HomeMy WebLinkAbout040407 PC Agenda
..
LU
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444.
Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
April 4, 2007 - 6:00 P.M.
********
Next in Order:
Resolution No. 07-13
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
Chairman Chiniaeff
RollCall:
Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio
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 salmon colored
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission
Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members
of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of February 21, 2007
1.2 Approve the Minutes of March 7, 2007
A:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2007\04-04-07.doc
1.3 Approve the Minutes of March 14, 2007
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the
project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or
in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an
appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days
after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning
Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
New Items
2 Plannina Aoolication No. PA006-0325. a first Extension of Time. submitted bv DR Horton,
for a oreviouslv aporoved Develooment Plan for 98 detached sin<;Jle-familv homes. located in
Planninq Area 1A of the Rorip~uah Soecific Plan south of Murrieta Hot Sorinas Road and
west of the future extension of Butterfield Staae Road. Dana Schuma. Associate Planner.
3 Plannina Aoolication No. PA07-0035. a Maior Modification. submitted bv AI Burahard of
BDG Architects. to renovate the exterior of a 97.737 sauare foot industrial buildina includinq
addina cornices. window framina, faux columns. ornamental fascia and decorative entrance
arcades with stone base oillars. located at 28780 Sinale Oak Drive. Betsv Lowrev. Junior
Planner.
4 Planninp Aqolication No. PA06-0002. a Tentative Tract Mal? submitted bv Ashbv USA. to
subdivide 11.5 aross acres into 18 lots 114 sinale-familv residential lots and four ooen soace
lots) within Plannina Area 33A of the Rorioauah Soecific Plan. aenerallv located on the
south side of Nicholas Road. at the future intersection of Nicolas Road and Butterfield Staae
Road. Matt Peters. Associate Planner.
5 Plannina Aoolication Nos. PA05-0365 and PA07-0061. a Develoornent Plan and Minor
Exceotion. submitted bv the YMCA. to construct and ooerate a 26.100 sauare foot YMCA
building within a 0.66 acre lease area of a 20.23 acre site and to increase the maximum
heiflht limit from 35 feet to 40 feet for the YMCA buildina. located at 29119 Maraarita Road.
Dale West. Associate Planner.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
A:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2007lO4-04-Q7.doc
2
ITEM #1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 21, 2007
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on
Wednesday, February 21, 2007, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute.
!lOLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners: Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Greg Krzys, Temecula, queried on the public hearing process.
For Mr. Krzys, Chairman Chiniaeff stated that if issues raised by speakers at a public hearing
are not adequately addressed or if a speaker is not satisfied with the action taken, the speaker
may address the City Council through the appeal process.
PUBLIC HEARING
1 Plannina Aoolication No PA06-0293. a Develooment Plan and Conditional Use Permit.
submitted bv Forest City Commercial Develooment. to exoand the Promenade Mall bv
125.950 sauare feet with an outdoor Iife-stvle main street shoooino center and construct two
oarkina structures. located between Edwards Cinema and Macv's
Associate Planner Peters provided a PowerPoint Presentation, highlighting on the following:
o Development Plan
o Site Design
o Circulation and Parking
o Architecture
o Landscaping
o Conditional Use Permit - Parking Structures
o Specific Considerations
o Environmental Determination
A:\MinulesPCI022107
For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Peters advised that the proposed expansion
would result in a temporary loss of surface parking spaces; however, these spaces would be
regained through the construction of the two proposed parking structures; and that as a result of
the expansion, an excess of 153 parking spaces will be provided on-site.
Associate Planner Kitzerow noted that the architectural elevations for the retail and restaurant
buildings as well as the mall entrances (new and existing remodels), and four-sided elevations
of the parking structures will be brought to the Planning Commission for review and
consideration.
Commissioner Guerriero requested that more architecture be added to the four-sided
elevations; and that more landscaping be installed on the proposed project. Commissioner
Guerriero noted that due to liability issues, he would request that a fountain be installed for the
expansion rather than bubblers.
In response to Commissioner Carey's query, Associate Planner Peters advised that surface
parking areas affected by this expansion will be required to meet the Specific Plan (SP)
requirement of 50% shading of the parking areas by trees.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, City Attorney Thorson relayed that the east parking structure will be
constructed as a public parking structure under Community Facilities funding; that the west
parking structure will be constructed by the Promenade Mall without any public financial
support.
Associate Planner Peters noted that the proposed fire place would be a gas fire place used for
gatherings and will not be used for cooking.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that it would be the Planning Commission's purview to
change the Approval Date of two years to three years to be consistent with the Development
Agreement.
Associate Planner Kitzerow advised that Condition of Approval No. 10 would be a standard
Condition of Approval imposed on all projects.
With regard to Condition of Approval No. 16, Assistant City Manager Johnson informed that
parking for the project shall be integrated across the site.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's query with regard to Condition of Approval No. 83, Director
of Public Works Hughes noted that the Condition would refer to aligning the intersection; but
that the alignment may occur on the Bel Viii agio side not on the site development plan side;
that the City agreed to work in partnership with Bel Villagio to ensure that the middle access
road from Bel Villagio to the Main Street road line-up; that Bel Villagio would be interested in
carrying through the Main Street theme from the mall to its site which will work to the advantage
of both projects; that in the event that staff would not be able to work out the arrangement with
Bel Villagio, the alternative would be to restrict both driveways to right-in, right-out only, noting
that this would not be staff's preference.
A:\MinutesPCI022107
2
Understanding Director of Public Works Hughes' comment regarding realigning the middle
access road from Bel Villagio to Main Street, Chairman Chiniaeff would be of the opinion that
the condition should changed to reflect that it be completed before the grading permit of the first
project.
Recognizing the applicant's and City's goal to acquire the permits in a timely manner, Director of
Public Works Hughes stated that it would be staff's opinion that staff will be successful in
attaining the alignment accomplished on the Bel Villagio side; and that in the event that staff
were not able to accomplish this, the median restricting the right-in, right-out would be sufficient
access for both sides; that the mall recognizes that this may be a possibility if staff is not be able
to work out the arrangement but that requiring the commitment of the prior to building permits
would put a burden on the project; and reiterated that it would City's goal to align the
intersections.
Director of Public Works Hughes also advised that the City will be entering into a binding
agreement with Forest City to address the entire ring-road and all the entrances into the ring-
road of the mall site; advising that this will be a separate agreement from the action tonight; that
once the traffic enhancement plan is developed, staff and Forest City will be working with third
parties to get their concurrence for implementation; informing that the ring-road has numerous
improvements which staff intends to implement; that the City will have a binding contract with
Forest City to pay for and ensure its implementation; that the City will be participants with Forest
City in developing the plan and negotiating the various approvals of other third parties to gain
approval of these improvements; that the improvements to the ring-road will be a total and
comprehensive plan; and that it would be the City's intention to have the plan completed
(December 2007) before building permits are pulled.
Offering clarification, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that tonight's proposal would be to
approve the applicant's Development Plan which would consider the ring-road; that according to
studies and the projected volumes, they have already been accommodated for in the original
specific plan; that the applicant has provided an updated traffic analysis to ensure that that this
would be the case; that there were no mitigation measures that were directly related to this
expansion; and that the applicant volunteered to take care of the operational enhancements on
the ring-road by a separate agreement.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's query regarding a park and ride area, Associate Planner
Peters stated that the applicant will be providing 75 park and ride spaces on the upper level of
the east parking garage; that at the request of the developer and approval of the City, these
spaces may be relocated from time to time within the mall complex; and that the spaces will be
striped prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Per PowerPoint Presentation, Mr. Kenneth Lee, representing Forest City Commercial
Development, highlighted the following (as per staff report):
o Vicinity Map
o Background
o Project Description
o Access/Circulation
o Architecture
o Site Design
A:\MinulesPC1022107
3
o Landscaping
o Vision of Districts
o Lighting Concepts
o Security.
To help create movement with regard to parking on the ring-road, Commissioner Telesio
suggested that parking on the ring-road be limited to one to two hours at a time.
Mr. Lee also noted that a tenant hand book will be created for tenants that will specify criteria
tenants must meet to be consistent with the City's Design Guidelines.
For Commissioner Carey, Mr. Lee noted the following:
o That the east and west parking structures will be completed in two phases
o That the applicant would be hopeful to have the project completed by October, 2008
o That it would be his opinion that the City's curfew would be 10:00 p.m.
o That the drop off area will be relocated to Plan east (Red Robin)
o That construction times will be enforced through the City's ordinance.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Lee noted that the applicant will consider changing the
bubblers to above-ground fountains.
With regard to valet parking, Mr. Lee noted that valet parking will be located in the exterior court.
The applicant stated that loading/service areas are proposed behind Buildings A, B, C, and D
and will likely take place in the early morning.
Mr. Lee ensured Chairman Chiniaeff that all improvements of the ring-road will be in place
before the expansion opens; and stated that the applicant will be actively working with adjacent
property owners to ensure road improvements.
At 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission took a 1 O-minute break and reconvened at 8:10p.m.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
The following individuals spoke aoainst the proposed mall expansion:
o Mr. Greg Krzys, Temecula
o Mr. Mark Broderick, Temecula
o Mr. Bob Darrah, Temecula
o Mr. Roberts Jennings, Temecula,
o Mr. Glenn Gritzner, Temecula
o Mr. Richard Fox, Temecula
o Mr. Andrew Doty, Temecula
A:\MinulesPCI022107
4
The above-mentioned individuals spoke against the project for the following reasons:
o That the proposed project does not adequately address California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) issues regarding cumulative traffic or direct traffic impacts for Level of
Service (LOS) at any of the major intersections
o That the Main Street proposal will encourage loitering amongst the City's youth
o That the parking structures would be too tall and would be aesthetically unpleasing to
the adjacent businesses
o That the parking structures will encourage criminal activity
o That if parking structures were necessary, fulltime security should be patrolling the
parking structures at all times
o That there would be a concern on where construction workers will be parking during the
day
o That the trip generation and trip distribution numbers would be a concern
o That Power Center 1 would be in favor of a curb cut along the ring-road
o That Power Center 1 would be desirous of re-striping Campos Verdes
o That a follow-up traffic study or monitoring would be desirable after a year of the
expansion to ensure that the projects trip generation and trip distribution amongst the
various roads leading into the property are adequate
o That the only individuals that will benefit from the project would be the developers, not
the citizens of Temecula
o That there would be no need for an expansion
o That the naming of Main Street would not be appropriate due to the already existing
Main Street in Old Town
o That safety concerns would be a great concern.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Addressing some of the concerns, Director of Public Works Hughes noted the following;
o That the City will have a binding agreement with Forest City to address the entire ring-
road and all issues with regard to safety ingress, removing confusion of the entrance
roads, and pedestrian access
o That there will be traffic calming devices installed
o That if Main Street becomes a problem with traffic congestion, it could be closed off at
high peak times
o That current deficiencies with the ring-road are expected to be corrected
o That staff is working with the property owner of Power Center 1 to correct road
deficiencies
o That currently there is a much more superior circulation system than was ever
anticipated in the original Development Plan
o That there are 13 more traffic movements in the mall vicinity than was anticipated at the
time the mall study was performed
o That an applicant for Bel Villagio performed an updated traffic study to show that its
project would be consistent with the original plan; that not only were the counts
consistent with the original plan, the daily trips were sufficiently less than the projections
o That the project would be consistent with the original plan and that staff would support
this position; and confirmed that the City is committed to mitigating traffic.
A:\MinulesPCI022107
5
Agreeing with Director of Public Works Hughes, City Attorney Thorson advised that the mall
project would be subject to a Development Agreement; that the Development Agreement was
extended in September 2006; that tonight the issue before the Planning Commission would be
the design of the mall expansion, not any environmental findings; advising the City has diligently
worked to acquire County funding of traffic improvements as a result of developments along
Winchester Road which will relieve traffic on Winchester Road.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that the traffic analysis
demonstrated that 16% of trips use Campos Verdes versus North General Kearney although it
would have more incoming lanes than Campos Verdes; that although the Main Street lines up
with Campos Verdes, staff would be of the opinion that it would not be used as main entrances
to the mall.
Mr. Lee reemphasized the following:
o That if Main Street were to become too congested, it may be closed off
o That there will be traffic calming devices installed on Main Street
o That the applicant will ensure that all safety issues are addressed
o That security in the parking structure would be paramount
o That construction parking and traffic will be adhered to as specified in the City's
ordinance
o That the proposed parking structures would be consistent with the surrounding uses and
will not adversely impact the existing building or uses
o That property management and the City would determine when Main Street should be
closed.
Director of Public Works Hughes noted that currently the City does not have enforcement ability
to close the ring-road or Main Street, but that the City, and the Police Department have had
discussion as to methods of enforcing traffic control on the ring-road; and that it could be future
possibility that the City Council may adopt a resolution that would allow the City to enforce the
Vehicle Code on the ring-road.
Mr. Jeff Kurtz, representing the applicant, noted that he would not be opposed to the Police
Department and City having some authority to enforce the Vehicle Code within the ring-road
and
Main Street.
City Attorney Thorson advised that an ordinance has been drafted that would allow the City the
ability to enforce the ring-road and Main Street but would be awaiting the completion of the ring-
road enhancements.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Referencing traffic on the ring-road, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he would be confident
that the proposed improvements will mitigate the concerns expressed by residents; that he
would be hopeful that Main Street does not become a parking lot; and that overall he would be
in favor of the proposed mall expansion.
A:\MinutesPCI022107
6
Noting that tonight's proposal would be on the design element and not the ring-road,
Commissioner Harter noted that he would be in favor of the project; advising that he has seen a
Main Street concept at other malls and that it works well.
Commissioner Guerriero noted that the services that will be provided by the mall expansion will
benefit the City as a whole; that he would be in favor of the proposal; but, would request that the
parking structures be enhanced with art work; and that water features be considered rather than
bubblers.
Echoing previously made comments, Commissioner Carey noted that he would be in favor of
the proposed project but expressed some concern with the entrance to the Cinema becoming
too congested.
Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the would also be in favor of the project, noting that it will be a
benefit to the community and that he would be hopeful that a subcommittee could be formed to
discuss the mall in more detail; that he would request that Condition of Approval No. 83 be
changed to state that the design to realign the middle access road from Bel Villagio to the Main
Street be completed prior to grading permit rather than building permit.
Offering more information, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that currently, the City is
working on a second agreement between Bel Villagio and Forest City to resolve the alignment;
that if staff were to require the applicant to make improvements before grading permit, it would
not create a good negotiating environment for staff to gain success for the alignment installation.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she would be willing to amend the following Conditions
of Approval:
o That Condition of Approval No. 6 be changed to state that the approval shall be used
within three years versus two years
o That Condition of Approval Nos. 10 and 11 be combined
o That Condition of Approval No. 12 be changed to impose that the plan for fa<;:ade
improvements and signage modifications to the existing mall buildings/signs for the
review and approval be made by the Planning Commission, not the City.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation subject to the
amended changes to Condition Nos. 6, 10, 11, and 12 as a stated above. Commissioner Harter
seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimol~s aooroval.
A:\MinutesPCI022107
7
PC RESOLUTION NO 07-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA06-0293, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO EXPAND THE
PROMENADE MALL BY 126,000 SQUARE FEET WITH AN
OUTDOOR LIFE-STYLE MAIN STREET SHOPPING CENTER
CONSISTENT WITH SQUARE FOOT ALLOWED IN THE
TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO PARKING GARAGES,
FOR THE PROMENADE MALL ADDRESSED AS 40820
WINCHESTER ROAD
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
No additional comments.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske introduced newly hired Principal Planner Patrick Richardson.
The Planning Commission welcomed Mr. Richardson to the Planning Department.
P.DJOURNMENT
At 9:10 pm, Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned to March 7. 2007 at 6:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis Chiniaeff
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
A:\MinutesPClO22107
8
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 7, 2007
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on
Wednesday, March 7, 2007, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Harter led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners: Harter, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent:
Carey and Guerriero.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No additional comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of February 7, 2007.
MOTION: Commissioner Harter moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected aDDroval with the exception of
Commissioner's Carey and Guerriero who were both absent.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
New Items
2 Plannina AooUcation No. PA07-0052. A Minor Modification. submitted bv Charlene Kussner
reoresentinp Gallerv Homes. to aoorove an existina 10 foot hiah block wall/retainina wall
alona Rancho Vista Road for the Dreviouslv aooroved Gallery Portraits. a 10 lot sinale-familv
home develooment. located at the southeast corner of Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road
Associate Planner Damko provided a PowerPoint Presentation, highlighting on the following:
o Location
o Analysis
A:\MinulesPCI030707
o Existing Conditions
o Environmental Determination.
At this time, the public hearing was opened, and due to no speakers, it was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner
Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected aDDroval with the exception of
Commissioner's Carey and Guerriero who were both absent.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA07-0052, A MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPROVE THE
RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING 10 FOOT HIGH BLOCK
WALURETAINING WALL ALONG RANCHO VISTA
3 Plannina Aoglication No. PA006-0140, a Develooment Plan and Minor Exceotion. submitted
bv Joseoh Orloff of Interactive Architects. to construct a 13.500 sauare foot. two-storY
medical buildina on .86 acres and to reduce the number of reauired oarkina soaces bv three
soaces. from 45 soaces reauired to 42 orovided.. located aOQroximatelv 450 feet west of
Interstate 15 and aooroximatelv 1200 feet north of Hiahwav 79 South iust south of Old Town
Temecula
Per Power Presentation, Assistant Planner Le Comte, noted the following:
o Location
o General Plan
o Background
o Analysis
o Parking/Circulation
o Architecture
o Landscaping
o Environmental Determination
o Revised Resolution.
