HomeMy WebLinkAbout110602 PC AgendaIn compliance w",h the Amedcens with Disabilities ACt, if you need special assistance to padicipate In this meeting,
please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours pdor to e meeting will enable the]
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Tee II] ~
.... AGENDA ''
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
November 6, 2002 - 6:00 P.M.
Next In Order:
Resolution: No. 2002-Next
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Guerdero
Roll Call:
Guerriem, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not 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 Commlesion request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.'
1 A,qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 6, 2002
R:~PLANCOMM~gendas~002~I 1-06-02.doc
1
Director's Hearin(~ Case Ucdate
3
RECOMMENDATION:'
2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October 2002
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a
public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the
approval of the project(a) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to reislng only those Issues you or someone
else ralead at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the
Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Continued from October 2, 2002
Planninq Application No. PA00-0507 Jefferson Avenue Inn, for the desi.qn and construction
of a 70-room four story hotel buildin.q on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel located adjacent to the
Winchester freeway off ramp next to the Comfort Inn Hotel at the rear of the Rancho
Temecula Plaza - Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner II
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Staff recommends that the Planning CommiSSion review the submitted design changes
and make a final decision on the proposed project. The original Staff recommendation
was for denial or redesign.
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES)
TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM
42,000 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE
VACANT .PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET:
EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
910-282-007. ~
3.3 or Adopt a resolution entitled:,
R:~PLANCOMM~genda$~002~I 1-06-02.do~
2
PC RESOLUTION N0. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
00-0507(DEVErOPMENT PLAN '- HAMPTON INN-SUITES)-TO
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000
SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT
PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF
JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
910-282-007.
New Items
4
Planninq Application No. PA02-0387 & PA02-0388 Application to censtruct, establish and
operate a 30,000 square foot office buildinf:l and to divide the site into two separate parcels
of 1.41 acres and 4.28 acres respectively located on the East side of County Center Drive,
approximately 740 feet north of Ynez Road (APN 910-110-045), Matthew Harris, Associate
Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Requesting a continuance to December 6, 2002
5
Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0322 An Extension of Time to desiRn and construct a 56,000
s(3uare foot office complex consistinR of ten buildin.qs located on the North side of RidRe
Park Drive, between Rancho California Road and Vincent Mom.qa Drive, Matthew Harris,
AsSOciate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0322 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING' APPLICATION
NO. 02-0322 (THE FIRST ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME)
FOR PA 00-0072 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO DESIGN,
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 56,000 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE COMPLEX CONSISTING OF TEN (10) BUILDINGS ON
FOUR ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIDGE
PARK DRIVE, BETWEEN RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NOS. 940-310-028 AND 032
R:~ LAN COMIVl~Agendas~2002~l 1-06-02.doc
3
6
Plannina Aoolicetion No. PA02-0473 A Variance to permit a 10-foot reduction for the rear
vard setback and a 2-foot reduction for the front yard setback located on the east side of
Avenida De Paseual and north of Sierra Bonita (945-110-019}, Rick Rush, Associata
Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0473 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0473, A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 10-FOOT
REDUCTION FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND 2-FOOT
REDUCTION FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA DE PASQUAL AND NORTH
OF SIERRA BONITA, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
945-110-019.
7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0147 A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to desiqn,
construct and operate a sixty-five foot hi.qh-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility
desioned as a monopine and the installation of four equipment cabinets mounted on a sixty
six s(3uare foot cad located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road, Rick Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0147 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0147, ACONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A SIXTY-FIVE FOOT
HIGH UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY
DESIGNED AS A MONOPINE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF
FOUR EQUIPMENT CABINETS MOUNTED ON A SIXTY-SIX
SQUARE FOOT PAD LOCATED AT 44501 RAINBOW CANYON
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-220-
0O4
R:\PLANCOMM~Ageridss~2002\I 1-06-02.doe
4
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
pLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: November 20, 2002 - Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
R:~PLANCOMI~gendas~002~I 1-06-02.doc
5
ITEM #2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commi~si~/
Debbie Ubnosk~q3irector of Planning
November 6, 2002
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for October 2002
October 3, 2002 PA02-0474 Product Review for 127 detached single- KB Homes Approved
family residential homes, ranging from
1,582 square feet to 2,492 square feet with
3 different plans and 3 architectural
designs.
October 3, 2002 PA02-0475 Product Review for 85 detached single- KB Homes Approved
family residential homes, ranging from
2,268 square feet to 3,470 square feet with
5 different plans and 3 architectural
designs.
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
P:kPLANNINGkD1RHEAR~vIEMOX2002\Oct~ber 2002.memo.doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
October 3, 2002 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Principal
Planner on items that are net listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
Item No. 1:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental
Action:
Case Planner:
ACTION:
PA02-0474 Product Review for homes in Tract 23143-9 of the Crowne Hill
Subdivision.
PA02-0475 Product Review for homes in Tract 23143-7 of the Crowne Hill
Subdivision.
KB Home Coastal, Inc., 12235 El Camino Real, Ste. 100, San Diego, CA 92130
Crowne Hill Subdivision Tracts 23143-7 & -9, east of Butterfield Stage Road
south of Pauba Road and north of Crowne Hill Drive.
PA02-0474 - Product Review for 127 detached single-family residential
homes, ranging from 1,582 square feet to 2,492 square feet with 3 different
plans and 3 amhitectural designs.
PA02-0475 - Product Review for 85 detached single-family residential homes,
ranging from 2,268 square feet to 3,470 square feet with 5 different plans and 3
architectural designs.
Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration
was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations).
Thomas Thornsley
APPROVED
P APLANNINGkDIRHEAR~AgendasX2002\ 10-03 -02 ACTION AGENDA.doc
1
ITEM #3
ClTY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commissar) J
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
November 6, 2002
Continued Item, PA00-0507, for the design and construction of a 70-room four-
story hotel building on a 1.35-acre vacant pamel
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
Michael McCoy, Project Planner
Conduct public hearing and make a final decision on Planning
Application.
At the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting the
applicant requested that the proposed 70-room hotel development
plan application be continued to the November 6, 2002 Planning
Commission hearing in order to resolve discrepancies involving
the unauthorized use of the Hampton Inn Suites brand name. The
applicant has recently requested that City staff now refer to the
proposed project as the "Jefferson Avenue Inn" and has submitted
revised full size planning exhibits that reference the new project
name as attachments with this agenda package. No other
changes were made to any project exhibits and the project design
is as was shown on the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission
agenda package.
Attachments:
1. October 2, 2002 Staff Report - Blue Page 2
Exhibits - 2"a Revision (under separate cover)
C. Preliminary Planting Plan color reduction sheet
D. Water Fountain design reductions
E. Fountain and Sign Plan
F. Fountain and Sign Elevation
H. Materials and Color Board reduction
R:',D P~2000~0-0507 Hamp~n Inn Suites~Reconfinue to 11-6 I=C meeting memo.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
October 2, 2002 STAFF REPORT
RAD l~.000X00~0507 Hampton Inn SuiteskP, econtinue to 11-6 PC meeting memo.doc
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Subject:
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commissioners
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
October 2, 2002
PA00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites
PREPARED BY:
Michael McCoy, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the
submitted design changes and make a final decision on the
proposed project.
BACKGROUND:
At the August 21,2002 public hearing the Planning Commission voted to continue the proposed
project until the meeting of October 2, 2002. As a separate motion, the Commission unanimously
voted to deny the proposed floor area ratio (FAR) above the target FAR, and requested that the
applicant return with additional enhanced design detail and a reduced FAR by removing building
square footage. Some of the Commission's key recommendations to the applicant are summarized
as follows:
Relocate the trash enclosure away from the property line with the adjacent Comfort Inn;
Consider a pitched tile roof instead of the proposed flat roof design;
Add decorative balconies across the front of all air conditioning vent covers of each guest
room;
Reduce the building square footage to get closer to the target floor area ratio by removing
the fourth floor or reducing the building footprint;
Provide more accent trees along the eastern property line;
Provide an exterior courtyard seating area;
Provide design details of the water fountain;
Provide a revised color elevation plan showing the stone veneer exterior treatment.
ANALYSIS:
Staff does not believe that the applicant has fully met the request of the Planning Commission. In
addition, the applicant has indicated that they are not prepared to reduce the proposed floor area
ratio.
R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC St[ Rept Version #2.doc
1
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and conceptual landscape plan, along with a colored
building elevation plan and additional design details of the proposed water fountain at the building
entrance, as the Planning Commission had requested of the applicant at the August public headng.
The revised site plan shows the trash enclosure relocated further south along the eastern property
line behind the rear building entrance. The motomycle spaces on the east side of the building are
relocated further north behind the east side of the building to provide a larger landscape planter area
near the pedestrian path at the south building entrance. The proposed floor area ratio at .71 (42,000
square feet of building area) is the same as the original plan FAR.
The revised conceptual landscape plan shows three additional 24-inch box Fern Pine trees along
the eastern property line and a 36-inch box Deodar Cedar tree replacing a 24-inch box Fern Pine
within an enlarged landscape area at the former location of the trash enclosure on the northeast
corner of the site. Two 36-inch box Deodar Cedars have replaced 24-inch box Fern Pines in
adjacent planters at the building entrance and a 24-inch box Fern Pine was added within the
landscape planter at the north side driveway entrance. Two exterior plaza areas with circular wall
seats and decorative paving are shown within planter areas on the west and south sides of the
building. These two plaza seating areas are not shown on the revised site plan for consistencywith
the revised landscape plan.
The revised color elevation plan shows the stone veneer design on the vertical building offsets but
does not show the decorative false wrought iron screens in front of all air conditioning vent covers
below the guest room windows as staff and the Commission recommended to the applicant.
However, the applicant's representative stated at the August 21, 2002 public hearing that the
applicant would be agreeable to add the decorative screens in front of all guest room windows if that
is what the Commission preferred.
CONCLUSION:
Staff has attached a, draft resolution of approval and a draft resolution of denial for adoption
depending upon the outcome of this meeting.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution of denial of PA00-0507 - Blue Page 3
2. Draft Resolution of approval of PA00-0507 - Blue Page 6
3. Revised Exhibits - Blue Page 10 A. Site Plan Reduction
B. Elevation Plan color reduction
C. Preliminary Planting Plan color reduction sheet
D. Water Fountain design reductions
E. Fountain and Sign Plan
F. Fountain and Sign Elevation
4. August 21, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report packet -Blue Page 12
5. Signed Minutes from the August 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting -Blue Page 13
6. Signed Minutes from the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting -Blue Page 14
P,.:\D l~2.0(~0\00~)507 Hamptor, Inn Suites~Suppt-mcnta110-2 PC Stf R.¢pt Version #2.dcc
A~rACHMENT NO. 1
PC DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Stf Rept Version #2.doc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000 SQUARE
FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL,
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON
AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007.
WHEREAS, Dinesh Patel filed Planning Application No. PA00-0507 (Development Plan), in
a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) was processed including,
but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application
No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) on June 5th, 2002, August 21st, 2002, October 2°°, 2002, and
November 6th, 2002 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended denial of Planning Application No. 00-0507; subject to
and based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in denying Planning Application No. 00-
0507 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.08.050 of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
FINDINGS - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase
Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that at least one of the three criteria be met to justify
an increase the Floor Area Ratio. The Planning Commission cannot make the required findings for
the following two criteria:
1. The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city
with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community.
The proposed project, a 70-room hotel building, will not provide any outstanding or
exceptional employment, fiscal, social or economic benefits to the city other than the 8 %
Transit Occupancy Tax (i.e. bed tax) generated and a very small number of lower paying
new jobs.
R:~D P~200~0/~0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Sff Rept Version g2.doc
4
2. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which
reflect an attractive image and character to the city.
Although the proposed project's architecture and landscape design meets the minimum
design standards of the City's Design Guidelines and Development Code objectives, it is not
considered to be of exceptional quality to justify an increase above the target FAR. The
building architecture appears to have no more design enhancement than similar buildings
that did not require an FAR increase, or the Extended Stay America hotel building design,
that received a much smaller FAR increase. In addition, the proposed project only provides
the minimum 20 % landscape coverage. This coverage is less than what the Extended Stay
America project provided, and other than offering a water fountain feature near the main
entrance, the landscape plan does not create an exceptional landscape entry statement.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission on this 6th day of November 2002.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
)ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6~ day of November 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',D P~2000X0(P0507 Hampton Inn Suites'Supplemental 10-2 PC Sff Rept Version g2,doc
5
A'rrACHMENT NO. 2
PC APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
R:\D P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Sff Rept Version #2.doc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000
SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT
PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF
JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007.
WHEREAS, Dinesh Patel filed Planning Application No. PA00-0507 (Development Plan), in
a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) was processed including,
but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting, considered Plannin_~ Application
No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) on June 5 , 2002, August 21 , 2002, October 2 , 2002, and
November 6th, 2002 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. 00-0507; subject to
and based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
00-0507 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F and by Section
17.08.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code:
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Section 17.05.010 F)
A. The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and
policies reflected for Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) development in the City of Temecula
General Plan. The proposed project effectively reflects the objectives of Goal 2 of the General Plan
Community Design Element through design excellence in architecture and landscape architecture.
The architecture and landscape design of the proposed project meets one of the criteria for an Floor
Area Ratio increase pursuant to Section 17.08.050 of the development code through outstanding
architecture and landscape design that reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The
site is properly planned and zoned for the type of development proposed, and is consistent with the
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district development standards of the City's development
code. The financial contribution that the applicant will make to a future traffic signal on Jefferson
Avenue to the north of the project site will help to offset the increased number of vehicle trips the
R:XD PX2000\0IM)507 Hampton Inn SuitesXSupplcmeata110-2 PC Sff Rept Version g2.doc
7
proposed project may generate in and around the project area. The project, as conditioned, is also
consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all
applicable fire and building codes.
B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, cimulation 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. The proposed project, as conditioned, meets all State and
local fire and building safety codes and requirements to ensure maximum protection of the public
health and safety.
FINDINGS - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase
Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteria must be met to
justify an increase the Floor Area Ratio.
The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city
with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community.
The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which
reflect an attractive image and character to the city.
The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those
required mitigation impact measures.
The proposed project meets criteria number two for justifying an increase in the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) pursuant to this Section of the development code by providing outstanding architecture and
landscape design qualities that reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The addition of
the water fountain feature, exterior seating areas, additional accent trees, decorative air conditioning
vent covers, and stone veneer exterior finish around the entire building produce an exceptional
design that should complement and enhance the area's surrounding commercial development.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. 00-0507 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-
Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following
criteria:
· The site is 1.35 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
· The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area.
· The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
· The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
· The Hampton Inn Suites hotel building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general
plan designations for the site.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0507 for a Development Plan to build a 42,000
square foot hotel building on a 1.35-acre lot approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and
200-feet north of Winchester Road to the adjacent south of the existing Comfort Inn motel building,
R:~D P~2000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~Supplemenlal 10~2 PC Sff Rept Version ~r2.doc
8
known as Assessors Parcel NO. 910-282-007. The Conditions of Approval are in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission on this 6th day of November 2002.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
)ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',D PX2000~00-0507 Hampton Ian Suites~Supplemental 1~-2 PC Sff Rept Version #2.doc
9
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 3
REVISED EXHIBITS
R:'~D P~000~0-0507 Hampton inn Suites\Supp!ementar 10-2 PC Sff Rept Version #2.doc
CITY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA00-0507
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- October 2, 2002
SITE PLAN REDUCTION
R:~D P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Stf Rept Version #2.doc
l!
ATrACHMENT NO. 4
AUGUST 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT PACKET
R:\D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Sff Rept Version #2.doc
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 21,2002
Planning Application No. 00-0507
(Development Plan)
Hampton Inn Suites
Prepared By: Michael McCoy, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-
0507 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines; and
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 41,900
SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT
PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF
JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Dinesh Patel, 916 Erie Street Oakland, CA 94610.
PROPOSAL:
Design and construction of a 41,900 square foot 70-room, 4-
story hotel building on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel.
LOCATION:
Approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and
approximately 200-ft. north of Winchester Road to the
adjacent south of the Comfort Inn motel (APN 910-282-007).
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
EXISTING ZONING:
HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
R:\D P~2000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
1
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Hotel
Vacant
Freeway
Commercial Shopping Center
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Lot Area:
Total Building Area:
Building Footprint:
Landscape Area:
58,925 square feet
41,900 square feet
11,400 square feet
12,750 square feet
(1.35 gross acres)
.71 FAR
19%
20% net coverage
Parking Required:
74 vehicle spaces, plus 3 motorcycle & 4 bicycle spaces and
two 10' x 25' loading spaces.
Parking Provided:
71 spaces, that includes 4 handicap, 6 motorcycle stalls
(equivalent to 3 vehicle spaces), 4 bicycle spaces, and two
10' x 25' loading spaces.
Building Height:
50-ft. maximum (4-story)
BACKGROUND
The application was reviewed at the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting and the
Commission voted to continue the application to the August 7th meeting, in order to review revised
site plan, landscape, and ADA access plans. The applicant was unable to have revised plans
prepared in time to make that schedule, and the Commission continued the item to the August 21 st
meeting. The applicant submitted revised plans on July 30th'
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed four-story 70-room hotel building will be centered on a triangular-shaped 1.35-acre
parcel located in the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza commercial center, adjacent of, and south
of the three-story Comfort Inn motel. The site is bordered to the east by the 1-15 Winchester Road
off ramp.
Access to the site is provided via a 24-ft. wide driveway from Jefferson Avenue and the adjacent
commercial center through a center access point that leads to the hotel's main entrance. Two
additional 24-foot wide access points are provided at each front corner of the site off a 24-foot wide
parallel driveway that extends across the site frontage from the rear of the commercial center. The
parking lot provides 67 full size and 4 disabled vehicle-parking stalls distributed on each side of the
building. Two 10-foot x 25-foot loading spaces are located in front of the concrete masonry trash
enclosure at the northeast corner of the property. Pedestrian access is provided within the project
site with a 4-foot wide decorative paved concrete walkway that extends across the building frontage
between the parking row and landscape planters. Additional pedestrian access points are located on
each side of the building from the parking lot to the side and rear entrances.
Landscaping will be provided with planters adjacent to all sides of the building and around the
perimeter of the project site. The building specific and foundation landscaping contains a variety of
24-inch and 36-inch box trees and 1-gallon and 5-gallon shrubs around the building perimeter. A
R:~D FA2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~,PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8~21-02.doc
decorative raised water fountain will be installed within the landscaped area fronting the porte-
cochere facing the west building entrance. Landscape coverage for the project site is listed at a total
of 20 percent net.
The building amhitecture is a contemporary raised vertical style that maximizes its footprint on.the
lot. The main hotel lobby entrance is facing west, directly in line with the center driveway off
Jefferson Avenue. The front center section of the building will be the only visible part of the building
from Jefferson Avenue. The front entrance is highlighted by a 20-foot high by 34-foot wide cornice
capped porte-cochere extending outward from the lobby entrance and fronted by landscaping. A
secondary entrance is provided on the east side (rear) of the building, accented with a smaller porte-
cochere structure as requested by Staff.
At the previous public hearing, the Commission had concerns with the building design treatment,
landscaping, and ADA access. Those items have been addressed in the resubmitted set of plans.
ANALYSIS
Floor Area Ratio
The Development Code specifies a target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .30 for the Highway/Tourist
Commercial (HT) zoning district. This project is requesting an FAR of .71, exceeding the target FAR
by 0.41. Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteria must
be met to justify an increase over the target FAR.
The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city
with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community; or
The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which
reflect an attractive image and character to the city; or
The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those
required mitigation impact measures.
Based upon the revised building elevations and conceptual landscape plan, staff believes that the
project does qualify for an FAR increase based upon outstanding architecture and landscape design
that enhances the character and image of the City. Staff believes that the addition of the stone
veneer and wrought iron false balconies across the air conditioning vent covers, as well as the water
fountain, decorotive paving, and evergreen tree additions, justifies the request for an FAR increase.
The proposed project as a retail commercial category will pay $3.614 per square foot in
development impact fees (DIF). At 41,900 square foot of floor area, the project will contribute
approximately $151,400 in development impact fees.
The Attorney representing the owner of the adjacent Comfort Inn has submitted a letter to staff
dated July 29, 2002 (reference Exhibit L) expressing opposition to the City approving the FAR
increase above the target FAR. The adjacent property owner contends that the proposed project
does not meet any of the development code criteria for approving an FAR increase and that the
project site is inadequate for the location, lot size, and intensity for this project.
Landscapinq
The project proposes to landscape 11,822-square feet or 20% of the site, which meets the minimum
coverage requirement for the HT (Highway Tourist) zone. The City's landscape consultant has
R:~D P',2000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
3
approved of the conceptual plan based on minimum standards per the Development Code. The
addition of the decorative water fountain and larger evergreen trees along the east property line
facing the freeway off-ramp enhances the conceptual landscape plan ands helps .justify the FAR
increase. Overall, the landscape plan meets the intent of the City General Plan Land Use Element
Highway/Tourist Commercial development objectives for well-landscaped and visually attractive new
development projects. Condition #13(a) requires submittal of an accurate design detail of the
proposed water fountain for staff review and approval with the construction landscape plans.
Buildinq Architectural Desiqn
Staff believes that the revised building elevations showing the decorative stone veneer on the relief
sections and the wrought iron false balconies across the majority of air conditioning vent corem are
a significant improvement over the elevations brought forward to the June 5, 2002 Planning
Commission meeting.
