified that the motion included reducing the parking stalls in front of the buildings by 30 spaces, which would leave approximately 30 spaces. Commissioner Webster relayed that he would second the motion if solely handicapped parking was permitted in front of the buildings with the exception of Building A where standard parking could be located. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that limited parking could be located in this area (i.e., 5-minute parking). For Commissioner Telesio, Ms. Kelkar relayed that 14 handicapped spaces were required, Commissioner Chiniaeff noting that there would be approximately 16 additional standard parking spaces spread across 600 feet. The motion was seconded by Chairman Guerdero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent and Commissioner Webster who voted no. At 7:32 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:44 P.M. 5 Plannin,q Application 00-0257(Conditional Use Permit) to desiqn, construct and operate an unmanned Spdnt wireless communication facility located at the Ranchu California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site located at 41520 Margarita Road - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner - continued from January 17, 2001 RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Continue to February 7, 2001 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue this item to the February 7, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent and Commissioner Webster who abstained. At this time the Commission heard the Fire Department presentation. Fire Department Presentation Fire Captain McBride provided an overview of data regarding the implementation of narrow roads; noted the numerous causes of fires; relayed that disaster fires were solely caused by one or more of three major causes, listed as follows: access, water, and Code compliance issues, specifying the cause of specific disaster rites historically; noted that while residential fires represented only twenty-one percent (21%) of all rites, that they account for eighty-two percent (82%) of all fire fatalities, relaying the rationale for efforts regarding fire prevention issues in residential areas; with respect to the issue of narrow roads, provided an overview of the importance of access; with respect to the proposed Harveston project, specified the negative impacts associated with the installation of narrow streets and the curb chokers; noted the street width standards Countywide; relayed that safety issues should have priority over aesthetic matters, while efforts could be made to address both elements; addressed speed bumps which slow the response time, tuff blacking, and angled curbs; via overheads, noted the access restrictions with a twenty-four foot (24') roadway, noting that with this street width there could be no on- street parking; presented a thirty-six foot (36') roadway inclusive of adequate turning radius provisions; via overheads, reviewed the Harveston Tract Map, noting the plethora of red curbing necessitated in this area; presented photographs of existing thirty-six foot (36') roadways in the City with Fire vehicles parked on the street; presented a video which revealed the negative impacts associated with inadequate access during the Oakland residential fire which claimed the lives of 25 individuals and caused vast destruction of structures; and noted that during this particular fire red tile roofs also caught fire. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Fire Captain McBride relayed that there had been no discussions with the Fire Department of Irvine regarding fire issues in the Woodbridge Development, noting that staff would staff would address this issue with the Fire Department of Irvine; and noted that there have been discussions with the Los Angeles Fire Department, relaying that standards would be becoming more stringent in the neighborhood areas. In response to Commissioner Webster, Fire Captain McBride noted that thirty-six foot (36') street widths would not be permitted in commercial areas, relaying that this street width was allowed in residential areas providing that there were adequate turning radius provisions; and provided additional information regarding the minimum standards in the Code for sideyard setbacks. Chairman Guerriero noted that in the data soliciting implementation of narrow streets, there was no reference to Fire Department data. In response, Fire Captain McBride relayed that this was probably due to Fire Department not being in favor of narrow streets. At this time the Commission heard Agenda Item No. 3. 3 Harveston Workshop - Traffic/Circulation Mr. Bill Storm, representing the applicant, relayed that there would be a 20-minute project presentation; and with respect to the Fire Department presentation data, noted the desire to work with the Fire Department on this development plan, advising that it was positive that the Fire Department was endorsing the thirty-six foot (36') street width. Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing the applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation, noting that the General Plan was utilized as a guide to formulate the circulation component of the Harveston Specific Plan; highlighted the applicant's vision for the project; and provided a historical overview of the site and the surrounding area, noting the previous read improvements to this area. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Jana Morgan, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the off-site circulation improvements, relaying that there would be 10 intersections requiring improvements to maintain acceptable Levels of Service, clarifying that all of these intersections would need to be improved with or without the Harveston Project; specified the improvements of the intersections (the numbers associated with the intersections correspond with the supplemental agenda material designations), as follows: 1) the Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue improvements with a project share of cost at sixteen percent (16%), 2) the Winchester Road and the southbound 1-15 ramps improvements with a project share of cost at twenty-three percent (23%), 4) the Winchester/Ynez Roads improvements with a project share of cost at sixty-two percent (62%), 18) the Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue improvements with a project share of cost at fourteen percent (14%), 19) the Overland Drive/Ynez Road improvements with a project share of cost at twenty-seven percent (27%), 26) the Overland Drive/Margarita Road improvements with a project share of cost at one hundred percent (100%), 10) the Murdeta Hot Spdngs Road/Jefferson Avenue improvements with a project share of cost at four percent (4%), 12) the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/Alta Murrieta Drive improvements with a project share of cost at twenty- one percent (21%), and 13) the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/Margarita Road improvements with a project share of cost at forty-three percent (43%). For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the assignment of value was conducted during the EIR, noting that the avenues for funding had not been determined at this point; clarified that the intersections that were identified denoted areas that would go below LOS D with this project, noting that these improvements would mitigate the impacts; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that to the best of his knowledge the City of Murrieta had not participated in improvements to mitigate their traffic impacts to the City of Temecula. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Morgan provided an overview of the on-site circulation improvements, highlighting the signals which would be installed, the Margarita Road improvements, the Ynez Road Realignment Extensions, the Date Street Extension, the Industrial Collector, the Entry and Residential Collectors, the sidewalks, and the multi-use trails; relayed the four phases of the project; and provided additional information regarding the right-of-ways being set aside for a Date Street or Cherry Street alignment; noted the proposed Class II bicycle trails within and outside the project, and the transit plan. At this time the Commission heard public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Jim Miller, representing the City of Murrieta, referenced a copy of the data provided to the Planning Commission outlining his concerns; noted that the City of Murrieta supports the Harveston project plan; relayed that there were three issues that the City of Murrieta recommended be addressed in the Specific Plan for this project, listed as follows: 1) the Date Street Interchange, 2) the Retail Commercial Zoning, and 3) the project's fair share for the construction of the regional facilities; advised that the City of Murrieta was of the opinion that the Date Street alignment could not be constructed at the alternative Cherry Street location per discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers and Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, requesting that the alignment remain at Date Street; requested that the Retail Commercial Zoning be zoned as Industrial; requested that the development pay their fair share of the costs of the regional facilities; relayed that as soon as he receives a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers, stating that the Cherry Street extension will not be permitted to go through the proposed restoration retention basin, he would forward the letter to the City of Temecula; with respect to the Retail Commercial Center Zoning for approximately 110 acres, relayed that this zoning would generate between 40,000-50,000 Average Daily Trips (ADTs), noting that the project would not be able to mitigate these impacts, relaying that this retail commercial zoning would seriously jeopardize the construction of the Warm Springs Creek Bridge; noted that approximately six months ago, the City of Murdeta passed a special traffic/freeway/interchange DIF component, relaying that if this project was being developed in the City of Murrieta it would pay from $6-8 million in additional fees; with respect to the tracts off of Margarita Road that are in the City of Murrieta, noted that a fee of $1200 per home was being assessed in order to be applied to projects such as the Warm Springs Creek Bridge; and reiterated that the City of Murdeta supports this residential development, was opposed to the Retail Commercial Zoning, and was of the opinion that the Date StreetNVestern Bypass should be aligned with the existing Date Street right-of-way at the 1-15 Freeway. Commissioner Webster relayed that there have been traffic impacts from the City of Murrieta to the City of Temecula that have not mitigated; advised that as this project is reviewed, the past regional projects should be taken into consideration; noted that per the City of Murrieta's adopted Circulation Plan, the Ynez Road and Diaz Road connections would not be constructed in the City of Murrieta until the Split Diamond is completed, advising that this caused a significant negative impact to traffic in this area; relayed that in conjunction with the request for this development project to have revisions, the City of Temecula would desire to investigate the construction of the previously-mentioned connections which would serve to aid the citizens of Murrieta as they travel back and forth from the City of Temecula to the City of Murrieta. In response, Mr. Miller relayed the priority circulation projects for the City of Murrieta, clarifying that the rationale for not constructing the previously mentioned connections at an earlier date was due to funding issues. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Miller relayed that the City of Murrieta's Circulation Element denoted the alignment south of Cherry Street, providing clarification for the alignment to be constructed at Date Street. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this project would have been funded in 1990 if the City of Murrieta had not stated their desire to not have traffic coming from the City of Temecula going into the City of Murrieta; and recommended that Murrieta's General Plan be revised prior to requesting that the connection not be at Cherry Street. In response, Mr. Miller provided additional information regarding past discussed plans for circulation in this area. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that there was existing public right-of-way on Cherry Street; confirmed that the ^rmy Corps of Engineers does have a plan that denotes this area as a detention basin; advised that originally when the Date Street alignment was proposed, the City of Murrieta opposed this project, ergo, the Cherry Street relocation; and relayed that at this time there was no plan to revise this alignment. Dr. Robert Wheeler, 29090 Camino Avenue, Murrieta, urged the Planning Commission to consider all projects within the context of the entire area; commented on the Eastern Bypass proposal; recommended that the City of Murrieta establish connections at Madison and Adams Avenues down to a Date Street Interchange to create improved traffic flow; implored the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta to work together to address the traffic impacts; relayed his opposition to extending Ynez Road to Murdeta Hot Springs Road due to the location of the riparian quarter at Warm Springs Creek; with respect to the commercial zoning on the west side of the Harveston Project, noted his opinion that this area should be zoned for Neighborhood Commercial; relayed that he was impressed with the design of the Harveston Project, advising that he would recommend higher densities, noting the shortage of this type of housing; and in response to the Fire Department presentation, for informational purposes, noted that there was a Fire Safe Council in Southwest County which was formed approximately two years ago. Mr. Ed Burke, 30944 Wellington Circle, representing Channel Corporation which was located adjacent to the Harveston Project, relayed concern regarding the following issues: traffic and overall circulation, the location of the project adjacent to a Commercial/Industrial area due to the associated traffic and safety issues, southbound Ynez Road access from existing businesses, queried the traffic modeling, the manner in which the planned signals would affect traffic flow, street parking, the realignment of Ynez Road and the proximity to the Channel Corporation facility, southbound egress traffic from the Channel Corporation facility, traffic cutting through residential areas; relayed anticipation of coordinating with the Harveston developer's to address these issues; and noted a desire for a copy of the presentation presented at this meeting. In response to comments regarding the Fire Safe Council, Fire Captain McBride provided additional information, noting that the Fire Safe Council's concepts were being implemented in residential planning areas. The Commission relayed the followin,q closinq comments: Commissioner Webster noted that he had met with the applicant to discuss issues related to the traffic plan, referencing the slide presentation, relayed the following remarks: · With respect to Intersection No. la (VVinchester Road/Jefferson Avenue), queried whether included in the CIP was an extension of this lane. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that this was part of the proposal, noting that the improvement plans had not yet been designed at this time, relaying that the project would be completed at one designated time period, · With respect to Intersection No. lc (Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue), noted that the photograph did not denote a recently installed driveway on the west side of Jefferson Avenue, recommending that the two driveways represented on the right side of the photograph (on both sides of Jefferson Avenue) have left turn movements prohibited, as well as prohibiting left-turn movements into the first driveway (traveling northbound on Jefferson Avenue). With respect to Intersection No. 2a (Winchester Road/Southbound 1-15 Ramps), noted the knob element (where the southbound offramp exits the freeway), recommending that the knob be removed, and that on the alternate side of the intersection (on westbound Winchester Road), that there be an additional through lane. With respect to Intersection No. 2b (Winchester Road/Southbound 1-15 Ramps) queried whether these improvements were needed, noting the City's proposed project to widen the Santa Gertrudis Bridge which could be delayed if the Cherry Street Interchange was built. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that the denoted improvements would need to be coordinated with the Split Diamond Interchange Project, relaying that the Split Diamond Interchange would most likely not be constructed for 10-15 years, noting that the construction may be phased; provided additional information regarding additional investigation regarding the Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening Project; relayed efforts with Caltrans to investigate installing a dedicated offramp in this area in lieu of widening the bridge. Commissioner Webster recommended that the improvements to Intersection No. 2b be inclusive of additional signage and striping placed farther back on the freeway ramp. With respect to improvements on Winchester Road (denoted on the slide presentation at Intersection Nos. 4a, 4c, 5a, and 5b), noted the area of the encroachment into the 25-foot transportation easement, referencing the General Plan and the Regional Mall Specific Plan, relayed that the transportation easement was for future transit or for Travel Demand Management O-DM) plans; and queried how the addition of lanes in this area qualified in meeting this criteria. In response to Commissioner Webster's comments, Mr. Fagan referenced the General Plan which stated the designation of Winchester Road (east of Jefferson Avenue) as an access restricted urban arterial with special added easements reserved for future transit or Transport Demand Management use, noting the review of the City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance; relayed that Travel Demand Management was the same as Transportation Demand Management (TDM), as defined in the General Plan; advised that within the Facilities section of the Ordinance, local Transportation System Management (TSM) and road improvements were addressed, noting that the TSM which was recommended under the TDM addressed specific recommendations (i.e., additional turn lanes, restricting turning movement during peak traffic periods at congested intersections, widening of intersections, approaches to accommodate additional through movement lanes, or to improve visibility); reiterated that the General Plan references TDM, noting that the TDM of the City references TSM which encourages additional lanes and improvements at approaches; noted that per discussions with staff, that a precedent of utilizing a portion of the Transportation Corridor Easement as roadway has been established on the south side for the deceleration lanes of the Mall. With respect to Intersection No. 4b (Winchester/Ynez Roads), regarding the onramp for northbound 1-15, queried whether this area could be re-striped at this time to add two turn lanes onto the freeway. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that it was his understanding that the City was processing a plan with Caltrans to install these particular lanes. Commissioner Webster noted that the most significant negative impact in this area (between Ynez Road and the freeway) was on westbound Winchester Road where vehicles were turning right into the commercial center, relaying that since there was an existing designated Park and Ride facility on this site, and since this commercial site was causing a significant traffic impact, it was his recommendation that the City consider purchasing the center in order to construct one large Park and Ride/Transit facility at this location which would relieve the traffic impacts, and address the Mall's Mitigation Measures. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff would take this matter under consideration. With respect to the Overland Drive Improvements (denoted in the slide presentation as Nos. 18, 19, and 26), noted that in the improvement project represented in No. 19 was the installation of a right-turn lane from Overland Drive to Ynez Road, queried why the Cosco use was not required to provide this turn lane. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that there was no nexus with the Cosco Project that would justify the requirement. Commissioner Webster relayed that it was his opinion that the Harveston Project should not be responsible for funding the improvements to Intersection Nos. 18, 19, and 26. With respect to Intersection No. 26 (Overland Drive/Margarita Road), relayed that Margarita Road has been improved to its fullest section at this point, noting that in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR, that Margarita Road (between Overland Drive and Solana Way) was projected to be at Level of Service (LOS) F at buildout; recommended at this intersection in lieu of the proposal, that the project be inclusive of installing two dedicated left-turn lanes, and two dedicated through lanes; and queried whether the City was investigating obtaining additional right-of- way for additional lanes at a future point in time. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the developer's traffic engineer has identified areas that need to be addressed in the City whether or not this project is developed, advising that the City's traffic engineer has reviewed the data, and agreed that the proposed projects could relieve the impacts in the City over the next five years, noting that the nexus with this project was based on the developer not being required to extend Ynez Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, or to improve the Interchange. Commissioner Webster queded why there would be ultimate improvements in place that are not satisfying traffic conditions projected at buildout, and subsequently why this developer was being required to complete this improvement project, noting that he did not see the connection between the improvements on Overland Drive and this project. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that this project's analysis identified these areas as impacted areas in the EIR, advising that professionally trained staff have reviewed and concurred with the data. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that this issue would be better addressed with the EIR consultant, or the traffic engineer who prepared the traffic study. Ms. Morgan relayed that this particular intersection (No. 26) was one of four intersections, which would go below LOS D prior to the anticipated project traffic being added. Mr. Bob Davis, traffic consultant for the applicant, provided additional information regarding the modeling analysis, noting that the distribution at this intersection changed, relaying that the projected project traffic would increase traffic at this intersection; advised that the formula utilized for determining a project's fair share was to analyze the total growth in traffic above existing volumes at all approaches and to determine what proportion of the increase was generated from the project, noting that in this case it represented nearly all the increase, acknowledging that the intersection fails without the project's traffic; relayed that the proposed improvements would not be the final long-range solution, providing additional information regarding potential future improvements; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted that the read could solely be widened to the west in this location; with respect to alternate intersections on Overland Drive, relayed that the background traffic increases to a point whereas all the reserve capacity at the intersections would be utilized by the year 2005, noting that the addition of the project's traffic necessitated additional improvements; for Commissioner Webster, confirmed that if North General Kearny Road was extended to Nicolas Road that the Margarita/Winchester Roads intersection would benefit most dramatically, and that it would improve the traffic in this area on Winchester and Margarita Roads; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that background traffic was a significant factor, noting that in the future the increases in traffic would almost completely be generated from sources outside the City. Chairman Guerriero noted his past recommendation to create a toll road on Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Spdngs Road. In response, Mr. Davis advised that if Highway 79 could be re-designated that this recommendation could be feasible. With respect to the Murrieta Hot Springs Road Improvement (denoted in the slide presentation as Nos. 10, 12, and 13) noted that it was his recommendation that there be no contribution for these improvements until the Diaz Road and Ynez Road connections are constructed. W~h respect to the trail plan, recommended that there be a crossing over the Santa Gertrudis Creek from Margarita Road to the high school site. Chairman Guerriero thanked the applicant for the presentation. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that if workshop data was lengthy that in the future the information be provided in written form rather than utilizing meeting time to review detailed material. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Storm relayed that the Harveston Project would most likely be presented to the Planning Commission in March. R: PlanCom m/minut es/O 13101 17 For Chairman Guerdero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Senior Planner Hazen had a meeting with the Cosco representatives last week, noting that a timeline for the issues needing to be addressed was being developed and that staff would be receiving the information in written form which would be brought back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Guerriero noted the significant negative parking impacts at the mall site where the restaurants are located, querying whether a plan could be developed to revise the loop read to alleviate this impact. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff would address this matter while addressing other issues with Forest City. For Chairman Guerdero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that shirts would be provided to the Planning Commissioners. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the agenda packets for the February 7, 2001 meeting had been prepared, requesting the Planning Commissioners to take their packets home this evening. ADJOURNMENT At 9:52 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R: PlanComm/rmnutes/Ol 31 O1 18 ITEM #3 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning March 30, 2001 PA00-0260 Outback Steakhouse The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss an issue that has been raised by the applicant regarding the operation of a ddve-up take-away service at the Outback Steakhouse appreved for development in the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center. This project was breught before the Planning Commission on November 15, 2000 for review and appreval. At that time the applicant, Bill Fancher, was seeking approval for a 6,150 square foot steakhouse restaurant with a full service bar and incidental take-away service. During the development review precess staff encouraged the applicant to prepare a very detailed statement of operations that described the aspects of the business they hoped to operate. Since project approval, the applicant has presented an application for signage for the project. Among the requested signs was a blade sign the reads take-away. Staff advised the applicant that blade signs are not permitted based on the approved sign program for the center. It was at that time that the applicant advised staff of their intent to operate a drive-up take-away service. The operation of the service is as follows: A patron calls in a take-away order drives to the site, parks in a spot visible to a motion sensitive camera and waits for an Outback employee to bring the take- away order from the kitchen to the patron's vehicle. Staff has informed the applicant that this activity is not the typical incidental take-away procedure and it should have been included in the statement of operations as well as presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Staff has since reviewed the staff report and the supporting documentation to see if this operation was overlooked. Staff has reviewed the statement of operations, approved floor plans, the approved site plan, the staff report, as well as, the minutes from the meeting. There is no indication that the applicant disclosed this preposed operation previously. It is for this reason, that staff is bringing this matter before you today. Attachments: 1. Project Application - Blue Page 2 2. Statement of Operations - Blue Page 3 3. Exhibits - Blue Page 4 Site Plan Grading Plan Floor Plans Landscape Plans Exterior Elevations Planning Commission Minutes from November 15, 2000 - Blue Page 5 R:~D P~2000\00-0260 Outbac~ Steakhouse~3-30-01 PC Take-away Memo.doc 1 \ ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PROJECT APPLICATION R:~D P~000\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~3-30-01 PC Take-away Memo.doc 2 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 (909) 694-6400 FAX (909) 694-6477 Dam Stump DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION · PROJECTINFORMATION~;~%: ('INCOMPL~T~ APPLICATIONS CANNOT Planning Application No. (~o..~i~a by m v~g rx~nnm~) Project Description/Use: Proposal is for approval of a high quality sit down :restaurant with a full service bar (Outback Steakhouse) and incident al take out service. Assessor's Parcel No(s): 911-770-010 Street Address(es) Winchester & Roripauqh, Temecula CA Location: NWC of Winchester & Roripaugh Type of Review Requested: Annexation (AiD Appeal CEQA Conditional Use Permit Existing Building (MCUP) New Building (In addition, check appropriate Development Plan) O~UP) Development Agreement (DA) Development Plan Over 10,000 square feet, subject to CEQA (PPN) Under I0,000 square feet, subject to CEQA (PP) ~x Under I0,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA (PPA) Subdivision - Home Product Extension ef Time for Planning Application No. General Plan Amendment (GPAS) Minor Exception (PP2) Specific Plan (SP) Tentative Parcel Map No. 2 9 3 0 9 Teafiative Tract Map No. Variance (VAR) Zoning Amendment, Text or Map Change, Specific Plan Amendment (CZ)) Other: ATTACHMENT NO. 2 STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS R:\D P~2000\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~3-30-01 PC Take-away Memo.doc 3 STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS: Outback Steakhouse Restaurant is a high quality sit down restaurant with a full service ' bar and has incidental take-out service. The restaurant is typically a dinner house, however, the proposed hours of operation are 10 AM - 1 AM seven days a week. The proposed hours will allow Outback Steakhouse to open for lunch on special occasions such as mother's day and father's day, Thanksgiving etc. There are approximately twenty-five employees per shift. The parking requirement is I space per 100 square foot of gross floor area which calculates to sixty-two (62) parking spaces. There are eight-one (81) spaces provided on-site. The average daily trips generated by the restaurant is 200. The building coverage for the parcel is 10.9%, parking- 49.6%, hardscape-13.9%, and landscape-25.6%. The project meets all the zoning requirements. The site does not have any ba?ardous material on-site nor will it use any hazardous material. A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS Site Plan, Grading Plan, Floor Plan, Landscape Plan, Exterior Elevation R:~D P~000~00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~3-30-01 PC Take-away Memo.doc 4 CITY OF TEMECULA .. / Q CASE NO. - PA00-0260 EXHIBIT. D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 15, 2000 SITE PLAN R:~D P~0-0260 Oulback Steakhouse~taff report.doc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-O260 ' EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 15, 2000 GRADING PLAN R:~ P~0-0260 OutbK~ Steakhouse~taff report.doc: 25 CITY OF TEMECULA ,( CASE NO. - PA00-0260 EXHIBIT- H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER '15, 2000 FLOOR PLANS R:~D P~00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 28 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0260 EXHIBIT - I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -; OVEMBER 15, 2000 LANDSCAPE PLANS R:~D I:~D0-0260 Outbac~ Steakhouse~staff report.doc 30 I Z ; 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER t5, 