Although he would be in favor of the proposed project, Commissioner Telesio expressed some
concern with future developers desiring to build larger buildings than was would be allowable
with regard to Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Joseph Orloff, representing the applicant, stated the following:
o That Flood Control District bought the easement from the property owner
o That the enhanced walkway leading into the building will be open during operating hours
and closed at night
o That the applicant would be willing up the size of the boxed trees to 24 inches.
A:\MinulesPCI030707
2
Mr. Greg Krzys, Temecula, queried on how the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
documents would address traffic impacts around the City as well as the Level of Service (LOS)
at the intersection of 15 and 70 South.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
For Mr. Krzys, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the General Plan addressed the traffic that
would be generated from development properties in this area; and the Capital Improvement
Program for the City will be enhancing the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of 15 and
South 79.
With respect to Commissioner Telesio's concern, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that a
project would be able to exceed a target FAR 15%.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staff recommendation subject to the
applicant increasing the size of boxed trees to 24 inch boxes. Commissioner Harter seconded
the motion and voice vote reflected aDDrova.1 with the exception of Commissioner's Carey and
Guerriero who were both absent.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA06-0140, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A
13,500 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY MEDICAL OFFICE
BUILDING ON.9 ACRES; AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA07-0055, A MINOR EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE NUMBER
OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, LOCATED AT OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE
OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 1,900
FEET SOUTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD (922-110-042).
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
Commissioner's Harter and Telesio volunteered to work on an ad-hoc committee for the Marie
Callender's.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORl:
For the Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the Pat and Oscar's will be
replacing its awning and will not be painting.
A:\MinutesPCI030707
3
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:35 pm, Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned to March 14. 2007 at 6:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis Chiniaeff
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
A:\MinutesPCl030707
4
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 14, 2007
~ALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on
Wednesday, March 14, 2007, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Carey led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners: Guerriero, Carey, Harter, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No additional comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Director's Hearina Case Uodate
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Receive and File Director's Hearing Update for February.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aooroval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Old Town Civic Center Conceotual Desian Presentation
Per PowerPoint Presentation, Principal Planner Brown highlighted on the following:
o Existing Site Plan
o Proposed Site Plan
o Architecture.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
For the Commission, Mr. Principal Planner Brown noted that to keep the Civic Center the Main
focus, the parking structure will not be as ornate as the proposed Civic Center.
A:\MinutesPCI031407
Referencing the parking structure, Commissioner Telesio noted that it would be his opinion that
by having some continuity between the parking structure and the Civic Center which would add
to the mass of the structure rather than reducing the architectural features as proposed in staff
report; and that although he would be in full support of the Civic Center and its architectural
elements, he would be desirous of enhancing the parking structures architectural elements.
Principal Planner Brown noted that he will take his comments back to the architect of the
proposed Civic Center.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that the project would not
be very far along and that the type of concrete for the parking structure has not been
determined.
In response to Commissioner Harter's query, Principal Planner Brown noted that as part of the
leasing agreement, the occupants of the buildings will be provided with the City's Design
Guidelines that they must adhere to; and that its product review would return to the Planning
Commission for final approval.
Commissioner Carey noted that it would also be his desire to upgrade the parking structure with
more architectural elements.
For the Planning Commission, Assistant City Manager Johnson noted that the Commission's
comments will be forwarded to the architect.
Speaking in favor of the proposed project, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that he would have a
concern with replacing the large cement area center in the plaza area with grass, noting that if
the plaza area is intended to be used as a gathering place for concerts and such that it would be
beneficial to leave it as cement rather than grass.
Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that staff look at Civic Center in San Francisco, noting that they
have been able to break up the open space with a variety of trees which provides for the shade
that is needed yet retaining the area as a public gathering place.
It was also suggested by Chairman Chiniaeff that an integration of a pedestrian bridge from
Rancho Highlands to the Old Town area be considered; and also requested that the architecture
on the parking structure from the freeway side be enhanced.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Principal Planner Brown noted that Main Street heading westbound has
not been determined at this time and will be addressed sometime in the future as the project
moves forward.
Assistant City Manager Johnson advised the Commission that opportunies to visit other Civic
Centers will be offered in the near future.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
No additional comments.
A:\MinutesPClO31407
2
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that a field trip for the Planning Commission will take
place on Monday, April 9, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. to visit other Civic Centers throughout the County.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:30 pm, Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned to Aoril 4. 2007 at 6:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis Chiniaeff
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
A:\MinutesPCI031407
3
ITEM #2
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission
Dana Schuma, Associate Planner
April 4, 2007
SUBJECT:
Planning Application No. PA06-0325 (Extension of Time for Planning Area 1A of
Roripaugh Ranch)
Planning Application No. PA06-0325, submitted by DR Horton, is a request for the first one-year
Extension of Time for a previously approved Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA04-
0133.
Planning Application No. PA04-0133 is a Home Product Review application for 98 detached
single-family homes within Planning Area 1A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, located
south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road
(Tract 29661-1 ).
The Planning Commission approved Planning Application PA04-0133 on November 3, 2004.
The expiration of this approval was November 3, 2006. Pursuant to Section 17.05.01 OH of the
Development Code, the applicant filed an Extension of Time application on October 31, 2006
prior to the expiration date of the original approval. No changes to the originally approved
project are proposed.
An Extension of Time has been requested because the Roripaugh Ranch master developer has
not completed all requirements per the approval of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, EIR, and
Development Agreement required prior to the issuance of building permits.
LEGAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on March 24, 2007 and mailed to
the property owners within the required six hundred (600) foot radius.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the proposed Extension of Time, as conditioned, is consistent with the
City's General Plan, Development Code, Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, and all applicable
ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the Extension of Time, PA06-0325, based upon the findings and with the
attached conditions of approval.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0325 Castillo @ Rori Ranch OP Hm Prod Review Ex! of TimeIPlanning\MEMO 10 PC.doc
1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map - Slue Page 3
2. Roripaugh Ranch Planning Area Map - Slue Page 4
3. PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 3. 2004- Blue Page 6
5. Notice of Public Hearing - Slue Page 7
G:\Planning\2006IPA06-Q325 easlillo @ Ron Ranch DP Hm Prod Review Ex! of Time\Planning\MEMO to PC.doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q325 Castillo @ Rori Ranch OP Hm Prod Review Ex! of TimeIPlanning\MEMO to PC.doc
3
\
-I
I
.-
--
j
~
O() 1.160
=.- _fOlJI
i
ATTACHMENT NO.2
RORIPAUGH RANCH PLANNING AREA MAP
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q325 Castillo @ Ror; Ranch OP Hm Prod Review Ext of lime\Planning\MEMO to PC.doc
4
U._~ll~~.llr.
l~GEOJD
LAND USE CODE ACRES DEIIISIlY Llt<ITS
D LOW DENSl1"l' RESIDENTIAL , 99.5 1.27 "
CJ LOW OENS1T'l' 'E.S"TATES ,.. '.1 1.1 "
o LOW MEDIUM DENSITY ReSIOE.NTlAL 'M 196.8 ... ..5
D MED. DENSllY RES. MI 21.5 5.1 122
[::) UED. DENSIlY RES. (Court~.(d\ MZ 88.9 ... ."
_ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIA.~ NC 15.4
_ NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NP 5.1
.. SPORTS PARK 5P 19.7
_ PRlVATEMlWIPl\RK M' .3
_ I"RIVATE RECREATION CENTER RC '.2
_ EDUCATIONALJSchools) 51.52 32.0
. PUBLIC INSTIT TIONAL (FIre SIIUOI'I) P' ,.
mHAElITl\T 051 202.7
_ FLOOD CONTROL 052 'J7.7
!!'m LANDSCAPE. OS3 23.5
PU6UC STREETS :)5.4-
PRIVATE STREETS ...
GRAND TOTAL 807,0 2.' l.01S
lEGE/.Itl
E3 Clt)'1 County Boundary ~ PetlestriIJn8rldi/e
rn. ~..
....-
i} 7"-
Horipaugh ~Hallch
,.
FIGURE 2-1
A.t.
, ..
, "
, "
, "
/1" NAP
:' 338
" *Qa:I
I /1 ~4C\
,I It:M'2:.cr, : i'
!,
"
//.
Cr
CO
0-
0.>
l/)
=>
'01
d
ctli
...J I
"0'
0.>1
l/)l
o
0-
e
0-
I
e\,llll ~____
---......,. -----
I-.~~.
~
..
U~
1'.tAC)
,
*21 ~~~
~---_. '~-..r"~.~.~~~__
NOlet;
. A 15' wide mllm'II" tnI.II J,locIIlecI In Planning Areas 19. 20.nd 2' 'dJe~nllo Ill" P/'Operty I>cxlnd81'y.
. P1ll1lnlng...,.... 19 _nd 20 wI! h..... 1.0 aaw mInlnwm loIa .dJetenllo!he P'0PI'rt( POlll'ldll)'
al'l((20.000",. f\. mlI"oIn'IWrlm~tob 1.D IlCf'tlotl.
. ptlnnlrlgArq 21 w. N1v_1.BacremlnlmUmlols_djacentlDthe pl"DPllty ltoundlll)'
and 2O,OOOsq, It. mlnlmumloll_d)acent 10 the 1.._cr.IDIa.
F1lIMlnQ Ar...14 lhrough 18 aMI bamlpped togel1ll to enaure
_daqual8~d"".CClu.
. PlatmlnlllArn 33A Ill" h.vI 1 acre minimum loIIlKIlKent to \1\0 \/HIltun bauntl...,.
and 1J2.crllolawllrywhtre"",
-:-'\
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION 07-_
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q325 Castillo @ Rori Ranch DP Hm Prod Review Ex! of Time\PlanninglMEMO to PC.doc
5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA06-0325, THE FIRST ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0133, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 98 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1A OF THE
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD (TR29661-1)
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On November 26, 2002, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and
certified an Environmental Impact Report (PA94-0076), a General Plan Amendment (PA99-
0298), the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (PA94-0075), a Change of Zone (PA94-0075), a
Development Agreement (PA99-0299) and Tentative Tract Maps 29661 (PA01-0253) and
29353 (PA01-0230).
B. On November 3, 2004, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application
No. PA04-0133, a Development Plan for 98 single family homes.
C. On January 11, 2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved
Tentative Tract Map 32004 (PA04-0369) and Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No.1
(PA04-0371) to change Planning Area 7B from Open Space (OS) to Low Medium Residential
(LM), Planning Area 10 from Low Density Residential (L) to Low-Estate Residential (L-E), and
make other changes to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
D. On February 28, 2006, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No.2 (PA05-0341) to change the land use
designation for Planning Area 33B from Low Density Residential (L) to Open Space (OS) to
accommodate park and ride and trail head uses, and to relocate the park and ride facility from
Planning Area 11 to Planning Area 33B.
E. On October 31, 2007, DR Horton filed Planning Application No. PA06-0325
(Extension of Time) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code.
F. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
G. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and
environmental review on April 4, 2007 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.
H. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA06-0325 subject to and based
upon the findings set forth hereunder.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0325 Castillo @ Ron Ranch DP Hm Prod Review Ext ofTime\PIanning\Draft Reso.doc
I
I. Al1legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application
hereby finds, determines and declares that:
Development Plan (17.05.01 O.F)
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinance of the City;
The project is consistent with the General Plan, the Developmenf Code, and Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan because the projecf has been designed in a manner that it is
consistenf with the applicable pOlicies and standards for residential development. The
proposed single family residential use and density is permitted in the Low Medium
Density land use designafion standards contained in the General Plan, Roripaugh Ranch
Specific Plan, and Development Code. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as
conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential development
proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable
requirements of Sfate law and local ordinances, including the Califomia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare;
The overall design of the single family homes, including the lot size, setbacks, parking,
circulation, and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to
protect fhe health and safety of those working in and around the sife. The project is
consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations infended to
ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare.
Section 3. Environmental Findinas. The Planning Commission hereby makes the
following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the
Extension of Time (PA06-0325):
A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Planning
Commission has considered the proposed Extension of Time. The Planning Commission has
also reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan adopted by the City Council as Resolution No. 02-111 on November 26,
2002, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein, and the subsequent
environmental reviews required as mitigation measures identified therein. Based on that review,
the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Extension of Time does not require the
preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration as
none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.
15162) exist. Specifically, the Planning Commission also finds that the proposed Extension of
Time does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental
conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance which shows that
the Extension of Time will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the
FEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Extension of Time are
adequately addressed by the prior FEIR, and the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR will
reduce those impacts to a level that is less than significant. A Notice of Determination pursuant
G:\Planning\2006\PA06'()325 Castillo @ Ron Ranch DP Hm Prod Review Ext of Time\Planning\Draft ReSQ,doc
2
to Section 15162 of the CEOA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) is therefore the
appropriate type of CEOA documentation for the Extension of Time, and no additional
environmental documentation is required.
Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves
Planning Application No. PA06-0325, an Extension of Time for a previously approved
Development Plan for 98 single family homes within Planning Area 1A of the Roripaugh Ranch
Specific Plan, located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Stage Road (Tract 29661-1) subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit
A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 4th day of April, 2007.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
ATTEST:
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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 07- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of April,
2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:\Planniog\2OO6\PA06-0325 Castillo @ Roo Ranch DP Hm Prod Review Ext of Time\Planning\Draft Reso.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
G:\Planning\2OO6\PA06.0325 Castillo @ Ron Ranch DP Hm Prod Review Ext of TIme \Planning \Draft Reso.doc
4
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA06-0325
Project Description: A request for the first one-year Extension of Time for a
previously approved Development Plan (Planning
Application, PA04-0133). Planning Application No.
PA04-0133 was a Home Product Review application for
98 detached single family homes within Planning Area
1A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, located
south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of
Butterfield Stage Road (Tract 29661-1)
Assessor Parcel No.: 957-340-048
DIF Category: Per Development Agreement
MSHCP Category: Per Development Agreement
TUMF Category: Per Development Agreement
Approval Date: April 4, 2007
Expiration Date: April 4, 2008
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars
($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination
for the previous Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code
Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check
as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure
of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final Conditions of Approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
G:\Planning\2006IPA06.0325 Caslillo @ Ron Ranch DP Hm Prod Review Ex! of Time\Planning\Draft COA.doc
1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:\Planning\200S\PAOS-Q325 Castillo @ Rori Ranch OP Hm Prod Review Ext of lime\Planning\Draft COA.doc
2
Planning Department
3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly
notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this development plan.
5. This approval shall be used within one year 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 one-year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
6. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
7. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan
and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department.
8. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be
deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material,
equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent
of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to
substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the
regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
9. This project is subject to the conditions of approval for Planning Application No. PA04-
0133.
G:\Planning\2006IPA06-Q325 Castillo @ Rori Ranch OP Hm Prod Review Ex! of Time\PlanninglOraft COA.doc
3
10. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0325 Cas~lIo @ Rori Ranch OP Hm Prod Review Ex! 01 TunelPlanninglDralt COA.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO.4
NOVEMBER 3, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
G:\Planning\2006\PAOS-Q325 Castillo @ Rori Ranch DP Hm Prod Review Ex! of TimelPlanning\MEMO to PC.doc
S
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
ORiGINAL
Date of Meeting:
November 3, 2004
Prepared by: Dan Lonq
Title: Associate Planner
File Number PA04-0133
Application Type: Product Review
Project Description: A Product Review for 98 single-family residences located in Planning
Area 1 A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Tract 29661-1).
Plan 1; single story, 1,949 square feet (12 units):
A) Mission (4 units)
B) Ranch (4 units)
C) Cottage (4 units)
Plan 2; two-story, 2,478 square feet (29 units):
A) Spanish (10 units)
B) Ranch (9 units)
C) Cottage (10 units)
Plan 3; two-story 2,791, square feet (28 units):
A) Mediterranean (10 units)
B) Monterey (9 units)
C) Cottage (9 units)
Plan 4; two-story, 2,949 square feet (29 units):
A) Mission (10 units)
8) Ranch (9 units)
C) Cottage (10 units)
Recommendation:
[8J Approve with Conditions
o Deny
o Continue for Redesign
o Continue to:
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
o Recommend Denial
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Horton Continental, Tr 29661-1. PA04-Q133\ST AFF REPORT-l.doc
1
CEQA:
~ Notice of Determination
(Section) 15162
D Negative Declaration
D Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
D.R. Horton/Continental Residential, Inc.