The applicant has revised the elevation plans to show a wrought iron false balcony covering the NC
vent covers on each guest room which has a window awning. However, this design revision still
leaves all guest rooms at each end of the building, as well as the center of the front and rear sides
with exposed vent covers. Staff believes that all guest rooms on the front and rear sides, aside from
the ground floor rooms, should have the false balconies for design consistency and effective vent
cover screening. Condition #10 requires that the construction elevation plans show the false
balconies across the face of all guest room windows other than the ground floor guest rooms.
Pedestrian ADA Access and Traffic Circulation
Staff and the Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide a pedestrian walkway
between the parking row and landscape area on the building's west side to provide customers with a
safe access from the parking lot to the main lobby entrance. The revised site and landscape plans
show a five-foot wide concrete pedestrian sidewalk along the length of that parking row and
extending to the main hotel entrance. In addition, the revised site plan shows a four-foot wide
pedestrian access pathway connecting the east parking area to the west parking area through the
landscaped area.
The City Building Official also had expressed concern over the lack of a dedicated ADA accessible
pedestrian pathway from the Rancho Temecula Plaza entrance off Jefferson Avenue to the hotel
entrance. After further review of the ADA regulations, the Building Official has eliminated the
requirement, due to the constraints of the parcel's land-locked location and the existing access
easements already provided throughout the commercial center. Off-site ADA access will be
accomplished by vehicular arrival via the private road fronting the project site.
The Planning Commission expressed concern about the existing and future traffic circulation
problems within the Rancho Temecula Plaza development and along the Jefferson Avenue corddor
fronting the proposed hotel property. Public Works has studied the situation and has concluded that
an approved CIP project (PW00-27) will include a median along the site frontage that will restrict
turning movements at the primary driveway entrance to the site to right-in/right-out. The median
project is expected to be constructed by the end of fiscal year 2003-2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based
upon staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32- In Fill Projects)
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons:
R:~D P~.000~30-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
The site is 1.35 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
· The proposed development is consistent with the.existing development in the area.
· The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
· The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
· The Hampton Inn Suites hotel building is approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan
designations for the site.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The proposed project is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commemial (HTC) General Plan land
use designation goals and objectives and with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district
development standards as a permitted use.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff believes that the applicant has propedy satisfied the design change requests of the Planning
Commission and staff recommends that the application be approved based on the findings for
approval and attached conditions.
FINDINGS - Development Plan (Section 17.05.010 F)
The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City.
The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies
reflected for Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) development in the City of Temecula
General Plan. The proposed project effectively reflects the objectives of Goal 2 of the
General Plan Community Design Element through design excellence in architecture and
landscape architecture. The architecture and landscape design of the proposed project
meets one of the criteria for an Floor Area Ratio increase pursuant to Section 17.08.050 of
the development code through outstanding architecture and landscape design that reflects
an attractive image and character to the City. The site is properly planned and zoned for the
type of development proposed, and is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT)
zoning district development standards of the City's development code. The financial
contribution that the applicant will make to a future traffic signal on Jefferson Avenue to the
north of the project site will help to offset the increased number of vehicle trips the proposed
project may generate in and around the project area. The project, as conditioned, is also
consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance
No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions,
and all applicable fire and building codes.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
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,
R:~D P~.000~O-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
5
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. The proposed
project, as conditioned, meets all 'State and local fire and building safety codes and
requirements to ensure maximum protection of the public health and safety.
FINDINGS - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) inCrease (Section 17.08.050)
Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteria must be met to
justify an increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city
with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community.
o
The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which
reflect an attractive image and character to the city.
The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those
required mitigation impact measures.
The proposed project meets criteria number two for justifying an increase in the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) pursuant to this Section of the development code by providing outstanding amhitecture and
landscape design qualities reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The addition of the
water fountain feature, exterior seating areas, additional accent trees, decorative air conditioning
vent covers, and stene veneer exterior finish around the entire building produce an exceptional
design that should complement and enhance the surrounding commercial development.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11
Exhibit B Proposed Project Statement of Operations - Blue Page 24
Exhibit C Applicant Letter of Justification for FAR increase - Blue Page 25
Exhibit D Adjacent Property Owner Attorney Letter of Opposition July 29, 2002 - Blue '
Page 26
Exhibit E Rancho California Water District Letter dated January 3, 2001 - Blue Page
27
Exhibit F County Department of Environmental Health Letter dated January 2, 2001 -
Blue Page 28
Exhibit G California Department of Transportation Letter dated May 29, 2002 - Blue
Page 29
Exhibit - Blue Page 30
G. Vicinity Map
H. Zoning Map
I. General Plan Land Use Map
J. Site Plan
K. Elevation Plan EL1 and EL2
L. Floor Plans
M. Preliminary Planting Plan
R:'~D P'~2000~O-0507 Hampton inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
R:~D F~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-O2.doc
7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-.__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000
SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT
PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF
JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007.
WHEREAS, Dinesh Patei filed Planning Application No. PA00-0507 (Development Plan), in
a manner in accord with the City of ']'emecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) was processed including,
but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application
No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) on June 5th and August 21,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and
did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. 00-0507; subject to
and based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. 'Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
00-0507 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F and by Section
17.08.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code:
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and
policies reflected for Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) development in the City of Temecula
General Plan. The proposed project effectively reflects the objectives of Goal 2 of the General Plan
Community Design Element through design excellence in architecture and landscape architecture.
The architecture and landscape design of the proposed project meets one of the criteria for an Floor
Area Ratio increase pursuant to Section 17.08.050 of the development code through outstanding
architecture and landscape design that reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The
site is properly planned and zoned for the type of development proposed, and is consistent with the
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district development standards of the City's development
code. The financial contribution that the applicant will make to a future traffic signal on Jefferson
Avenue to the north of the project site will help to offset the increased number of vehicle trips the
R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
8
proposed project may generate in and around the project area. The project, as conditioned, is also
consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all
applicable 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, standa[ds and regulations
intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project, as conditioned, meets all State and
local fire and building safety codes and requirements to ensure maximum protection of the public
health and safety.
FINDINGS - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase
Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteria must be met to
justify an increase the Floor Area Ratio.
The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city
with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community.
The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which
reflect an attractive image and character to the city.
The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those
required mitigation impact measures.
The proposed project meets criteria number two for justifying an increase in the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) pursuant to this Section of the development code by providing outstanding architecture and
landscape design qualities reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The addition of the
water fountain feature, exterior seating areas, additional accent trees, decorative air conditioning
vent covers, and stone veneer exterior finish around the entire building produce an exceptional
design that should complement and enhance the surrounding commercial development.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. 00-0507 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-
Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following
criteria:
· The site is 1.35 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
· The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area.
· The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
· The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
· The Hampton Inn Suites hotel building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general
plan designations for the site.
R:~,D P~2.000',00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
9
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0507 for a Development Plan to build a 41,900
square foot hotel building on a 1.35-acre lot approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and
200-feet north of Winchester Road to the adjacent south of the existing Comfort Inn motel building,
known as Assessors Parcel NO. 910-282-007. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit
A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission on this 21st day of August, 2002.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
)ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21 st day of August, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~,D P',2.000",00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites",PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
10
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:~D P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8:21-02.doc
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
Hampton Inn Suites
Project Description:
The design and construction of 41,900 square foot 70-room 4-
story hotel building on a 1.35-acre lot, located approximately
200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and 200-feet north of
Winchester Road to the adjacent south of the existing Comfort
Inn motel and adjacent west of the Winchester Road 1-15 off-
ramp, known as Assessors Parcel No. 910-282-007.
DIF Category:
Retail Commercial
Assessor Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
910-282-007
August 21, 2002
August 21, 2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of sixty-
four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption as provided under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and Califomia Code
of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has
not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentalitythereof, 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,
R:\D P~000\00-0507 Hampton rnn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
12
without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should
the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality
thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents, concerning Planning Application No. 00-0507.
Should the applicant fail to timely post the reequired 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.
In order to avoid being classified as a residence, the maximum occupancy of any unit by any
customer shall not exceed 30 days.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D"
(Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. 00-0507, or as amended by these
conditions, contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project:
a. A minimum of sixty-seven (67) automobile parking spaces shall be provided.
b. A minimum of four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
c. A minimum of three (3) motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided.
d. A minimum of four (4) class I or class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
e. A minimum of two (2) 10 x 25 loading spaces shall be provided.
f. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they are
not placed in prominent locations visible to the public.
g. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and
electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the
double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies.
h. The final landscape plan shall include locations of all ground mounted utility/
mechanical equipment and provide suitable screening of that equipment.
i. A design detail of the exterior plaza seating areas shall be shown on the final
construction site plan with an enlarged detail of the wall seats and decorative paving
for review and approval of the Director of Planning.
Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. AIl building and exterior landscape lighting
shall be a decorative type complimentary to the building. Details and cut-sheets of these
lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department with building construction plans for
review prior to installation.
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.
R:'~D p~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
13
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits "E" (Building
Elevations sheets EL1 & EL2) and Exhibit "H" (Color and Material Board), or as amended by
these conditions, contained on file with the Community Development Department- Planning
Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements
that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to
be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this
screening.
The final water fountain design detail on the west facing side fronting the entrance porte-
cochere shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval of the
Director of Planning
The canvas awnings over the guest room windows shall be maintained to a new appearance
at all times. The awning shall be replaced with a new one to match if it becomes faded,
cracked, weather worn, or visibly damaged in any manner.
Each guest room window and side building windows, except those guest rooms on the first
floor, shall have decorative wrought iron false balconies across the entire face of the air
conditioning vent covers. The design and color shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval prior to installation.
Air conditioning units and exterior vent covers for individual rooms shall be effectively
screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
All roof drainage downspouts shall be internalized and architecturally integrated within the
wall of the structure so as not to be ~isible from the outside of the building.
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved revised Conceptual Landscape
Plan Exhibit "F" (Preliminary Planting Plan Sheet L-l), or as amended by these conditions.
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 authorityto 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 revisions to the conceptual landscape plan
shall be made and reflected on the construction landscape plans prior to issuance of
building permits:
a. The final water fountain design on the west facing side fronting the entrance porte-
cochere shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval of
the Director of Planning and shown on the construction landscape plans.
b. Enlarge the 15-gallon Chinese Pistache trees to 24-inch box size within the east and
north perimeter landscape planters.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
approved colors and materials, with the colored Elevation Plan Exhibits "E" and with the
Color and Material Board Exhibit "H", or as amended by these conditions, contained on file
with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the
approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning.
R:~D P~2000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
14
Material
Stucco Base Finish
Stucco Field and Porte-Cochere Finish
Stucco Column Fascia and Ornament Bands
Aluminum Storefront Entrance & Window Frames
Canvas Awnings
Exterior Stone Veneer
Exterior False Balconies
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
Color
Dryvit #392 "Coconut Shell"
Dryvit #116 "Victorian Lace"
Dryvit #102 "Bright White"
"Dark Bronze"
Sunbrella Firesist #8620 "Toasty Beige"
Belgian Castle Stone by Cornado "Sunset Blend"
Wrought Iron by Outwater "70/5/5 Dark Bronze"
16.
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.
17.
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.
18.
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 Exhibit "H' 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 pdnts.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
19. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
20.
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 to the approved revised Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit"F", or as
amended by Condition No. 14 and any other related conditions. The location, number,
genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be
consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square
footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Trash enclosure and all utility equipment shall be screened with landscaping and
shown on the Construction Landscape Plans.
d. Plantings shall not interfere with traffic sight lines or utility lines.
e. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (VVater
Efficient Ordinance).
f. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
R:'~D P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
15
A Landscape Contingency Plan and Arborist Assessment shall be required if it is
determined that the existing slope trees and landscaping within the Caltrans right-of-
way on the east side of the properly is determined to be unhealthy.
Prior to the Issuance of OccUpancy Permits
21,
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.
22.
Pedormance 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.
23.
The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on
a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inch apart. The numerals shall be
painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a
contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as
possible to the edge of the building closest to the street.
24.
A permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or
equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility, shall identify each parking space
reserved for the handicapped. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches
from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum
height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall
also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not
less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying
distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities
may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by
telephoning 909 696-3000."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3
square feet in size.
25.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
26.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
R:~D P~2000~30-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
16
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation .Fees.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled
Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
A sound transmission control study shall be prepared and submitted at time of plan review in
accordance with the provisions of Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208A, of the 1998 edition
of the California Building Code.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance..
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbihg schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
R:'~D P~,2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
17
43. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
44. Show all building setbacks.
45.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the 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
DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC WORKS
General Requirements
46.
A Grading Permit for 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.
47.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
48.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-
way.
49.
All 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
50.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
51.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
52.
A 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.
53.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
R:\D P~000~)0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
18
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
54.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Disbharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
55.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
56.
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.
57.
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.
58.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
59.
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. 401 and 402.
d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
60.
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.
R:~D P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
19
61.
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.
62.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to
the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed median on
Jefferson Avenue in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject
to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
63.
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
64.
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.
65.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
61.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau
reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California
Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), end related codes, which are in fome at
the time of building, plan submittal.
62.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commemial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1875 G PM at
20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1600 GPM for a
total fire flow of 3475 GPM with a 3-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
63.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 4 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-
site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and
adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection
and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B).
R:'~D P~2000',00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
2O
64.
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)
65.
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)
66.
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)
67.
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 reads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 lbs. GV~V. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
68.
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)
69.
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)
70.
The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
71.
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
72.
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
73.
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, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency 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 )
74.
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)
75.
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
R:'~D P'~2.000~00-0,507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
21
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 have 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)
76.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display
monument sign shall be required for hotel, apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile
home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex,
which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers,
and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications
shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation.
77.
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)
78.
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 pdor to installation. (CFC Article 10)
79.
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)
80.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
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 issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final 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.
83.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any Changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the F~ire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
84.
All perimeter landscaping and parkways shall be maintained by the property owner or private
maintenance association.
R:~O P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
22
85. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
86.
Developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure
area(s).
OTHER AGENCIES
87.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal letter dated January 3, 2001, a copy of which is attached.
88.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal letter dated January 2, 2001, a copy of
which is attached.
89.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department
of Transportation's transmittal letter dated May 29, 2002, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have road, 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's Signature
Date
Name printed
R:~D P',2.000',,00-O507 Hampton Inn Suites'PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
23
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED pROJECT
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
R:\D P~000\00~0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
24
559/439--~'~
5591439-2298 FAX
LEE GAGE.& ASSocIATEs, INC,
· 7636 N. INGRAM ., SUITE 107
FRESNO, CAUFORNIA 93711-6200
architecture
engineering
planning
september,6, 2000
Re: .Hampton Inn
4 Story t 73 Room Hotel
jefferson~Avb.;
APN: 910:282~00~-1 '""
. .- Existing:-.. . :' i~ !i'I. i:
' .EXisting iand'is Vacaht..'. · ·'" , -...-. -. · ·
prop0s ·
ed: ' ' ":' ' '"
' A ~4"story, 73:guestrgom.h~tel-building, total of 4!:1100sq. Ft:.with related On:site .
parking: Th~ projeCt'w include intedoi".pool~ spa, 'and Other sthndard hotel -
· . amenities.. -: ..:.' '~."_ .. ' ... '- '~...... "~ .. .
The normal business hours will 'be 24 hours per day, 7. days:per weel~.
. .. Ma~(imum number of employees at.One time. is 5~
83 parking stalls required, .'. ,, , .
No hazardous matoda s Will be utilized in this proiect.
temec~la.o~l
EXHIBIT C
APPLICANT LE'I'rER OF JUSTIFICATION
FOR FAR INCREASE
R:",D P\2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
25
i
~ DEVELOPMENq' MANAGEMI~IT GROUP, !NC.
May 30, 2002
Chairperson Dennis Chiniaeff
City of Temecula
43200 Busin6ss Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
MAY 3 0 2602
By.
Subject:
PA 00-0507
FAR Target Exceedance
Justification
Patel #1037
Dear Chair Chiniaeff,
Initially let me state that all of the hotel/motel projects approved by the City of Temecula
after the adoption of the Development Code have requked a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
target exceedance, with the only exception being the Temecula Creek Inn, which is a part
of a larger golf course project.
The Development Code did not adequately address or anticipate two land uses with
regard to FAR, hotels/motels and mini,storage facilities. Those land uses are inherently a
higher FAR by their design nature and are not economically viable at the target FAR.
This particular project is on an infill parcel that was created before Cityhood and before
the Development Code adoption. This parcel is bounded by reciprocal ingress/egress'
easements, with a single point of access and with an extremely irregnlar geometric shape.
The requested FAR is 0.71, which is within the range of 0.30 to 1.00. The City Engineer
has not expressed any concern relative to traffic or utilities.
The applicant is required to meet at least one of the following criteria (see attached).
~41625 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B
(909) 296-3466
Fax: (909) 296-3476
www. marldlamdmg.com
The hotel project will generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) -8%)
whichthe City of Temecula will receive 100%. Additionally, the project
will provide employment and added sales tax to the surrounding
restaurants, service stations and other service businesses.
The applicant has revised the architecture with extensive cornice detailing,
building mass offsets, window awnings and decorative grilles over the
HVAC units. The landscaping provides for 35 of the 50 trees to be 24" or
36" box trees and total shrub planting of 891 plants with 525 being 5
gallon size. The applicant feels that this is exceptional quality and meets
the design guidelines and the landscape code 20% requirement.
The applicant had originally proposed the use of a community meeting
mom, but based on the most recent Emended Stay America approval, staff
declined. The other examples are not available to this type of land use, or
not in a proximity to be able to provide that type of amenities.
Any decreases in the FAR could only be accomplished by reductions in rooms in groups
of 2/4/6/8 or 4/8/12/16 for one end, and/or both ends of the building.
The building geometry of width is set by room dimensions and the length by the number
of rooms per floor. The reduction of 8 or 16 rooms (i.e., one/two building ends) would
only yield 832 or 1664 SF of additional landscape area with a reduction on FAR from
· 0.71 to 0.60.
Based on these facts, the applicant requests the Commissioners concurrence on the FAR
request and to provide the applicant with specific guidance relative to the architecture.
Sincerely,
lV~ar~,rg~Deve/l~ent Management Group, Inc.
President
CCi
D. Patel
L. Gage, Lee Gage & Associates
V. DiDonato, Alhambra Group
EXHIBIT D
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
AI-I'ORNEY I. EI-rER OF OPPOSITION ,JULY 29, 2002
R:\D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
26
' '~: '" ;'~' &: MCCULLOGH,
:~ ~ POPOV LLP
July 29, 2002
R~t~ P~rk ~,~ C~
4180 La Jolla Vffiage Drive, Suite 450
La Jolla, California 92037
Tel: (858) 457-2900
Fax: (858) 457-2950
Temecula Planning Commission
Attn: Michael McCoy
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re: Planning Application No. 00-0507/Hampton Inn Suites
Dear Mr. McCoy:
This letter is in reference to Planning Application No. 00~0507, Dinesh Patel's proposal to
build a Hampton Inn. Our Office represents Mr. Jim Lin, the owner of the Comfort Inn that is located
in the lot adjacent to the Proposed Hampton Inn pr0j?ct,
We urge the Commission not to compromis6 the standards set forth by the City and to deny
this project that is clearly in violation of the Temecula Development Code. Table 17.05~040A sets
forth the target floor area ratio as .30 for this type of development. The Hampton Inn is asking for
an increase in the floor area ratio to .71. This is more than twice the allowed floor area ratio on a
1.35-acre lot, significantly the highest of all alternative hotel projects in the area.
Moreover, the Hampton Inn does not meet the requirements for a variance in lot coverage.
According to section 17:08.050, an applicant may be eligible for a variance in the floor area ratio
only if it meets at least one of three particular requirements. First, if the project includes a use that
provides Outstanding and exceptional employment, fiscal, social or economic benefits to the city, the
planning commission may consider a variance. Examples given in the code are providing affordable
'housing that is easily accessible to and within close proximity to convenient shopping and
employment, accessibility to mass transit facilities and creative mixtures of land uses, housing types
and densities. The proposed Hampton Inn is a hotel and not a housing facility. Additionally, while
any new business will hopefully provide new employment and fiscal benefits to the city, the benefits
that the proposed Hampton Inn promises fall far short of outstanding or exceptional. The City of
Temecula has seen an increase recently in applications for hotel development and, thus, the'
economi~ benefits will be found elsewhere or would be just as great if the Hampton Inn built a hotel
on a larger lot that is more amenable to its design needs. The Hampton Inn may offer some
employment and economic benefit, but none so exceptional as to permit a variance that more than
doubles the allowed floor area ratio.
PoPov & M¢CULLOGH, LLP
July 29, 2002
Page 2
The second oppommity for an applicant to receive a variance is if the project provides
exceptional architecture and landscape design amenities that reflect an attractive image and character
for the city. Because the proposed hotel would take up 71% of the 135-acre lot, the applicant has
left very little room for landscaping. Additionally, as noted by at least one city Planner in the past,
the project's architectural design does not offer anything exceptional enough to warrant overriding
consideration of the land-use guidelines.
' The third exception is for projects that provide enhanced public facilities that are needed by
the city. Examples of this include city parking structures or fire department buildings or public
recreational areas. The proposed Hampton Inn is a for-profit enterprise that will add nothing of the
like to the city. In particular, the size of the proposed development on this small lot precludes any
provision for public recreational facilities or common parking areas. Therefore, the applicant does
not meet this third requirement.