2001 R:~D P~2000\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~3-30-01 PC Take-away Memo,doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes for PA00-0260 Outback Steakhouse 6. Planning Application No. 00-0260 (Development Plan) to design, construct and operate a 6,150 square foot Outback Steakhouse Restaurant located on approximately 1.28 vacant acres within the Community Commercial (CC) Zone - Denice Thomas, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0260 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines; 6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0260, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 6,150 SQUARE FOOT OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE RESTAURANT ON APPROXIMATELY 1.29 VACANT ACRES LOCATED AT 40275 WINCHESTER ROAD WITHIN THE WINCHESTER MEADOWS SHOPPING CENTER AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 911-770-010; Via overheads, Senior Planner Hogan provided an overview of the project plan (via agenda material), noting the location, access points, site plan, landscaping, and parking provisions (which exceed the Code requirements); requested input from the Commission regarding the architecture and colors proposed, specifically whether this use's proposed architecture and colors should be similar to the uses in the Center or whether it would be more appropriate to create a unique appearance; presented the elevation design plan, noting the enhanced articulation, relaying that the roof design and the standing metal seam were the most noticeable variations with respect to consistency with the Center's existing design elements; provided a color material board for this project for the Commission's review, additionally presenting the color samples approved for the Center; and noted the modified PC Resolution (per supplemental agenda material). For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Bill Fancher, the applicant, provided additional information regarding the proposed architecture, noting that at an Irvine site where the standard metal-seamed roof and the neon was not installed, that this location had a considerable lower revenue than alternate sites; advised that the proposed design for this particular project represented a compromise between the desires of the Corporate office and staff; and relayed the rationale for placing the front door of the restaurant on Winchester Road, noting that the rear of the store served operations that were more appropriate for the location at the back of the building. in response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, Mr. Fancher relayed that this particular project was a franchised operation, noting that the entire state of California encompassed the franchising (which entailed approximately 51 stores); and provided R:\D P\2000\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse\PC Minutes.doc additional information regarding the slight variations of design at the various locations, noting that at this particular site pop-outs were added, and in the area where there was an expanse of wall that trelliswork and vines were added. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that while he did not oppose a standing seamed roof that this element did not appear to fit in with the design standards of this Center. In response, Mr. Fancher relayed that there were alternate uses in the Center with standing metal- seamed roofs and alternate sites with the same color palette, advising that the standing metal-seamed roof was a logotype element for the Outback Steakhouse Restaurant. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he appreciated the uniqueness in the design elements at the Center, which created a diverse, more interesting appearance. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Fancher relayed that the applicant was flexible with respect to landscaping, noting that the trellis vine was proposed to be bougan villa. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this particular planting does not grow well in this area. Chairman Guerriero relayed that his concerns would be alleviated if the applicant would agree to work with staff with respect to the landscaping at the rear of the building. In response, the applicant relayed agreement. With respect to Condition No. 42 (regarding the developer recording a lot line adjustment), Mr. Fancher relayed that there was no lot line adjustment proposed at this time, acknowledging that the Center owner planned a realignment at a future date, querying whether this condition would encumber the applicant with respect to obtaining a building permit or occupancy. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that a building permit would not be approved with a lot line going through the building, noting that he was unsure where the existing lot lines were located. Ms. Nina Raey, representing the applicant, specified the existing parcel lines, noting that per discussions with engineering staff, it was agreed that as long as the parcel line did not run across the proposed building, the project would be permitted to move forward, as proposed; and relayed that the property owner did not have data at this time regarding the future alternate uses. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the building permit would not be held up in this situation. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Raey confirmed that there were reciprocal parking easements between the parcets on the property. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that as a safeguard it would be her recommendation to leave Condition No. 42 in the Conditions of Approval and to add language stating if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. The Commission relayed closing remarks, as follows: Commissioner Telesio echoed Chairman Guerriero's comments regarding the positive appearance with the diversity of design elements at the Center; and relayed that this project would be a great addition to the City of Temecula. R:\D P~000\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse\PC Minutes.doc Commissioner Webster noted that he was not opposed to the design elements, which created a unique appearance. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it was his recommendation that the applicant work with staff regarding the landscaping palette, recommending deleting the proposed oak trees (due to the slow growth of this particular species) with an alternate tree, or in response to Senior Planner Hogan, relayed that the applicant could plant a larger size oak tree if this particular species was desired to be maintained in the landscape plan; and recommended replacing the vines with an alternate vine planting (i.e., deleting the bougan villa). Chairman Guerriero echoed Commissioner Chiniaeffls comments, recommending, additionally, that the applicant work with staff to enhance the rear landscaping. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's queries, the Commission voiced no opposition to the proposed neon at this site. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, with the following modifications: Add- With respect to Condition No. 42 (regarding the developer recording a lot line adjustment) that the phrase if deemed necessary by the Planning Department be added. That the applicant work with staff regarding the landscaping palette. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. It was noted that at 7:14 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:20 P.M. R:\D P~000\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse\PC Minutes.doc ITEM #4 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission ,/.~ Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Plannin~ April 4, 2001 Request continuation of PA00-00427, for the design and construction of two adjoining industrial buildings on two separate lots with the building on lot 6 totaling 18,787 square feet on 1.08 acres, and the building on lot 7 totaling 16,381 square feet on 1.01 acres. PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner Continuation of PA00-0427 until the April 18, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting. At the Mamh 28, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting the Commission directed the applicant to prepare a complete set of plans reflecting the possible alternatives that would ultimately eliminate the roll-up doors facing Winchester. With the limited time for the applicant and staff to consult with one another on the design changes, both parties will require additional time to prepare revised plans and prepare a revised staff report. Staff is therefore requesting a continuance of this Planning Application. R:'~D P~2000\00-0427 Accel-Gentek'u~C cover memo 4-4-01.doc ITEM #5 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commissioners Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning-~r~~'~ April 4, 2001 Planning Application No. PA00-0417 is a request to design, construct, and operate two medical office buildings, with three suites in each, totaling 13,257square feet of floor space (Bldg. "A" with 5,987 square feet and Bldg. "B" with 7,270 square feet) on a 1.5 acre lot, located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road (APN 921-090-087) PREPARED BY: Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0417 (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 EtR'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- 0417 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS ON 1.5 ACRES WITH BUILDING "A" HAVING 5,987 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" HAVING 7,270 SQUARE FEET, TOTALING 13,257 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-990-087. BACKGROUND: This project was continued from the March 28, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting for additional environmental assessment. Staff was requested to further analyze the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and EIR for project consistency. R:~D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita M~lical~Staff report PC 4-4-01 .do~ I ANALYSIS: To assure that this project was in compliance with the Campos Verdes Specific Plan's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Conditions of Approval, staff completed a thorough review of both documents. When assessed against these documents, mitigation measures have either been met or will be met during the development of this project. Attached are copies of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the conditions of approval for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan as requested. A review of the EIR and its Mitigation Monitoring Program found that most mitigation measures had been completed during previous development of Campos Verdes, or would net be relevant to this project. Other mitigation measures have been complied with through the normal application review process or have been added as conditions of approval relevant to each City department and/or the responding agencies. However, there is one mitigation measure (#5.2) that requires an acoustical study be conducted prior to approval of a development plan, which has not been completed. The intended outcome of that study is to determine if the ambient noise level emanating from the street traffic exceeds the threshold set forth in the EIR, and if so what type of building methods must be employed to reduce the interior noise level to an acceptable level. Because the results of the acoustical study only affect the construction method, staff feels that this mitigation measure can be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit and still accomplish the EIR's objective. The conditions of approval for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and Amendment No. I were previously reviewed by staff during the initial review of this development proposal. At that time, corrections were made to the site's design and the project was then found to be in compliance. With the project's conditions of approval, there will be no outstanding specific plan conditions that must be independently applied to this proposal. After a review of both documents, staff has determined that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Campos Verdes Specific Plan EIR and its Conditions of Approval. To assure that the intent of Mitigation Measure #5.2 is met, a condition of approval has been added to requires that an acoustical study be completed and implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. An additional condition has been added to assure continued compliance with the Campoe Verdes Specific Plan, EIR and the Conditions of Approval. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project is within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1 for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified. Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) this project is exempt and a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for Planning Application No. 00-0. 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 Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. I land uses which anticipated chumh, office, and retail uses. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No. 2001- - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval (revised) - Blue Page 7 2. Campos Verdes Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 18 3. Campos Verdes Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 19 4. March 28, 2001, Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 20 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001- R:~D PX2000\0~0417 Margarita Medical\S~aff report PC 44-01.doc 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0417 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS ON 1.5 ACRES WITH BUILDING "A" HAVING 5,987 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" HAVING 7,270 SQUARE FEET, TOTALING 13,257 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-090-087. WHEREAS, Margarita Medical Condo Development, LLC, filed Planning Application No. 00- 0417, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0417 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner proscribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 00-0417 on March 28, 2001, and continued the matter to April 4, 2001, at duty noticed public hearings 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 Planning Application No. 00-0417; 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. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00- 0417 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal, two office buildings, is consistent with the land use policies of the Professional Office (PO) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Professional Office contained in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of office development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, 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. 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 R:~D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medica[~Staff report PC 4-4-01.doc 5 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. 00-0125 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. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0417 for a Development Plan to design, construct, and operate two medical office buildings, with three suites in each, totaling 13,257square feet of floor space (Bldg. "A" with 5,987 square feet and Bldg. "B" with 7,270 square feet) on a 1.5 acre lot on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road, and known as Assessor Parcel No. 921-090-087. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of April 2001. ATTEST: Ron Guerriero, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss City of Temecula ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 01 - was duly and regularly adopted bythe Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of April, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: pLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P~2000V30-0417 Marge, dta Medical~Staff report PC 4-4-01 .doc 6 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:~,D P~000~00-0417 Margarita Medical~Staff report PC 4-4-01 .doc 7 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0417 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design, construction, and operation of two medical office buildings on 1.5 acres with building "A" having 5,987 square feet and building "B" having 7,270 square feet, totaling 13,257 square feet, located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road. DIF Category: Office Assessor Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 921-090-O87 April 4, 2001 April 4, 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. 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 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 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect 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 R:~D P~000~00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC 4-4-01 .doc 8 officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. 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 and successors shall comply with the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, its previously certified EIR No. 348 and Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes) and Planning Application No. 99-0015 (Amendment No. 1) unless superceded by these Conditions of 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 be located such that they are not placed in prominent locations visible to the public. Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Details of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department during plan check for review prior to installation. The installation of wall pack style light shall not be used along the street side elevation. All parking lot lights and other exterior 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. The maximum height of parking lot lights is 32 feet per Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division as amended by these changes: a. 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 Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. All building and monuments signs shall comply with Campos Verdes Specific Plan Sections III.C.2.c. and IV.B.4.a. as they relate to Commercial/office signs. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Landscape Plan). 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. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. The applicant will be responsible for the installation of the all landscaping along Margarita Road and temporary landscaping on Parcel 2 as shown on the approved landscape plan prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. b. The landscaping at the entries to the sites shall be consistent with Figure IV-19 in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. R:'~D P~000V30-0417 Margarita Medicai~Staff report PC 4-4-01.doc 9 11. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with the 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. Material Windows, doors Wall base Wall face Accent Band (lower) Accent keystones (upper) Finish & Color Dark Bronze anodized frames with smoke-grey tined glazing Limestone veneer (light tan) Desert Fawn, Frazee 8222W (beige) Pre-cast concrete Misty Mica, Frazee 871 lW Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. 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. 13. Two copies of a Phase 1 amhaeological report shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. Any recommendations contained in that report shall be implemented. 14. 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. 15. If necessary the applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E & F", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final Conditions of Approval and submit five (5) full size copies. 16. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved 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 17. As required in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan's Mitigation Monitoring Program, item #5.2, an acoustical study shall be completed and the implementation of noise reduction measures, as identified in the study, shall be implemented in the construction plans to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to 45 CNEL and 60 CNEL respectively. 18. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 19. 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 "F", 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. R:'~D P~2000~0-0417 Margarita MedJcal~Staff reporl PC 4-4-01.doc 10 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 20. 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. 21. 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 upon request by the applicant. 22. 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." 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. 23. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 24. 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 25. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat 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. 26. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to R:~3 P~000~00-0417 Margarita Medic~l~Staff report PC 4-4-01 .doc 11 commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 27. 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 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 34. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 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. 35. 36. 37. 38. R:'~D P',2000~0-0417 Margarita Medical~Staff report PC 4-4-01.doc 12 Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 39. 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: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. e. 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. f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 40. 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. 41. 