General Plan Designation:
Low-Medium, Residential (LM)
Zoning Designation:
Low-Medium, Residential (LM)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Sinqle-familv detached, residential (Riverside County)
Sinqle-familv detached, residential
Vacant
Vacant
Lot Area:
Ranqe of lot size: 5,197 square feet to 11,790 square feet
Total Floor Area/Ratio N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage N/A
Parking Required/Provided 2 covered and enclosed spaces (20' x 20') per unit
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
~ 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
The proposed project consists of a Product Review for single-family detached residences. The
proposed project is located within Planning Area 1 A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
The applicant has provided the below information regarding the unique elements and features
proposed for each plan and architectural style. While many of these elements are similar, staff
has included conditions of approval that will further accentuate the uniqueness of each style.
Plan 1
A. Mission: Arched focal points, ceramic tile vents, multi-pane windows and exposed rafter
tails.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Horton Continental. Tr 2%61-1. PA04-0 133\ST AFF REPORT-! .doc
l
B. California Ranch: Flat concrete roof tile, board and batten siding, gable roof ends, front
porch, multi-pane windows, louvered shutters, brick base.
C. French Cottage: Steep roof pitch (10:12), arched recessed entry, pitch break roof
detail, flat concrete roof tile, shutters, multi-pane windows, stone veneer base.
Plan 2
A. Spanish Revival: Arched focal point, ceramic tile vents, multi-paned windows, exposed
rafter tails, and wrought iron railing.
B. California Ranch: Flat concrete roof tile, board and batten siding, portico element, gable
roof ends, multi-pane windows, brick base, and louvered shutters.
C. French Cottage: Steeper roof pitch (10:12), arched recessed entry, wood kicker details,
flat concrete roof tile, stone veneer base and multi-pane windows.
Plan 3
A. Mediterranean: Arched recesses and focal points, stucco window surrounds, bullnose
band detail, barrel tile roof, corbel accents, multi-paned windows.
B. Monterey: Flat concrete roof tile, board and batten siding, wood picket railing, stucco,
multi-pane windows, brick accents, covered balcony, panel shutters.
C. French Cottage: Steep roof pitch (10:12), wood kickers, stone turret, flat concrete tile,
shutters, multi-paned windows.
Plan 4
A. Mission: Arched focal points, rafter tails, multi-paned windows, arched windows within
arched recess.
B. California Ranch: Flat concrete roof tile, board and batten siding, louvered shutters,
gable roof ends, multi-paned windows, brick base, louvered vents.
C. French Cottage: Steep roof pitch (7:12 and 10:12), wood kickers, stone turret, flat
concrete roof tile, shutters, multi-paned windows.
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the proposed Product Review Application and believes it meets the intent of
the General Plan and Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. However, staff has identified some
details that have been suggested as conditions of approval for the project. These outstanding
issues are as follow:
. Barrel tile roofing on Mission, Mediterranean, Spanish styles shall include a minimum of
20% boosting (Condition No. 12). Boosting provides a separate tile that is stacked
(boosted) on the other tiles to appear as traditional clay barrel roofing.
. Windows on each style shall include decorative sills on select windows (Condition No.
11 ).
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Horton Continental, Tr 2966l.l. PA04-0133\ST AFF REPORT-I.doc
3
. Each style shall maintain a unique chimney design, including the cap (Condition No.
27).
. All decks for each style shall be unique to each style. Details such as caps, materials,
railings and overall design shall be representative of the proposed style (Condition No.
28).
. All fencing along the nature trail (PA7A) shall include pilasters on the property corners
(Condition No. 22).
. All block walls and retaining walls shall match the color of the existing project wall along
Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Condition No 23).
. S/umpstone shall be Fawn color with a rust cap (Condition No. 23).
. All materials such as stone, brick and/or siding shall wrap to the fence line (Condition
No. 29).
Architectural Review
The proposed project includes four (4) floor plans and a total of six (6) architectural styles. The
proposed project is the last of five product review applications in the panhandle portion of the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
The applicant has chosen the option of Design Group E, which allows various styles from each
Design Group A through D to be included in the Planning Area. The applicant has chosen
Spanish Revival, California Ranch, French Cottage, Monterey, Mediterranean and Mission. All
of these styles are consistent with the architectural styles permitted in the Roripaugh Ranch
Specific Plan.
The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan requires articulation on all four sides of the homes (four-
sided architecture). Each side of each product is required to include a level of detail that
identifies the architectural style. In addition, homes on corner lots are required to have a
second front elevation. The applicant has provided detailed elements and materials on all four
sides of each product.
There are a total of 11 lots on corners. Nine of the 11 corner lots include single story products
(plan 1) and the remaining 2 lots are two-story products (plan 2). The applicant has included a
separate side elevation for corner lots, which includes additional roof pitches, materials, arched
windows, shutters and other similar features. The two corner lots that include a two-story
product are California Ranch style and include a brick base the entire length of the side, a front
door that faces the side yard and additional shutters. In addition, the front portion of the
residence nearest to the corner is a single story element. Staff believes the architectural
treatments on the corner lots meets the intent of the Design Guidelines of the Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan.
The applicant has proposed a roof design for each plan and style that provides additional
variation in the street scene. For example; plan one includes a horizontal roof design for the
French Cottage and California Ranch styles and a vertical roof peak for the Mission style. This
same concept continues for each plan and style. Also, the applicant has proposed various roof
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Horton Continental, Tr 29661-1, PA04-0133\ST AFF REPORT. % .doc
4
pitches for each style. This variation is primarily evident on the French Cottage styles, which
include various 7:12 and 10:12 pitches in strategic locations. Staff believes the proposed roof
pitches provide sufficient variety to create an interesting street scene, as required by the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Design Guidelines.
The applicant has designed each product in a manner that will avoid the canyon effect as
required in the Specific Plan. Each plan includes breaks and elevation changes on the side
and rear elevations. The side elevations include second story elements that are pulled back
away from the first story wall plane. There are variations in the roof pitch on the side and rear
yards. There are additional single story elements, which provide variation between the units
that break-up the canyon effect.
The main entryway of each product and style are unique and provide a focal point for each unit
as required in the Specific Plan. There are covered entries, turrets, arched entries, arched
doors, and framed entries. The garage doors are unique for each style and appear as older
dual opening carriage doors. The applicant has also proposed decorative wall mounted light
fixtures for each entry.
Plans 2 and 4 provide architectural forward products, which equates to a total of 58 of the 98
units. This meets the 50% architecture forward requirement. While plans 1 and 3 are not
architecture forward products, neither of the two plans include garages that protrude out in
front of the living space or the porch. The architecture forward design and the inclusion of
decorative garage doors will provide a decorative street scene and avoid a garage dominated
appearance.
Product Placement:
Staff has reviewed the plot plan and there not any plans or architectural styles repeated more
than three in a row. As stated above, the majority of the corner lots are single story products,
which reduces the mass on corners. The two lots (lot 1 and 21) include two-story products,
both of which include doors facing the side yard. The front portion on the corner side of plan 2
is predominately single story and includes a single story element.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
12] 1. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously
approved Roripaugh Ranch EIR and is exempt from further Environmental Review
(CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations). A Notice of
Determination has been prepared for the proposed project.
CONCLUSIONIRECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined consistency with the General Plan and Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
Based on the analysis summarized in this report, staff has determined that the findings
required for approval can be made with the attached recommended Conditions of Approval.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Harton Continental, Tr 29661-1, PA04...()133~T AFF REPORT.l.doc
5
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F)
1. 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 proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned,
and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential
development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and
building codes.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking,
circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to
protecf 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 consisfent with all
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the
development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plan Reductions (Provided Under Separate Cover) - Blue Page 7
2. PC Resolution No. 2004-_ - Blue Page 8
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
3. Excerpt Design Guidelines - Blue Page 10
R:\ProductReview\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Horton Continental, Tr29661-1, PA04-0133\STAFF REPORT.l.doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS (PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Horton Continental, Tr 2966l-I, PA04-O 133\ST AFF REPORT -l.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Harten Continental, Tr 2%61-1. PA04-0 133\ST AFF REPORT-I.doc
8
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA04-0133 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 98 DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1A
OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, KNOWN AS
TRACT 29661-1.
WHEREAS, D.R. Horton Continental, filed Planning Application No. PA04-0133, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA04-0133 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. PA04-0133
on November 3, 2004 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the
City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA04-0133;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA04-0133 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 proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential
development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California
Environmenfal Quality Act (CEQA), fhe City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and
building codes.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking,
circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Horton Continental, Tr 29661-1, PA04.0133\Oraft Resolution w CofA.doc
1
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 fo be consistent with all
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the
development will be construcfed and function in a manner consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
Section 3. Environmental Comoliance. A Notice of Determination for Planning
Application No. PA04-0133 was prepared per the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has
been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be
prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the
EIR.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA04-0133 for a Product Review for 98
detached single family residences within Planning Area 1A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific
Plan, Tract Map 29661-1. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 3rd day of November 2004.
John Telesio, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Horton Continental, Tr 29661.1, PA04-Q133\Draft Resolution w CofA.doc
2
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. 2004-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of November, 2004, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:IProducl ReviewlAoripaugh Ranch SPlHorton Continental, Tr 29661.1, PA04-Q133\Dralt Resolution w CoIA.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlHorton Continental, Tr 29661.1, PA04-0133\Draft Resolution w ColA.doc
4
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
PA04-0133
Project Description:
A Product Review for 98 detached single family
residences within Planning Area 1A of the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Tract Map
29661-1
MSHCP:
Per Development Agreement
TUMF:
Per Development Agreement
DIF:
Per Development Agreement
November 3, 2004
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
November 3, 2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order
made payable to the Riverside 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 Determination as
provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has
not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for
the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any
agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from
any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside,
void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the
way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the
permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time
period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall
deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIHorton Continental. Tr 29661-1, PA04-Q13310raft Resolution w ColA.doc
5
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.
3. 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.
4. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits, including
elevations, floor plans, landscaping plans, hardscape plans, and plotting plan, contained
on file with the Planning Department or as amended by these conditions.
5. The colors and materials (including lighting) for this project shall substantially conform to
the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department. Any
deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of
Planning.
6. This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other
regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions
consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building
and other necessary permits and approvals for the project.
7. The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior
dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance
of building permits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of
garage wall to the opposite wall, steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any
similar type feature. When the top of the stem wall is more than 8" above the garage
floor, the required dimension is measured from the inside edge of the stem wall.
8. Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment
Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and
Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department.
9. Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site.
10. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards.
In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited
to 24' maximum.
11. Each plan and style shall provide decorative window sills in strategic locations that
reflect the appropriate architectural style as determined acceptable by the Planning
Director.
12. All Mission, Spanish and Mediterranean style products shall provide a minimum 20% of
boosting for tile roofing.
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Horton Conlinental. Tr 29661-1, PA04-Q13310raft Resolution w ColA.doc
6
13. All hardscape (walks and driveways) within the front yard shall be colored concrete with
varying textures and score lines, paving stones of various colors with colored concrete
borders, flag stone of various sizes and colors with concrete borders or a combination of
various textures, shapes, material and colors appropriate to the architectural style of the
home. Hardscape design shall be uniform within each lot.
14. All slopes five feet or greater in vertical height and greater than or equal to 3:1 shall be
landscaped at a minimum with an appropriate ground cover spaced at eight inches on
center, one 15 gallon or larger size tree per 600 square feet of slope area (50% shall be
15 gallon, 50% shall be 24" box), and one five gallon or larger shrub for each 100 square
feet of slope area. Slopes in excess of eight feet in vertical height and greater or equal
to 3:1 shall also be provided with one 24" box or larger tree per 1,000 square feet of
slope area in addition to the above requirements.
15. Ground cover shall be planted continuously under all trees and shrubs.
16. All AlC units shall be plotted in the rear yard. No AlC units shall be plotted on side yards.
17. All roof venting shall be decorative and match the roof design and color.
18. All fencing on corner lots shall be pulled back towards the rear yard to expose the side
elevation to the street scene.
19. All fencing and pilasters between residential units and fencing visible from the public
view shall include slumpstone block and mission cap as approved by the Planning
Director.
20. Pilasters shall be provided at the corners (property corners) of all walls for exterior lots
abutting the nature trail (PA7A).
21. All block project walls and caps, including retaining walls, shall be slumpstone, (color of
block shall be Fawn, caps shall be pre-cast, color rust) to match the existing project wall
along Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
22. Fencing between residential units shall include a two-foot break in the plane as shown in
figure 2-15 of the Specific Plan.
23. All stucco shall be 20/30 sand aggregate with a float finish to provide a smooth
appearance.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
24. The applicant shall submit a Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
25. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
26. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Materials Boards and of the colored
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIHorton Continental, Tr 29661-1, PA04.013310raft Resolution w CoIA.doc
7
version of the approved colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department for
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable
on the photographic prints.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
27. Each plan and style shall provide a chimney and chimney cap that is unique and
representative of the architectural style, or as determined to be acceptable by the
Planning Director.
28. All decks shall provide details and a design that is unique and representative of the
architectural style, or as determined to be acceptable by the Planning Director.
29. All materials on the front elevation shall wrap around the side elevations to the beginning
of the fence
30. The applicant shall comply with standards, conditions, and requirements set forth in the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval
for Tract Map 29353 (PA01-0230, A-Map), Tract Map 29661(PA01-0253, B-Map), and
Ordinance No. 02-14, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Ashby USA, LLC for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to
attachment "5", which requires various on and off-site improvements.
31. The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for
final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the Specific Plan, Riverside County Mt.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Said lighting shall
comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install
hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights
must be downward facing).
32. The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the
location of each mailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval
of the Postmaster and Planning Director.
33. Prior to issuance of any residential building permit within Planning Area 1A, the
construction landscape and architectural plans for paseos (including hardscaping,
landscaping, fencing, lights and gates), paseo gates staff gated primary entry, card key
entry, and fuel modification zones shall be submitted and approved.
34. Performance securities shall be posted by the Master Developer, in amounts to be
determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings
within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved
construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for
one year from the completion of the landscaping. 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.
35. Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model
Home complex permit.
R:IProduct RevieWlAoripaugh Ranch SPIHorton Continental, Tr 29661.1, PA04-Q133\Draft Resolution w ColA.doc
8
36. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans,
plotting plan, and structural setback measurements.
37. The developer shall demonstrate to the Building Official and/or the Planning Director that
all homes will have double paned windows with at least a 25 STC rating installed to
reduce noise from aircraft over flights.
38. The developer shall provide proof that construction debris, including but not limited to
lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper and metal is recycled through the City's solid
waste hauler, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department.
39. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical
Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations
and the Temecula Municipal Code.
40. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
41. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to
commencement of any construction or inspections.
42. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
and structural calculations submitted for plan review.
43. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
44. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original
signed by an appropriate registered professional.
45. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan
review.
46. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-
21, 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
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
47. 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.
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIHorton Conlinenlal, Tr 29661.1, PA04.0133IDraft Resolulion w ColA.doc
9
48. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
49. Front yard and slope landscaping, hardscaping and fencing within individual lots shall be
completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model
home complex structures).
50. The developer shall submit proof that all local refuse generators have been provided
with written information about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (Le.
buyback centers, curbside availability), subject to the approval of the Public Works and
Community Services Departments.
51. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant Printed Name
R:lProducl ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIHorton Conlinental, Tr 29661-1, PA04-Q133\Drafl Resolution w ColA.doc
10
ATTACHMENT NO.3
EXCERPT DESIGN GUIDELINES
R\Product Review\Roripaugb Ranch SP\Horton Continental, Tr 29661.1, PA04-O 133\ST AFF REPORT-l.doc
9
>._~~
"'-k~':. ' ,
, . ~~.,\, "t.1}~
--;-;-;-I-TI~,
ASHBY USA. llC
FIGURE 4-48
CALIFORNIA RANCH
~---:--r
- ===1
J
Inspiration Photo:
Design features:
. Covered front porch
. Sleeper roof pitches
- Flat tile or shingle roofing
- Multi-pane windows
- Wood/vinyl siding
- Dormer shapes facing street
The Keith compan,eslTI<.C
NOT TO SCALE
I
1 }
,.
~ ~ J
! "
, "
:.l!
,
,
f ~ : ~ i
..!::!
Oi
c~
<
CO,
o::i
CO I
-- ti
Cg
s.... i
.p ~
.- 0
<
<
CO :'
O~
G
~
"
8
"
~
!
l
,
,
1.: 'i 1
ASHBY USA. llC
FIGURE 4-54
FRENCH COTTAGE
/
".
./
'-- . .~-
.."~.... ..~::."..
.. - ,--
_."n__ _ . -.
Inspiration Photo:
The Keith compan,eslTl<..C
NOT TO SCALE
I
Design features:
- Steeper roof pitch
- Arched resessed entry door
- Clipped corner openings
. Flat tile or shingle roof
. Shutters
- Multi-pane windows
- Stone veneer base
Gh
rn
ro~
........ ~
........ ,
O~
Ol
,
..c~
()~
C~
Q)ffi
L.. ~
LL:,
~
m
>
.
~
.
8
~
~
8
~
~
i
~
1 < f j ,I i! ). ~' !
}'...!.'! :
,
! } :
i \ -l1 .1 { '11
~ f:=f
_~"-.r~~J,. ,~!