In addition, section 17.08.050 states that if the Community Development Director determines
that the increase would create an unmitigatable impact on traffic circulation in the area, the increase
should not be granted. The proposed site is in Rancho Temecula Plaza. Traffic flow in and out of
the plaza is already at capacity and is already an inconvenience for guests at the Comfort Inn. As
an illustration, the Plaza currently provides more than 20 parking spaces on the proposed Hampton
Inn lot. These parking spaces are essential for commerce at the Plaza, but they will be lost if the hotel
is built. The addition ora 70-unit hotel will push the Plaza above its traffic capacity and drive away
business by creating an unnecessary hassle for potential customers.
Furthermore, the lot on which the Hampton Inn proposes to build is part of a small
subdivision consisting of 7.9 acres that already had 8 businesses. The area is already overcrowded.
The addition of a four-story hotel will have a detrimental impact on dally life in the subdivision. It
will also have a detrimental impact on the business at the Comfqrt Inn. For example, the Comfort
Inn already has complaints that potential guests can only see their sign from Interstate 15 and not
from Winchester Road or Jefferson Avenue. If the Hampton Inn erects a four-story building on the
lot between the Comfort Inn and Interstate 15, it will block any visibility of the Comfort Inn from
the overpass. Also, the Plaza is suffering from an overabundance of foot traffic already. A 70-unit
hotel would increase this foot traffic and destroy the remaining landscape.
One of the major policies of the Temecula Development Code is, "to encourage, classify,
designate, regulate, restrict and segregate the most compatible and beneficial location and use of
buildings, structures and land." The Hampton Inn is simply not compatible with the Rancho
Temecula Plaza and the businesses currently there. Again, we urge the Planning Commission not
PoPov & McCULLOGH, LLP
July 29, 2002
Page3
to compromise the policies behind the Development Code by overburdening this already burdened
Plaza. We encourage the Planning Commission to disapprove of the plans for the Hampton Inn.
Very Truly Yours,
Chris Popov
CP/lc
cc: Client
EXHIBIT E
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
LEI-rER DATED JANUARY 3~ 2001
R:~) P~000~00-O507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
27
January 3, 2001
Michael MCCoy, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589~9033
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL NO. 7 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 21670
APN 910-282-007
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0507
Dear Mr. McCoy:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property oWner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
~,a~,s~.~/.~,.,~,-..~. Water availability would be comingent upon the property owner signing an
c. va~,aco,,,,,, Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
C.~ner al Coumel
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E .....
Development Engineering Manager
0 I~SB:at003XF012-T6~FCF
EXHIBIT F
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
LETTER DATED JANUARY 2, 2001
R:\D P~000V30-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
28
CugJNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
, / . DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTF
January 2, 2001
City of Temecula Planning Department
· P.O. Box 9033
Temeeula, CA 92589
RE: Plot Plan Bio. PA00-0507
Dear Michael McCoy:
1. The DeparUnent of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0507 and has no objections.
Sanitary sewer and water mc. es may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN cItECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be
submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure
'Compliance with the Califomia Uniform Retail Food Facihties Law. For specific reference, please
contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 600-6330).
Sincerel~
(909) 955-8980
Health Specialist
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
Cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
.Lo~...E~or .~...eat A_genc¥ * P.O..Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 * (909) 95541982 * FAX (909) 781-9653 * 4080 Lemon Sheet, 9ih Floor, Riverside, CA 925(
EXHIBIT G
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LETFER DATED MAY 29, 2002
R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
29
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATIL ~D HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8
464 Fourth Street, Floor MS 726
W
6th
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
PHONE (909) 383-6327
FAX (909) 383-6890
May 29, 2002
08-Riv-15-6.619
Mr. Michael McCoy
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. McCoy:
Case No. PA00-0507, Hampton Inn, D. Patel, Applicant
We have received the Development Review Committee transmittal for the above project, abutting Interstate 15
(1-15) at Winchester Road. Project development proposes construction of a 73 room 4-story hotel on a 1.35-acre
parcel of property.
Because the easterly project boundary abuts 1-15 right-of-way (R/W), we have concerns with potential impacts
to existing slopes and nearby drainage facilities that may result with project grading and drainage construction.
Although no direct encroachment is shown, the need for a Caltrans permit cannot be established with the
information provided.
Therefore, prior to issuance of construction permits, an opportunity to review project grading and drainage plans
should be provided so that we may better evaluate impact mitigation and permit requiremer~ts. We recommend
that such review be incorporated as a condition of approval for this hotel project. Other comments addressing
possible impacts to State facilities may follow upon our review of the requested materials.
Thank you for providing us this opportunity to review and offer our comments on the Hampton Inn development
proposal. If t.his proposal is later revised in anyway, or if you have any questions regarding this letter,
please contact Mr. Marc A. Centeno at (909) 383-6321 for assistance.
Sincerely,
LINDA GRIMES, Chief
Office of Forecasting/IGR-CEQA Review
TranspOrtation Planning Division
15Tern_PA00-0507
ATrACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:'~D P~2000~;)0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507
EXHIBIT ~
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002
VICINITY MAP
R:~ P~2000~)0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
.31
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT' ~
DESIGNATION - HT HIGHWAY TOURIST/COMMERCIAL
ZONING MAP
N
EXHIBIT .~
DESIGNATION - HT HIGHWAY TOURIST/COMMERCIAL
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002
GENERAL PLAN
R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
oFF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
pE~HIBIT ~-
ANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002
SITE PLAN
R:~D P~000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~C STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT' F(. ELEVATIONS ~
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002
R:~ P~2.0OO~)0-0507 Hampton inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
3q
CITY OFTEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT ~
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002
ELEVATIONS
R:~D P~2000~30-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~C STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-O2.doc
CITY OFTEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT ~ L
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002
FLOOR PLANS
R:~D P~2000~DO~507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
ClTY OFTEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT' L
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002
FLOOR PLANS
R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
3'7
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT* L
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002
R:~D P~2000'~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT' L
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002
FLOOR PLANS
R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT. L
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002
FLOOR
R:~D P~2000'~:~-O507 Hampton Inn Suites~,PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING A~PLICATION NO. 0~0[~1 (D~velopment Plan)
PLANNING COMMIJSlON DATE - August 21,2002
R:~D P~?.000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
SIGNED MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 21,2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
R:~ P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~upplementa110-2 PC Stf Rept Version #2.doc
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 2t, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, August 21, 2002, 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 Olhasso.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff.
None.
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Redevelopment Director Meyer,
Development Services Administrator McCarthy,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Principal Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Papp,
Associate Planner Rush,
Associate Planner Thomsley,
Project Planner McCoy, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
1.1. Approve the Agenda of August 21, 2002,
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from July 31, 2002.
Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the order of the Agenda (Item No. 1) be revised,
and that Agenda Item No. 6 be considered after Item No. 3.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved 1o approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2,
subject to the recommended modification to Item No. 1 (revising the order of the Agenda
in order that item No. 6 be considered after consideration of Item No. 3). The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Plannin.q Application No. PA00-0507-Hampton Inn, for lhe design and
construction of a 70-room four story hotel buildina on a 1.35-acre vacant Darnel
located to the adiacent west of the Winchester freeway off ramp next to the
Comfort Inn Hotel at the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza. - Michael McCoy.
Proiect Planner II
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0507
pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines; and
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN -
HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT
A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 41,900 SQUARE FOOT
HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL,
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF
JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF
WINCHESTER, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
910-282-007.
Staff provided an overview of the proiect plan
By way of overheads, Project Planner McCoy presented the staff report (of record),
holing that this item was continued from the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting
for recommended revisions regarding the landscape, architecture, pedestrian access
and circulation plans; relayed the Planning Commission's previous concern regarding
the request for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase; with respect to the proposed FAR
increase, noted that it was the applicant's opinion that the enhanced architectural
treatments met the criteria (per the Development Code) to qualify for the increase in
FAR; noted the added condition requiring that the false balcony treatments be placed on
all of the windows (with the exception of the ground floor guestrooms) to effectively
screen the vent covers; with respect to the landscape plan, advised that it was staff's
recommendation that additional evergreen trees be added along the eastern perimeter
adjacent to the freeway offramp and that an entry treatment be provided, and that it was
the applicant's revised proposal to add additional evergreen trees along the eastern
property line as well as against the building, and to add a water fountain element at the
entrance of the building; cladfied that it was staff's opinion that the revised landscape
plan more effectively met the cdteria for the FAR increase; with respect to lhe pedestrian
access issues, noted that the City Building Official has revised the applicant's
requirement for provision of ADA access from the public right-of-way based on the State
Architect's finding that this particular parcel was landlocked, and that access would be
provided via vehicles, reading into the record the added condition stating The disabled
access from the existing pdvate access driveway to the main entrance of the building is
required; the path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in
terms of cross-slope, travel-slope, striping and signpge and provide all the details on the
plans; and advised that the applicant has revised the site plan which now denotes the
pedestrian access pathway from the parking lot between the landscaped area in the
parking lot, as well as an additional access path from the east side of the property to the
west side,
Staff addressed the queries of the Commission
For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy noted that based on the
landscape plan the added fountain treatment did not have seating; relayed that there
would be decorative paving in the entryway; confirmed that the required sidewalk
(necessary in order for the project to meet the Development Code standards) has been
added along the front parking raw; and noted that the revised landscape plan included
additional evergreen trees, relaying that the project has also been conditioned to add
large cedar trees to the front planters to replace the fern pines.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner McCoy confirmed that it was
staff's opinion that the added architectural enhancements (i.e., the substantial amount of
added stone veneer) met the criteria for the FAR increase; reiterated that while staff had
conditioned the project to add the false balcony treatments on all the windows (with the
exception of the first floor windows), it was the applicant's desire to include these
elements solely on the windows in the inset sections; and relayed that this particular
project plan included adequate parking provisions.
Commissioner Guerdero noted his continued concern regarding the traffic impacts
associated with the project.
For Commissioner Guerdero, Project Planner McCoy provided the revised color board;
noted that the applicant has been conditioned to provide a visual representation of the
water treatment for staff's review and approval prior to implementation, Director of
Planning Ubnoske clarifying that staff had requested the applicant to provide the visual
for the Planning Commission presentation.
In response to Chairman Chinlaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that
the Development Impact Fees (DIF) for this particular project would be utilized for
various projects, that approximately $20,000 of the approximate $151,000 in DIF fees
would be utilized towards a signal project at this location, that the potential traffic project
(which has yet to be approved by the City Council) would limit access from left-turning
motions, that there would be a dual left-turn lane from Jefferson Avenue onto Winchester
Road (traveJing east), and that most likely there would be a signal on the north side of
the Santa Gertrudis Creek (both locations providing opportunities for U-turn motions);
and advised that these traffic improvements were part of the City's Capital Improvement
Projects as well as part of the Harveston Project's mitigation proposal and would most
likely be completed within an 18-month period.
The applicant's representatives presented the nrolect Dian
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, noted the applicant's concurrence with
the Conditions of Approval; specified the revisions to the project since the item was
cbntinued, which included an added hand pavement stamped-concreta walkway, and an
enhanced landscape plan; noted that the applicant was not opposed to staffs
recommendation to add the false balcony treatments to all the windows (with the
exception of the first floor windows); advised that the applicant's representatives met
with Senior Engineer Moghadam to discuss traffic issues at this particular location,
noting that direction was provided by staff that it would not be appropriate for this project
to move forward and implement improvements at this one area which was part of an
overall Capital Improvement Project; noted that a median would be installed which would
address the turning movement impacts; with respect to the parking stalls in question,
clarified that the stalls were part of this parcel's private property, noting that the
reciprocal egress/ingress easement was for the driveway and not the parking; noted that
the applicant would not be opposed to bring the fountain treatment design plans back to
the Planning Commission; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the applicant had
offered the use's meeting room for community use; with respect to Commissioner
Mathewson's queries regarding provision of a seating element at the fountain, relayed
that it was his understanding that at the previous meeting there had been a
recommendation for provision of outdoor seating (i.e., a table) which the applicant would
most likely place at the south end of the building in lieu of a portion of landscaping.
In response to Commissioner Olhasso's queries regarding the letter submitted on this
date of August 21", which relayed the concerns of Mr. Jim Lin, owner of the adjacent
inn, Mr. Markham advised that the applicant would explore relocating the trash enclosure
area, which was presently proposed proximate to the neighboring inn's pool.
With respect to the colored elevation, Mr. Markham noted that the elevations were lost
during transit from the City of Fresno.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr, Markham relayed that it was his understanding that
the proposed roof treatment was a more suitable element for the project than alternate
roof designs placed on inns in the eastem United States; and relayed that if the fountain
element was relocated to the north, a seating element could most likely be added.
Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape engineer representing the applicant, addressed the
suggestion to relocate the courtyard in order to include a seating element, noting that a
courtyard element was pedestrian-oriented and that the sole access to this area would
be from across the driveway and would not be particularly conducive to pedestrian
orientation, and that the proposal was designed for the fountain treatment to serve as an
accent element rather than a pedestrian-oriented area with seating; for Commissioner
Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff, specified the areas where enhanced paving was
proposed; relayed that he was not opposed to staff's recommendation to increase the
size of the 15-gallon trees to 24-inch box trees; clarified his opinion that this landscape
plan was exceptional, noting that this project had no street frontage, and that all of the
landscaping was placed around the perimeter of the building, and that the entry had
been accented; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that additional evergreen trees
were added on the back of the project proximate to the freeway.
The public was invited to comment
Mr. Ken Westmyer, 31870 Calle Redondela, representing Mr. Lin, owner o[ the Hampton
Inn, noted that it was his opinion that if the building was reduced in order that the FAR
not be increased (which was his recommendation), the reduced TOT tax collected would
not have a significant impact; noted concern regarding the lack of information regarding
the project, and the potential for left-turning movements exiting the parking lot being
prohibited which would create negative impacts; queded the rationale for staff now
concurring with the proposed building footprint with the few improvements the applicant
incorporated, opining that this project plan did not include an exceptional architecture or
landscaping plan, and that the proposed building size was inappropriate for the parcel;
and requested that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request for a FAR
increase.
The Planninq Commission offered closin.q comments
While Commissioner Guerriero relayed appreciation to the applicant for the added
enhancements to the project, he disagreed with staff that this project encompassed
outstanding architecture, recommending that there be additional enhancements due to
the high visibility of the project from the freeway; advised that it was his opinion that no
additional vehicle congestion should be added at this location due to the existing traffic
impacts; concurred with Mr. Westmyer that a reduction in the building size (e.g.,
reducing the building to three stories) would not have significant financial impacts on the
City of Temecula; recommended that there be additional landscaping; noted that he
could not adequately review the project for approval or denial without additional
information regarding the fountain element design; relayed that the project offered no
community amenities; opined that the concerns of the Comfort Inn property owner
should be taken into consideration due to this business' support of the City of Temecula
for years; and relayed that he was disappointed that the applicant had not initially
proposed the wrought-iron treatments on the entire project's windows (with the exception
of the first floor), as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Mathewson concurred that the proposed building size was too large for
this padicular site; in comparing this project to alternate recently approved projects in the
City of Temecula, concurred that this proposal did not have an exceptional landscape or
architectural plan; and noted that without being able to review the fountain design plan
he could not support the FAR request.
Concurring with the previous comments, Commissioner Telesio advised that although
"exceptional" was a subjective term, it was his opinion that this project was more
"standard" than "outstanding"; acknowledged that this was a difficult lot; noted that a
pitched-roof element (which had been implemented on some of this company's eastern
projects), should have been explored, as was discussed at the previous meeting; for
informational purposes, recommended that projects should be enhanced prior to
Planning Commission presentation, noting that the Planning Commission has raised the
bar with respect to design expectations; and concurred that he could not support the
request for an increase in the FAR with this particular project, as proposed.
In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske concurred that
determining whether a design plan was outstanding was a subjective determination;
relayed that the Development Code does not define exceptional architecture, that on this
particular project the Planning Commission requested that the applicant revise the
project, specifically that stone veneer be added, as well as enhanced paving, and a
sidewalk which that applicant has incorporated into the project plan; and recommended
that the Planning Commission take into consideration the direction relayed to the
applicant at the last meeting by the Planning Commission and whether the applicant has
incorporated these revisions into the current proposal.
Commissioner Olhasso noted that the applicant did implement the revisions into the
project that the Planning Commission had recommended.
For Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional
information regarding the timing of the proposed traffic improvement projects at this
location.
In light of the traffic improvements proposed proximate to the project site, and since the
applicant incorporated the recommended revisions into the project plan, Commissioner
Olhasso advised that she could support the project.
Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the project only need meet one of the warrants denoted in
the Development Code to justify a FAR increase; reiterated that the applicant did
implement the recommended revisions of the Planning Commission into the project plan;
and suggested that the project be restricted from occupancy until the median was in
place.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the traffic projects Lennar (the Harveston
Projec{) would be implementing as part of its Development Agreement.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the Planning Commission recommendations
expressed at the June 5, 2002 meeting were simply suggestions, and that the Planning
Commission was providing direction to the applicant that the architectural and landscape
plans needed to be enhanced if the applicant was desirous of a FAR increase; and
clarified that implementation of the Planning Commission's recommendations was not a
guarantee for approval, Commissioner Telesio concurring, advising that not all of the
recommendations had been implemented, clarifying that the justification for the FAR
increase was implementation of an exceptional plan, recommending that the applicant
either provide an exceptional plan or reduce the FAR, which was echoed by
Commissioner Guerriem.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this matter. (Ultimately this
motion died for lack of a second.)
In response to Commission discussion, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that if the
Planning Commission was not in agreement with the resolution for approval, which
included the proposed FAR, then it was recommended that the Planning Commission
provide direction in order that staff could bring back a resolution with the Commission
findings.
FAILED MOTION: In order to gauge the Commission's support, Chairman Chiniaeff
moved to approve the FAR proposed with this particular project. Commissioner Telesio
seconded the motion for discuss[on purposes and voice vote reflected unanimous denial
of the motion due to all the Commissioners voting no.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this item to the October 2, 2002
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero.
(Ultimately this motion passed; see the top of page 8.)
Commissioner Guerriero clarified that the applicant should bring forward to the October
2~ meeting additional information regarding the design of the water element.
Mr. Markham relayed his desire for clarification regarding the Planning Commission's
direction; noted that all the hotels in this area with the exception of Temecula Creek Inn
have exceeded the FAR; advised that the Code allows for an increase from .3 to 1.;
relayed that hotels and mini-storage uses by the nature of the uses typically exceed the
FAR; reiterated the concept of proposing a three-story building, noting that with the
reduction in parking, additional landscaping could be added; noted that the Code only
required that one of the criteria be met to qualify for a FAR increase, advising that the
difference between proposing a hotel use verses an office building use was that the City
benefited economically from the added revenues generated from the TOT; relayed the
applicant's confusion in requesting direction from the Planning Commission and that
after implementing these recommendations the Planning Commission did not express
support of the revised project plan; and advised that if he had understood the importance
of the pitched-roof element, the feasibility of implementing this element would have been
investigated.
Commissioner Olhasso suggested that the applicant submit the feasibility study, which
would then become public record, advising that if the fourth story of the building was
needed due to financing issues the Planning Commission could take this issue under
consideration.
Noting the diligent efforts of the applicant with the project plan, Mr. Markham reiterated
the constraints of this particular site, relaying that a hotel use was most likely the most
appropriate use for the site; advised that the applicant did offer to contribute funds
toward the Jefferson Avenue Median Project as a community amenity, relaying that
since this project was included in the City's ClP, the Public Works Departmental staff
directed the appJicant not to pursue this concept since the project would be addressed
within the CIP.
For clarification, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Planning Commission was
seeking an exceptional plan to warrant the FAR increase, advising that while the pitched
roof was suggested, since the Planning Commissioners were not architects there could
be no commitment to support the proposal without reviewing the plan, recommending
that the applicant bring forward the most outstanding plan feasible if the FAR increase
was going to be proposed.
For clarification, Mr. Markham noted that the applicant's rationale for not including the
plan to place the false balcony treatments on every window was due to the applicant's
architect's opinion that it would be more visually pleasing if this element was placed
solely on the windows in the inset area.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval.
Having revised the order of the Agenda, it was noted that at this time the
Commission considered Agenda Item No. 6.
6
Plannin.q Application No. I~A01-0324 (Conditional Use Permit) A orol3osal to desitin,
construct and operate a qolfinq educational facility that includes classroom and oro
shop buildinqs, and a nine-hole public qolf course with drivinR ranqe, located on a
vacant 22-acm section of the Linfleld School property on the south side of Rancho
Vista Road, north of Pauba Road, between Meadows Parkway and Marqarita Road -
Michael McCoy. Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-032
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL
STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVAL OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0'1-0324, A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO DESIGN AND OPERATE A GOLFING
ACADEMY AND NINE-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE
WITH DRIVING RANGE, A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT PRO-
SHOP, AND A '1,900 SQUARE FOOT CARETAKER'S
RESIDENCE ON A 22-ACRE Sn'E LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, BETWEEN
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 955-020-002
Commissioner Telesio advised that he would be abstaining from this item, and ergo left
the dais.