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. 42. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 43. 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 44. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 45. 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. 46. 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 DEPARTMENT 47. 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. 48. 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 R:~D P~.000~00-0417 Margarita Med[c.~l'~St~ff report PC 4-4-01 .doc 13 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. 49. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 50. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 51. 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. 52. Clearly show on precise grading plan that the directional slope of the accessible path from the city right of way does not exceed 5% or clearly show that handrails on both sides are provided. 53. All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998. 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. 54. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 55. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 56. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. 57. 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. 58. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 59. 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 60. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 61. Restmom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. 62. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site disabled accessibility. R:'~D P~000',00-0417 Margarita MedicaEStaff report PC 4-4-01 .doc 14 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. 63. 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. 64. 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 400 GPM for a total fire flow of 1900 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 bythe Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 65. 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 450 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 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) 66. 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) 67. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 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) 68. 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) 69. 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) 70. 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) 71. 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) 72. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) R:~D P~000~00-0417 Margarita Medical~Staff report PC 4-4-01 .doc 15 73. 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) 74. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather sudace roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 75. 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 ) 76. 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) 77. 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 numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 78. 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) 79. 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) 80. 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) 81. 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. Special Conditions 82. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA - 13, 24, 72 and 231-C. 83. Prior to building final inspection a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. R:',D P~000~)0-0417 Margarita Medica~Staff report PC 4-4-01.doc 16 84. 85. 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 86. 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 87. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated October 25, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 88. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of Califomia, transmittal dated March 19, 2001, a copy of which is attached. 89. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 30, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 90. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control, transmittal dated November 16, 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 Planning Commission approval. Applicant's Signature Name printed Date R:~D P~2000~DO-0417 Margarita Meciical~Staff report PC 4-4-01 .doc 17 ATrACHMENT NO. 2 CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:~D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC 4-4-01.doc 18 M = B o E .. :; 8 =.= ~ =. .;;~ .._o ._ . .; .o = ;;- ATFACHMENT NO. 3 CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical'~Staff report PC 4-4-01 .doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes) Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing 308 single*family residential units, 19.Sacres of commercial\office\church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary school, and 13.0 acres of on-sita roadways Assessor's Parcel No.: 9214)90-001 through 004, 921-090-017, 910-130-046, 911-170-004and 910-170-005 Approval Date: September 13, 1994 PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deiiver to the P/lannfng-Bepartment a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County C~rk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty- Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, in comeliance with AB 31 ~, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of faiiure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Conditions The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 10/12/9~ kib 18 10. 11. 12. 13. Approval of Specific Plan No. 1, Campos Verdes, is contingent upon an~l shali-~not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approvecl by the City Council and an Environmental Impact Report or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Quality Act are certified by the City Council. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 348 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage of development that permits are being issued for. Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading permits, all permit requirements necessary for altering the existing on-site blue line stream shall be completed. The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor, along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps. Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within the site, a detailed design manual for any commercial area within the Specific Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council. A master print copy (8 ~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shah be submitted. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequen~ projects shall receive appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal. ~ ' .... " .... :"--'=" .... :c *~- :cc: ~P~c~.~.~=; ^'cc ~.} (Deleted by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) R:',$TAFIrlt.~ISP.CC I~1~J94 kb 1 9 14. The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula tO retain~the services of a qualified consultant to administer and implement the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. 15. Prior to City Council approval the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be updated to reflect all current conditions of approval. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 16, Prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects and prior to recordation of the final map for residential projects, the project applicant shall enter into a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecuta Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan. 17. If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. 18. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. 19. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. GENERAL CONDITIONS 20. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 21. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. R:~STAFFR.FI~ISP. CC 10/12/94 Ir~ 20 22. b ildi it the-- Prior to issuance of u ng perm s for various phases of development, the Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond Shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee' for this project; ~rovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) 23. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 24. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public WorkS and the Planning Director prior to approval =f c~;' fer each subsequent development application. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) CIRCULATION 25. As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a 'Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 26. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to residential, office, and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works. 27. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards. 28. All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements~ R:~TAFI~J~I~ISP.CC 10/12/94 ItJb 21 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plah. Loc~-~ion and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required, additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Campos Verdes Spe=ific Plan, as determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. The traffic signals at the phase one accesses from Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications shall be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the 200th 235th equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of occupancy for the 2OO~,h 235th EDU. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for full width improvements to Margarita Road, along the entire frontage, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for reconstruction of the existing two lanes on Margarita Road, from Solana Way to southerly project boundary. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for the improvements to North General Kearny Road, from Margarita Road to easterly project limit in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan of the Specific Plan. The cross section shall be in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classification for a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of- way or as required by the Director of Public Works. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) R:~'TAFFRPT~ISP.CC lO~12/g~, k~ 22 35. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the D~velop~r is responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The Developer shall construct the traffic signals, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications at the following intersections: Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal) Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road Margarita Road and Campos Verdes Lane North General Kearny Road and Camino Campos Verdes 36. Sandeding Way and Starling Street shall be extended to accommodate through traffic into the Roripaugh Hills development. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994). Sta~lTng Street shall be closed with a fire gate. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian end bicycle traffic between Campos Verdos and Rorlpaugh Hills via Starling Street (Amended at City Council Hearing on September 13, 1994). Drainage 37. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 38. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 39. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development :within that phase. 40. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 41. The Developer shall construct the proPOsed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the onsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 42. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subse~luent development apl31ications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 43. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. 44. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. R:'~TAF'FI~T~tSP~CC 10;1~94 ~ 23 Water and Sewer 45. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements.and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. 46. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 47. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 48. Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan development. Grading 49. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 50. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 51. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared m conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 52. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 53. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: · Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. R:~TAFFRI~I~ISP.~:~ 1(~1~94 ~ 24 54. 55. 56. 57, 58. 59. 60. 61. Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion--and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. · Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the, Department of Public Works for review and approval; to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessar~ on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prio~ to issuance of grading permits. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (i.e. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Phasing 62. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided t~at such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 63. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) provides the following conditions for Campos Verdes Specific Plan: General Requirements 64. All park facilities, slope areas, park way landscaping, trails and medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecuia Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 65. Construction of the public park site, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program. 66. The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park site, landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 67. All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended for transfer to the City 'in- fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that' would preclude the City from using the property for public park and/or recreational purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property. 68. All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual properW owners or an established Home Owner's Association (HOA). 69. Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 70. All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to sir~gle family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance- purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of. the application process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by and established Home Owner's Association (HOA). Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 71. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the developer or his assignee shall enter into an agreement and post security to improve the 10.8 acre park facility located in Planning Area I and the detention basin in Planning Area 2. 72. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping, medians, and multi- purpose trail identified in Planning Area 9. 73. All parks, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final map. 74. Landscape construction drawings for all project areas (project areas may consist of slopes, streetscape, medians, turf areas, recreational trails, and parks) identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services prior to recordation of the final map. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 75. The Park shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 78th residential building permit for the overall project or within two (2) years of map recordation for the first phased lots, whichever comes first. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 76. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 77. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the maintenance program. EXHIBIT 2 CiTY Of TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. I to Campos Verdes Specific Plan including Addendum No. 4 to the previously certified EIR No. 348). Project Description: Amendment No. I to Campos Verdes Specific Plan which consists primarily of increasing the school site from 10 acres to 20 acres, a reduction of 66 residential parcels, a reduction to the park site, and a portion of the residentially and park zoned property is being changed to a commercial zoning classification. Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130-056, 910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090-059, 921-090-060 and 921-090- 061 Approval Date: Expiration Date: February 3, 1999 February 3, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Specific Plan Amendment 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). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The specific plan amendment and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 348 and all the subsequent addenda 1 through 4. R:\STAFFRPT~323PA98PC..DOC 25 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Applicant shall comply with the approved Conditions of Approval of the underlying Specific Plan No. 1, Campos Verdes Specific Plan, which was approved on September 13, 1994. Amendment No; 1 to the Specific Plan shall specify that the detention basin will be maintained by the property owner for a minimum of five (5) years which is estimated to be the period for the vegetation to be established. The City of Temecula Public Works Department may then be responsible for maintenance. A Property Owners Association or the Temecula Community Services District will maintain the drainage area behind the park site in Planning Area 1. The drainage area behind the commercial office/church area of Planning Area 2 will be maintained by the City of Temecula Public Works Department or assignee if the drainage channel is constructed according to City Standards. Otherwise, the drainage area will be the responsibility of the property owner for maintenance. This language shall be substituted for the language regarding the detention basin, maintenance and ownership as stated on pages 111-17, 111-31, 111-35, III- 39, 111-40, Ilt-42, Ill-46 of the Specific Plan Amendment No. 1. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. All park and slope improvements shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications. The City's park land dedication requirement for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan shall be satisfied with the development and dedication of a 3.15 acre neighborhood park located in Planning Area 1. The actual design of the neighborhood park in Planning Area I shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual design identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. The design of the park in Planning Area 1 shall provide for pedestrian circulation and access for the disabled throughout the park. 10. Construction of the public park site and perimeter slopes/landscaping proposed for dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs. The developer shall maintain the park site and slopes/landscaping until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. R:\STAF F RPT~323PA98PC..DOC 26 11. The park facility shall be dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for public park purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the transfer of the property to the City. 12. The open space/paseo area in Planning Area 9 shall be privately maintained by an established Homeowners Association. 13. Upon acceptance and transfer of the park improvements to the City, that portion of the drainage area located adjacent to the park, and not considered as habitat restoration area, shall be maintained by the TCSD. Maintenance for the remaining drainage facilities shall be determined by the by the Department of Public Works upon construction of the improvements to City standards. 14. All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the application process. All other slopes, open space, perimeter walls, and entry monuments shall be maintained by the established Homeowners Association (HCA). 15. Bike lanes shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes, shall be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 16. In return for park construction, the developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park component of DIF based upon the actual cost of improving the park. The fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the execution of a park improvement agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. 17. The developer shall file an application with the TCSD for the transfer of residential and arterial street lighting into the respective maintenance program. Prior to Approval of the Final Map: 18. The developer or his assignee shall enter into an agreement and post security to improve the proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas and the public park facility located in Planning Area 1. All proposed TCSD slope/landscaping areas shall be offered for dedication on the final map. 19. Construction drawings for all proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas and the public park site shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 20. A notice of intention to annex into the Temecula Community Services District Service Levels B, C, and D shall be submitted to the TCSD prior to approval of the final map. The property owner election Costs involved in the district formation or annexation shall be borne by the developer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: R:\STAFF R PT~323PA98 PC..DOC 27 21. The park in Planning Area 1 shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 78th residential building permit for the overall project or within two (2) years of the first phased lots, whichever comes first. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 20. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. 