~"\.- _ ~ _::: _' .... . _ -:..._....-~ .k_
~~--.:-c~7":~~ r_~-:::;_-:~...,,_.:.__.r,_-' '._:~:~-_~'~'
F)' ~~. -
I
ASHBY USA. llC
MEDITERRANEAN
FIGURE 4-56
Cr
ro~
",~
\U~
C~
ro!
I- ~
I-j
Q)~
...... ~
._~
"'C~
(J.)~
~~
:'"
~
m
~
~
Q
"
~
~
!i
I
~
i"~'f/"
~~~~.~'-'
--/ J'
"..-7 '
r
~/ ,--/ .
/ +-" c:
'ff""-""1 .
/ ,oJ ~~":' ___
,/----~ I ";\ ; .
~ ""I '!MW~Il'F.c...:
~(,"~1._1~
Inspiration Photo:
'0/'-
"'/,:,.
~
,~
..'
;:
The Keith comp6niesl~C
HOT TO SCALE
I
Design features:
. Arched Focal Points
. Stucco window surrounds
. Bullnose band delails
- Barrel tile roofing
. Ceramic tile accents
. Trellis beam details
. Mulli-pane windows
- Wrought iron detaIls
Hi!;:.
i
.I,' : I f .~; { J
.r ) , , ; , , .J .,
J \ ~ t 1 {I. i J
ASHBY USA. llC
MISSION
ftll
FIGURE 4-57
~:. ....~
~, . ~~
Ay---<<-vY\ .. ... . : ... "...........
tfr~ ~.. ~." .
. \ ,-
,- 0---.
,.~
Inspiration Photo:
The: Keitt, compan;e::OIn<:.c::
NOT T 0 S C " l E
I
.v -vv-vv.".-...-v~ 'v-....V
'YV'
rvvv>
n
Ii
Design feature:
- Arched focal point
- Round lop windows
- Tile accents on walls
- Smooth plaster walls
- Multi-pane windows
- Ba rrel tile roof
- Exposed rafter tiles
- Wrought iron detailing
. ,
I.'
n
1<,! J 1,(
.i,
..! ,i j :_.; /1
c~
O~
--g
CJ)~
(f)~
~&
I
~
~
.
6
~
o
~
w
o
~
<
:'
~
m
~
~
.
o
~
~
g
~
~
I
.1,
,
, .
ASHBY USA. llC
FIGURE 4-58
MONTEREY
Inspiralion Photo:
r...-:-
The Keith comp!ln'eSI~C
seA L E
.;: ..
J,{! ) i
.-t +.', .
H 0 ,
I
, 0
J'v' .-r"
}- ..,~ '->-"l
I ,.'\
--.f~
.'~' r ...Jl-.
~ ~/
Design features:
- Arched focal point
- Deep recessed openings
- Multi-pane windows
- Exposed rafter tails
- Wood picket railings
- Wrought iron detailin9
- Spanish tile roof
>...
Q)~
s.....~
Q)~
+-' ~
C~
O~
~f
~
~
z
~
o
E
W
o
E
<
:'
~
w
.
.
E
Ii
~
~
o
o
~
!i
i
.
,I ,t ~ ;! t.' .'."[ i
'.!-; ...
. ,
1 "). . u . f -~
1 \ { ;.f L ~ i f
ASHBY USA. LLC
FIGURE 4-60
SPANISH REVIVAL
=-
~
=
--v-'~
-"'~
Q r-.. ~~b1?1">-
1! I .=~
~. -:::~_y~v..~
llrlt i ~
: l - 1--1
~l_L L.I
Inspiration Photo;
Design features;
- Arched focal point
- Exposed beam headers
. Recessed window
- Wrought iron accent details
- Alcoved entry
. Barrel tile clay roofing
- Exterior smooth plaster walls
- Ceramic tile accents
r.-'-=-"---~-+
The Ke.th cornp8nieslT1<.:C
NOT TO SCALE
I
1 r "{
1 \ ~ ) t f r .I-if I ~.:: i f
l' .
I). 1 f r' ,! I'
\1; L,:" i
Ctl~
>~
._~
>i
aH
o::~
E
..c ~
(f)~
._~
C~
COffi
~
Cf)~'
Ii
~
~
g
11
~
i
Si
~
-=SIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.5 Building Elevations
A key technique for crealing a sense of variely within a project is to vary lhe heighls and forms of
the detached homes as seen from lhe streel as illustrated in Figure 4-70 by utilizing lhe following:
. Within Low and Low Medium densily Planning Areas, utilize both one. and two-story buildings.
. To improve lhe visual relalionship between adjacent buildings, it is desirable to introduce
intermediate transition between lhem. Use a one-story architectural element within the two-
slory building to lessen its apparent height.
. Create varying rooflines by maximizing offsels of roof planes.
. Units located at street corners (see Figure 4.70), should be either single.story or have a
significant one. story mass lcealed towards the exterior side yard.
Treatment of Mass
. Avoid a canyon-like effect between buildings and allow greater light penetralion into what
othelWise might be dark side-yards. At interior side yards, it is required to create the
appearance of increased building separation by stepping the second story mass away from
the property line or any olher substantial articulation.
. Provide trims around windows, to break up the wall plane.
. Avoid long uninterrupted exlerior walls.
. Vary the depth of plans to create varialions in the building fa<;:ade.
. Two story homes shall be modified to be compatible with placement on comer lots. The
modification shall create two front elevations.
. Surface detail, ornament and archilectural elements such as cornices, color contrast, gables
applied moldings, arcades, colonnades, stailWays and light fixtures that provide visual
interest, shadow, and contrast shall be used to enrich architectural character. Details shall be
integrated with the overall design concept.
. Vary the height and roof levels of the building or residence so that it appears to be divided into
smaller massing elements. Architectural projections shall be used to achieve this goal.
. Articulate building forms and elevations with varying rooflines, roof overhangs and
intermediate roof elements to creale strong patterns of shade and shadow.
Interlockina Mass
. Just as stepping the second story mass improves the side yard, it can be used to improve the
front yard scene. As an example, the second story should be set back in relationship to the
9arage face or living space below it.
. The designer should envision the building form as a series of interlocking masses rather than
a rectangular or "L" shaped box. Therefore achieving a more aesthetic design solution.
RoriQ?!Jqh Ranch SQ.ecific Plan
N:\31367.000\OOd\SPSect44CCAdopled.doc
4-124
March, 2003
:::SIGN GUIDELINES
Articulalion of Side ,mn Rear Elevations
There is a lendency to have "build out" planes maximized on side and rear yards without
articulated treatment of those planes. This results in a two.story stucco effect with no vertical or
horizonlal relief. Ulilize the following techniques or olher acceplable techniques to avoid this
effect:
. Create a single.story plane at the rear by recessing the second story.
. Utilize other similar architectural treatments and designs such as balconies or pop out
staircases 10 encourage relief on potenliallarge arcMectural planes.
. Side and rear elevations shall have articulation wilh modulated facades, window treatment,
second story projections and balconies.
. Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ("Four-sided Architecture").
Front Elevations
. Architectural projections shall be utilized to emphasize entrances, balconies, and porches.
Fronts of houses shall utilize several architectural features. Ground floor windows shall have
significant trim or relief, second floor overhangs or buin in planters. Second story windows
shall have similar treatment to emphasize them.
. All residences shall incorporate entry courtyards, covered entries or covered porches at the
enlry into the design. (See Figure 4-71 and 4-72).
. Details shall be concentrated around enlrances. Materials used for the front entry shall be
dislinclive.
. Building elements that reflect the architectural style should be incorporated into building
entries, windows, front porches, and living areas directly adjacent to the street.
. Omamental features including wrought iron and exterior light features shall be combined with
other features to create interest in the front of the house with architecturally compatible
elements.
AoriqauQh R::Inch S~ific Plan
N:131367.000ldodlSPSecl44CCAdopled.doc
4.125
March, 2003
ESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.6 Architectural Elements
A successful projecl design achieves a proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness. The
differences between lhe plans and elevalion must be readily discernable and create variety, yel at
the same lime elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to resull in
visual chaos. Architectural elemenls will play a significant role in the establishmenl of the
architectural style. These elements include architectural detailing, colors and materials, and other
sile struclures. The required Architectural and design elements lechniques are as follows:
Unit Enlries (See Figures 4-71 and 4.72)
The entry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: rt identifies and
frames lhe front doorway; it acts as an interface belween the public and privale spaces; and rt
acts as an introduclion to the structure while creating an initial impression.
. The entry shall be designed and located so as to readily emphasize its prime functions.
Accent materials are encouraged to be used to further emphasize the entries.
. If the front door location is not obvious or visible because of building configuration, the entry
shall direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry area in
merchant-built housing shall be strong enough to mrtigate the impact of the garage on the
facade.
. Entry doors and doorways shall be proportional to the architectural slyle of the structure.
. Covered entries, courtyards and porches shall be provided as entry elements.
Doors
Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major
introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given on the image it creates.
. Either single or double doors are appropriate.
. The door shall be covered by an overhead element or recessed a minimum of 3 It into the wall
plane.
. The entire door assembly shall be treated as a single design element including surrounding
frame, molding and glass sidelights.
. Recessed doors may be used to convey the appearance of thick exterior doors.
. Wood may be used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels
contribute to the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in
order to be acceptable, they shall possess the same residential "feel" provided by the wood
grain and panels.
. Doorways shall be typically rectangular or round-headed and fully recessed. Spiral columns,
arches, pilaster, stonework, decorative tiles, or other sculptural details shall be integrated into
the doorway design to enhance the visual importance of the entry door.
Roriqat)Qh. Ranch SQecific Plan
N:\31367.000\dod\SPSect44CCAdopled.doc
4.127
March, 2003
ESIGN GUIDELINES
. The use of glass in lhe door and overall assembly is encouraged. It expresses a sense of
welcome and human scale. It can be incorporaled inlo lhe door panels or expressed as
single sidelighls. double sidelights, transom glass or fan windows.
. Flexibility is allowed concerning lhe color of lhe door. II may malch or contrast the accent
trim, bul should be differenlialed from the wall color.
Windows
. Typically, the location of windows is delermined by lhe practical consideration of room layout,
possible furniture placemenl, view opportunities and concern for privacy. Greater design
emphasis should be directed to ensure that window placernenl and organizalion will positively
contribute to the exterior architectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevation
through lheir vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination with other design elements. This
relationship to one anolher and the wall/roof plane creates a corn position and sense of order.
. All windows in a specific plan elevation shall be integrated into the architecture of the building.
This should not be interpreted that they are alllhe same shape, size or type but rather that a
hierarchy of windows exisls that visually relates and complements one window to another.
,
. Windows shall be recessed to convey the appearance of thick exterior walls. Non-recessed
windows shall be surrounded with articulated architectural elements such as wood trim,
stucco surrounds, shutters or recessed openings, shutters, pot shelves, ledges, sills plantons,
and rails that compliment the architecture.
. Merchant-bum housing occasionally fails 10 adequately address proper window design and
placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritization, maintenance and
cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible,
greater design effort and budget prioritization need 10 be given.
Garaoe Doors (See Figure 4-73)
. Utilizing garage types that compliment the architecture, door designs, and plotting techniques
will do much to lessen the repetitious garage doors marching down both sides of a residential
street. Variations include:
o Employment of second-story feature windows above the garage.
o Strong architectural entry elements.
o Designs with a mix of 2 and 3 car garages, incorporating three single doors in some
three car garage plans not facing the street.
o Allowance for a 10.foot setback between adjacent garages.
o The use of tandem garages may also be incorporated into the building design.
o Garage plans with a double door and a single door plan shall not be placed next to
each other.
. If applicable, where lot width permits plans should include swing-in or side entry garages with
reduced front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet.
Roriqauah Ranch S~ific Plan
N:\31367.000\dod\SPSect44CCAdopled.doc
4-1?:R
March, 2003
ESIGN GUIDELINES
. The design of the garage door shall relale to lhe overall archilectural design of the residence.
Colors shall be from the same painl palette.
. Ornamentation of garage doors shall be provided to add visual interesl from lhe streel scene.
. The use of lhe sectional, wood or metal, rolling garage door is required since it maximizes the
availability of useable driveway length.
. Several different panel designs shall be utilized for any project proposed by each merchant
builder. Metal doors shall only be used when they include either texture or raised panels of a
"residenlial" nature. The use of window elements is encouraged.
. The design of the door face shall resull in a treatmenl which breaks up the expanse of the
door plane while being complimentary to the architectural elevation of the residence.
Architectural detail consisting of cornices, applied molding or trim or applied headers shall be
used. There shall be an 8" recess. (See Exhibit 4-73).
Rori~u9h Ranch SwciflC Plan
N:\31367.000\d0d\SPSect44CCAdopted.doc
4.129
March. 2003
ESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.7 Residential Roof Form
Allowable Roof Pitch (See Figure 4.74)
. Allowable roof pilches of 3:12 to 4:12 shall be used. Allowable roof pitches over balconies
and/or porches may be 2:12.
. A single roof pitch should be used on opposite sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches lend to
lessen the apparent building mass.
RoofTvoes
The use of different roof types will add variety and inlerest to the street scene. Changing the roof
form on a given plan is the best melhod of creating alternative elevations. However, the roof
characteristics should be consistent with the historical style that is chosen.
. Hip, gable and shake-like material shall be used separalely or together on the same roof.
Avoid a canyon effect in side yards when bolh buildings have front-to. rear gables, by
providing dormer or hip elements.
. Repetitious gable ends along rear elevations shall be avoided. Roof forms wilh pitch changes
at a porch or projection are preferable.
. Roof forms having dual pitches such as Gambrel or Mansard shall not be used.
. Maximize variations in rooflines by offsetting roof planes and combining single-slory elements
with two-story elemenls. Long uninterrupted rooflines should be avoided. Mechanical
equipment is not permitted on roofs.
Oesian of Rak~s and Eaves
. The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave types based on climatic and
stylistic considerations.
. Moderate or extended overhangs are acceptable if properly designed. Tight fascia with
appropriate style are acceptable.
. Single or double fascia boards, exposed rafters, or fascias wilh planscias when adequately
scaled, are acceptable.
. Care shall be taken to ensure that material sizes avoid a weak or flimsy appearance.
Overhana Proiections and Covered Porches
. Substantial overhangs are required as a response to solar and climatic conditions.
. The inclusion of covered porches and entries are required as part of the product mix. They
expand sheltered living space, create entry statements and provide elevation/relief.
. Rear covered porches may differ from the roof in both pitch and material, but front porches
should retain at least one of these two characteristics.
.Aorip?~h Ranch S~ific Plan
N:1J1367.000ldodlSPSecl44CCAdopled.doc
4.133
March, 2003
.-:SIGN GUIDELINES
Sleooina the Roof Form
. Sleps in the roof respond 10 the inlerior room arrangement and provide visual relief and
inleresl.
. A vertical step within the ridgeline should be at least 12" - 18" in order to create visual impact
and allow for adequate wealherproofing.
Solar Panels (See Figure 4-75)
. Solar panels shall be parallel to the roof slope and integraled into the roof design.
. The frames shall either match the roof or fascia color.
. Support equipment shall be enclosed and screened from view.
Roriqaygt't Ranch SMCific Plan
N:\31367.000\dod\SPSect44CCAdopled.doc
4.134
March, 2003
ATTACHMENT NO.5
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
G:lPlanning\2006\PA06-Q325 Castilio @ Rori Ranch OP Hm Prod Review Ext of TimelPlanning\MEMO to PC.doc
7
~
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING
COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
Planning Application No. PA06-0325
DR Horton
Planning Area 1A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, located south of Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road
A request for the first one-year Extension of Time for a previously approved Development
Plan, Planning Application PA04.0133. Planning Application No. PA04-0133 was a Home
Product Review application for 98 detached single family homes.
Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was
previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations)
Dana Schuma. Associate Planner
City ofT emecula, Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Date of Hearing: April 4, 2007
Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be
heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,
the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Questions concerning the
project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
CEQA Action:
Case Planner:
Place of Hearing:
t.~1 =
. -
J -
( ~~(~~~
~-........."" ----
....-:....,c:tf _____ _,_,. __
~~"- WrI'JlI
~
Project Site
'W
1l11l1l~1
\ I
'"
m~_:
\.6)
<':,J
.
4l5$ 'UI
'------~_.-
G:\Planning\2006\PA06.Q325 CastiUo @ Ron Randl DP Hrn Prod Review ExtofTime\Planning\NOPH.doc
I'rEM #3
"
l
DATE OF MEETING:
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
RECOMMENDATION:
CEQA:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 4, 2007
Betsy Lowrey
TITLE:
Junior Planner
Planning Application No. PA07-0035, a Major Modification to
renovate the exterior of a 97,737 square foot Industrial Building
generally located at the northeast corner of Single Oak Drive and
Business Park Drive at 28780 Single Oak Drive zoned Light
Industrial and an increase in floor area ratio (FAR). This is a 360-
degree renovation to the exterior fa~ade which includes adding
cornices, window framing, faux columns, ornamental fascia and
decorative entrance arcades with stone base pillars.