Staff presented the Droiect plan
By way of overheads, Project Planner McCoy provided a detailed overview of the
project, highlighting the location, and the surrounding uses; specified that the
Professional Golfers College would accommodate between 110-130 students, would
conduct classes Mondays through Fridays between 8:00 A.M. and 11:00 A.M., and in
the afternoon would be open for public recmafional use; advised that night course
lighting could extend the use of the facilities to 9:00 P.M. seven days a week, and that
staff was recommending that one of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditions
address the restriction of the hours of the golf course facility to 9:00 P.M., seven days a
week unless a Special Event Permit was obtained from the Planning Department;
provided additional information regarding the lighting proposed on this project, advising
that staff has conditioned the project for no night lighting due to expressed community
concern, advising that if the Planning Commission deemed the night course lighting as
an acceptable component of the project then the previously mentioned condition should
be removed and the course lighting could be approved in conjunction with the project
approval; relayed that the appllcant was seeking a thirty-eight percent (38%) parking
reduction, and that staff has determined that the project meets the criteria for up to a fifty
percent (50%) parking reduction (per Code Section 17.24.020); noted the architectural
design of the college and pro-shop buildings; presented the material samples, advising
that staff has added conditions (Condition Nos. 13 and 14) to address concerns
regarding the quality of the vinyl material proposed for the decorative shutters and
siding; for Chairman Chiniaeff, clarified that the applicant has agreed to provide an
alternate siding sample material; advised that staff is additionally recommending that a
condition be added for Prior to the Issuance of a Grading Permit to require that the
applicant submit to the Public Works Department verification of the specific permits and
agreements denoted on page 1 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit D in the
staff report) as well as a condition regarding the recommended protocol survey denoted
in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (all of which have been completed with the
exception of the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey); and presented a cross section of
the topography of the project.
Staff addressed the Planninq Commission queries
For Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional
information regarding the drainage course associated with the project, advising that no
siltation or contaminants shall be carried downstream; and Project Planner McCoy noted
that the golf ball trajectory study had been included in the agenda packets.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy and Principal Planner
Hogan provided additional information regarding the lighting impacts, confirming that
there was a potential for a negligible amount of spillage of light onto residential
properties, advising that the lumens generated outside of the project would be less than
the lumens that a streetlight generates.
The applicant's representatives provided an overview of the project
Dr. Tim Summerville, President of the Professional Golfers Career College, highlighted
the proposal to construct a night-lighted practice golf facility/driving range and a nine-
hole golf course, and the goal to have a permanent facility (on the Linfield School
property) for the golf students, as well as and the youth in the community.
Mr. Ken Crawford, Chairman of the Board of Linfield School, relayed the future plan to
expand the Linfield School Campus, noting that since the school would not be utilizing
20-25 of its acres, offers were entertained for the use of that excess land, and that the
school preference had been the Professional Golfers Career College facility due to the
use being the most compatible use.
Continuing his presentation, Mr. Summerville noted the numerous public members in the
audience who were present to support the project; specified the project's benefits to the
community, as follows: 1) The project would provide the neighborhood a beautiful
campus which would raise property values. 2) The Professional Golfers Career College
was nationally accredited and internationally recognized. 3) Over 900 students have
graduated from the 2-year program, including students from 28 foreign countries. 4) The
project would provide Valley Junior Golf Association ( a non-profit organization) with a
permanent home, contribution towards the salary of a full-time PGA golf professional to
be hired as its director, an office, and no-cost secretarial help. 5) The night lighting would
provide parents an opporlunity to play golf with their children, emphasizing the need for
youth-oriented recreational facilities in Temecula, 6) The project would benefit
neighboring residents due to the road being widened to four lanes at Rancho Vista
Road; provided an overhead of the project site as exists and a rendering of the site with
the project; and advised that the facility was proposed to be lighted until 9:00 P.M.
Mr. Mike Marchetti, representing Musco Sports Lighting, by way of overheads, noted the
differentials between golf course lighting and alternate sports field lighting, relaying that
the golf course utilized lower foot candies; advised that the higher the lighting poles the
more downward the lights could be aimed, noting the proposal for fifty foot poles;
presented a photograph of an alternate lighted golf course project; provided an overview
of the manner in which the lighting was controlled, noting the external visor which was
customized for each project; relayed the guarantee of specified light levels on the
surface, as well as off site, advising that the lighting could be adjusted to address
negative impacts; specified the location of the lighting structures; for Commissioner
Mathewson, relayed that there was no specified quantitative amount of spillage of light
which was deemed a specific acceptable standard, advising that this was typically
addressed on a project-by-project basis and was determined by how near the neighbors
were to the property; via spill scans, provided additional information regarding the
maximum and horizontal light spillage; for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the
resident who initially had concerns regarding the lighting had been provided additional
information and subsequently wrote a letter (which was included in the agenda material)
acknowledging his receipt of this information; and provided comparison data between
the lighting impacts at the existing sports park and the anticipated impacts from this
particular project.
Mr. Summerville provided additional information regarding night lighting at this facility as
well as alternate facilities, advising that the applicant did not have knowledge of one
neighboring resident being opposed to the proposed lighting.
Mr. David Knowe, the project's designer and landscape amhitect, provided an overview
of the proposed golf course facility and landscape plan, specifying the location, number,
and size of the proposed plantings (which included 321 trees, over 2,000 shrubs, and
750,000 square feet of turf), the planned use of reclaimed water, and the proposed 9-
hole golf course with lakes, streams and waterfalls; for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified the
landscaping and berming proposed along Rancho Vista road, along the eastern portion
of the project and along the Linfield School site, noting the view of the project form the
neighboring homes; and specified the building design with the proposed smooth vinyl
siding.
At 8:22 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:30 P.M.
The public was invited to comment
The following individuals spoke as proponents of the project:
Ms. Carmen Latrekia
Mr. Richard Dierking
Mr. Dan Atwood
Ms. Alexandrea Packham
Mr. Christopher Reynolds
Ms. Cada Boyd
Mr. Mike Nelson
Sr. John J. Gyves
Mr. Don Myren
Mr. Bob King
Mr. Gary Washburn
Mr. Scott Arnold
Mr. Alex Michaels
Mr. John Telesio
Mr. Jonathan Ferrell
Mr. Matt Ferrell
31533 Corte Pacheco
42889 Via Alhama
26631 Ynez Road
no address provided
32483 Via Destello
30030 Rancho California Road
22959 Giant Fire canyon Lake
41614 Margarita Road
31395 Corte Mallorca
P.O. Box 891777
905 West Lakeshore Lake Elslnore
39467 Long Ridge Drive
P.O. Box 2250
31760 Via Telesio
32065 Rock Elm Drive Wlidomar
32065 Rock Elm Drive Wildornar
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the project, relaying the following
comments:
o This proposal would vastly improve the site;
o The lighting would serve as a crime-preventative;
o Noted opposition to widening Ranch Vista Road until the road is paved all the way
through;
o Offered support of night lighting until 9:00 P.M.;
o Requested that the lighting be monitored;
o The project was well-designed;
The recreational aspects of the project would be a benefit to the community's youth;
o Commended the applicant for its provisions to Valley Junior Golf Association, a non-
profit organization;
o Noted that the lighting would provide opportunities for youth to sharo rocreational
time with their parents;
o Relayed the need for a lighted golf facility, noting the lighted fields for alternate
sports activities;
o The project would increase neighboring property values;
o This particular proposal encompassed a project which provided a combination of
academics, athletics, recreation, and vocational training in an aesthetically pleasing
seMing;
o Thanked the parents and youth for taking the time to express support for the project;
o Provided additional information regarding the insignificant amount of light spillage
with the proposed lighting;
The lighting was a vital component of the project and provided a competitive
advantage for the golfers;
Requested that there be consideration to preserve the minimal habitat (a few
specifically located trees) of the red-tailed hawks inhabiting a portion of the project
site; and
o Urged the Planning Commission to approve the project.
The applicant relayed concludinq comments
Mr. Summerville thanked the residents who took the time to attend the hearing and offer
support for the project, and in particular support for the night lighting.
Mr. Dave Wakefield, representing the applicant, noted the following requests for
modifications to the Conditions of Approval:
· That Condition Nos. 8 and 9 (denoted on page 16 of the staff report) which prohibits
night lighting and restrict the hours of operation be deleted;
· That Condition No. 35 (denoted on page 22 of the staff report) regarding restricting
access to the project to right-in/right-out movements be deleted (staff concurred with
the deletion of Condition No. 35);
· That Condition No. 99 (denoted on page 29 of the staff report) regarding provision of
an 18-foot wide easement be deleted (staff concurred with the deletion of Condition
No. 99);
· And for informational purposes, relayed that the applicant would be conducting a pre-
construction survey of the land (which was not required), which would address
comments made during the public comment period.
At this time Chairman Chiniaeff closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
The Plannin,q Commission offered closinR remarks
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional
information with respect to Condition No. 9 (regarding parking), Director of Planning
Ubnoske clarifying that since the project would be subject to the CUP,'and that if there
were negative impacts the issue could be addressed with the permit.
In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, Mr. Kent Brown, Executive Director of the
Professional Golfers College, relayed that since the college was vocational in nature all
the students were not on site everyday; referencing research conducted, relayed that
during a two-week period there had never been more than 50 vehicles at the college;
noted that there were ten weeks during the year when students were not on campus at
all; relayed the applicant's desire to open the facility to the public when students were
not utilizing it; provided additional information regarding the parking needs of the golfers;
cladfled that the use would not need 107 parking stalls, acknowledging that off-site
parking was restricted, and that parking would be monitored; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, '
noted that the hours of operation would be from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.
For Commissioner Guerrlero, Project Planner McCoy noted that the applicant has
agreed to provide an alternative matedal for the ~iding and the decorative shutter
features, Principal Planner Hogan relaying that Condition Nos. 12 and 13 address this
issue.
In response to Commissioner Guerdero, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that
staff's concern regarding the siding material was based on the quality i.e., the
appearance and maintenance of the material, relaying that the applicant would be
bringing in a similar matedal of a higher quality.
Commissioner Guerriero thanked the residents for taking the time out of their busy week
to address their comments to the Planning Commission, and demonstrate their support
of the project; and relayed gratitude to the applicant for proposing a much-needed
recreational facility in the City of Temecula.
Principal Planner Hogan recommended that Condition No. 8 be revised to indicate
restriction of the night lighting to 9:00 P.M.; and concurred with the applicant regarding
deleting Condition No. 9.
Principal Planner Hogan noted two typographical errors in the Development Plan
Conditions of Approval, recommending that revisions be incorporated, as follows: that in
Condition No. 4 (regarding compliance with the Conditions of Approval) the phrase
Development Plan or be added prior to the phrase "Conditional Use Permit;" that in
Condition No. 5, the phrase Development Plan replace the Phrase "Conditional Use
Permit'; and advised that in Condition Nos. 12 and 13 (regarding the vinyl material), the
phrase shall be provided should be added, as well as in indication that the applicant
shall submit the material to the Planning Deparlment.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendations subject to the following revisions:
Add-
The revisions to the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff and
specified in the two above paragraphs;
· Allowance of the night lighting; and
Deletion of Condition Nos. 35 (regarding right-in/right-out access) and 99
(regarding the provision of an easement), as requested by the applicant and
approved by staff.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who abstained.
At this time the Commission resumed the regular order of the agenda, considering
Item No, 4,
Planninq Application No. PA02-0260 A proposal to chanqe the General Plan and
Zonin(~ desiqnations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office on
2.75-acre parcel, located Southwest corner of De Portola and Marqarita Roads
Emery Paoo. Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0260;
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260,
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A
ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75
ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF DE PORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS,
AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 959-050-007.
Associate Planner Papp provided an overview of lhe staff report (of record), highlighting
the rationale for the request to change the General Plan and Zoning designations on this
pamel; advised that the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (HOA) was opposed to
the proposed change; provided the results of the traffic and noise analysis associated
with the proposed change, advising that the amendment would result in lesser impacts in
terms of noise, and the traffic generated would enable the roadway at the intersection to
remain at a Level of Service A; and provided additional information with respect to the
proposed amendment being consistent with the City's Growth Management Plan.
In response to Commissioner Guerdero's queries regarding the HOA's concern
regarding the desire that the applicant install block wall, Associate Planner Papp noted
that staff could not make a recommendation regarding this issue without a proposed
development plan, advising that once a plan was submitted, this issue could be
addressed; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that environmental restraints could be
imposed on the amendment proposal if it had been determined that the traffic impacts
would be significant, which was not determined, Principal Planner Hogan providing
additional information regarding imposing environmental restraints, advising that if it was
determined in the Negative Declaration that there was the potential for land use
incompatibility, then as a mitigation measure a wall could have been required along the
western property line. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that with this
amendment an environmental restraint map would not be required since there was no
proposal for a subdivision of land.
Associate Planner Papp relayed that there would be a required 25-foot setback adjacent
to residential areas, advising that the General Plan does not require that any future
development application for this parcel implement a significant transitional buffer.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information
regarding the restrictions, which could be imposed on this proposal.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Papp specified the boundaries
of the HOA.
Associate Planner Papp noted the location of the alternate parcels in this area, which
had been changed to Professional Office, advising that there had been n.o requirement
to construct a buffer wall.
Mr. Mike McNeff, Pastor representing Valley Christian Fellowship, the owner of the
parcel, concurred with staff that discussion regarding installation of a block wall would
more appropriately be addressed at the time a Development Plan was submitted; for the
record, submitted the signatures of all the adjacent property owners who border this
parcel, specifying the location of these particular parcels; and for Commissioner Telesio,
provided additional information regarding the adjacent property owners' support of the
request to re-zone this particular property.
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed revised general land use
designation at this particular site:
Ms. Nancy Austin
Mr. Kevin Johnson
Mr. Guy Romero
Ms. Claire Johnson
Mr. Jim Shuntz
Mr. Vicente Gchaerria
Real Estate agent for the applicant
30707 Centaur Court
41685 Hawthorne Murrieta
30707 Centaur Court
30800 La Ray Lane
31775 De Portola road
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the proposal, relaying the following
comments:
o The marketing efforts revealed that the proposed zone change would be the best use
for this parcel;
This property was not well-suited for residential;
o With the zoning as Office Professional, the City would have more control over
development of the parcel;
o Since the parcel would remain within the Los Ranchitos HOA boundaries, the HOA
would have input on future development of the property;
o The church, which was the property owner, would be able to find a parcel for the
future development of a church use with this zone change since this parcel could be
more easily sold;
o Advised that if the parcel was viewed in relationship to the surrounding area, the
rezoning appeared to be more appropriate; and
o Noted opposition to the construction of an 8-foot wall (which was a recommendation
of the HOA.)
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the Los Ranchitos HOA, via distributed supplemental
agenda material, specified the concern of the HOA with this proposal, in particular the
impact the proposed rezoning would have on De Portola Road and the next properties to
the west, specifically the potential for additional zone changes; provided a history of
nearby properties which have had .zoning changes; additionally noted concern with
regard to various permitted uses within Professional Office zones; advised that the HOA
had specified that with the installation of a block wall, and restricted access to De Portola
Road (i.e., the parcel taking access off of Margarita Road) the HOA supported the
proposed change; with respect to the environmental document, relayed that the traffic
impacts of this zone change would be significant, advising that in his opinion the CEQA
document was inadequate and that he would provide these points of. concern in writing;
recommended that concurrent to the processing of the zoning change, a dedication of
access restriction on De Portola Road should be processed, suggesting that the
applicant's previous offer of payment be replaced with an offer to pay for the cost of a
block wall; recommended that this item be continued for 60 to 90 days; for .
Commissioner Mathewson, specified previously referenced residential properties which
take access off of Margarita Road, confirming that the parcel on the adjacent side of De
Portola was a vacant parcel; specified the boundaries of the HOA parcels; for Chairman
Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, reiterated that the HOA would be agreeable to
the applicant installing a block wall along De Portola Road and the property line in lieu of
the monies offered to the HOA, specifying that the wall would not need to be installed
until the pamel was developed, reiterating that with this requirement and the dedication
of access restriction the HOA would be supportive of the zone change,
Additional discussion ensued regarding the discussions between the applicant and the
HOA.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that if this matter was
forwarded to the City Council, the City Council would most likely be addressing CEQA
issues (based on comments expressed at this hearing), advising that at that time the
Council could either take action, or send the matter back to the Planning Commission for
review of the CEQA issues; noted that if it was the Planning Commission's desire that
accommodation be provided to the HOA's concern that there could be language
indicating this desire in the recommendation to the City Council; noted that it was the
Planning Commission's charge in this matter to review the request and determine
whether this request was consistent with the fundamental planning documents of the
City, i.e., the General Plan and zoning; and confirmed that any issue between the private
parties was external to the Planning Commission's jurisdiction.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional informafion regarding the
access issue, advising that it would be more appropriate to consider access being
revised at the time a development plan was submitted.
In response to additional comments, Mr. Markham specified the environmental concerns
of the HOA's Iraffic, and public safety, noting the need for additional mitigation.
In response to queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff would
desire the opportunity to fudher explore the environmental issues of concern.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries as to why the HOA had not specified
its concerns during the comment period, Mr, Markham relayed that as a Board, the
month of July was dark, and the mail was received at a Post Office box, advising that at
the August Board meeting eight out of nine Board Members had voted to oppose the
zone change, as proposed,
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. McNeff advised that the HOA would be able to maintain
certain control over the property based on the CC&R's which was a separate issue from
the rezoning issue; provided additional information regarding the discussions between
the HOA and the applicant; while noting that it would be the applicant's preference to
move forward with the HOA's support, relayed the HOA had had ample time to address
its queries during the public comment period of the environmental process; and advised
that full disclosure would be provided with a new property owner.
Commissioner Guerriero advised that it would be more prudent for the PSanning
Commission to make a recommendation after receiving all the associated information
including the documents the HOA would be submitting regarding environmental
concems,
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the November 20,
2002 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (Ultimately
this motion passed; see below.)
Commissioner Telesio relayed that the issues of concern presented at this hearing
would be more appropriately addressed during review of a future development plan, and
not dudng the request for rezoning due to the lack of a nexus.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was unaware of outstanding CEQA
issues, having first heard these concerns at tonight's hearing; and advised that it would
be appropriate to continue this item in order to obtain the information from Mr. Markham
and for staff to analyze this issue.
Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the benefit of
the Planning Commission obtaining additional information regarding the potential
environmental impacts.
Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the types of conditions which could be placed in the
developmenl plan for this parcel when presented, recommending that this item be
moved forward to the City Council.
In response, Commissioner Guerriero reiterated his desire for the Planning Commission
to have all of the information prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of
Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Telesio who voted no.
For Mr. McNeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that at the November 20th hearing
the applicant did not need to provide additional information, but that the Planning
Commission was interested in obtaining and reviewing additional information regarding
the assertion that there would be an increase in traffic.
5
Planninq Application No. PA02-0157 A Planninq Application for two Tentative Tract
MaPs ¢TM30681 and TM306821 and one waived Parcel Map IPM30604) for a total
for seventeen sin,qle-family dwellinq units on 2.17 acres of land, located on the north
and south side of Sixth Street (922-052-004, 005, 006, 007, and 010); Submitted by
Affirmed Housinq Partners, located on the north and south side of Sixth Street and
north of Puiol - Rick Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0157 pursuant to
Section 21080.14 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-029
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 30681 SUBDIVIDING TWO SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO NINE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS
ON 1.17 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF PUJOL STREET AND SIXTH
STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-
052-0t 0 AND 922-052-0tl
5.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-030
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO, 02-0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 30682 SUBDIVIDING FOUR SINGLE.FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO SIX SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS
ON .81 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND FELIX
VALDEZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 922-052-004, 005, 006, AND 007
5.4 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002.031
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CiTY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0157, A WAIVED TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 30604 SUBDIVIDING A SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO SINGLE-
FAMILY LOTS ON .'19 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET
AND PUJOL STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 922-053-004
Associate Planner Rush provided an overview of the project plan (per agenda material),
highlighting the location, the subdivision proposal and the proposed density range; noted
staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission grant a reduction in the minimum
lot area, advising that it was staff's opinion that the proposed project would not be
feasible without the development concession; recommended that the name 'Affirmed
Housing Group" be replaced in the resolutions to correctly indicate "Affirmed Housing
Partners Temecula LLC"; and advised that Redevelopment Director Meyer was available
for questions from the Planning Commission.
Ms. Ginger Hitzke, representing Affirmed Housing Partners, relayed that she was
available for questions from the Planning Commission.
MOTION: C.ommissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
6
Planninq Application No. PA01-0324 {Conditional Use Permit) A proposal to desiqn,
construct and operate a qolfinq educational facility that includes classroom and pro
shop buildin.qs, and a nine-hole public .qolf coume with drivin.q ranqe, located on a
vacant 22-acre section of the Linfield School property on the south side of Rancho
Vista Road, north of Pauba Road, between Meadows Parkway and Marqarita Road -
Michael McCoy, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-032
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL
STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVAL OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0324, A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO DESIGN AND OPERATE A GOLFING
ACADEMY AND NINE-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE
WITH DRIVING RANGE, A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT PRO-
SHOP, AND A '1,900 SQUARE FOOT CARETAKER'S
RESIDENCE ON A 22-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, BETWEEN
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 955-020-002
it is noted that this item was considered out of the order of the agenda, after
consideration of Item No. 3; see page 8.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
Commissioner Guerdero, echoed by Chairman Chiniaeff, commended the planners who
presented projects at tonight's hearing for their excellent work.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
.Director of Planning Ubnoske updated the Planning Commission regarding the staff
recruitment process.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:19 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular
meetln,q to be held on WednesdayT September 4, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
SIGNED MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 5, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
R:~D P~2000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Sff Rept Version #2,doc
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 5, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, 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 Chairman Chiniaeff.