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:\STAF FRPT~323PA98PC.,DOC 28 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 MARCH 28, 2001, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R:~D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical~Staff report PC 4-4-01.doc 20 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 4, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0417 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0417 (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- 0417 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS ON 1.5 ACRES WITH BUILDING "A" HAVING 5,987 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" HAVING 7,270 SQUARE FEET, TOTALING 13,257 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-090-087. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Margarita Medical Condo Development, LLC, c/o Edward Anderson, 42752 Mountain Shadow Dr., Murrieta, CA 92562 To design, construct, and operate two medical office buildings, with three suites in each, totaling 13,257square feet of floor space (Bldg. "A" with 5,987 square feet and Bldg. "B" with 7,270 square feet) on a 1.5 acre lot. On the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road (APN 921-090-087) PO (Professional Office) R:\D P~2000~0-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc EXISTING ZONING: SP-6 (Specific Plan-6 Campos Verdes) SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: SP-6 (Specific Piano6 Campos Verdes) South: SP-6 (Specific Plan-6 Campos Verdes) East: SP-6 (Specific Plan-6 Campos Verdes) West: SP-6 (Specific Plan-7 Temecula Regional Center) Vacant North: Single Family Homes South: Flood Control Basin East: Vacant (Approve for a Chumh) West: Promenade Mall PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 65,341 square feet 1.5 acres Total Building Area: 13,257 square feet 0.20 FAR Building "A": 5,987 square feet 9.2% Building "B": 7,270 square feet 11.7% Total Building Footprints: 13,257 square feet 20.3% Hardscape: 2,958 square feet 4.5% Landscape Area: 19,779 square feet 30.3% Paved Area: 29,367 square feet 44.9% Parking Required: Office 13,257 square feet/(1:250) 54 spaces Parking Provided: 71 spaces BACKGROUND The applicant submitted a formal application to the Planning Department on October 27, 2000. Supplemental material was required and a Development Review Committee meeting was held on December 7, 2000, with follow up reviews completed in February and March. The project was deemed complete on March 12, 2001. The owner of the property has also requested that the site be divided into two lots and that application is scheduled for the Director's Hearing on April 5, 2001. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to design, construct, and operate two medical office buildings, with three suites in each, totaling 13,257square feet of floor space (Bldg. "A" with 5,987 square feet and Bldg. "B" with 7,270 square feet) on a 1.5 acre lot. The plan also shows a conceptual layout for the remainder of the lot, but it is not a part of this application. ANALYSIS Site Desiqn and Circulation The site at the southwest corner of Margarita and North General Kearny Roads will have its primary access from North General Kearny Road. A second driveway will access the site from Margarita R:~D P~000~00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc 2 Road across the southerly portion of the pamel, which is intended to ultimately be developed with medical offices on a separate lot. Both points of access entering the site connect to internal drive aisles that will allow cimulation to pass in front of the buildings and provide access to four rows of parking. A conceptual site design is provided on the pamel to the south so that it can be demonstrated that the future development of this site can be integrated in a functional manner. Future development of this southern parcel will require a separate review and approval. The two buildings are detached and laid out in an "L" configuration with building "A," the smaller of the two, backing to Margarita Road and Building "B" backing up to North General Kearny Road. A courtyard is provided between the two buildings with trellises and seating. In front of building "A" is a loading zone for deliveries and visitor drop-off. A common walkway links all the suites in each building to the sidewalk on North General Kearny Road. Architecture & Colors The exterior finishes of the proposed office buildings will incorporate stone, cast concrete, and stucco. On the base of the building (lower 2 feet) will be limestone tile in a light tan capped with pre- cast concrete moulding. Windows around the building will have smoke gray tinted glass with dark bronze anodized aluminum frames. Between the windows will be sectioned stucco panels finished in Desert Fawn (beige), which will appear as columns supporting the upper fascia of the building. The upper portions of the building above the windows will be hand troweled smooth stucco with some irregularities, finished again in Desert Fawn. Accenting on this upper wall facade will be a narrow stucco finished relief moulding that will connect keystone elements over each window. Capping the building is a pitched roof, using "S" tile described as Buff Blend color. Small gable accents over the off-set portions of both buildings provide relief to roof. Landscapinq As required by the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, at least 15% of the site must be landscaped and this project is providing 30.3%, with the bulk of the landscaping being provided along the two street frontages. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan specifies a 32 foot landscape zone (include the 12 foot parkway) along both roadways with a gradual 4:1 slope lined with random placement of trees with turf. Along North General Kearny is a meandering sidewalk with the same streetscape theme. The primary trees along Margarita Road will be London Plane (24" box) and California Pepper (15 gal.) trees. Along North General Kearny will be the same tree plantings with Holly Oaks (24" box) framing the entry drive aisle. Around the building will be Fern Pines (24" box), Chinese Flame Tree (15 gal.), and Queen Palms (6' clear trunk). The parking area and the eastern perimeter will include the Chinese Flame Tree (24" box) and Fern Pines (24" box). Shrubs will provide accent color and screening around the base of the building and will include Fortnight Iris, Escallonia, Daylily, Variegated Tobira, Purple Flax, and Indian Hawthorn. When Tentative Parcel Map 30012 was recently approved creating the parcel being developed for this project and the future site to the south, it was conditioned to have all street frontage landscaping installed upon the completion of the rough grading and/or in conjunction with the future development of either site. The intent of this condition was to have a completed streetscape along a prominent arterial, as opposed to an unfinished area that would not be installed until such time that a development was approved. With the development of this site, the applicant is aware of the need to complete the streetscape landscaping per the map approval. R:'~D P~000',00-0417 Margarita Medical~Staff report PC.doc 3 Parkinq Analysis Based on the Campos Verdes Specific Plan's parking standard of one space per 250 square feet of floor area, a minimum of 54 parking spaces must be provided. As designed, the applicant is proposing 71 vehicle parking spaces to meet what they believe will be their realistic parking needs. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project is within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. I for which an Environmental impact Report (EiR) was prepared and certified. Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) this project is exempt and a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for Planning Application No. 00-0125. 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 Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1 land uses which anticipated church, office, and retail uses. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Professional Office (PO). Existing zoning for the site is SP-6 (Specific Plan-6 Campos Verdes). A variety of office and conditional uses are permitted within this zone, with the approval of a Development Plan or Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed, meets all minimum standards of, and is consistent with, the General Plan, the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies; standards and guidelines. We believe, given the additional conditions placed on the project, it is compatible and compliant the types of uses and quality of surrounding development, and will represent an aesthetic addition to the City's Professional Office areas. FINDINGS-DEVELOPMENTPLAN The proposal, two office buildings, is consistent with the land use policies of the Professional Office (PO) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Professional Office contained in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of office development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, 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. R:~D P~2000',00-O417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc 4 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. Attachments: 1. 2. 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 D. Site Plan E. Elevation F. Landscape Plan R:",D P~000~0-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc 5 ATrACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:~D P~000',00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA D PROJECT SITE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0417 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:\D P\2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc 21 CiTY OF TEMECULA 0 PROJECT SITE EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION - SP-6 (Campos Verdes Specific Plan) ZONING MAP PROJECT SITE EXHIBIT C DESIGNATION -OP (Office Professional) GENERAL PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0417 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001 R:\D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Mectical~Staff report PC.doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA / ILll PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0417 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001 SITE PLAN R:\D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc 23 CITY OF TEMECULA SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELI~VATION WEST ELEVATION F..~T ELEVATION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0417 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE ' March 28, 2001 R:~D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc CITY OF TEMECULA BJILX)M~ B PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0417 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001 LANDSCAPE R:\D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\StaCf repot( PC.doc