~ Approve with Conditions
o Deny
o Continue for Redesign
o Continue to:
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
o Recommend Denial
~ Categorically Exempt
(Section)
(Class)
15301
1 Ex. Facilities
o Notice of Determination
o Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
(Section)
DEIR
G:\Planning\2007IPA07.0035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MOD\PlanninglSTAFF REPORT.doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: BOG Architects; AI Burqhard
Date of Completion: January 29, 2007
Mandatory Action Deadline Date: April 29, 2007
General Plan Designation: Industrial Park (IP)
Zoning Designation: Liqht Industrial (L1)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Existinq Industrial Buildinq; Rancho Family Medical Group / Rancho Sports Center
North:
South:
East:
Existinq Industrial Buildinq; Solid State Stampinq Manufacturinq
Existinq Office Buildin\ll The Californian Newspaper
Existing Industrial and Office Buildings; Chemicon International and Temecula
Office Center
Existinq Industrial Buildinq; International Rectifier Manufacturinq
West:
Lot Area:
5.2 acres
Building Summary
97,737 square feet, two-story buildinq
Total Floor Area/Ratio:
66,508 square feet (first floor) /29.3%
Landscape Area/Coverage:
46,751 square feet / 20.6%
Parking Required/Provided:
211 spaces required / 268 spaces provided
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a 360-degree exterior architectural renovation to an existing 97,737
square foot industrial building located at 28780 Single Oak Drive. The proposed modification is an
improvement to the exterior fa~de only and will not materially change the footprint of the existing
building, except for an expansion of the entrance arcades.
The site encompasses various commercial uses; all of which have been previously approved with
Conditional Use Permit Applications. Planning Application No. PA04-0493, Conditional Use
Permit, was approved on December 9, 2004 for the establishment of medical offices, basketball
and volleyball courts, martial arts, and exercise facilities; and Planning Application No. PA04-0565,
Conditional Use Permit, was approved on January 6, 2005 for the establishment of educational
seryices within this building. The floor plan demonstrates a unique layout to accommodate its
various uses including sports courts and medical offices.
The proposed building exterior improvements include new window framing, cornices, ornamental
fascia, faux columns and decorative entrance arcades with stone base pillars and light fixtures.
G:\Planning\2007lPA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanninglSTAFF REPORT.doc
2
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the
applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
ANALYSIS
Site Plan
The proposed Major Modification will result in no changes to the site plan or building footprint
except an expansion of the entrance arcades. This is an existing building that meets the minimum
setback requirements of the Development Code. Its lot coverage of 29.3 percent is below the
maximum permitted lot coverage of 40 percent. In addition, existing landscaping of 20.9 percent
exceeds the required 20 percent lot coverage. Finally, the provided 268 parking spaces exceed
the required 211 on-site parking spaces.
Staff has learned that recent permitted tenant improvements added 20,851 square feet to the
interior second floor. This yielded an FAR of 43 percent, which is above the target FAR of 40
percent. While this is an existing condition, staff reviewed the target FAR requirements concurrent
with this application and determined it to be acceptable with the approval of this Major Modification
application. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.050.A, an increase in target FAR may
be allowable if the project provides exceptional architectural and landscape design amenities which
reflect an attractive image and character for the City. Staff believes the improvements that are
proposed in this Major Modification application to enhance the existing industrial building fayade
meet these requirements as follows:
. The proposed Major Modification application is itself an exceptional architectural
enhancement to an existing industrial building. During review of this application, the
applicant agreed to further improve their original proposal based on staff's comments. This
included architectural revisions to extend proposed faux columns along each of the
elevations from the second floor all the way down to the ground and add more stucco in the
recessed areas between columns. Overall, this provides more weight, depth and variation
to the first floor and creates exceptional architectural detail to the entire building fayade.
. The proposal enhances all entryways to the building and the applicant proposes to include
bench seating to the covered entrance arcade outside of the revised sports facility entrance.
. The applicant proposes to replace all parking lot lights that have rusted over the years with
brand new parking lot lights that are consistent with the General Plan and Mount Palomar
lighting guidelines.
. The applicant has agreed to place outdoor seating in front of the entry waterfall and pond
along the front of the facility.
Architecture
The proposed building design is consistent with the Development Code and Design Guidelines,
and is compatible with the industrial and office uses in the surrounding area. The proposed
building elevations provide a 360-degree architectural upgrade to an existing industrial building by
altering its expansive flat wall planes with extensive articulation including new stucco trim and
fascia to form recessed and projecting elements, including raised columns. Varying depths provide
shadows and enable areas for changes of paint color, which add visual interest to the fayade. A
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MOO\PlanninglSTAFF REPORT.doc
3
cornice above the first floor wraps around all sides of the building and is repeated again along the
parapet to frame the structure. The revised entryways, with stone base pillars and light fixtures,
create an enhanced focal point for each elevation with its main entrance facing Business Park
Drive.
All of the proposed exterior materials and colors are consistent with the City Wide Design
guidelines for the Light Industrial Zone and complement the adjacent Business Park zone. Building
materials for the faQade include trowel smooth painted stucco to adhere to existing concrete panels
and 12 inch square stone veneer at the base of the building entrance pillars. The stucco walls will
incorporate a palette of earth tone colors that complement each other including Dunn-Edwards
"Rustic Taupe," Dunn-Edwards "Wooded Acre," Dunn Edwards ''Teddy Bear," and Dunn-Edwards
"Big Stone Beach." The existing horizontal orange stripes along the south and southwest wall of
windows will be color-matched black to blend with the tinted black windows. The stone selected for
the base of the entrance pillars is Arizona Tile Travertine "Noce Classic."
LEGAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Notice of public hearing was published in the Californian on March 24, 2007 and mailed to the
property owners within the required six hundred (600) foot radius.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been
deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Class 1, Section 15301,
Existing Facilities).
1. The project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use.
The proposed building modifications are aesthetic enhancements to an existing building
and will not affect its use.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General
Plan, Development Code, and all applicable ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving the
Major Modification and increase in FAR with the attached Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.01 O.F)
1. 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 proposed building revisions are consistent with the General Plan land use policies for
Industrial Park (IP) development in fhe City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the use
regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires that proposed buildings be compatible
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MEO MAJOR MOOIPlanninglSTAFF REPORT.doc
4
with existing buildings. The proposed building reVISions are compatible with the
surrounding industrial and office buildings in the vicinity of the project site.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
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 public health,
safety, and welfare.
Special Use Regulations and Standards, Increase in Floor Area Ratio, Development Code Section
17.08.050.A.2
1. The project must provide exceptional architectural and landscape design amenities which
reflect an attractive image and character for the City.
The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be exceptional in
its architectural and landscape design amenities. The application includes extensive
renovations to the exterior far;;ade including cornices, window framing, faux columns,
ornamental fascia, enhanced entrance arcades, outdoor gathering areas and new parking
lot lights.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Vicinity Map - Blue Page 6
2. Existing Elevations - Blue Page 7
3. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 8
4. PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 9
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
5. Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 10
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MEO MAJOR MOO\PlanninglSTAFF REPORT.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
G:\Pianning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MOO\PlanninglSTAFF REPORT.doc
6
"'. '.y,Y '-..,,/
'Y, ,
"
", ,,/
"'-... . /
/ / /
, "
~'-... /
, "<
)"
<.
"
"-
),
~ / "'.
/'-. /// '
c~
//
,~ /" . "\ \ /
,,/ "-- "/' }/
'" <"'. '-....,/ ,-,/
'~ '-J // ,>
''.....(, ),-< ~>(f;Ss'.
~~,--<( 'a~",,'!y;V/
~--J /
( ///
"~%// /-
,~
\\. '
" ,
\/
\
/
,
.....
Ploject Site
~' - .- ..-........-..-.......
/
'#'
rf
I
00
'\,125
1,500
~F_
~
o '\61.5 315
/---
ATTACHMENT NO.2
EXISTING ELEVATIONS
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MEO MAJOR MODlPlanninglSTAFF REPORT.doc
7
S001~Wi.t.f
6lEVA1' ON
-It
,~
'.' ,~ ~
.."
I ~."t
.f,
" .
,
.500,." ~,,~,.\ oN - e
.-- .~ -, l"1 ~.,r-T-. cp:._'_
_..J~,'Y:"\'~ 1"
.",!~.lkM .
'r'~ .'~"""
/iJ.\~~
5Ot}ctf
E.L~fIOl\J
.~8"
.4tA~
,;i.~"
, ,II'
!
tl"
'I\.'
" !,'
,I,," f II'
;'A' _f"
"'/"1'
'. - I"
- ,;.;!
'ir"..
",1"
/,',\ '~
"'-. -r '--
\
, ~."
"
"
.,
~
- NOliN 1\313
.l~\i;?
NORT\i e....~f(ftoN -,b
}I O~TH
gL.Q'AT/ON
", b"
.".-':'....J.-.r .
N~1't1 'f./61' ELEV~T'(N -E.
~otTH eAST
~ [p.J FrT' oN
't"
,.
'-:>'--'
i&:~f"f'~'~...
t ;:;oo~.-'-"-"'~-' L. _'~:':?'.:::, ,:::~.:~,.._'~,."",~:;;..
, - .'~~'{-':"~'~."
. .!!!!lk~.
=tmilp.p' ". ~ .
NOR\t\ ~ ~"I~ -la
NotT H eA~
6~^"f ON
"E"
we$f
eL9JA'T'~
'"~ f"
we..~1:.. ~!';-~~ION.... r
,., ,,4>~',~~'
';"
"'-"_,,__'~n_'_~
,.-,
.__..,...........--~.~_./.
~
~'
.,~
..-.-l'. '~~
t"
-.
,..!;,
'.~
:~
.
...~.,
; @<.)>:,,:ioc~,' .
...,{', Vk .
.~ ~l>;:". .
.~, ' t't:~"~{~
,." 'c..,' .....
"",-,' ...~
~.
""'
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PLAN REDUCTIONS
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MOO\PlanninglSTAFF REPORTdoc
8
,,,...,'
""",,'
,,,,,,,'
1/....
-~ ,'.,'
~-'
.~
~A'~~~~~~,:'..
-"~
~~;,':~,:~0.;..,:_.,. "
."__""~"'M"',
I . '.;-":':"~::::~~ I I
f'
r----J ~J
,
,
,
,
L
o
~~E:5
.-i"
~~
,
"
,
,
,
,
,
,
L"';:~~::::'"' I
o
",
,
",
",
",
"
",
".
",
",
".
_._~_.<.-.;
I
__,1
o
___~.-9t'~~~._.- _.-.-.-._-_.-._.~--._.-
-------
/-
--- /--""
_..-"- ,-"-'-'
-
.~...>"'-
:--" - --:.~.....
..__......._10_
=::=~--
4 _._~-':'-==C
=-=-~-...-_......_-
---......""
-~....-
OVERALL SITE PLAN
~
EB
r.-.;':..!'" --
._....,211
~?E=
'"'
;----
I KEYNOTES -,
0-
1;]====
<>___r
.)_...........-
0)----......
,) -=-...=-
g=_-..._-'"
J>---""""''''''
@-=..,.,....,.-""'"
@-----
~=-=
@_...........~~...
~_=::
@@-...............
,,--
@- --
@-....."..,....._....
@_-..~..--
@ -~
@::;:.,""""""-=
-....."..,..-~""
DRAWING INDEX
~; ~~~~~::
...."".....,-.-......
j:F~?~~:~
"..._"''''''''''
PROJECT DIRECTORY
-
::-...:=.':"'-
~=
=.::~--
--
~-
::".:.=
-L"~
BUILDING DATA
~~~-
,",,""-
---
\~~~:
..'..--.a..~,'::::~i.:~'E:
..c""'-,~:r:'~~TI
.."""
~'::;..:
,::~::
~W::"~i.""
..""..~~
m ..^'''"'~::
~~~:
.,,,,,,;~
."",.._;;,~:::.';:;:
,,"......."',:;;:::::::::
~;~E;~ rr;
'"ocr"
"'~:"'._'
I
I ,"-",~"~PPLlCABLECODES
ffiff.J.I;E:'~i&:~~]?"':S-'
I
VICINITY MAP
--,.'
,"'''',''''
.6.DG
BUR 'G'H'A' R' Ii
DESIGN GROUP
; ; ( ~ I'I'E ~ ;;
11713HAUH lOA
IHNlfII 0, lUll! 200
ITILIIll.;,.n..CAIIfOIHI^ !lllt
11ll1,,,.1'.1l1l
~
~
....
,;
MAJORMO ...-, IV" ,
&.- _~:~~~: REV'oW
RANCHO F AMIL Y
MEDICAL GROUP
Exterior ElevetJon
ImprDvementt
T::" -==::0
..,,,...,--
I.- 06131
'--------'-""~.._~
OVERALL SITE PLAN
A1.1
~~._~
"
.' "......_'00'
'-~
'/IO".,.~
If....'
-=1, '''t.
-1't,....'~
~E=
=. ,-.
O/".y
='1'. ,,.....,
~
o
~
~
~
~==~~NOTES
~ ==-=..-
1;=.-----
0==--=:=""-
~ :.-- ..:::---:-...:-
~ =--=:.:-"-=-'''':'..-
19-"=--=:'0::--
@=..:::-::.::-........""'--
~ e=-; -:,:.;'~:
4t
OVERALL FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
"."",.... (1'
.~.OG
BURGH'A'11i
~~S!GN GROUP
^ R C ~ I'T', C ; ;
ltill HAU ~ 10 .
M!Nllll AD. SUiTt no
1ll1I"";' Ifl;AtlfOI~IA lUll
IJUI'''''',''''
~,...,~,.....o.,..,
"'L...--~'~--
"_.'ml.L....-..---.J
-
~"v..
"'...J...." MODIF'I '
~ C"'Tlm~RE\'IEW
,,-,~-
RANCHO F AMIL
MEDICAL GROU~
E~tMfor s.v.tIon
,
,=.. -== ~
L _"_'"A'''
d6131
.....".....~
O\iERALLfIRSTLEVEL
flOOR PLAN
A2.1
."
.~
.
~ '-~
,..,,~~~
, ' , ,
~ '11"."
'N."r=
"(J'.".~___~~
".,'~-~==~
.-.
-+
;:.~..~ .:.=
$
~
M
\iii;
[;j!
KEYr,rY"ES
~q>==:::_~_..
.-...--...".....
.---.........
. =':"~-..._--
<;) -_.-----
0......__-.._.,__
=::".::-''''-'~'''''''
@--....-.....-.,-.........
=.:t-==&::'=="'........
o ;F=:!..:::-~~-=..
e ----,.--................
, ::"'..='...':.--,-.;.,;.......--
! e =,~.:=-......-
~
OVERALL SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
BDC;
........ .
BURCHARD
D[SICN CROUP
......." .
ARC H I )f C T 5
Hill HAU~ I()A~ IUIIE In
.lI1HIH1, CAlIFO_NU'lllU
IIlIIllIl/!.llll Illlltll';IoI'"
.L~~~=I
....,--~=-~:
.1 ._~lDlJ_~__ I
.c::-_~_ _ I
., -"'.-..___J
'~,>.JO~ MU[ IFII...'lTI(;~1 Rl '.'IEY"
~---~~=-,=:I
RANCHO FAMILY
MEDICAL GROUP
Extfrl{)l' &VlltIon
~VlSImtMts
_...o.twIWlI
'_01011__
.'--_~L~,_I
J6nl
1_'-----...-D'.'.lA.l___.__1
:)VEi,ALl ~;E(:()N[,
1 [VEL Fl' ;.JR PlA,~
.c---. .....
~" 2
I"\<!-. .
_::.'!-'----'-~~ .L......__~--' ,",,"c~rc='
~.-=-~o:!--
,,...... ~
~I
,.....
'~.
"-';'.~
........-
~.
,
t
P==-
....~
nn,J
'n
l,
::tlJ ,::::te
:0::::::
,:__:te
f
~.
r
.
........, .
,L-.
,- ,
1""'"-
j __lr'
PARTIAL ROOF PLAN
~kLAI=lllc
,( I -..rr-
/l i '-a.Y--, ~I ._U -
: r--- , I ;,;;:~~
'1h'l-_n-l--ln_--~_h--l'...,o;,;.--~u_~ run_urn' 'I,'
i ~~ ~... .- ..... I~._...I H~ ~,_I -... .-.... ".
,"-,
PrO,'
I .
, .
- I
,
:~i"
, ,
! '~ .
r::::lII
l..
...
ICI
'-.....--,
r"''"
'",":,r-~
PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN
~<jl
, ------
t, .
~!T .
IlilC
.~ <jl , ,
I: ~ i I.......... =rra....., i
. I I., . . !. I
G,:' m.O. r L ~. rT}.:r-:-
I L-.., ~ I I L~-11 ~., ~ II I ~....~J ; I I -~.~._.
,
~
'I-'j
Ii '
,I
'.. il
L. i -\.
, i
,;1--11 JiJr-r lj--Ilj
PA~ NORTH E-LE~;':ION ~..-
r~~~'
, i',:';' tf tDl
....- 'to..