ROLLCALL
Present;
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Senior Engineer Alegria,
Development Services Administrator McCarthy,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Project Planner McCoy,
Project Planner Rush, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 A,qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 5, 2002.
MOTION.: Commissioner Guerriere moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
la Crowne Hill Elementary School Site Review
Noting that State Law requires that School Districts have school sites reviewed by the
Planning Commission in that jurisdiction in order to encourage community planning,
Senior Planner Hogan provided a bdef overview of the proposed Crowne Hill Elementary
School sJte, specifying the location, the access, the proximate park site, and the
surrounding residential area.
Mr. Dave Gallaher, representing the School District, provided additional information
regarding the proposed school site, noting the site constraints, relaying that as the site
currently exists it would not be possible to have two-mad access, or sewer facilities;
relayed the plan to bring in dirt to raise the site to allow for two-road access and so that
the site can be sewered; noted the benefits of the location in particular since ultimately
there will be 700 students that would not have to cross Butter[ield Stage Road to access
school, the majority of students being within walking distance to the school; for
Commissioner Guerriero, relayed that Old Kent Road would remain a cul-de-sac; for
Commissioner Olhasso, noted that the park referenced which was proximate to this
school site was not Butterfield Stage Park; for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that this
site was at the eastern portion of Crowne Hill Development; noted that he was not aware
of a read being proposed through the estate lots to tie into the read coming out of
County Road Estates; advised that the vast majority of students attending this school
would be coming from the Crowne Hill development which is why the site was
referenced as a centrally located; and reiterated that the site could be sewered after
approximately 200,000 yards of dirt was brought in.
In response to Mr. Gallaher, Chairman Chiniaeff confirmed that it would be his
recommendation that the access read to the school be connected to the road coming out
of Country Estates, if feasible.
For Commissioner Guerdero, Mr. Gallaher advised that the majority of the new school
sties have a separate bus drop-off zone, as does this one; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted
that the School District had the funds to purchase this particular site at this time, and that
the school construction costs would be dependent upon the November School Bond;
and for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed thai the proximate park site was
approximately two to three acres, and would be a level site.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to make a determination that this site was
appropriate for the development of an elementary school. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
2 PlanninR Application No. 01-0307 (Development Plan) - Matthew Harris. Associate
Planner
Development plan to construct, establish and operate a 24~170 square foot
Industrial warehouse building on 1.50 vacant acres. Generally located on
the south side of Zevo Drive, west of Diaz Road known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 909-3604)34.
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Applicant requests more time for revisions - continue to June 26, 2002.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the June 26~ meeting.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
3 Planninq Application No. 00-0507 ~Develooment Plan~ - Michael McCoy
Development Plan to design and construct a 42,000 square foot, 4-story,
70-unit hotel (Hampton Inn Suites). Generally located on the northeast
corner of Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road at the 1-15 off-ramp to the
adjacent south of the Comfort Inn hotel at 27330 Jefferson Avenue known
as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-282-007.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the project for
design revisions.
Staff orovided a ~3roiect oresentation
Project Planner McCoy provided a detailed overview of the project plan (of record), as
follows:
· Highlighted the location, the three access points, the two loading spaces located at
the northeast comer of the property, the Zoning (Hotel Tourist Commemial), and the
General Plan Designation (Hotel Tourist Commercial);
· Specified the concerns of staff regarding this particular project, as follows:
o The request for an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR),
o The landscape design and coverage,
o The architectural design,
o The ADA access from the public right-of-way, and
The pedestrian circulation to the building entrance;
· Referencing the Development Code, noted the criteria warranting a FAR increase, as
follows:
o Exceptional financial or social benefits provided to the City,
Exceptional architectural and landscaping amenities, and
o Enhanced public facilities;
o Advised that staff could not make the findings to approve any of the cdteria
for supporting a FAR increase;
With respect to the landscape plan, relayed the gaps within the tree line landscaping
at the northeastern portion of the property which does not provide an adequate buffer
to the parcel from the freeway offramp, noting additional gaps at the southeastern
portion of the project, advising that staff was of the opinion that the project should
have an adequate landscape buffering plan on its own merit and not depend on the
existing Caltrans eucalyptus trees; relayed that the landscape plan encompassed a
net total landscape coverage of twenty pement (20%); noted that the 24-inch and 36-
inch boxed trees proposed on the north and east perimeter of the project are not
staggered or plentiful enough to provide an adequate buffer, nor are the five-gallon
shrubs proposed along the planter, advising that staff was recommending that the
planters be enlarged, the trees staggered, and that there be additional larger
evergreen trees, as well as larger shrub plantings; with respect to qualifying for
exceptional landscaping in relation to the FAR increase, noted that staff has
suggested adding raised decorative planters, and water fountain features with a
paved seating area with landscaping, advising that the building footprint would have
to be reduced, as well as 400 square feet of the floor area in order to provide for
greater landscape coverage; and relayed the higher percentage of landscaping on
alternate hotel projects;
With respect to the building amhitecture, noted that per the Commercial Performance
Standards, larger commercial buildings were required to be setback further, relaying
that the tower features on the west and east elevations emphasize the buildings
verticality, and the horizontal stucco-scored base does not significantly reduce that
mass, advising that staff was recommending that these two elevations be articulated
to create visual interest, that the stucco wall base have a slate/tile, stone veneer, or
flagstone material, as well as on a portion of the most forward vertical columns for
greater accent; relayed that it was staff's opinion that the air conditioner vent covers
would be visually obtrusive, noting that it was staff's recommendation that the air
conditioning system be internalized, relaying altemata options that staff has
explored; and clarified that it was staffs opinion that this proposed plan did not
provide exceptional amhitectural design, and ergo did not meet the criteda for the
FAR increase;
With respect to ADA access issue, noted that the Deputy Building Official had
relayed to the applicant the need for provision of a dedicated separate pathway for
ADA access, advising that since the applicant did not meet that request during the
review process the Building Department cannot recommend approval of this
particular design or offer Conditions of Approval; and advised that the Deputy
Building Official has recommended alternative design measures to address potential
access/easement issues which the applicant has not opted to implement;
With respect to the pedestrian access provisions to the building from the westem
parking area, relayed that the Commercial Performance Standards circulation
policies recommend that separate access for pedestrians (to the buildings) be
provided for safety purposes;
Referencing a comparative table (on page 4 of the staff report), compared the FAR
for alternate similar hotel projects in the area, to the proposed FAR for this project
which revealed that this project was significantly the highest;
Concluding his presentation, noted that based on the specified concerns regarding
this project, and the proposal not qualifying for a FAR increase, staff could not make
the findings for approval.
Addressing the queries of the Commission, for Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner
Hazen confirmed that it was staff's opinion that unless the building footprint was
reduced, the additional planter along the freeway could not be implemented, advising
that staff has been relaying recommendations to the applicant since the pre-application
phase of the project in 2000; and for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that the rationale
for staffs recommended 10-20 feet of additional buffer was due to the concern with
respect to relying on the existing eucalyptus trees, additionally relaying staff's desire to
implement a plan which would provide a more natural appearance of trees.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner McCoy noted that the proposed tree planting
plan was not measured with the consideration of the gaps in the existing tree line, Senior
Planner Hazen relaying staff's concern regarding the expected height of the trees at full
growth only reaching the second story of the building with an underlying concern
regarding the health of the existing eucalyptus trees; and confirmed that it was staff's
desire to screen the view of the hotel site project from the freeway offramp, reiterating
that this project was proposing the minimal landscape plan while requesting a FAR
increase.
Chairman Chinlaeff commented on alternate approved hotel projects, noting that this
particular parcel was a difficult site,
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner McCoy relayed that the mullions
would be a bronze metal matedal while the air conditioning vent covers would be metal
louvers painted to match the wall color, and on the first floor to match the stucco base;
and confirmed that it was staff's recommendation that there be a sidewalk along the
back of the western parking stalls to tie into the main entrance to the building, Senior
Planner Hazen noting that this recommendation was for safety purposes.
The applicant provided additional information reqardinq the proiect
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, provided the following information:
With respect to the ADA issues, noted that this map was created in 1984-'1985,
specifying the parcel lines, the reciprocal easements, the connection driveways,
advising that if the proposed plan was not acceptable, the applicant would be
required to get the proximate properly owners' permission to demolish their existing
sidewalks in order to install ramps, flatter sidewalks and handrails to Jefferson
Avenue, the parcel would become an ADA landlocked parcel, or a waiver for these
particular ADA requirements would have to be requested, advising that the applicant
had not been made aware of these requirements by the Building Department; and
noted that the applicant would meet with the Building staff to further address this
matter.
With respect to staff's recommendation for a pedestrian sidewalk, relayed that the
implementation would necessitate a reduction in landscaping, advising that the
applicant had no knowledge of this concept until tonight's headng.
With respect to the landscape issue, noted that there was no remaining turf on this
parcel, but only trees and shrubs with 891 shrub plantings being proposed, 50 trees,
the majority being either 24-inch box and 36-inch box sizes, clarifying that it was not
the applicant's intent to rely on the existing eucalyptus trees, advising that
Landscape Amhitact Elliott had signed off on the landscape plan pursuant to the
Development Code;
With respect to staff's overall recommended revisions, specified the changes the
applicant has implemented over the project's process in response to those
recommendations;
· For informational purposes, noted that as a member of the Property Owner's
Association the applicant was required to meet certain requirements;
· With respect to the air conditioning units, relayed that the installations were typical
with respect to alternate similar uses;
Noted the constraints of this particular site; provided comparative information
regarding the Temecula Valley Inn's and the Extended StayAmedca's sites, advising
that this particular proposal was landscaped similarly to these similar uses; and
relayed that it was a desirable feature from the applicant's perspective if the use
could be seen from the freeway, and the offramp;
With respect to the setback issue, noted the difficulties associated with staff's
recommendation to set back the upper floors;
With respect to staff's recommendations regarding landscaping, relayed the
applicant's willingness to add a landscape/water fountain feature at the main
entrance while not desiring to add a seating element;
For informational purposes, noted that if it was the Planning Commission's desire the
hotel's meeting room could be made available to the public, that the room count has
been reduced twice since pre-application submittal, and that the compact parking
spaces have been removed; and
· Provided additional information regarding the history of the Embassy Suites project
site.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding
the constraints associated with staff's recommendation for revising the ADA access.
For Commissioner GuerTiero, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that the Extended
StayAmerica Hotel use was conditioned to submit an acoustical report with construction
plans which would demonstrate that the interior noise level meets the level
requirements. Mr. Markham noting that the applicant would be agreeable to be
conditioned as such.
Commissioner Guerdero commented on the existing negative traffic impacts regarding
this area.
Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape engineer representing the applicant, specified the
landscape plan, as follows:
· For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted the location of the proposed crepe myrtle trees;
· Relayed that this was an intedor parcel with existing landscaping on the perimeter of
the building;
Noted opposition to staff's recommendation to place additional plantings proximate to
the freeway, in particular since the building had enhanced architectural features on
this elevation;
· Advised that the tree plantings were staggered, and that a wide vadety of trees have
been proposed (i.e., deciduous, evergreen, tall and small trees);
With respect to staff's recommendation to increase the size of the trees, clarified that
the difference in height between a 36-inch box tree (which could be planted by hand
or with a tractor) and a 48-inch box tree (which required a crane to install) was
approximately a foot, advising that a 24-inch box tree was a good starting size for
trees, noting that 15-gallon trees were better suited in some situations; and advised
that a good landscape plan did take into consideration the existing planting around
the site; and
Regarding the size of the proposed plantings, noted that 14% of the trees would be
36-inch box, 56% would be 24-inch box, clarifying that long-term, a 15-gallon tree will
outgrow a 24-inch box or a 48-inch box tree.
Mr. Lee Gage, architect representing the applicant, presented additional information
regarding the project, as follows:
With respect to the referenced ADA requirements, specified that typically what was
required was access from the building to a public right-of-way which would be
Jefferson Avenue in this particular case, noting that the applicant was being
permitted to provide a four-foot wide continuous walkway with truncated domes
(which would address the needs of the blind), noting that if the slopes are less than
fifteen percent (15%) handrails were not required;
Regarding the window treatment, advised that the Hamplon Inn franchise prefers an
integrated bronze-finished window with a bronze window frame with an architectural
grill to cover the air conditioning unit, noting that to add depth on other projects a
foam band has been added to the windows, advising that this option was available;
Providing information regarding the amhitectural features, noted that the columns
were approximately two feet deep and two feet wide; relayed that while at various
alternate Hampton Inn uses there were raised/pitched roofs which was a Hampton
Inn prototype design element, the applicant has opted to keep the costs lower for this
particular project and proposed a horizontal type of design;
Noted that the building has been articulated with offsets, advising that the entry
treatment projects approximately ten feet, as well as a porter-cochere treatment
being proposed; with respecl to the recommendation to add additional material for
articulation, suggested that the application be a faux rock/stone treatment.
For informational purposes, noted that in alternate municipalities hardscape
treatments were calculated as part of the landscape plan; per the property owner's
edict, relayed the goal for the color application of this project to be consistent with the
surrounding uses located within the center; relayed that canvas awnings were
proposed on both sides of the buildings which was an additional feature not added
on most of the Hampton Inn uses; and for Commissioner Mathewson, specified that
the awnings would be a tan color projecting approximately three feet.
For Commissioner Olhasso. Mr. Gage noted that there were alternate architectural
treatments uses utilized at other sites to screen the air conditioning units (i.e., wrought
iron), opining that with this particular design plan the simple grill would be the most
appropriate; and provided additional information regarding the process of creating the
rock far,,ade treatment.
The public is invited to comment
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project:
o Mr. Jim Lin
o Mr. Ed Pike
o Ms. Ofelia Esqueda
o Ms. Sean Goad
o Mr. Aaron Henry
Mr. Ken Westmyer
27338 Jefferson Avenue
612 Corte Elegante
27338 Jefferson Avenue
41624 Margarita Road ~236
45888 Jeronimo Street
27338 Jefferson Avenue
The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons:
· The height of the building,
· Opposed to the FAR bonus,
· Opined that this particular hotel should be relocated and not coexist in the same
subdivision as an hotel,
· The additional traffic this projecl would generate,
· The noise impacts, in particular construction traffic which would disturb the adjacent
hotel's sleeping guests,
· Parking impacts,
· This project would obstruct the view of the Comfort Inn from the freeway which would
negatively impact business, and
, The dust and debris impac{s generated during construction of the project.
The applicant relayed conciudinq comments
Mr. Larry Markham noted that it was the applicant's desire to obtain input from the
Planning Commission regarding the FAR increase, the architectural design, and the
landscaping issues; referencing page 6 of the staff report, noted that the project was
found to be consistent with the Zoning, and the General Plan designations as well as
consistent with the existing development in the area; and with respect to concerns raised
during the public comment period, noted the following:
· Advised that within this Property Owner's Association there were no restrictions
regarding two hotels being located on this subdivision;
Regarding construction impacts (i.e., noise, and dirt), advised that these issues were
governed by existing ordinances;
· With respect to the visibility concerns, relayed that there were no view shed
guarantees for commemial, industrial, or residential uses;
With respect to parking, cladfied the parking spaces which were part of this parcel;
With respect to traffic, concurred that congestion in this area should be addressed,
advising that the applicant would be contributing substantially to Development Impact
Fees, part of which would be utilized for medians on arterial streets;
· With respect to the ADA issue, reiterated that the applicant would meet with the
Building and Safety staff to address this issue.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Markham noted that he would forward the recommendation
for the addition of stone veneer on the first floor of the hotel to the applicant; for
Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that he would provide at a future point statistics
regarding the projected occupancy rates and Average Daily Rates (ADRs); and in
response to Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that funding the cost of a signal would be
expJored.
Commissioner Olhasso queried whether this project's portion of the DIF could be applied
towards medians in front of the project on Jefferson Avenue.
At 7:50 P.M. the meeting recessed, raconvening at 7:55 P.M.
The Planninq Commission relays concludinq comments
Commissioner Guerriero relayed that in light of the traffic issues, and for application
towards meeting the cdteria for the FAR bonus, the applicant would need to consider
some type of signal mitigation; with respect to the fa(;ade treatment referenced by Mr.
Gage (the applicant's architect), noted his preference for real materials (i.e., stone, bdck)
in lieu of a faux stone treatment; and recommended that there be additional
enhancements beyond the first floor;, and opined that the landscape plan was adequate.
Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Guerriere that the traffic
impacts needed to be considered; with respect to the FAR increase and the associated
warranting cdteda, concurred with the applicant's representative that achieving an
exceptional landscape plan does not necessarily encompass a greater quantity,
recommending that to meet the exceptional standard that staff and the applicant
consider off-sita improvements; noted that he was not pleased with the Iouvered air
conditioner vents, recommending that the applicant pursue alternatives; recommended
that there be an additional veneer treatment on the base of the building as well as the
columns; with respect to the ADA access issue, opined that a sidewalk was needed on
site in front of the parking spaces (noting that the landscaping which would need to be
removed could be installed off-site), recommending that there be decorative
enhancements to the sidewalk, as referenced by the applicant's representative.
Commissioner Telesio relayed the expectation for exceptional product in the City of
Temecula; noted his hopes that as this project goes back to staff for additional work, that
the discussions are productive, noting his support of staff's recommendations, advising
that in most cases the Planning Commission will accept these recommendations and
require more; noted that he was not opposed to the landscape plan; and with respect to
the architectural treatment, recommended that there be improvements implemented.
Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she viewed this project as an improvement to the
site; with respect to the traffic issue, recommended that staff and the applicant come
back with creative solutions; advised that if the applicant brought back a conservative
estimate of the anticipated Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) contribution, staff and the
Council could make the argument that the project would generate enough funds to
address the traffic impacts at this comer; with respect to the lack of parking,
recommended that the project manager investigate the vacant parking lot adjacent to the
car wash; with respect to the architectural design, noted her displeasure with the air
conditioner vent covers, additionally recommending that real stone be utilized for the
added articulation; with respect to the FAR, noted that if the TOT could address the
cimulation issues that may justify the FAR, clarifying that she had not come to a final
determination regarding this issue; and with respect to the public comments, generated
primarily from the employees and owner of the adjacent hotel, recommended that there
be rehabilitation to the Comfort Inn.
Chairman Chiniaeff noted his concurrence with respect to the recommendation to add
articulation enhancements at the base as well as on the two tower elements;
recommended that the applicant explore alternate designs used for other Hampton Inn
uses; with respect to the landscape plan, suggested the addition of a couple trees along
the freeway; and with respect to the FAR, relayed that he could support the proposed
FAR as long as there were benefits to the area as a result of the project, advising that
the installation of a signal would most likely be the most significant improvement which
could be implemented in combination with medians.
In response to the Planning Commission comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske
relayed that it would be problematic to condition this property owner to implement off-site
improvements; concurred that the installation of a signal would be a significant
community benefit; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the rationale for staff's
recommendation for a water fountain treatment was the desire to implement a unique
distinctive statement at the entrance; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that staff
would require the applicant to implement a unique landscaping treatment at the entry.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant would explore the
additional of window boxes, additionally advising that the applicant would come back
with architectural alternatives.
In response to Mr. Markham's queries, Commissioner Guerriero noted that he would
provide specific information to him regarding a Hampton Inn with pleasing architecture
features, which he had visited in the southern part of New Jersey.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the August 7, 2002
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner OIhasso
and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
For Mr. Didonato, Chairman Chiniaeff concurred that exceptional concrete treatments
would aid in contributing to an overall exceptional landscape plan.
4 Plannino AoDlication No, 02-0240 (Substantial Conformance) - Rick Rush
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this project.
4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0240, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0335, WHICH INCLUDES
SUBSTITUTING THE APPROVED DOME SHAPE
AWNING ALONG THE FRONT ELEVATION WITH
PERMANENT AWNINGS AND A LARGER AWNING
OVER THE FRONT ENTRY, GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET SOUTH OF THE
SANTIAGO ROAD/FRONT STREET INTERSECTION
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-120-
010
Via overheads, Project Planner Rush presented the staff report (per agenda material),
clarifying that lhe applicant was requesting to eliminate the 0nly element of the approved
project that provided any relief to the box-like design of the building, advising that since a
retractable awning was not a permanent feature, it would only provide a break in the
elevation when deployed; and relayed that staff was not opposed to substituting the
permanent dome-shaped awning for an alternative design, but not a retractable awning.
Mr. Richard C. Quaid, the applicant, noted that the retractable awnings were installed at
the Loma Linda store location, advising that in response to staff's recommendations the
applicant raised the awning by approximately two feet at the entry; clarified that the
applicant was opposed to the dome shape of the awning; noted that the front, back, and
sides ol~ the building were articulated with real brick and stucco, and that the awnings
serve to further break up the massing on the front and back of the buildings; via
photographs, noted that this particular proposal was consistent with previously approved
designs and had additional~enhanced articulation in comparison to numerous projects;
and advised that while the intent was to have the awnings open the majodty of the time,
they would be retractable for use when there were windy conditions.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Quaid confirmed that the awnings would be electrically
operated.
Mr. Jeff Coffman, architect representing the applicant, noted that when the project was
presented and approved approximately two years ago, the dome-shaped awning had
been added at the last hour, and it was his opinion that with the deconstructing design
appearance of the building, the curved awnings would be inappropriate, and the
modified proposed awnings with the sharper lines, which were discontinuous would be
more pleasing.