CANOPY AT SPORT COURT ENTRANCE
(3;
II ! r 1 I 1m 1 J
::::JL ~.~ !: '
~. '-roe;
, ----
,':'-- .~" -:.:..::...:
PA~~FPLAN
4~
~ r;::;=:
,~ :-:1 ~
PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN
CANOPY AT FRONT LOBBY ENTRANCE
",,"",,-
11 1
~
/--
~
bI
1
--
....~
.....""jfn;:;;~
~-
PARTIAL ROOF PLAN
~
.~
-.,U
PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN
CD
~
=,.- ,~~rH1
nn_F-'.l:I- -.:- ,'-
R!(f Q...._ :
['....1Il1ll
PARTIAL NORTH EAST ELEVATION
=-
-1.--
~_l
~
CANOPY AT REAR LOBBY ENTRANCE
~, ~ cp
rritD*- \
~!,r-~rall
tb:c~1 ~ -
!' lIDj'~'
\~
PARTIAL SOUTHEAST ELEVATION
}
,:
--
....-
tr..,......:.::..=
.e.o.G
BURGHARD
DESIGN GROUP
A lC HIT E C T 5
lI7f1HAUMIOA"SUlIIltl
IUNlfU, CALifORNIA '1S1l
nllltlli11-1I11 UUlIIIUHIII
......... ~
'-
-
, ,
.--.,-..
..
-~
, ' --""-----'
M.l..JOR MODIFICATION REVIEW
~_.-
,2, RANCHO F AMlL Y
MEDICAL GROUP
~xtfIrlor&""tIott
-.....--
T-.~_
, , ~.-
OM31
~ -.-.-
ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS,
ROOF PLANS & EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
. ""IIlL.....
A2.3
-,
, .
',,1, .l..----.IloIlII_~
.
,
,-
~',
.
i
I
0--(-
I
I
..--tnm n
~I
f7~
.....
~
~
I
,
,
,
-'
~
I
~
+
"8
. I
~, ~ ~
rID I 1
A-B..i +
~l!.. L!.I 1:1 I r
~ I I Ii!I
;: ~-'t'-t -'~.'_'.-'_~n'.o:J ~; f i -:..'
~ .. :" .. J +.r
4 l '" l ~~~ _
e
..
"
L
~
+
0-'
"........! -
~
'-,
w.
.~
"'.
"-,
'"
""
.
,
"
"' "
~
@ +
~
"
~,
,
,
,
I
I
,
Iillll
,
I
"
!!l
. .
\,
.;
~ I'
i
'"
9
'00
,
I
i
"
,
!
,
,
~
1
"
~
OVERALL ROOF PLAN
"",,.._ (1
--~
,.....
........-
---
--.--,
c,
)ie>
GENERAL NOTES
-------..
:t'::'=~.=~r':..~
-
:z..==-=:"":""!==-~
--..--........---..
-
_&,---~-_....
..-..........-
-.--'-"--
:..-...:=::..- .....
-----.-..---.
~~- ---...--
KEYNOTES
'~ --........-........-
. --'--
: ==.::..
0) ----.0
0)---
:~===
---
-----
......-.......-
-.-..--
..._'lJ...____.
-,----
---
'!> ---,--
BDG
........ .
BURGHARD
DESIGN GROUP
........ .
ARCHITECTS
lUll UU. lOA'" SUIII lU
MUlIH, (AUlOIMIA lIlH
111I111,""_11I1 (IU)lIlm.lI11
--.....,.
~
-
-
I' ~.T..,..
... ---
--..-0....
MAJOR MODIFICATIQN REVIEW
._......... I
RANCHO F AMIL Y
MEDICAL GROUP
~xtfrltN an".,
..,....--
,-.c....._
..........-
oe1~1
L,... -_.~~
OVERALL
ROOF PLAN
-- "'...
Aa.4
_.
.~ ------.
:. ..........;
""....l
~ .Hwf ~
'11'-';
: .........:
,...,' ~
F ! lfr-~- JM
. . ....~.~... '.--~-~. ... .
,~ ._J__._'.' .
, , ,., , ,
ffi ====..- "1 =='=---.-
-- --,--
, --- -----,-,-
, --- . ...,..--
, -~--- -----
.---- ,--
I. ===:=.. :;:,::::-=':"-:--==
--- =~'::I::=::::::'-
, --.--
--..---
=--===...-=.~~
9 ;;:::=:=.=...
G ;;,,:;;==:~
..'~
::1 l III If
.. ..~
f!
~,
r
fIT IT
~: :=l--
f 1 ! f .
f 1 1 If 11
'!~-.~.'. 1..1.. ",'JJ_.ro_ .F IT
- :1 . I ~ 1_: - --I~: - . ~ :rr- .'
.: I~'; t:~ ~ ~-; ~
.. -' JI" '
~;~
.
~... ..
4!SO\ffilELEVATlON.a ·
~n. " 'UJ1JW.L!~T. f ~k5-'--;~' ~T f T of . ).L!-1J':'. T T l'~~
:::::=!~r:f.g~!_ I ~ ~ : . . :' , r1I II) ._n - r1I I. I :L'!
=<= t:""d. .... . ~ '--, .,.. '. . :. --.'. , :',., ' . . IJ.LLLLU '-,II 1,1' I.m ,-l::t
~ ~~t~_w _:--~~lir"T~' ;1t~',"F~,~~-:r. ~+._., ~'r ~... ;~t
.NOPml ELEVATION. 0 , .. ·
LIlWWtl n -
": alii I~
~~::
. "I -..
,
~.,.'
~..:.:~,
.
-
-
'~'-~1 ~lrm'. .t1" <~'
I I tt!iJ .
.. ! 'l ill >h..,'
-
t<<lRTHEASTI!UVAl1ON_E
WEST EVA I .F
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
.a.o.G
BURGHARD
DESIGN GROUP
ARCHI.TECTS
U'" MAU~.~ iillll U;l
.lHNlFU, UtlfOUllA IUtI
ImJIIlIII.lllI IIUIIIIUI-!III
~,........_'-"-'
'-'-_~___.J
"-'I.LOI!.Il.--..1
....L
~
--
MAJOR MOt)IFlr,oTIDN Rf".'IEy'.
_I -...iIrro.....-..
RANCHO FAMILY
MEDICAL GROUP
ExtMof ,a,"'.tobA
~"'MNII"
_.....0*_
'_00___
-'"-' .........
[)6131
_, ..u....,__
OVE~LL
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
A4.1
-,--' --
.~-'...
,-~_"""".';-L -.;-
:t~'.;:,:.:.:;;:o:~
--:. ,-.
-:----. ..,....,' ~-.~-.-"":"'--------'1
,..,' F=~~='=!
''''''''e'=~=''.I.~,a
. , ,
""'b~~""'""'==.1
" ,
~.
~J ~T TIF8~lr=';;::8"" ~ ....Ir~C\l .--l
--,.--d-c' 'rt1' " ~. '" ~."..:. -'-T'"
--- 4:'-- ~ ~,! . ~ 1 ,~ !"., "1~;:1;:;"~~
~~ I El::l:3 '! EEEJ i EEEJ ," E3 " :=g
=~~"'.:~
SOUTH WEST ELEVATION. A
I> r :~'
T:-'
'ilJ:;
o I~ I~)
I _ ~ r'"~"-
i
",."'","-'''',,'
~~':::T:: :,"!I::-.~::.
.,---t"-'--rm..----
!ffi ~~;.:~:::: .;...
. ._,.,,>_..~~u,.
, "~'''''.~~-~''''_.
. _"'M~'_~~.^.
, '''~.'M~_~' ,,'
, -~"..~,...~~,.
. .M.'''......._
W _'~ ,.-..,_
;, _....._.....,~.. ....~
~ ~:--:::::-=.,~..::.,,:~.
H ~.~~':,;:~~,',::;,:,..
f, ;:;';~'''~~'':'::~
I~ ;i'~ ";0;,""-'
_o...~._"_,,,..,,,"
, "'~",'''''''-
.......,-,'..'_............
.....,...'..~.....'.-.._,....,
....~"-,,,._"_.....,,-'"'
-,... -_..._'--'''~
_."-" ..,,'"_.~~....~.
-.....c......,....-......
. .... .~.. ......11---- ..
f i ~
~;
CfJ " i <;J
T';
I
I
~'_ ~J ~ l~ T f 'il' r n r "' 'i' j' I' r ~,
I I _'=~t--~1~-" ..'~.i .F .....ti=l ~~to 'I==~~-~-;Il' C-=C::: 'm~
'1- -.-+-.-- ~-'I-" ._l.. L. L._
, :.-..~_..= .-.~:~~~:'::~:::~...b~c:~-,= : =I~:C:J== .'; ==c--:::::Jd'" < .- :J
. ::-n~;~d4 t'i;"F ~r =1~:r,I :l.,~'i.J1'.....*'1""l1~ ~
r i n
I III I
~: i-~': II
, r--, "
, j , ,.
, '" .
.(J It
SOUTH ELEVATION. B
i ~ r r ~ T Cj) i rJ r '"~ i i i ji. i i ,0 r i I' . .,~''';:'"::...
I I . ., r- . ....,._~~."
~I . . ,. ~ 'r : I r' I it. J___Lll M_---"f-, ~--5~..:=:;:-.~:
1 f 1 I I I r ~ I ~-----L-' ~
, . 'I' 'I I ! 1,' -".-- ' =[~::;;:::
!Jl:b~~-:b~~.b~~. b~~' ~=,=~coJ l=~~.I~c~~:;-~~=.
"1 I f'" 1'1'" I I r!rF~~-J --..--t'l 11-' .- J., i--""~"
i". ..' 'r:~'~ 'f'" ":,;;",,,.,,,.,,1~.._ ' "~" , -- . . I. "'!S""""'':-'..
ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
-B[)(~I-I
........ '1
, i U R G H A R U I
~)~S!G.N.G.RP:Ii:
ARC HIT E C T , I
,
..'
117H ~M.'H IOAO; lUlT! all
liIlHlfll tWfO~"IA '1l~1
ITlII''''''lm II")>!""\<.,
.C': AM:mm:IorJll(lIt'C::1
~ ~~H"--: 1
tIl-,~:::::::~:::Ja:tI:iiRf.L::: ~':":I
1tt>-<::::::::::~:::~::-~!~lK!~C:::::~: ~:::~ 1
tit L '"'"::':_' =-~"'WiSC.'::::,_ ~ 1
::I,;.IC":";(lLII ;,Ii" IF I"
1Il-{=::::::::::]~!tT.:mw~:'::::::::1
RANC:HO F AMII.Y
MEDICAL. GROIJ f"
EJdo!lr/(l'r~WI'UOll
ImprOlolllmlrfltl'
z",*,tInClloUooIDrl..
~_.tloliI<lo..._
O'_,_.,_...l3!.!.rIt.(~::::-..1
,J',.1:31
pl"C:::'.-=JJOJ;J:t~::::~.:1
t:: 1~t.r\I~CfCo
E):n:RI':J::~
I'LE-'./,'TIO:',:;;
I' 1 . -=mr.:D:!IE:::::::::: !
Ni.:J.
Iti""i::-: ::~:--:9f'\':'~'!'I9C=- ::.!
4IlC::gW::~--i I"'L,~~:..1
-;:- -:-. ~
,..,' ~ ~--=",l,
""""1.--
,~-~
,..,~ '-~
-:--- ~
uru
~
:--~ ,-'~......,.
........;
'fr.r'
:---Ji r if rr
~~ II
~..~
<jl iT
:\.rl'
<jl ii Hi i i :>, i ii 1: --_.,-
l ~~~~. "rT;.,. "";_:",
.l~ I II. I! ' r..~__.
- ii-.:'"~=:- - . fj]" '(-= ~ ~~::::
. - --'. .-,.--.--.---
~=:~c,_~ ~F;_m_~-t:l or'
)Tll~ ~ .
o-T
-....
.-...- _,,, . ,~ .; , .ol "
".1"
EAST ELEVATION. C
~. n ~&l ii TiT n r ii ~ T i <Jl.
~::'_.'- ~~. I .~. I Ii r Il, :~:) I ~--~ 1-1--1-1 4=i=
=':":":~fl-,' Irl- 1+ I 1,- L=-_, '," I If l' ,"'-"""'r" i
[... " ,"
'l~ ! - --+~,'-IL -~ -- --;;;; --,*"",._1,
". " I ,,' ,,,,"~"".JIIIIl _ +-~
I. NORTH ELEVATION _ 0 ~ J. ., ,
ii i ';) i i if 'f' i
tiN:
n
i
.,
I'
,
,. .
,
,
,
,~
I
=
='
,.,....-
.... r.;,.
'"
.'
, ii i..t-~ i ~ i i cp .i, ii" r l' i' '( 'i' I
I. ,. _-*-.J . --I
nlCl m. rtl. [;1. r IL~,_,?-l'I--~?'l ~=.L_<'~{_-1:
I 'J-i ,'. --r-------
I J ~'>-- I,L:! I ~,c ",l~'i r'l r--;.;....,'
." '" :!- ,"-- ;--;'-1"", ' '.~,'/~l II,: - ..111 I I If ~
, l .I $ '" OJ.. .I . __ .@$ /,M,.I..j ,. 6 ,\ ~ I, ".
ENLARGED EXTERJQR ELEVATIONS
"."e~=:::,::.-:~~_..3
. .
~ ;;;;;;;::::::.:'"
\1l::::;:::,::::
.j ::::0::::::::""
~ ~~~.:~~~::.
't ~~.~~:;;;;~,.
@ =~~'='~::::l'_o;:J::':'"
@ =~:=1:"-,,",,""":";-"~;::;;-,~~~
@ :;~;;;,~---, -.,
I ~i~f;.;;:~
:r..::,':....:.::~
.e.~).(:;
BURCHARD
DESICN CROlll'
ARCH i TEe j :i
117" WAU" IClA~, SUIl[ U"
IHIIIHI, tM\f~h\\ '1>~\
Imlllllll.'liI h~II''''''l'"'
.L:~:-!nElIE[("'IIl::I'I~""
"'{..-=::::egml!:~JIr.9:::::."_ ..I
.[-=...."_..~~~~.- "J
"-C"-::::='::::~~:"~-~::::~::::I
. C=::::1lI'!l:(!l1iC:=::::J
~.I".'(l" ,,""[:"1 ,. "':K;I~ ":1.,'.'1 :'.",
i -..c=::::__:::~~JmI::::":::J
RANCHO F'AMIL Y
MEDICAL GROUf'
Elrt6rlOf E/t1vatiOl1
.t,llflrOnm~ntB
WIllO~..,OoII.llrIt.
r__.<loIl111_"....
.c.=-=IW~J.!Ml..--:-::::::- 1
"h..'I"
.,,-:::::JIO)i:t"iJ,iliJ!lIr:::::"':'1
I"NI \RI~",H!
1'-"'[" ,:r.
~. l E ,,',' T, ',ll~;.-;
.c=:::=:~.~...__~ _=]
A4.~I.
---~ -. - -.--.(
_",~_~J eL........,'jglJ,-:::J ...r:::~rn" ..1
~~~__._-m:J~~~.::.'~1
-----:--~
....... ;----;---: --~ ,_ ~ ~:w__~ ------: vr-r :--~ --~
,"0,' .~---+=-~ "/l"'l- c-=F--"""9 ~.,.~_ _--==~, :;"::'.:';'~~
""0"
~ ._ i Ui i i i ~ ii i ~ ~i if l (v __ Ut _ JJll i i "_____
-:-:','; n l'rfucr:bfD, ~~,-' ~,'. ~~, ~~~-t~-;:.:::.
_ - ~I b.tl:l t:l::t:J -! tt.t:l1 - I I EEEll - i I tf:::l:::fl' I ! EtBl' I Bf . B .;:-:.:;
~~:~tyffl, -~..I.&:t~~ . ~1-1~... .lm .. ~cf i~J"i . .....~ l",=;;
.1 ......,..,..1,...,011. :,JDiii
oJ ",~-- ..".
NORTH EAST ELEVATION. E
~~~:I'W=~ mirn T
:;:::0.::-" 'din rrb~
..--. .-.h I tt.t:l B::trJ. f lli:rl
-- ._,-
::..~.~ ~TJ~- -=-~----- - .-'-
:,1~:~t~
" ...."
WEST ELEVATION - F
T i rim i if ii~J i i n(> j'}
1"1 I .m'"''.:'''d'''r1'!:~',re" .
I '"1 . I "
c~~
';1
I &13 l,~
!
ENLARGEO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
ffi;;;;.:::-:::::;-
r ~~;0i~ .
t "'--'-
" ~.~,-.~~.
, ~.~_....~.~
, '.~'-~-'--.'-'
~==:"',':f,;;=:,,~
e E"tf,;:~,"~.-r.:;.,.
.;y;(".2';:"~~""",:,:,,:..~~,:
@ :;':':':;:;'0':::': ----.-
@::::=.::~.".".
~ ---..--"..
~=::,:c::;::.;:=:::=
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
====-_____=-=J
.6.0(~1
BUR G fI A R D
,DESIGN GROUP
AI ( HIT! C T.\
!l7" H^U~ lOAD, lUll! lnt'
IH~IFU. CAtlfiHHIA !UII!
(jtllllll"llil IrUlIll"'_'''''
.C:"_~'r.l!'':'!1&i31r_-='::.1
~_,w",~.L~il~-~:::]
.l- _.__---=--~lJ:iWl1.~::_ --"
~_-~_,=-.::'- I
er- -'~~.r_~=- ..-,
M,\!(le M'X'lf' :'11' 1-1';1 I
._'....~.,.,~'_.::]
RANCHO FAMILY
MEDICAL GROUP
ExttJrlo(EffJvstlrM
~\'emMra
~"'00.0ri00
T_~_ g~!lil~
OC::'. .:J!P.l~L~_,"___::
JW,:';
...-c:_,~~.".,_..,>--.":i
I':N'_!'H(,.I::t.l
ExTf;;W-IF<'
E'lf'if',1ICtN:"
.C-=_,~-,-...........__._-::::J
A4.A
1llooC- _ :.:Bfr8l.11I1C:: ::.-
.~II_-:--)...r .':'M~,-
..
........-1.
.~ .
~ "'......
-r---!.
'-~
,,,...,' F=---r-....-..........~ ".....,
I--~-
. _-'II......"......
.---
. ----..-...-
.----
._----
, =::0-"'-"--
--...---
---,-
"___,_CIIL,,
--......--
---
---
---,-
---
............---...--
--
@ ......--....,---....'"
"'- --
@ -,...--...,-....-
---..--
"'------
r
e---,.,
0>--'.
~ 5:~ ~
4 J,
r r
~.. r ~-€
e----J TT
0-- :r
! ., -l~ II
I ~ I J, @-------o. ;!tJ1~
!0-- ~T
: t
--@
V:~:,. ,-,- @>
r ~:<r
_..~ ",oJ ><..,/
r T
0--
~ 4
0--
---<;)
po~' r
..~
WALL SECT~ (4)
WALLSECTI9~~ (3)
;-------;
i -"-""""-.---
--
.................-...-........
----
@ -..--..-.....-.........
1;.-:::-.:-_--
............---
._."""01ID__
.--....---
----
~ :::,:"'_-:-......'-""'-~~-
@ ==-'...::::::..~---
@ =:--"'--"'.......
@....,..,-"'......---""'-""""
@ -.."..,.-..-....,-....-
@ r...TLI__"'.......____
KEYNOTES
--!
I :,.-:-":':':'::':
, ---,
....,. ~-
@>~~~~.~
@l ~~"""=~~......_-
@ ~-~.."""..........._-
WALL SECTION '1
BDG
........ .
BUR G H A R D
DESIGN GROUP
AI (H II [( I S
1l711HAUH IOAO,IUlTllDO
MIHlm, tAl1'OINIAI151i
mllm "H'" lUll ",m.""
'-------r'~.....~ -'~'~"
A5.1
~
.'
.~~
.,-
.1-
0--
~
0--'
r
c.::~
~
./......
\
1..
rn
WALL SECT'2~_ (5)
~l
@--. ----@
Ti.,
@--,.
-€>
T
c.::~
@ =:.o!.a~~~
@ =-""'=~~---
@ ~ .......-.-..--
~. ,,,...,.
r ! 11
I r or or
;
.
0--, 0-- ',~ ~L ~j
.
./"-r: '."'F
""...,.~
'!--~-
. --.....-.......
.----
, --..........,.......-
.---
. -----
, :::"""'--..._-
; --.---
.---,-
..---,-......
" --_...._~
---
~---
. ---'''-
,,---
..~=....--_............
@.-.........,..,-....=.
.,....--...--
@....,..._,_...a>o<...'I'"OO><D
~....,;".,.,-~--
~ ==~.......---
~ =.~..=-'....:::---...
@ :"~"':.=--"'-_......-
0).......__............_
-}..,.............._-
-; .-.......---
~,................_--
-;,----
.....--
-;. ...........-............-----
Qo) ~..:=::::..~-
e =r.........-.,--..-...
@ ~-..._...._--
@> -.."..,.-..._~,-..._.
@ r.......__.,......___
KEY NOTES
f
<>--t, ,-
-----@
~ t ~
0--'
_ 1
" ---@
0--'
-----@
Ti'"
~
0--
l'
l' l' ~ ~.
-€
,I -€
~~ ~~-
,~
, !
!I -- \:
,
,
- .
.
:
~~ J"
~ l
I
&--
I
I
1
0-- .~ ----@
r
0--, r
----@
rl.
,
&--1
0--~~
L
~'n
0--";'" t'j
---@--
Ir ..
0---'i
I l',
'"
&--
r Ir
- _ r
.~:r
Ir
,
'? I r
''-r ~~
I
-"'''''''',,,
r
WALL SECT1.~~ (3) I
WALL SECT~~, (2)
- "
........--
---,
6.0.G
BURGHARD
DESIGN GROUP
Ai (H I T E (T S
llIt1MAUMIQAC.lUIIlIOl
lIIlHIf!!, CAlIf01W'IlII
Illll", ,,,.,,,, IIUI,,,,,...m
el ..,_,... "",...-""n
_1. _._,~ -~
.,
r
~
r
Y:;&'
@- =~
.'
"'\, MAJOR MODIFICATION REVIEW
, ;lJ i ~ ~U~l~~
[t~~ RANCHO F AMIL Y
In~ MEDICAL GROUP
Exterior Elevation
Improv~nttl
.....,
----
T_,*,-tlMO
'; 1""" .'
06131
(".'---@ , ~ ...."".--
I WALL SECTION~
L-
.'
A5,2
~
WALL SECT~o.~ (1:'
.~~~
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-_
G:lPlanning\2007\PA07-0035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODlPlanning\STAFF REPORT.doc
9
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA07-0035 A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO RENOVATE THE
EXTERIOR OF A 97,737 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING LOCATED AT 28780 SINGLE OAK DRIVE AND AN
INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR). THIS IS A 360-
DEGREE RENOVATION TO THE EXTERIOR FA~ADE WHICH
INCLUDES ADDING CORNICES, WINDOW FRAMING, FAUX
COLUMNS, ORNAMENTAL FASCIA AND DECORATIVE
ENTRANCE ARCADES WITH STONE BASE PILLARS. (APN
921-020-050)
Section 1. Procedural Findinos. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On December 9, 2004, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application
No. PA04-0493, Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of medical offices, basketball and
volleyball courts, martial arts, and a gym; and on January 6, 2005, the Planning Commission
approved Planning Application No. PA04-0565, Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of
educational services within this building.
B. On January 29, 2007, AI Burghard of BDG Architects filed Planning Application
No. PA07-0035, a Major Modification in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code.
C. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
D. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and
environmental review on April 4, 2007, 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.
E. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA07-0035 subject to and based
upon the findings set forth hereunder.
F. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findinos. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application
hereby finds, determines and declares that:
Develooment Code Section H.OS.Ol0F
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 proposed building revisions are consistent with the General Plan land use policies
for Industrial Park (/P) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
G:IPlanningl2007\PA07-OO35 RANCHO fAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanninglPC RESOLUTION EXEMPT !'ROM
CEQA,doc
use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Light Industrial (L1) zoning
district. The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires that proposed buildings be
compatible with existing buildings. The proposed building revisions are compatible with
the surrounding industrial and office buildings in the vicinity of the project site.
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 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 public
health, safety, and welfare.
Soecial Use Reaulations and Standards. Increase in Floor Area Ratio, Develooment Code
Section 17.08.050.A.2
A. The project must provide exceptional architectural and landscape design
amenities which reflect an attractive image and character for the City;
The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be exceptional
in its architectural and landscape design amenities. The application includes extensive
renovations to the exterior fayade including comices, window framing, faux columns,
ornamental fascia and enhanced entrance arcades, outdoor gathering areas and new
parking lot lights.
Section 3. Environmental Findinps. The Planning Commission hereby makes the
following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Major
Modification:
A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project
has been deemed to be Categorically Exempt from further environmental review (Class 1,
Section 15301, Existing Facilities);
The project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. The proposed
building modifications are aesthetic enhancements to an existing building and will not
affect its use.
Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves
Planning Application No. PA07-0035, a Major Modification to renovate the exterior elevations of
a 97,737 square foot Industrial Building located at 28780 Single Oak, subject to the Conditions
of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Q,lPlanning\2007IPA07-OO35 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanninglPC RESOLUTION EXEMPT FROM
CEQA.doc
2
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 4th day of April 2007.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
ATTEST:
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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 07-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of April
2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:IPlanningl2007\PA07'()()35 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanninglPC RESOLUTION EXEMPT FROM
CEQA,doc
3
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07'()()35 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPIanningIPC RESOLUTION EXEMPT FROM
CEQA.doc
4
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA07-0035
Project Description:
A Major Modification to renovate the exterior of a 97,737
square foot Industrial Building generally located at the
northeast corner of Single Oak Drive and Business Park
Drive at 28780 Single Oak Drive zoned Light Industrial
and an increase in floor area ratio (FAR). This is a 360-
degree renovation to the exterior fagade which includes
adding cornices, window framing, faux columns,
ornamental fascia and decorative entrance arcades with
stone base pillars.
Assessor's Parcel No.
921-020-050
MSHCP Category:
Industrial
DIF Category:
Business Parkllndustrial
TUMF Category:
IndustriaVBusiness Park
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
April 4, 2007
April 4, 2009
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-four Dollars ($64.00)
for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as
provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations
Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the
Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall
be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanning\Draft COAs.doc
,
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanninglDrafl COAs.doc
2
Planning Department
2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the
Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files.
3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to
attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action
in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory
agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City,
concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to
include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the
applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable
and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take
any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to
such defense.
4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this
development plan.
5. This approval shall be used within two 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-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, orthe beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
6. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration,
and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three one-year extensions of time, one year at
a time.
7. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage (Sign Program may be required).
8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and
elevations contained on file with the Planning Department.
9. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials,
equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by
staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique
that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the condition of
approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest
may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning
Commission for its decision.
Material
Stucco (main body)
Stucco (cornice caps)
Stucco (recessed areas)
Stucco (columns and window framing)
Stone Veneer at Pillar Base
Exterior Hand Railings
Color
Dunn Edwards "Rustic Taupe"
Dunn Edwards "Big Stone Beach"
Dunn Edwards 'Wooded Acre"
Dunn Edwards ''Teddy Bear"
Arizona Tile Travertine "Noce Classic"
Dunn Edwards to match
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-(J035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MEO MAJOR MOOIPlanning\Oraft COAs,doc
3
10. All exterior hand railings will be coated using one color that simulates one of the proposed Dunn
Edwards colors that will be used on the building.
11. Existing and New Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not
being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors
in interest.
12. The applicant shall provide a planting plan for the slope located along Business Park Drive and
Single Oak Drive prior to obtaining building permits.
13. The applicant shall provide an outdoor bench seating design and materials proposal, for Planning
Director Approval, near the entry waterfall feature prior to obtaining building permits.
14. The applicant shall paint a segment of the building, which shall include each of new colors painted
as proposed onto its respective new trim, for Planning Department inspection prior to commencing
painting of entire building,
15. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this
Major Modification.
Building and Safety Department
16. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the Califomia
Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and
the Temecula Municipal Code.
17. 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 street-lights 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.
18. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the
Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees.
19. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work.
20. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all
details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
21. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
22. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
23. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 edition of
the California Building Code Appendix 29.
24. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to
permit issuance.
G:lPlanning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODlPlanning\Draft COAs,doc
4
25. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review. As applicable to scope of work proposed.
26. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal. As applicable to scope of work proposed.
27. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with
disabilities.
28. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building
construction.
29. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. As applicable to scope of work
proposed.
30. Show all building setbacks.
31. Sign age 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. 94-21, 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 Prevention
32. 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 (CFC
art.87 et al).
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 surface for 80,000 Ibs.
GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
Community Services Department
34. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction
and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction and demolition debris.
35. The Applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance.
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanning\Draft COAs.doc
5
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanninglDrafl COAs,doc
6
Community Services Department
36. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-OO35 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanninglDraft COAs,doc
7
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-o035 RANCHO FAMILY SiNGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanning\Draft COAs,doc
8
Planning Department
37. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant
shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from
view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is
determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet
walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the
developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof
element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning.
38. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-
street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating
the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with
disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed by telephoning (951) 696-3000."
39. 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.
40. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed
prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit.
41 . All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
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's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
G:lPlanning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMilY SiNGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODlPlanninglDralt COAs,doc
9
ATTACHMENT NO.5
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q035 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MOD\PlanningISTAFF REPORT.doc
10
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING
COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
Planning Application No. PA07-0035
BDG Architects; AI Burghard
28780 Single Oak Drive
A Major Modification to renovate the exterior of a 97,737 square foot industrial building. This
is a 360-degree renovation to the exterior fayade which includes adding cornices, window
framing, faux colurnns, ornamental fascia and decorative entrance arcades with stone base
pillars.
Exempt per CEQA Section, 15301 "Existing Facilities"
Betsy Lowrey
City of Temecula, Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Date of Hearing: April 4, 2007
Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be
heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,
the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Questions concerning the
project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
CECA Action:
Case Planner:
Place of Hearing:
""
"5
5l>O
F...
\
~
-~
o 02..5 125
Notice of Public Hearing
GWIanning\2007\PA07-OO35 RANCHO FAMILY SINGLE OAK MED MAJOR MODIPlanningINOPH-pe,FRM,doc
ITEM #4
DATE OF MEETING:
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
RECOMMENDATION:
CECA:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 4, 2007
Matt Peters, AICP
TITLE: Associate Planner
Planning Application No. PA06-0002, a Tentative Tract Map
(No. 30767) to subdivide 11.5 gross acres into 18 lots (14
single-family residential lots and four open space lots) within
Planning Area 33A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan,
generally located on the south side of Nicolas Road, at the
future intersection of Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road.
[8J Approve with Conditions
D Deny
D Continue for Redesign
D Continue to:
D Recommend Approval with Conditions
D Recommend Denial
D Categorically Exempt
(Section)
(Class)
[8J Notice of Determination
(Section) 15162
D Negative Declaration
D Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT draft,doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: Ashby USA. LLC
Date of Completion: January 11, 2007
Mandatory Action Deadline Date: April 4. 2007
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (Ll
Zoning Designation: SP-11, Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan - Low Density
Residential (Ll
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
Open Space across Nicolas Road (Roripaugh SP Planning Area 33B) -
proposed trail head and park and ride facility
Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel
Open Space across Butterfield Stage Road (Roripaugh SP Planning Area 27)
- proposed City Park
SinQle Family Residential - Very Low Density Residential
South:
East:
West:
Lot Area:
11.5 acres, Residential Lots 20,000 SF minimum
Total Floor Area/Ratio: N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage: N/A
Parking Required/Provided: N/A
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the
applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
ANALYSIS
The Tentative Tract Map (No. 30767) is a request to subdivide 11.5 acres into 18 lots within
Planning Area 33A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. This includes 14 residential lots, 1
open space lot for the corner monument sign, and three open space lots for flood control along
the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. Lots range in size from 21,780 square feet to 50,011
square feet, with an average lot size of 30,556 square feet. The proposed project density is
1.21 du/acre which is consistent with the Low Density (L) land use designation of the Specific
Plan (maximum 2 du/ac). The proposed unit count of 14 is one lot below the projected unit
count in the Roripaugh Specific Plan, but is consistent with the projected unit count for the
Roripaugh Ranch Community Financing District.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-QOO2 Roripaugh PA33A.TTM 30767\Planning\PC STAFF REPORT draft,doc
2
Per the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 16.03.060.A), one point of access
is proposed since there are not more than 35 homes. The access point is proposed via Street
B and Nicolas Road, aligned with the terminus of Fiesta Ranch Road, approximately 360 feet
west of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. Residential lots will take
access off the private internal cul-de-sac street. All proposed access conforms to the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Subdivision Ordinance.
The project site is bound by Nicolas Road to the north, Butterfield Stage Road to the east, the
Santa Gertrudes Creek Channel to the south, and a 50-foot Metropolitan Water District
Easement to the west. Lots 1 through 14 are residential lots; lot 15 is an open space lot at the
corner of Nicolas and Butterfield Stage Roads, and lots 16-18 are open space lots for flood
control purposes along the Creek. A portion of lots 8 and 9 are within the 50-foot MWD
easement. This easement, as well as the flood control open space slopes will be maintained
by the project Homeowner's Association.
The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan,
Subdivision Ordinance, the General Plan, and the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement.
LEGAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on March 24, 2007 and mailed to
the property owners within the required six hundred (600) foot radius.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously approved EIR
and is exempt from further Environmental Review per the California Environrnental Quality Act
(CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations).
As part of the CEQA determination and as required by the mitigation measures for the FEIR,
staff reviewed an Updated Acoustical Analysis for Final Tract Maps No. 29353 and 29353-2 in
Roripaugh Ranch, prepared by Colia Acoustical Consultants, which determined the exterior
noise levels for the project area will be below 65 CNEL and will not require additional
mitigation. Therefore, the project as currently proposed is consistent with the original
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
G:\Piannin9\2006IPA05'()()()2 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767lPlannin91PC STAFF REPORT draft,doc
3
Pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission is considering the proposed Tentative Tract
Map. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Final Environmental
Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan No. 11, approved by the City
Council on November 26, 2002, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified
therein, and the subsequent environmental reviews required as mitigation measures identified
therein. Based on that review, the proposed Tentative Tract Map does not require the
preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration
as none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code
Regs. 15162) exist. Specifically, the proposed Tentative Tract Map (TIM) does not involve
significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not
represent new information of substantial importance which shows that the TIM will have one
or more significant effects not previously discussed in the FEIR. All potential environmental
impacts associated with the proposed TIM are adequately addressed by the prior FEIR, and
the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR will reduce those impacts to a level that is less
than significant.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General
Plan, Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance and
recommends approval based on the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
FINDINGS
Tentative Tract Map (Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code)
1. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, and the City of Temecula
Municipal Code.