Mr. Bob Quaid, the applicant, provided additional information regarding the particular
type of awning being proposed which was constructed of a special material, advising
that it was the applicant's opinion that the curved awning would detract from the overall
building design; relayed that additional features were added to this use to be consistent
with the Old Town Western motif; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the awning
was added by the artist of the rendering and not by the architect.
Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the modified proposed awnings appeared similar to an RV
awning, recommending that if the applicant was opposed to the curved shape of the
awning, that the architect modify the shape of permanent awnings, which could be
installed in a discontinuous pattem.
For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Code did not
require the building to have awnings but additional articulation to break up the box-like
shape, which could be addressed with other materials.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that he was not opposed to changing the design of the
awnings, or removing the awnings.
Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she was pleased that the applicant determined to
develop this project in the City of Temecula, noting that she would not be opposed to
black square awnings with the breaks.
Concurring with staff that the awnings aided in breaking up the box-like appearance of
the building, Commissioner Guerriero advised that the shape of the awnings was not
significant as long as permanent awnings were installed.
In response, the applicant noted the desire to install the awnings but to revise the design
to reflect a square shape in lieu of the dome-shaped awning.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended that there be a greater massing of the awning
structure with end treatments. In response, the applicant noted that permanent awnings
were less costly.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff would need a copy of the revised design
plan of the awnings.
R:~.c<~.xn~inute'-.~o~o5oz 12
For the applicant, Chairman Chiniaeff clarified that the awnings could be a straight
design rather than the dome shape, that they would be permanent, and broken up with
each set windows, and that the revised design plan would be submitted to staff for
review.
For clar'~cation and in response to the applicant's queries regarding the Planning
Commission's direction, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the resolution in the
staff report would be revised to reflect approval of the plan subject to an added condition
regarding the awnings (as indicated below in the motion); and advised that if the awning
plan was consistent with the direction provided from the Planning Commission, the
Planning Director subsequently would approve the plan administratively.
MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to approve this
particular proposal with a finding of substantial conformance, subject to the following
revision:
Add-
That a condition be added indicating that rectangular-shaped black canvas
awnings would be installed modified to be permanent elements (permanent
entailing an awning with end treatments, and a greater massing of the
structure), with a larger rectangular awning over the entry in lieu of a dome-
shaped awning, and that the canopies be broken up with each set of windows
along the front of the building, and that this revised plan be subject to the
review of the Planning Director.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
5 Planning Application No. 01-0403 (Development Plan) - Thomas Thornslev
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project.
5.1
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0403
(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. 2002-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0403 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,970
SQUARE FOOT FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT
(MACARONI GRILL), ON A 1.49-ACRE LOT, LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE MALL'S ENTRY AT
NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, INITHIN THE BEL
VILLAGIO CENTER, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 921-830-001.
By way of overheads, Project Planner Rush provided a bdef overview of the project plan
(per agenda material), highlighting the site plan, and the parking provisions; relayed that
the three conCerns of staff regarding this project have been reviewed with the applicant
whereupon the applicant opted to implement the changes and have been reflected as
Condition Nos. 6a, 6b, and 6c (regarding revisions in the parking lot plan); noted that the
design of the building was reflective of an Italian countryside, advising that the building
was finished with river rock stone, and stucco, and that heavy wood beams were
proposed for the front of the restaurant, as well as wrapping around both comers.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner Rush further specified the revisions to the
parking lot, which would allow for additional parking space and would aid in screening
the vehicles in this area.
Ms. Vandana Kelkar, architect representing the applicant, relayed that Phase I of the
project was constructed, noting that the Macaroni Grill use was part of the footprint when
the project was originally approved, advising that although the Code requires one
parking space per 300-350 square feet, the applicant has proposed 10 parking spaces
per 1000 square feet in this particular area since it was known that there would be a
restaurant use at this location, noting that overall in the shopping center there would be
5.7 parking spaces per 1000 square feet.
Noting his disappointment, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that at the time this project
was originally presented it had been conveyed that this would be a center with high-end
uses, advising that Temecula does not need another strip mall.
For Commissioner Olhasso, Ms. Kelkar clarified that although marketing had aimed at
attaining high-end tenants, some tenants were reluctant to locate in this particular area
at this time.
For clarification, Assistant City Attomey Curley advised that the approved project was
subject to conformance with the findings associated with the approval (i.e., conformance
with the General Plan, and to the applicable ordinances), clarifying that if a subjective
expectation had not been met and if there was not an identifiable performance level
imposed it would be preoblereatic to enforce that expectation. In response, Commissioner
Telesio recommended that there be identified performance levels imposed on future
projects.
Director of Planning Ubnos~(e confirmed that it appeared that the project was providing
the architecture that was expected, but may not provide the expected tenant mix,
advising that the Planning Commission has never required specified tenants.
Commissioner Telesio commented that if the architect implemented a high quality of
architecture, but the tenant mix was not high end, the lessor would be the one who
would bear the impacts.
In response to the Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that it would just
be a matter of time before the tenant mix the Planning Commission referenced would be
in the City of Temecula; for Commissioner Olhasso, confirmed that at a future point, the
Planning Commission could have an economic workshop which addressed the
demographics; and noted that this particular center would be visually pleasing due to the
enhanced landscaping and architectural treatments.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staffs recommendation with the inclusion of the added conditions, as referenced in the
staff report as Condition Nos. 6a, 6b, and 6c (regarding parking lot modifications). The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who voted no.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
Ao
For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Code
Enforcement has consistently been addressing the blight at the furniture use on
Winchester Road, noting that staff would provide additional follow-up on this
matter.
Regarding ex parte communications, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that if it
was the consensus of the Planning Commission, staff could relay to applicants
that the Commission does not desire to meet with applicants outside of the
hearing, Assistant City Attomey Curley advising that a resolution could be
adopted discouraging ex parte communications if it was the Planning
Commission's desire.
For Commissioner Telesio, Facility Maintenance Coordinator Kanigowski relayed
that he had a cordless microphone, which could be utilized by applicants dudng
presentations.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curtey advised that
tenants have developed criteria, which must be met pdor to opting to locate in a
certain area.
Commissioner Olhasso noted a desire to have additional marketing information
provided at the previously mentioned workshop, in particular the 5-, 10-, and 30-
mile rings from the mall, and the criteria for the "lifestyle" type tenants.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that potential tenants in a project might be
attracted to a certain placement, or size of building, which could be an avenue for
attracting the desired high-end tenants.
Commissioner OIhasso suggested that a commercial/retail expert provide an
opinion regarding the tenant matter to the Planning Commission.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the expectation level of tenants at the Bel
Villagio Center.
Commissioner Guerriero noted the need for median installation near the Post
Office on Rancho California, Commissioner Olhasso noting the need for medians
proximate to the high school on Margarita Road.
Fo
Chairman Chiniaeff requested that a meeting schedule be e-mailed to him.
Commissioner Telesio and Commissioner Olhasso noting that they only had
knowledge of a scheduled meeting when they received the agenda which stated
the date of the next meeting. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske ensured
that efforts would be made to provide a meeting schedule, which would include
the dates for joint meetings, Planning Commission meetings, and Committee
meetings, additionally noting that the Planning Guide, which provided information
regarding upcoming issues, was in the process of being reinstated.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No additional comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:38 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reflular
meetln,q to be held on Wednesday~ June 267 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
~._..D~nnis W. Chiniaeff, ~
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
ITEM #4
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Matthew Har~,~Associate Planner
November 6, 2002
Office Building/Tentative Parcel Map (PA 02-0387 & 0388)
The above referenced applications propose the development of a 30,000 square foot office
building and associated two-lot tentative parcel map. The project site is located on the east side
of County Center Drive, approximately 740 feet north of Ynez Road. The applications are being
processed concurrently. Since being scheduled, the applicant has requested that the items be
continued to the December 4th Planning Commission meeting to allow for unforeseen building
modifications.
R:\D P~2002\02-0387 Highlands ti\Continuance Memo.doc
1
10/29/2002 15:27 949-7~8-7812 OTS
PAGE 0i
VIA FAX & MAIL
October 29, 2002
G AIA
ARCHITECTS
Mr, Matt Harris
CITY OF TEMECULA
Community Development
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589
Re:
Highlands II Office Complex Buirding 'A'
GAA Project No, GG001.11
Application No. PA02-0387
Dear Mr. Harris,
Due to program modifications the proposed building will be modified and will require an extension for the
Planning Commission meeting, Per our discussion the project can be scheduled for the 1" Planning
· Commission meeting in December.
Sincerely,
Roger Deitos, AIA
Associate Principal
GAA ARCHITECTS, INC.
RD/ha
cc: Tom Hylton - GG
Paul Garrett - GG
Gilbert Aja - GAA
GAA ARCHITECTS. ~NC. 4 Pork Ploza, Suite 120, Irvine, CA 92614 T: 949 474 1775 F: 949 553 913,3
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 6, 2002
Planning Application No. 02-0322 (Extension of Time)
RIDGE PARK OFFICE CENTER
Prepared by: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0322 pursuant to Section 15332 of
the California Environmental Quality Act;
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-._
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0322 (THE FIRST ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR PA 00-
0072 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 56,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE COMPLEX
CONSISTING OF TEN (10) BUILDINGS ON FOUR ACRES,
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE,
BET~VEEN RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VINCENT MORAGA
DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 940-310-028
AND 032
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
James Leary Amhitecture and Planning
REPRESENTATIVE:
McMahon Development Group
PROPOSAL:
An Extension of Time to design and construct a 56,000 square foot
office complex consisting of ten buildings.
LOCATION:
North side of Ridge Park Drive, between Rancho California Road and
Vincent Moraga Drive.
EXISTING ZONING:
Business Park (BP)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Business Park (BP)
South: Business Park (BP)
East: Light Industrial (LI)
West: Business Park (BP)
R:~E O T~2002~2-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
1
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Industrial Buildings
South: Vacant
East: Industrial Building
West: Office Complex
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Lot Area:
212,235 square feet (4.8 acres)
Total Gross Floor Area: 56,000 square feet
Building Height: 39 feet
Floor Area Ratio
26.39% (40% allowed in BP)
Landscaped Area:
60,692 square feet (29%)
Parking Required:
187 vehicle spaces, 9 bicycle spaces, and 4 motorcycle spaces
Parking Provided:
221 vehicle spaces, 9 bicycle spaces, and 4 motorcycle spaces.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved Planning Application 00-0072 on June 21,2000. The expiration
of this approval was June 21,2002. Prior to the expiration, the applicant applied for an extension of
time. This first time extension request was submitted to the Planning Department on June 18, 2002.
The applicant is requesting the time extension given that much of the future office space has not yet
been leased. In 2001 the subject property was rezoned from Light Industrial to Business Park.
Processing delays resulted from lack of application materials and committed hearing agendas.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes a campus of single-story and two-story shell office buildings, which range in
size from 4,600 square feet to 7,800 square feet. The two larger, two-story buildings are clustered in
the center, surrounding a decorative, landscaped courtyard with fountain and elevator tower. The
eight remaining single-story buildings are also clustered, four at each end, surrounding walkways,
patios and landscaped areas.
The project proposes a range and combination of alternatives to prospective buyers. According to the
applicant, the majority of future owners will be local businesses wanting to expand or locate corporate
offices to serve their existing clientele in the Temecula area. While the applicant is conditioned to
merge the existing two parcels that comprise the subject site, it is likely that a condominium map will
be submitted for the project. Staff has interpreted the Development Code Table 17.08.030 Schedule
of permitted uses which allows offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than
50,000 square feet in the BP Business Park zone to apply to this project.
R:~,E 0 3~2002~2-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
2
With buildings totaling 56,000 square feet, the project will house offices, administrative, and/or
corporate headquarters similar to the Vista Office Center project at the northeast corner of Rancho
Califomia Road and Ridge Park Drive. Furthermore, the proposed project is compatible and of similar
design as the Mountain View Business Park office complex directly across the street.
ANALYSIS
Although the subject property was rezoned from LI Light Industrial to BP Business Park in 2001, the
project still complies with the City's Development Code and the findings for a Development Plan.
However, during review of the time extension request, the Planning, Building and Safety Departments,
and Community Services have requested adding or amending certain Conditions of Approval to
reflect changes in current activities and/or codes.
The Planning Department requests that Condition of Approval No. 4.d. be added requiring that all
onsite compact parking spaces be converted to standard size spaces. The Development Code was
amended to prohibit compact parking spaces in October of 2001. In addition, staff requests that
Condition of Approval No. 9 be added requiring that the site address be painted on the roof of office
buildings. Staff also requests that Condition of Approval No. 15 be amended to require that
landscaping construction drawings be both reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a building
permit. These conditions have been incorporated into the conditions of approval.
The Building and Safety Department is requiring that the development of this project comply with the
latest edition of the Building Codes (2001) and the California Disabled Access Regulations (1999)
adopted by the City. These requirements have been incorporated into Condition of Approval No. 46.
The Community Services Department, which did not have any conditions of approval in association
with the original project approval is now requesting that Condition Nos. 87-90 be required. The
conditions are related to maintenance of landscaping, street light maintenance and using the City's
franchise waste hauler.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation of BP Business Park and all
applicable General Plan policies. The intent of the Business Park designation is to develop well-
designed business and employment centers that offer attractive and distinctive architectural design,
innovative site planning, and substantial landscaping and visual quality. The project design is
exemplary in this regard. With 29% of the site dedicated to landscaping, a building height maximum of
39 feet, and a floor area ratio of 26%, the project meets or exceeds all zoning requirements of the
Business Park zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is exempt from environmental review based on Section 15332 (In-Fill Development
Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act and there are no potentially significant
environmental constraints on the site. The project qualifies for an infill development exemption
because the project is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning regulations; is located
on a site within the city limits which is served by all utilities; and is less than 5 acres in area.
R:~E O'i~2002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center. taft Report.doc
3
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project, as conditioned, is consistent with all applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines,
and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality,
and staff recommends approval of the time extension as originally conditioned along with noted
modifications/additions.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The General Plan Land
Use designation for the site is BP Business Park, which encourages the development of
business and employment centers such as professional office buildings.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety,
and general welfare. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Department, Building
Department and the Department of Public Works, and these departments have conditioned
the project to comply with applicable Codes and regulations which protect public health and
safety. Emergency vehicle access is provided by the project.
Attachments-
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Exhibits
A.
B.
C.
DI.
D2.
E.
Fl.
F2.
F3.
F4.
F5.
Gl.
G2.
HI.
H2.
- Blue Page 21
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
General Plan Map
Site Plan
Conceptual Signage Site Plan & Program
Conceptual Grading Plan
Elevations - 4,600 Square Foot Building
Elevations - 6,400 Square Foot Building
Elevations - 7,800 Square Foot Building
Elevations - Sections
Elevations - Accessory Details
Floor Plans - 4,600 & 6,400 Square Foot Buildings
Floor Plans - 7,800 Square Foot Building
Landscape Plan
Landscape Details
R:',E O '1~002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Cente~Staff Report.doc
4
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
APPROVING PA02-0322
EXTENSION OF TIME
R:',E O 'r~?.002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Rel~ort.doc
5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0322 (THE FIRST ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR PA 00.
0072 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 56,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE COMPLEX
CONSISTING OF TEN (10) BUILDINGS ON FOUR ACRES,
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE,
BETWEEN RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VINCENT
MORAGA DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS.
940-310-028 AND 032
WHEREAS, James Leary Amhitecture and Planning filed Planning Application No. 02-0322, in
a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 02-0322 was processed including, but not limited to a
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application
No. 02-0322 on November 6, 2002 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which
time the City staff and interested pemons 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. 02-0322 subject to the conditions after
finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 02-0322 conformed to the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 02-
0322 (An Extension of Time for a Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required
by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The General Plan Land Use
designation for the site is BP Business Park, which encourages the development of business and
employment centers such as professional office buildings.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Department, Building
Department and the Department of Public Works, and these departments have conditioned the
project to comply with applicable Codes and regulations, which protect public health and safety.
Emergency vehicle access is provided by the project.
R:~E O '1'~2002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center,Staff Report.doc
6
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project will have no significant environmental
impacts and has been found to be categorically exempt, Pursuant to Sections 15332, class 32 of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 02-0322 (The first Extension of Time for a
Development Plan) to design, construct and operate a 56,000 square foot office complex consisting of
ten (10) buildings on four acres located in the north side of Ridge Park Drive, between Rancho
California Road and Vincent Moraga Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-310-028 and
032 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference made a part
hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 6th day of November 2002.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',E O T,2.002~2-0322 Ridge Park Office Cente~Staff Report.doc
7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA02-0322 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:~E 0'1~2002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: PA02-0322 (First One-Year Extension)
Project Description:
A Development Plan to design, construct end operate a 56,000
square foot office complex, consisting of ten (10) buildings on
four acres.
DIF Category: Office
Assessor's Parcel No: 940-310-028 & 032
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
November 6, 2002
June 21, 2003 (retroactive)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four
Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption as provided under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and California Code
of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not
delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, 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 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.
R:~E O 3'~2.002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center~aff Report.doc
9
o
This approval shall be used by the Expiration Date noted above; otherwise, it shall become
null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this
approval, which is thereafter diligently pumued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D1"
(Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division or as amended by these conditions of approval.
a. Mounding or berming shall be provided along Ridge Park Drive to screen vehicles
facing the street.
b. The site plan shall show a separation between single-story buildings of 15-feet or
wider.
c. The site plan shall show a separation between two-story buildings and other
buildings of 20-feet or wider.
d. All compact size off-street parking spaces shall be converted to standard size
parking spaces.
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "HI' and "H2" (Landscape
Plan and Details) or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project
shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it
is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have
the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the
approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the
responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest.
a. Mounding or berming shall be provided along Ridge Park Drive to screen vehicles
facing the street. Plantings and their locations shall be modified where necessary
to maximize the vegetative screening.
b. Slope and street plantings shall blend with existing adjacent plantings and shall
meet the requirements of the City Development Code,
c. All utilities shall be screened.
d. The developer shall ensure that mature plantings do not interfere with utilities and
traffic sight lines.
e, The landscape plan shall meet the water conservation requirements of City
ordinances.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "Fl" through "F5'
(Building Elevations, Sections and Accessory Details), contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division, or as amended by these conditions. All
mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features
integrated into the design of the structure.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
approved colors and materials and with Exhibit"l" (Color and Material Board) contained on file
with the Community Development Department - Planning Division, or as amended by these
conditions. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the
Planning Manager.
R:~E O'F~2.~-0322 Ridge Pa~k Office Center, Staff Report.doc
10
Material
Stucco walls, reveals (Montalvo
Finish)
Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Standing seam metal roof -AEP- span
Plaster finish Cornice-light sand finish
Expo Stucco
Wood accent member -Olympic stain
Semi -transparent
Cultured Stone
Mission Light Fixtures
Natural Aluminum Storefront
Decorative Metal Railing - Frazee
paint
Glass - ~ inch
Color
#487 Tumble Weed
#52 Ivory
#478 Whole Wheat
#460 Pebble
#225 Sorrento
#454 Desert Sky
#263 Amaretto
Redwood
#52 Ivory
#907 Blue Grey
#CVS-2042 Chardonnay Dressed Fieldstone
#8355D Burnt Copper
Solar Bronze Glass
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining
property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on
electrical plans submitted to the Department of building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance N. 655.
The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a
9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inches apart. The numerals shall be
painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a
contrasting background. The addresses(s) shall be oriented to the street and placed as
closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
10.
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.
11.
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.
12.
The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D1 ," "E," "F," "H1 ,'~H2,' and "1" (Site Plan, Conceptual
Grading Plan, Landscape Plan and Details, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final
conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department -
Planning Division staff. The applicant shall submit five (5) full size copies of all revised
exhibits, and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit al" (Color
and Materials Board) to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their
files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board shall be readable on the photographic prints.
R:~E O 'r~002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
11
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
13. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
14.
Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit for review and approval a
merger of the two lots identified on the site, or such other mechanism wherein buildings do not
cross property lines.
15.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department - Planning Division. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "HI' and "H2,' 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 plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
Co
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
The cover page shall identity the total square footage of the landscaped area for the
site.
One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
16,
An Administrative Development Plan application for a formal Sign Program shall be submitted
that incorporates the concepts proposed in Exhibit "D2," or as amended by these conditions.
The Planning Manager shall review and approve the Sign Program prior to issuance of
building permits for any signage in the project.
The Sign Program shall include the use of colors and materials, and plantings at the
base of all monument signs.
The Sign Program shall dimension lettering and locate all building sign envelopes.
The Sign Program shall reduce the wall signage to Y~ square foot for each lineal foot
of building frontage, in accordance with the City's Development Code.
17. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
18.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager.
The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall
be properly constructed and in good working order.
19.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee
the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape
and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and
irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager,
the bond shall be released.
R'.~E O'P,2002',02-0322 Ridge Pan~ Office Center, Staff Report.doc
20.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed
reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the
Intemational Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in
area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80
inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a
minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A
sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking
facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards er 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.
21.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by
this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
22.
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further
review and revision.
General Requirements
23.
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.
24.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
25.
All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard
24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
26.
^ Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
27.
The Developer shall post 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.
R:~E O T~002~02-O322 Ridge Pad( Office Cente~Staff Report.doc
13
28.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
29.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project
is shown to be exempt. Direct discharge of runoff from the site to the storm drain system is
prohibited. Runoff shall be collected onsite and urban pollutants shall be mitigated prior to
discharge.
30.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
31.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
32.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and
the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
33.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property,
no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
35. A Parcel Merger shall be processed and recorded.
36.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula
Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The
following design criteria shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance
with Ordinance 461.
R:~E 0 'P2002',02-0322 Ridge Pan~ Office Center, Staff Repod.doc
do
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
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.
37.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department'of Public
Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, and striping, as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Sewer and domestic water systems
38.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall
issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
39.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in
accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
40. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property.
41.
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.
42.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all fights to object to the
formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major
Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in
accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of
the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
43.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten
clearance from the following agencies:
ao
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
45.
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.
R:~E O T~2002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Cente~Staff Report.doc
15
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
46.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code (For building plans submitted prior to November 1, 2002. Plans
submitted for review after November 1, 2002 shall comply with applicable provisions of the
2001 edition of the California Building Code, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1999 National
Electric Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access
Regulations and the Temecuia Municipal Code.)
47.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetiights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining
property or public rights-of-way.
48.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the
Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
49.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
50. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B.
51. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
52.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path
of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel
slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
53.
All building and facilities must complywith applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all
details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
54. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
55.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
56.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
57. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
58.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
59.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
R:',E O't'X2002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Cente~Stafl Report.doc
60. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
61. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
62.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
63.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits,
64. Show all building setbacks
65.
California Building Code allows buildings on the same property to be considered one building
as long as the allowable area is consistent with section 504. Further, with 60 foot yards on all
sides the allowable area may be unlimited. Should plans in the future be to do a parcel split,
this project may require that exterior walls, opening, etc be fire rated and careful attention to
how this may impact the future use should be undertaken. An example is the center cluster of
buildings on this parcel. Should a property line be established between each side of the four
building cluster this "building" would now only have two yards and the allowable increases
would have to be based upon this.
66.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the 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 Sundays or Government Holidays.
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.
67.
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 fome atthe
time of building plan submittal.
68.
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 by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
R:~E O T~002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center,Staff Report.doc
17
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
78.
77.
78.
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) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to
public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be
located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fin Department access read(s)
frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s)
in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2,
and Appendix Ill-B).
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 mute around the exterior
of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall
be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved
temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed.
Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs.
GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion
of an extedor 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)
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet
six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system
plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by
a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the
plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
R:~E O't~2.002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Centei~Staff Report.doc
18
79.
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)
80.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commemial buildings shall
display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The
numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for
suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the
suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4)
81.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument
sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each
complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the
name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant
locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted
to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau pdor to installation.
82.
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)
83.
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)
84.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm
system. (CFC 902.4)
85.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
86.
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.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Conditions
87.
The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
88.
All parkway landscaping, slope areas and interior streetlights shall be maintained by the
property owner or private maintenance association.
89.
The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure
areas.
R:~E 0'r~2.002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
19
Prior to Building Permit
90.
Prior to issuance of building permits or installation of arterial street lights, whichever comes
first, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD, together with the final Southern
California Edison streetlight plans and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer
of said street lights into the TCSD maintenance program.
OTHER AGENCIES
91.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 22, 2000, a copy of which is
attached.
92.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water
Districts transmittal dated April 18, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
93.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water
Districts transmittal dated March 6, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
94.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated March 30, 2000, a copy of which is
attached,
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
R:~E O'~2.002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
20
TO:
FROM
RE:
County'of Riversidr--)
D~tiARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT~_, · HEALTH
DATE: March 22, 2000
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Carole Donahoe,AICP / /
CLARENCE HARRISON, Environmental Health Specialist III
PLOT PLAN NO. PA00-0072
The Department of Enviromnental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0072 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for heaRh clearance, the following items are
reqtfired:
a) "Will-serve" letters fi.om the appropriate water and se,vering agencies.
b)
c)
Three complete sets of plans tbr each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be
submitted, .including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedtde in order to
ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For .specific
reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022).
A clearance letter fi.om the Hazardous Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 ~vill be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator S~rvices, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Waste reduction management.
d) A letter from the Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
CH:dr
(909) 955-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building
Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health Clearance.
CC:
Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
Bonnie Dierking, Supervising E.H.S.
Board of Directors
President
David J. Slaw$on
~ce President
Clayton A. Record, Jr.
Marion V. Ashley
Richard R. Hall
Rodger D. Sierns
Board Secretary
Ma~ C. White
General ~[anager
John B. Brudin
Director of the
Jlffetropolitan Water
District of So. Calif.
Clayton A. Record. Jr.
Joseph J. Kuebler. CPA
Legal Counsel
Redwine and Sh~lTill
Apd118,2000
County of Riverside
Environmental Health Department
P.O. Box 1206
Riverside, CA 92502
Dear Colleague:
Re:
SAN53-Sewer Will Serve
PA 00-0072, Ridge Park Office Canter, APN 940-310-028, 032,
Located North of Ridge Park Dr., West of Rancho California Rd.
in the City of Temecula.
EMWD is willing to provide water and/or sewer service to the subject project. The
provisions of service are contingent upon the developer completing the necessary
arrangements in accordance with EMWD rules and regulations. The arrangements
· may include plan check, facility construction, annexation, payment of financial
participation charges, coordination with a sub-agency, reclaimed water facilities and
other requirements. The developer should contact EMWD's New Business
Development Department early in the proCess to determine the necessary
arrangements for service.
EMWD's ability to serve' is subject to limiting conditions, such as water shortages,
regulatory requirements, legal issues, or conditions beyond EMWD's control.
Thank you for your cooperation in serving our mutual customers. If you have any
questions, please call me at (909) 928-3777, ext. 4518.
Civil Engineering Assistant
New Business Development
mhs
C:
Ms. Carole Donahoe
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
\ \ fpsnt s2\ J_\WORDPROC\WORD\NEW_BUSI. 1 l\Wil 1' Serve\Year2000\paOO-OO72.doc
POSt Office BOX 8300 PelTiS. CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (909) 92§-3777 Fax: (909) 92,q-6177
Locatio,t: 2270/rumble Road Peres. CA 92570
March 6, 2000
Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUI~JECT:
WATER AV^H,ABULiTY
A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 19626-1 AND
A PORTION OF PARCEL 22 OF PARCEL MAP 12549
APN 940;310-028 AND APN 940-310-032
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PAO0-O072
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required,, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees
and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you haye any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative
at this oillCtL
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
O0~SB:ktO67XF012-T3XFCF
Gene. a-al Manager-Chief Engi~ee~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: ~---~'Pl R-~) (... ~
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREE
RIVERSIDE, CA 9250
909/955-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
51150.1
~e Di~ct does not no~lly m~mmend ~ndifions for land dMsions or other land use cases in inco~omted
d~s. ~ ne Dis~ also eoes not ~lan ~k d~ land use ~ses, or provide State Di~sion of Real Estate leEers or
other flood h~ mpo~ for such ~ses. Dis~ ~mmen~m~mmendafions for su~ ~ses am no.ally limited
to items of sp~c mtere~ to ~e Dis~ct including Di~ Master Drainage Plan fad ties, o~er reoional flood
~ntml and d~oe fa~lifies ~i~ ~uld be ~nsider~ a I~i~l ~m~nenfor e~ension of a master p~an system,
and Dis~ ~a Drainage Plan f~s (development m~gaflon f~). In addition, info~afion of a general nature is
pm~d~.
~e Dis~ has not m~ ~e pm~s~ pmje~ in de~il and ~e follo~ng ~ ~mments do not in any ~y
~nsfit~e or imp~ Dis~ approval or endomement of ~e pm~s~ pmje~ ~ resp~ to flood h~a~, public
heal~ and saf~ or ~y o~er su~ issue:
. / ~is p~j~ ~uld not be impa~ by Distd~ Master Drainage Plan fa~lifies nor are other fadli~es of
regional I~erest proposed.
~is pmj~ involves Dis~ Master Plan ~dlifies. ~e Dis~ ~11 a~pt ownemhip of su~ facilities on
~Ren ~ue~ of ~e Ci~. Fad ~es must be cons~ to Dis~ s~ndards, and Dis~ plan Ch~ and
insp~pn ~11 ~ ~uir~ for Dis~ a~p~n~. Plan ~e~, insp~on and adm n s~five fees ~11 be
~s p~j~ p~pos~ ~nels, ~o~ ~m ns 36 in.es or la~er, in d~meter, or o~er fa~lifies ~at ~uld be
~nstaer~ ~gl~l J~ natu~ anmor a IogJ~l ~e~ion ~ ~e aaopt~
o, o.
...... ~: ~.mus[ Dp ~ns~ to pl~ ~a~, ~ ~[~ ~an ~ and insp~on ~11
~ ~u~ mr ut~ a~pmn~. Plan ~, Ins~o~ ana aa~nis~-a~ve fees ~ll ~ r~uired. '~ ~. _ ._
ge an ~or ~i~ eminage m~ nave D~n aeopt~; appli~Dle tees s~o~O ~e ~i~ ~y ~shiefs
~ or ~ney ~r ~nly t9 ~e R~d ~1 Dis~ p~or t6 i~uan~ ~ building or gmding~i~,
~ever ~m~ nmi eees to ~ pale should be ~ ~e rote in eff~ at ~e time of i~uan~ of~e a~al
pe~R.
GENE~L INFOR~ON
~ls pmj~ may ~uim a National Poll~t Disease Bimin~on ~em (NPDES) ~it from ~e S~te Water
~sgume~ ~o~1 ~9a~: Cle~mg~ f~r gmding,.~o~, o[ o~er fin~ ~ppmva/should not ~ given until ~e
~1~ nas ~ete~l~ ~a[ ~e p~j~ ~as D~n g~nte~ a pete or ~ ~ ~ De ~emp[
~~ ~e~j ~mpn~ U~gg~m~ Ag~n~ (~ ~p~ fl~ ~ain,.~an'~e Ci~ sh~ld
~uHu~mun~, ~u ~ou~ m~er ~ulm ~ me appll~ OD~I~ a UO~lgO~ LeEer of Map Re,sion (CLOMR)
prior to gmamg, ~on or omer ~al appmva; of ~e pmj~ and a LeEer of Map Re.sion (LOMR) prior to
~nw.
!f a naomi ~e~ume or mapped flo~ plain is impaled by ~ls pmj~. ~e Ci~ should r~uire ~e appli~nt to
~b~[n a ~_~n 1~1160~ Ag~m~ ~ ~e Cal~omia Depa~ent of Fish and Game and a Clean Water A~
~p 4~ Fe~. ~m me. ~.~..~y ~s of ~ngip~m, or.~en ~spondence from ~ese agendes
maclang m~ p~[~ ;~.~gmp[ ~ me~ezeqptmmems, fi ~e~n wa;~ A~ S~on 401 Water Quali~ Ce~on
may ~ r~u;ma ~m me ~l ~laom;a ~onal Water Qual~ Co~l ~a~ pdor to issuan~ of ~e Co~s 4~
c:
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: -~- ~:)C:' - ~.~Odl;>
AI'FACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~E O '1~2002',02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center,Staff Report.doc
21
CITY OFTEMECULA
N
Project Site
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
VICINITY MAP
R:~E O T~00'2~2-0322 Ridge Park Office Center,Staff Report.doc
22
CiTY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
IJJESlGNATION - U Light Industrial
.,j j,,. · ·
~~.: :'.':'?.~-~\8 o o o~
','///:
_
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP Business Park
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
R:~E O ~002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
23
CITY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT- D 1
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
SITE PLAN
R:~E 0 T~2.002',02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center'taft Report.doc
24
CITY OF TEMECULA
I
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT - D 2 CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
R:~E 0'r~.0(}2~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
25
CITY OF TEMECULA
PARK
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
R:',E O '1'~2.002',02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
26
CiTY OF TEMECULA
NORTI~ ELEVATI. ON PAD 'A'
SOUTH ELEVATION PAD'K
WEST ELEVATION PAD 'A'
EAST ELEVATION PAD 'A'
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT- F 1
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
ELEVATIONS - 4,600 SQ. FT. BUILDINGI
R:~E O 7~002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
27
CITY OFTEMECULA
NORTH ELEvATIoN PAD 'G' ~ i ~ : ~ ) ,
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT - F 2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
ELEVATIONS - 6,400 SQ. FT. BUILDING
R:~E O T~2002'~02-0322 Ridge Pad( Office Center, Staff Report.doc
28
CITY OFTEMECULA
NORTH ELEVATION PAD 'D'
SOUTH ELEVATION PAD
W~I~T ELEVATION PAD I)'
EAST ELEVATION PAD 'D'
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT -F 3'
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
ELEVATIONS - 7,800 SQ.
R:~E 0 T~2002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center%Staff Report.doc
29
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT- F 4
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
ELEVATIONS - SECTIONS
R:'~E O T~2.002~D2-0322 Ridge park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
30
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT - F 5
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
ELEVATIONS - ACCESSORY
R:~E O T%2002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center~aff Report.doc
31
CITY OF TEMECULA
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN PAD W (4,600
L-~---~--~.
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN PAD 'G' (6.400 8.F~)
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT- G 1 FLOOR PLANS - 4,600 & 6,400 SQ. FT. BUILDINGS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
R:~E O T~2002~02-0322 Ridge Pad4 Office Center.taft Report.dec
32
CITY OFTEMECULA
TYPICAL FLOOR pLAN pAD 17 RRST LEVEL {4.300~.F,)
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN PAD 17 SECOND LEVEL
FIRST LEVEL ELEVATOR TOWER PLAN
SECOND LEVEL ELEVATOR TOWER PI. AN
CASE NO.- PA02-0322
EXHIBIT - G 2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
FLOOR PLANS - 7,800 SQ. FT. BUILDIN(~
R:'~E O ]~002~2-0322 Ridge Park Office Center,Staff Report.doc ,
33
CITY OF TEMECULA
(AS
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT - H 1
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
LANDSCAPE PLANS
R:~E 0 '1~,002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center,Staff Report.doc
34
CITY OF TEMECULA
o
2.00~-j
CASE NO. - PA02-0322
EXHIBIT - H 2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
LANDSCAPE DETAILS~
R:~E O '1'~2002~02-0322 Ridge Park Office Center, Staff Report.doc
35
ITEM #6
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
2.
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 6, 2002
Planning Application No. 02-0473 (Variance)
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0473 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0473, A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 10-FOOT REDUCTION FOR
THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND 2-FOOT REDUCTION FOR THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
AVENIDA DE PASQUAL AND NORTH OF SIERRA BONITA,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-110-019.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Arthur Coltrain, 45338 Clubhouse Drive, Temecula, CA
92592
A Planning Application requesting a Variance to permit a 10-
foot reduction for the rear yard setback and a 2-foot reduction
for the front yard setback.
Located on the east side of Avenida De Pasqual and north of
Sierra Bonita (945-110-019)
L (Low Density Residential)
L-1 (Low Density Residential)
North:
South:
East:
West:
L-1 (Low Density Residential)
L-1 (Low Density Residential)
L-1 (Low Density Residential)
L-1 (Low Density Residential)
Vacant
R:\Vadance~O02~2-0473 Coltrain\Staff Report.doc
1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residence
Single Family Residence
Single Family Residence
Single Family Residence
BACKGROUND
The application was submitted to the Planning Department on August 27, 2002 and the project was
deemed complete on September 26, 2002. Upon deeming the project complete, staff determined
that the project would be scheduled for the November 6, 2002 Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests a Variance that will grant approval to deviate from the required development
code standards for front and rear yard setbacks. The sloped parcel is 62,000 square feet, irregularly
shaped, and has a 15,000 square foot developable pad (25% of lot area) and extensive slopes. The
developable portion of the site is located nearest the south and east property lines with access off of
Avenida De Pasqual. The existing topography includes a natural drainage coume running through
the remaining 47,000 square feet (75% of lot area). In addition to the natural drainage course, the
lot has large steep slopes located to the north of the pad, which makes that area undevelopable.
.~ P~o e~. Prope~L~ne Length Se bacEReqm~d~
Front 220 feet 25 Feet 23 Feet
Rear 261 feet 20 Feet 10 Feet
Side (West) 271 feet 10 Feet 210 Feet
Side (East) 297 feet 10 Feet 162 Feet
Side (South) 176 feet 10 Feet 21 Feet
ANALYSIS
In reviewing the proposal, Staff's analysis focused on whether the required findings could be made
and the potential impact that could occur to the adjoining parcels. The required findings for the
variance are located in Section 17.04.040F of the Development Code.
There are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the code
due to physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared by other
properties in the zone. The subject parcel is a 62,000 square foot irregularly shaped lot of which
only 15,000 square foot of the lot is developable due to extreme topography constraints. The
portion of the site to the north of the pad is a very steep slope with a natural drainage course running
through the area. The pad itself sits approximately 15 feet above the finish grade of the street. The
surrounding property owners have lots that would be considered to be more regular in shape and do
not have similar constraints as it relates to topography. Strict application of the setback
requirements will place undue hardships on the property that the surrounding properties do not
share.
Granting the variance does not provide any special privileges to the property owner. The vadance
will permit the applicant to site their home in a manner more consistent with the existing pad and
topography. The orientation of the home and the reduced setbacks will permit the applicant to build
a home more consistent with the size and scale of the existing neighborhood. The approval of the
variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in
R:\Variance~2002~02-0473 Coltrain\Staff Report.doc
2
the vicinity. Staff has determined that in order for the applicant to site their home toward the roar of
the lot, a substantial amount of grading would be roquired. Staff would not support any substantial
grading to the area north of the existing pad and would requiro minimal disturbance to the natural
terrain. The Community Design Element of the General Plan states, "Sensitive hillside grading and
design for the romaining slope areas in Temecula is essential to proserving the integrity of the
natural environment".
The applicant did not create the cimumstances and characteristics for the variance. The applicant
was not involved in the division of the property, which created the irregularly shaped lot. The shape
of the lot and the topography constraints on the lot has croated the need for the variance. The
project has been conditioned in accordance with requirements of the development code, building
codes and firo codes. The variance does not permit uses, which are not otherwise allowed in the
Low Density Residential Zone (L1). The applicant is only requesting setback variances to build a
single-family residence that is permitted within the zone.
Staff has determined that the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the surrounding
neighbors. The rear property line for the subject parcel is directly adjacent to a tennis court with the
residence at least 75 feet back of the property line. Allowing the applicant to encroach into the roar
yard setback will make it possible for the applicant to site the home in a similar direction as the
property to the rear. Sighting the home in a similar diroction will create a side yard along the roar
property line as opposed to a rear yard facing a side yard. In staff's opinion this would be not only
be beneficial to the applicant, but it is also a benefit to the property owner to the rear. The property
owner to the south would not be adversely affected because the applicant is doubling the required
side yard setback along the south property line. Lastly, due to the grade difference between the
street and the pad the 2-foot setback adjustment at the front property line will not adversely affect
any of the property owners.
Staff can make the required findings necessary to approve the variance for the reduction in the front
and rear yard setbacks. The physical circumstances that exist would requiro in staff's opinion
excessive grading and natural disturbances that would be more detrimental to the surrounding
properties than granting the requested variance.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based
upon staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32- In-Fill
Development Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following
reasons:
The proposed project is consistent with the general plan designation as well as the goals and
policies contained in the general plan.
The project site is less than five acres and is surrounded by single-family residences.
The granting of the variance will allow the applicant to site the proposed home on an existing
pad and will require minimal grading. In the utilization of the previously graded pad it will insure
no impact to endangered or threatened wildlife.
The approval of the variance will not adversely affect the environment specifically as it rolates to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Whether the variance is approved or denied the
applicant will still be permitted to place a single-family structure on the existing lot.
The site will be served by all the requirod utilities and public services.
R:\Variance~002~02-0473 ColtraingStafl Report.doc
3
RECOMMENDATION
The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality, and staff is
recommending approval with the attached Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS-VARIANCE
1. That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict
application of the code due to physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not
shared by other properties in the zone.
There are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the
code due to physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared
by other properties in the zone. Other properties in the zone do not have similartopography
constraints, as does the subject property. The subject property is an irregularly shaped lot
while the surrounding property owners have lots considered to be more regular in shape.
The subject property has at least seventy five percent of its total area that could not be
developed. The natural drainage course and steep slopes have dictated the only logical
area for a single-family residence. Strict application of the code would require the applicant
to execute excessive amounts of grading.
applicant.
The circumstances and characteristics for the variance were not created by the
The applicant did not create the circumstances and characteristics for the variance. The
applicant was not involved in the division of the property, which created the irregularly
shaped lot. The shape of the lot and the topography constraints on the lot has created the
need for the variance.
3. The variance does not grant special privillages, which are not otherwise available to
surronding properties, and will not be detrimental to the 3ublic welfare or to the property of other
person located in the vicinity.
Granting the vadance does not provide any special privileges to the property owner. The
variance will permit the applicant to site their home in a manner more consistent with the
existing pad and topOgraphy. The orientation of the home and the reduced setbacks will
permit the applicant to build a home more consistent with the size and scale of the existing
neighborhood. Theapprovalofthevariancewillnotbedetrlmentaltothepublicwelfareorto
the property of other persons located in the vicinity.
properties.
The variance places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding
The project has been conditioned in accordance with requirements of the development code,
building codes and fire codes.
5. The variance does not permit uses, which are not otherwise allowed in the zone.
The variance does not permit uses, which are not otherwise allowed in the Low Density
ResidentialZone(L1). Theapplicantisonlyrequestingsetbackvariancestobuildasingle-
family residence that is permitted within the zone.
R~Variance~2002~02-0473 Coltrain~taff Report.doc
4
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 15
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
R:\Variance~2002~02-0473 Coltrain\Staff Report.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
R:\Variance~O02~02.0473 Coltrain',Staff Report.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE Cl'l'~
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0473, A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 10-FOOT REDUCTION FOR
THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND 2-FOOT REDUCTION FOR THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
AVENIDA DE PASQUAL AND NORTH OF SIERRA BONITA,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-110-019.
WHEREAS, Arthur Coltrain filed Planning Application No. 02-0473, in accordance with the
City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 02-0473 was processed including, but not limited to
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 02-0473 on
November 6, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 02-0473;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
reference.
The above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
02-0473 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.040. (F) of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of
the code due to physical cimumstances and characteristics of the property that are not
shared by other properties in the zone.
There are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the
code due to physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared
by other properties in the zone. Other properties in the zone do not have similar topography
constraints, as does the subject property. The subject property is an irregularly shaped lot
while the surrounding property owners have lots considered to be more regular in shape.
The subject property has at least seventy five percent of its total area that could not be
developed. The natural drainage course and steep slopes have dictated the only logical
area for a single-family residence. Strict application of the code would require the applicant
to execute excessive amounts of grading.
2. The circumstances and characteristics for the variance were not created by the applicant.
The applicant did not create the circumstances and characteristics for the variance. The
applicant was not involved in the division of the property, which created the irregularly
R:\Variance~002~02-0473 Col~raln~Staff Report.doc
7
shaped lot. The shape of the lot and the topography constraints on the lot has created the
need for the variance.
The variance does not grant special privileges, which are not otherwise available to
surrounding properties, and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of
other person located in the vicinity.
Granting the variance does not provide any special priw'leges to the property owner. The
variance will permit the applicant to site their home in a manner more consistent with the
existing pad and topography. The orientation of the home and the reduced setbacks will
permit the applicant to build a home more consistent with the size and scale of the existing
neighborhood. The approval of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare orto
the property of other persons located in the vicinity.
4. The variance places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding properties.
The project has been conditioned in accordance with requirements of the development code,
building codes and fire codes.
5. The variance does not permit uses, which are not otherwise allowed in the zone.
The variance does not permit uses, which are not otherwise allowed in the Low Density
ResidentialZone(L1). Theapplicantisonlyrequestingsetbackvariancestobuildasingle-
family residence that is permitted within the zone.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. 01-0147 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-
Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following
criteria:
· The proposed project is consistent with the general plan designation as well as the goals
and policies contained in the general plan.
· The project site is less than five acres and is surrounded by single-family residences.
The granting of the variance will allow the applicant to site the proposed home on an
existing pad and will require minimal grading. In the utilization of the previously graded
pad it will insure no impact to endangered or threatened wildlife.
· The approval of the variance will not adversely affect the environment specifically as it
relates to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Whether the variance is approved or
denied the applicant will still be permitted to place a single-family structure on the
existing lot.
· The site will be served by all the required utilities and public services.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 02-0473 for Variance to permit a 10-foot reduction
for the rear yard setback and a 2-foot reduction for the front yard setback located on the east side of
Avenida De Pasqual and north of Sierra Bonita at, known as Assessors Parcel NO. 945-110-019.
The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
R:\Variance~002~02-0473 Coltrain~Staff Report.doc
8
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 6th day of November 2002.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, 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. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular~eeting thereof held on the 6th day of November, 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:Wadance~2002~)2~0473 Coltrain~Staff Report.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE
R:~Variance~O02~02-0473 Coltrain~Staff Report.doc
10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 02-0473 (Variance)
Project Description:
A Variance to permit e 10-foot reduction for the rear yard
setback and a 2-foot reduction for the front yard setback
located on the east side of Avenida De Pasqual and north
of Sierra Bonita.
DIF Category:
Residential
Assessor Parcel No.: 945-110-019
Approval Date:
November 6, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of sixty-four
Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption as provided under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and California Code
of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has
not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, 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
anyof 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 harm less the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
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.
R:\Variance~2002~02-0473 Coltrain~Staff Report.dec
11
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
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.
4. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
' 5. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code. (For building plans submitted prior to November 1, 2002.
Plans submitted for review after November 1, 2002 shall comply with applicable
provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical
Codes; 1999 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy
and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.)
A receipt or cl.earance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
o
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
9. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
10.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
11.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
12.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
13.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
14. Show all building setbacks.
15.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the 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.
R:~Vadance',2002'~02-0473 Coltrain~Staff Report.doc
12
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
FIRE PREVENTION
16.
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
fome at the time of building plan submittal.
17.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division
per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water
system capable of delivering 1500 G PM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour
duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the appreval process to reflect
changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all
information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
18.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department ~ccess read(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)
19.
A minimum 2000 gallon water tank may be used to replace the fire flow and hydrant
requirements above, but must be installed with Fire Prevention Bureau approval.
20.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be thirty-eight (38) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
21.
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
40,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
22.
Prior to building final, ail 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 40,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet, or
a reasonable alternative acceptable to the Fire Department. (CFC sec 902)
23.
Fire Department vehicle access reads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet, single family driveways used as Fire Department Access Roads maybe
twenty (20) feet, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six
(6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
R:Wariance~2002~02-0473 Coltrain~Staff Report.doc
13
24.
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. Temporary
tumarounds shall be provided until the permanent roads are completed. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
25.
The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6)
26.
Pdor 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)
27.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
28.
Approved number or addresses shall be provided on ail new and existing building in such a
position as to be plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall
be of a contrasting color to their background. Single-family residences shall have four (4)
inch numbers as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept ail 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's Signature
Date
Name printed.
R:~Variance~002'~02-0473 Colt~ain~Staff Report.doc
14
ATrACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~Varlance~2002~02-0473 Coltrain~Staff Report.doc
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0473 (Variance)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
VICINITY MAP
R:WaHance~O02~02-0473 Coltrain~Staff Report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - L-1 (Low Densit~ Residential~
ect Site
EXHIBIT C GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - L (Low Density Residential)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0473 (Variance)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
R:WaHance~2002~02-0473 Coltrain~Staff Report.doc
ITEM g7
RECOMMENDA~ON:
1.
2.
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 6, 2002
Planning Application No. 02-0147 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan)
Prepared by: Rick Rush, Associate Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0147 pursuant to Section
15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0147, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A SIXTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH
UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY DESIGNED
AS A MONOPINE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF FOUR
EQUIPMENT CABINETS MOUNTED ON A SIXTY-SIX SQUARE
FOOT PAD LOCATED AT 44501 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-220-004
APPLICATION INFORMATION
AT&T Wireless, Dan Hare
Delta Groups Engineering, Todd Smith
A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to design, construct and
operate a sixty-five foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication
facility designed as a monopine and the installation of four equipment
cabinets mounted on a sixty six square foot pad located at 44501
Rainbow Canyon Road
LOCATION: Located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road
EXISTING ZONING: Public Park & Recreation (PR)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Public Park & Recreation (PR)
South: Public Park & Recreation (PR)
East: Public Park & Recreation (PR)
West: Hillside Residential (HR)
R:\C U P~002~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~,Staff Report.doc
1
GENERAL PLAN: Open Space Recreation (OS)
EXISTING LAND USE: Golf Coume
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Vacant
South: Golf Course
East: Golf Course
West: Vacant
BACKGROUND
The application was submitted to the Planning Department on March 26, 2002. The original
submittal requested a monopole that was not consistent with the Antenna Ordinance. A
Development Review Committee meeting was held on May 23, 2002. At this meeting staff
expressed concerns with the proposed monopole and explained that the antenna would need to be
a stealth design. Also at this meeting staff requested that the applicant provide alternative site
analysis (Letter dated September 17, 2002 has been attached to the staff report as Exhibit F).
The applicant resubmitted revised plans on August 8, 2002. As a part of this resubmittal the
applicant proposed a monopine design in place of the originally proposed monopole. Staff reviewed
the monopine design and requested that the applicant explore further designs options, such as
internalized antennas in a pole. The applicant in a letter dated October 3, 2002, stated that any
other design options would not be able to contain as many antenna panels, thereby necessitating
additional structures. Staff then requested that the applicants revise the monopine design to provide
denser foliage. Upon further modifications to the proposed monopine design, staff concluded that
the design is consistent with the Antenna Ordinance and would be scheduled for the .soonest
available Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIP~ON
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to design, construct and
operate a 65-foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility designed as a monopine with
six sector antennas: The proposed unmanned wireless telecommunication facilitywill be located at
the existing Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course on Rainbow Canyon Road. The intent of this facility is
to provide cellular telephone coverage along the Interstate 15 and the surrounding neighborhood for
AT&T Wireless customers.
The proposed monopine is located nearest to the west property line and south of the existing golf
cart shack for Temecula Creek Inn. The proposed monopine will be located approximately 500 feet
from the northbound emergency lane of Interstate 15. The approximate finish grade of Interstate 15
is 1,050 feet, which is 20 feet above the proposed grade of the monopine. The equipment cabinets
will be located at the base of the monopine mounted on a 66-foot pad area. The applicant is
proposing to install a chain link fence around the equipment cabinets as well as the monopine to
provide security.
ANALYSIS
The proposed monopine has been located in a remote area of the site with limited visibility. The site
however will be visible from vehicles traveling north and south bound on Interstate 15. Staff has
determined that the applicant by location and design has sufficiently mitigated the visibility from
Interstate 15. The monopine has been located approximately 20 feet below the finish grade of
R:~C U F~002~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
2
Interstate 15 and will be located 500 feet from the n~arest portion of the Interstate. The speed of
vehicles will limit the amount of time the monopine will be visible. Dense foliage will be used on the
monopine and the panels will be painted green to match the foliage. The monopine as submitted will
blend in with the existing natural and built surroundings and reduce the visual impacts to the extent
feasible, considering the technological requirements. Tree lines to the east and south, the cart
shack to the north, and the slope to the west adjacent to Intemtate 15 will screen the equipment
cabinets.
The proposed height of the monopine is sixty-five feet as measured from the natural undisturbed
ground surface below the center of the base of the tower to the top of the highest antenna, It has
been determined by the applicants engineer that.sixty-five feet is the minimum height to achieve the
technical coverage necessary to send and receive signals from and to mobile radios. Since radio
transmissions are transmitted through waves it is necessary for these waves to be able to be
transmitted with out interference. The height as proposed will permit the monopine to achieve its
objective of sending and receiving radio signals to mobile units to provide coverage along Interstate
15. Staff does not believe that the proposed height will create any undesirable aesthetic impacts.
Staff has reviewed and determined that the monopine as submitted meets the intent of the general
requirements for visual compatibility as defined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna
Ordinance. Staff can make the required findings necessary to approve a sixty-five foot high-
unmanned wireless telecommunication facility at the proposed location.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act~ Based
on staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32- In Fill Projects)
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons:
· The proposed project is consistent the General Plan policies, as well as the
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance.
· The site has been previously developed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare,
or threatened species.
· The approval of the project will not result in any adverse effects related to traffic, noise, air
quality or water quality.
· The site is currently served by all required utilities and public services.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances,
standards, guidelines, and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in
terms of design and quality, and staff is recommending approval.
FINDINGS
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E)
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development
code.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is
consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the
R:\C U F'~'002~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
3
Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in
the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of
allyard and street setbacks. The monopine as proposed has been designed to blendin with
the surrounding environment. The location of the support facility has been such that it will
not be visible from the public right of way.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as monopine with the antennas
mounted within the foliage of the tree. The proposed monopine is sixty-five feet high and
has been designed to blend with the natural setting. This design and height is consistent
with the existing built and natural environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent
buildings.
The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other
development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the
Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable se~ctions of the Development
Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning
requirements for project loCated within the Public Park and Recreation zoning district.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the
publichealth, safety, andwelfarearesafeguarded. Theprojectasdesignedisinaccessible
and will not be create any concerns for the overall welfare of the community.
The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council.
The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes
and ordinances before the Planning Commission.
Development Plan (17.05.010F)
The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damageorsubstantiallyandunavoidablyinjurefishorwildlifeortheirhabitat. Thereareno
fish, wild life, or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife, or
habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. The project will
not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in
Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
R:~C U P~.002~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report,doc
4
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Open
Space Recreational (OS) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards outlined the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is
therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and
density of the proposed sixty-five foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility
designed as a monopine.
Attachments-
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA02-0147 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 11
Exhibits for PA02-0147 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 17
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
General Plan Map
Site Plan
Elevations
Delta Groups Engineering Letter'date September 17, 2002,
R:~C U P~002~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report,doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
APPROVING PA02-0147
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
R:\C U P~002~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0147, A
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCT A SIXTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH UNMANNED WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY DESIGNED AS A MONOPINE, AND THE
INSTALLATION OF FOUR EQUIPMENT CABINETS MOUNTED ON A
SIXTY-SlX SQUARE FOOT PAD LOCATED AT 44501 RAINBOW
CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-220-
0O4
WHEREAS, Todd Smith, representing Delta Groups Engineering, filed Planning Application
No. 02-0147, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 02-0147 was processed including, but not limited to a
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. 02-0147 on November 6,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 02-0147 subject to the conditions
after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 02-0147 conformed to the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
02-0147 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as
required by Section 17.04.010.E and Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E)
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development
code.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional'use permit is
consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the
Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in
the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of
allyardandstreetsetbacks. Themonopineasproposedhasbeendesignedtoblendinwith
the surrounding environment. The location of the support facility has been such that it will
not be visible from the public dght of way.
R:\C U P~002~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
7
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as monopine with the antennas
mounted within the foliage of the tree. The proposed monopine is sixty-five feet high and
has been designed to blend with the natural setting. This design and height is consistent
with the existing built and natural environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent
buildings.
The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other
development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the
Antenna. Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development
Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning
requirements for project located within the Public Park and Recreation zoning district.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the
public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project as designed is inaccessible
and will not be create any concerns for the overall welfare of the community.
The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council.
The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes
and ordinances before the Planning Commission.
Development Plan (17.05.01 OF)
The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damageorsubstantiallyandunavoidablyinjurefishorwildlifeortheirhabitat. Thereareno
fish, wild life, or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife, or
habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. The project will
not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in
Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
R:\C U P~2002~2-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC',Staff Report.doc
8
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Open
Space Recreational (OS) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards outlined the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is
therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and
density of the proposed sixty-five foot high unmanned wireless telecommunication facility
designed as a monopine.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. 02-0147 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-
Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and meets the following
criteria:
· The proposed project is consistent the General Plan policies, as well as the
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance.
· The site has been previously developed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare,
or threatened species.
· The approval of the project will not result in any adverse effects related to traffic, noise, air
quality or water quality.
· The site is currently served by all required utilities and public services.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 02-0147 (Conditional Use Permit/Development
Plan) to design, construct and operate a sixty-five foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication
facility designed as a monopine and the installation of four equipment cabinets mounted on a sixty
six square foot pad located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 6th day of November 2002.
A'I-rEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\C U P~2.002~2-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
9
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. 2002- was duly and regularly ad~o~ted by the Planning commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6 day of November, 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~C U P'G.002~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA02-0147 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:~C U P~?.OO2',D2-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
11
EXHIBIT A
ClTY OFTEMECULA
CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL
Planning Application No: 02-0147 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan)
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to design,
construct and operate a sixty-five foot high-unmanned
wireless telecommunication facility designed as a
monopine and the installation of four equipment cabinets
mounted on a sixty six square foot pad located at 44501
Rainbow Canyon Road
DIF Category:
Exempt
Assessor's Parcel No: 922-220-004
Approval Date:
November 6, 2002
Expiration Date:
November 6, 2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of sixty-four
Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption as provided under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and California Code
of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has
not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, 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
R:~C U P~2002~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
12
of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly
notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify,
defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit,
the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant.
All conditions shall be complied with pdor to any occupancy or use allowed by this
conditional use permit.
This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is .thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), and E (Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development
Department- Planning Division.
The Planning Director may administratively approve any future co-located antenna panels, in
conformance with this application.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
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.
10.
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.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
11. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
12.
A maintenance/facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease the
will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be
complied with, shall be signed by the applicant shall be submitted to the Planning Director.
The agreement shall be in accordance with section 17.40.210 of the ordinance and comply
with all provisions set forth in this section.
Prior to Final Occupancy
13.
The applicant shall be required to schedule an inspection to insure that the monopine and
antennas were installed in accordance with the approved plans.
R~C U P~200Z,02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC'~Staff Report.doc
13
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
14.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
15.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 855 for the'regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
16.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
17.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
18. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
19.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
20.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
21.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
22.
Provide, if applicable, electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule,
plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
23.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
24. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
25.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
26.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
27. Show all building setbacks.
28.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the 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.
R:\C U P~2002\02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.dcc
14
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
FIRE DEPARTMENT
29.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau
reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California
Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in fome at
the time of building, plan submittal.
30.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall maintain 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)
31.
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
32.
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)
33.
During building construction, all locations where structures are to be built or altered shall
maintain approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent
roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
sbdace for 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
34.
During remodeling and/or addition construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS will
be maintained in working order and up to their original design and performance
specifications.
35.
36.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902;4)
Provide a 2A: 10BC fire extinguisher inside each building or temporary structure on the site..
37.
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)
38.
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)
R:',C U P~9.002',0243147 Antenna Tower O TC'~Staff Report.doc
15
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
39.
The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
40.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated April 11, 2002 from the Rancho
California Water District.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have mad, 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 Printed Name
Applicant Signature
R:\C U P'2002~2-O147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
16
April 11, 2002
Rick Rush, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
AT&T WIRELESS ANTENNA ARRAY
A PORTION OF LOT 28, MAP BOOK 11, PAGE 507
APN 922-220-031
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0147
Dear Mr. Rush:
Please be advised that the above-referenced project is located adjacent to the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District). RCWD
operatesl~ existing two-way radio system in the immediate vicinity of this site.
· The 'District requests that the developer assure RCWD that there will not be any
interference between the proposed project and the District's operation of its
equipment.
should have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerelv,_
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
02~SB:at063W012-T I'd:CF
Craig Elith.arp, Water Operations Managei
Paul Gonzalez, General Services Manager
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:\C U P~02~2-0147 Antenna Tower @ TCLStaff Report. doc
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0147
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- November 6, 2002
VICINITY MAP
· R:\C U ~2~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
Public park & Recreation (PR)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - Open Space Recreational (OS)
CASE NO. - PA02-0147
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
R:~C U P',2002',02~)147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
19
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0147
EXHIBIT - D
- November 6, 2002
SITE PLAN
R'.~C U P'G.00LA02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~taff Report.doc
2O
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. -PA02-0147
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 6, 2002
R:\C U P~2002'~02-0147 Antenna Tower @ TC~Staff Report.doc
21
Delta Groups Engineering, Inc.
Plaza Suite 1400, Irvine, CA 92614
Tel.: (949) 622-0333 Fax: (949) 622-0331
September 17, 2002
Rick Rush
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 02589-9033
Re: PA 02-147, AT&T Wireless at 44501 Rainbow Cyn Rd.
Dear Rick,
In response to our conversations and your letter received on September 9,2002, I am providing
some background information regarding the site selection process relating to our proposed
project referenced above.
Upon issuance of the search area outlined by AT&T Wireless, our site acquisition team began
searching for "viable candidates" or locations that meet the overall objectives of wireless site
development. It should be noted that the objectives are as follows:
· Lease Term viability: Finding a site that a reasonable lease agreement can be formed.
· Land Use compatibility: Finding a location that meets the standards of the city as
outlined in zoning ordinances and policies, as well as the site of lowest impact on the
community.
· Construction viability: Finding a site that can be built in a feasible, Iow impact way.
· Radio Frequency Network needs: Finding a site that will provide the necessary signal
propagation for the network.
The site first identified was located at 30025 Old Town Front Street. This is an existing tower
that would meet the aforementioned criteria very well. The problem here was two fold. First,
We had extreme difficulty getting in contact with the owner, Regency Properties. They seemed
to be out of business or in hiding. Second, there seemed to be compliance issues at that site that
created significant obstacles for future development.
Next we found the location that is eurrendy under review. This site met the aforementioned
criteria very well also. The relative obscurity of the location in a gully beside the freeway on the
outskirts cfa golf course is ideal. When we are able to fred such a secluded location that meets
the needs of thc all aspects of development we stop looking. Hence, no other sites are noted.
It should be noted that aside from the excellent location, we incorporated other elements into the
design. At staff's request we reduced the number of antennae fi'om 12 to 6 thereby reducing the
size of the array. We also designed it as a pine tree to better hide it from view. This works well
Irvine · Pleasanton · Sacramento · Portland · Phoenix · Salt Lake City · Chicago · Odando · Dallas · Memphis · Charlotte
Neme
Date
Page 2 of 2
as there are trees in the background that provide a blending effect. The only place the tower
can be seen is l~om the freeway and at that point people are not looking off the road and are
traveling generally at 70mph.
It is my hope that you will see the good faith effort to locate in an optimum location and
minimize the impact to the greatest extent possible in this case.
Sincerely,
Todd M. Smith
Delta Groups Engineering, Inc.
Representing, AT&T Wireless
C:\Documents and Settings~rushr~.ocal SettJngs\Temp\Site Candidate Justification.doc