Tentative Tract Map No. 30767 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision
Ordinance, the Development Code, Municipal Code, and the Roripaugh Ranch Specific
Plan because the project has been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the
policies and standards in the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code,
Municipal Code and Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
2. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965.
The proposed land division is not land designated for conservation or agricultural use
and has never been entered into any Williamson Act Contracts.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map.
The project consists of a 18-lot Tentative Tract Map on property designated for
residential uses, which is consistent with the development standards for Planning Area
33A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
G:lPlanning\2006lPA06-QQ02 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 307671PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT draft,doc
4
4. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan were adopted for
the Roripaugh Ranch SpecifiC Plan, which addressed environmental impacts on the
site. Mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program), and the
Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan have been incorporated as conditions for
this application, as appropriate. The application is consistent with the project
description analyzed in the EIR, and no subsequent environmental review is necessary
per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Safety Division and the
Building Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their
concerns. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan, Development Code and
Specific Plan to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The
project is consistent with these documents.
6. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible.
The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Safety Division and the
Building Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their
concerns. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan, Development Code and
Specific Plan fo ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The
project is consistent with these documents.
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within
the proposed subdivision.
All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Tract
Map. The Public Works Department and Community Services District have reviewed
the proposed division of land and adequate conditions andlor modifications have been
made to the Tentative Tract Map.
B. The subdivision is consistent with the City's Parkland dedication requirements
(Quimby).
Per the Development Agreement approved with fhe Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan,
Quimby fees will not be required. Appropriate parkland dedication and in-lieu fees have
been provided.
G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-OO02 Roripaugh PA33A.TTM 30767lPlanningIPC STAFF REPORT draft.doc
5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 7
2. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 8
3. PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 9
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
4 Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 10
G:\Planning\2006IPA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A.TTM 30767\PianninglPC STAFF REPORT draft.doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT draft.doc
7
~-f\.e'~--'~-_.._,-.____~_-,---~
I i
( i I
.. --/IL-
"w-~;r--' -I
~IN'::"___ / I
-~/( I r/ -
--I \\/ '/
I
Ie- .
I~
-
I
I
I'
i
,
\
'\
~\:'~
).- '9o~1f:>;q ()GHVAU-€YRO
,r-
i,' I
\\
,\
\ \
, I
i
I
--J
- ,
!
'-'--, ;'
i
! !
II
! !
I j
/;
17
/ ( '1
'" ~!~/ ~ J
"'..f- "~, /
'-~--- -""
--'---:':~Tffl()QPRD' _ "_
----------=---- --
f
;
1
,
,
,
i
\
\
\.~~,-
\~
I
\
220
110 _
o
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PLAN REDUCTIONS
G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanningIPC STAFF REPORT draft.doc
8
_.L_~
................"....
..~[~~....._,..,.>Cf...
"'"" "'_'00_00' .......,_~'.
".........-.-
,.'....'-..e...., 111>3.'......
.or'U...._,.t,"OC'..,J.",.",,"""'-,...-....
'......'<<I)I""............c"""..O[c"".....
UOS'1o/I:_ _....:w.ptCO'~.........J,.
,................"",,-
"""""".,_ """'...""w""'CN....t."'......."."'"
,.... lK""''' "U1lltwr...
'0'" ,...." ...""'...... ,o~
...." ,,,/oCt. , ...... ."ot, ,.' ('0' ,~)
e_""','."M>"''''.)
........'tl....n. ,.,!II....
",.....,..""...".,......'(.,."'...1
1Ol1..."U.......'........''tUt'u.,._ "'''(>0'1.'
""'........_..Il'CIl"..
..... , ."'~ ..."',..,....
'. ...c."'....."t'It""'..'.... ..""""""..."".
'1 "",,"on....... uK, ""':<t r....'..Ii:l<<."....
'. .........,"".....or.. ""'."'" (,,.OJ.cor.)
,,_c'......... "''''''(''.lJot..,)
'I. ..."'......."'...,""..
,.,...,-",,,,,,,,,...
c_'...' '".u.''''''' _,,",.)J.'OOC1
,...................."".c.
"".'"_t!.
"""t"..n"'ol
(00')'.'_"'''
".." ~~~;:~..: ...,. -'''"''
........CA"..'
(""]"0-""
,..".."""""""'"",,,...'...'
'".'''''''''''''
.,....,c......
"..,...-""
Hlt'OC"~;:::.s:'t:;....,,,,,,,,,..,
.."..-..,,...
,,,,),,,-OJ.'
""...-.........
".~.....-. .,
""....,CA .n..
{'."'''-''''
'" .........[O....,.........""...,~ "...cuu_u..-....c.....
(>OS,''.'
" ..\....".....,fIlc...,"'ue"O.."C1...orlClIt""'..I"""'...'.
1I~"'''' _ ............ .""'.... .. _ "'""" t....-..us __
"I,.OOOOMOl"
" .,.... ........ ...... '''D _.. .. 1M'" _'- OIl ""'. ,...'
"""Me'''"",''''
I1I..CIIll...,.....I..t'...'_...........,._,_...'~
.._r...' ....1LOIJI:C'............
" .... __ IO~'''''' 1>1:"~ ... ,,~ ........~ .. ",,_ roo .". ..
,,~......,..."~
,. ........-......~..._'... .,......._,.'"'"
..""",,,-....
"...,_~..<n...""I'O'
."""_M""\........
'''1''','''-1'1''
,. "...,""_"lVO.".....~...!I.(.....,.,o,'.,".."n...........o[_
.. ..._...Oll.....'.....' ""'''!I'OC['C''.'''__l.
Of"....~ ......., ,.... "'[1 _ 10"[11 ~....., CO '" __., It...~.
0-"__
......."'.,"C
....t...............11
..,,,,,,..t"'"'1
11\ I'''' no_'",
""(''')111.''''
~1_1IIn'''''Y&o
...........'IOlCo,t'tt.
'18Il'",,__
-....,."
'n[,'")'''_''''
'''(''11'''_''''
,,'
.,.
.,1"1 '; "I~
,\":J -,,1-!~ %
rr ~..'-';'-""--"'.el I
"',1. _~
..",,,.
'.....'tl'.tl1 t.moa
.".,,,,... ...tf~
l"iI"!>O'~ "D'
......,~.
.fI'. '"'.....
: ~,... : h!lt"t..
~~.::l.:L<~?~,/.~.,~ .......
.c_...
."
--,"
".
'.:1
~,-
-'.:'
:-....
., : ::J~;- ,.
'-."_":; "''':h.:m..
"s
,\
';f_~
Ii
1
V'CI'OIll......
."
'"""" ,,"0'.'" ,~~', ~'~!,;:~:"
=:~';;.'["'.~,.
lEGEHtl
____'0.
""" "~'"
,..___..."0."....
_..~,..o."o.,
,,,"," "0'. ""~..
.....,.'0""".......
"...'......0...."1'"
""""""",",""
...... ..,,'" .~L
,".' c....".."...,
~
~-
~,~
"
.I. '_."or'" ....-.,
to'" "" .-,
~ !;~"".,\~"',,'~':''':'
J>' "'~,,. L .,. 'to
'...."."...0......"
"" 'O','",I'_~I
101 ,~ "",. ,.oc, 10' ,.". "'
'" " 1:-":"'~~;\.~' 1"'" ")
-N- lO'Tl ~';":~\.~"' 10/"'1
Ii (Oli, 0"''''''''''"''''"' ."
"OC,to"'",
,,,
>
L '" _ " _ "
;'r','JJ,t~,' 'I ' T::I:f"" ri;j'r -I"~
. I, "."" I' . r-l'
~'~h!t'r!~'; r I I.. r>",,-f;",
:.: :" ,.,'. ,::,:-'.(;;~:->,: +. >lg;'.<'_*~k., .,.
'_M.IIICtlOM--.UI'lOAO
~,',s -
fU,~.
,..c' 0\J$\)t5"W
~...~;:::='i
:~~~...~~~ ;::;:.. t f .' i ;~ i "I""'~ I
" 1
t;;,~o-.
M ~."...;.~':.':"'o ' '~~h '?~ "
,.""'~, =:1 ,..c'
.0ll..I[",----....: ye"'7',"'
w." ,....VIe..,.!
....."~,i~j;.'J
- ~~ ~.~""
'lcrmc-. --n~
~., "'(,.,
... 10 ;
'~'
[ , -,.
'-
- , ,
-:'~'~l. _'"
. \:J;<~~:, ~~-v,~,.;:
,,~,;.+- '-'
.",.,'".,......!".....'
~,;>{;; ':-;
l"'l:AI..rCncfII'IIlnW'm.1l'U.~CI.D
"D."")
-~.
.~
".\
.~
..........,("1
" .
v ~~~~~
~...,tM,_,_ (...)".."..,,,.
.<0,>0" ".....,_..."".
---... -.
_....._ ""-I'"'' "'''''''.
_._'"' 'ocr..... ,....'1.
:_.:_..j
__H
."
-.cncfll ~..
."
-.cllllllll-ll
."
,"'.."'''''."..'''......,....,''''2')
PRF.P~RtO 1I0vtMDr.R. ~D'"
crTV OF TEMEClA-A
I,.."
~
TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 307e7
PA 33A
.
CONCEPTUAL GRADING
FOR
TENT A TIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30767
PA 33A
CIty of TemecUa
, "
17 V::=:~. _~.~~7.ff!~ -.-.
. ~ . .............
~. ,;;.::;::. ':.c:":':~'::'~':'''.:..:.:..:&';:;-~..:.:.I::'.i.''h
! ! r
, I'
i I I : i
.J : 'ID :.. , . :
:':::;::::::::r:::::::::f::::::::f:::::::::'1'''!!' .:r:::.:.,:::: . )'1'
/ J.:=h.~-;.L7".J-l-:~_)~'
. _..~~~_...,.... -[_...<......
: .: ! i i i",: l
! ,,' : :: ~{
. : I ! . ! 4 I I 1 \ ",
I . .: ! l "
. , 'I II
, '. !t
----=--=--...
- --. .....-.-
-
~...::J\:i'JIl:"'""'.-
--. ". '.--.--.-
...-...- ,...
-
_.CO'..........CO'
_....._eo
-
---.---.-
....---
....,-_._'"
__......0&_
""'1'0'''--
-
,
.......'oa_._..-._....
-
t. "-"-'__.11II"___
). "------.....-....-
---
.. ---~.-.-~
__r-IIl___.
to. ___.........___......
..--,
.. _...--.-._.-..,._--
.-
...a --.... c.
....--
_. co. M'.
:'Q:::=
--
J .--~... . .
~~~.:_ __ _L:. ._~.~.:::~-~~~~
-...~
."'c.__
---
fll."_'_
_"",_'m
-
000,,",_ _1OD,..t1TlfCly.mt
ntllW CW&\IIDII ~ ~,.
fMlJ "-MSJ At tEd' NO .......~
,...,.... JNIIOl.Ot ......",.. IV
1T......t1T....,ItC'~f1I.....
r-.-II _r-Gr-_'!:
-'.
~~-.:~--::.::.-:_-=::=::::~:
--
I
,
/
MEr,
I
-
~.,.....::--=---
-----
II
,..
--
!-rr
"IIJ'''I
I1'F ~<
.,
w
..
1
(' i ~..."'
~
-.....
,.....
1_..'"
~l I I
j' 'T ." ...'
..,~ 'trf - ~ - ,I~
~~ ~::..,~
-~
1_- .
l
!
~
.....
----
--....-
__I.'
~
--
_.._.._~O'I""
___._PIIltI'_....
'c,,_
__._____01_
--
,
"[-I-I' ---
.- - - .....~
--------
.
---
---
'"".... _-.c
---
----~....
I
......-.u'I~
___._...ftJCll
-o--o-oc..._
""-
-~.-
'~"" ~-. "" -
---"-. - ._-~'- :;:! ~
'. " 'I'
~o:: =~,,;~~;~~~~ l
_...._rr__
....a..L_._UlUW.
tll.OI_"
J.
,
-.--
/
t61\_:l~'"
---
,.,f1OP,__
...
...
.."
...
--~
"._1.Il'l'
.--
"._WI'
.--
oot._'"
...-
MEr a
It:
, /
.~
~fW "fW
j' .., ''''
. .. , .. ,~ 1
JJL1~r,~~
.~
J
',,/,.
A
1"'" -., '" . J'" I
,~
~"""_~11'__
...
~,
--
T-..L_.-"_
...
~,
--
""'NIID._-'_
I .......-...
--......
T8ft'A'IM nucr
... .....
:_1_1 ".IM
..
T
!
,
,
,
I
!
.
I
-
,
,
.
i
~
;
~. I
.1_ ,
-I
"
l'''''''''
i(J
'I
...
=:::
~
~
d~
~
;0-, ~
,',
-, "
" '
"",'f:.
"...~.,
. '
.-,/'
;\<{~?
"
-::~. -
:::. -S'.::=-~. .J
....
\ ,,\
'.'l"'j (;.;..\
~
~
\
-1'1"
~
~....--?
(1'1"'111..
.....
C'I
~
~
~
i5
~
....
,:J~f:~[~:/., ,
fjf;<
,~')^,<,~' /
,~<'<<
,/
8NfT '
. _ A...:-=,:"'/
...,. ~
'"':->:.
,."....'
. . :<l:ti~::
l\K'"
h,1/"
tll'lIr"lOW 0I'Jdr"'''I'SlO(N!tAt
'y=-'
~'F 'I:,I'~
-.-. ~~-;::
,.'" .,.~
_CTlON D-D c..
..
-'~'~
_ 1::-
:::'t"'
. ,
-
~ .... -
ift-:-)~~" ""......' .._ _
~~
...
I!C~ E~
\
".
~
, . . .
- .
,.....,
,_..,ft.
Yll ~~~Inc. I I
...l:'c::'- ;::.,....- :
-:.. ' , 1!11I"-I'""I'-t--
--- ::;:;.";: ",.,. ,
-..-
,-,
aTY .. --...
--
TBfTATM "-NIl
...._ffIM:f
..-
!
,
~
-
r
2
~
l
!
~
f
i
~
j
!
,
"
t
~
I
.
-.
~-
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION 07-_
G:\Plannlng\2006\PA06-OO02 Rorlpaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT draft,doc
9
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA06-0002, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (NO. 30767) TO
SUBDIVIDE 11.5 GROSS ACRES INTO 18 LOTS (14 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS)
WITHIN PLANNING AREA 33A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF NICOLAS ROAD, AT THE FUTURE INTERSECTION
OF NICOLAS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD. (APN
964-460-004, -005, -010, AND -012)
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declares that:
A. On November 26, 2002, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and
certified an Environmental Impact Report (PA94-0076), a General Plan Amendment (PA99-
0298), the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (PA94-0075), a Change of Zone (PA94-0075), a
Development Agreement (PA99-0299) and Tentative Tract Maps 29661 (PA01-0253) and
29353 (PA01-0230).
8. On January 11, 2005, the City Council of the City of T emecula approved
Tentative Tract Map 32004 (PA04-0369) and Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment NO.1
(PA04-0371) to change Planning Area 78 from Open Space (OS) to Low Medium Residential
(LM), Planning Area 10 from Low Density Residential (L) to Low-Estate Residential (L-E), and
make other changes to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
C. On February 28, 2006, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment NO.2 (PA05-0341) to change the land use
designation for Planning Area 338 from Low Density Residential (L) to Open Space (OS) to
accommodate park and ride and trail head uses, and to relocate the park and ride facility from
Planning Area 11 to Planning Area 338.
D. Ashby USA filed Planning Application No. PA06-0002 to subdivide 10.9 acres
into 14 residential lots and four open space lot in Planning Area 33A of the Roripaugh Ranch
Specific Plan area ("Application").
E. The Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental
Quality Act.
F. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
April 4, 2007, to consider the application for the Project and environmental review, 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.
Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application
hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
G:\Planning\2OO6lPA06-OOO2 Rnripaugh PA33A-TTM 307671PbnningIPC RESOLUTION draft,doc
1
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City
of Temecula Municipal Code;
Tentative Tract Map No. 30767 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision
Ordinance, the Development Code, Municipal Code, and Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan
because the project has been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the policies
and standards in the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code,
Municipal Code and Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be
too small to sustain their agricultural use;
The proposed land division is not land designated for conservation or agricultural use
and has never been entered into any Williamson Act Contracts.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map;
The project consists of a lB-lot Tentative Tract Map on property designated for
residential uses, which is consistent with the development standards for Planning Area
33A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with Conditions
of Approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and
avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan were adopted for
the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, which addressed environmental impacts on the site.
Mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program), and the
Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan have been incorporated as conditions for
this application, as appropriate. The application is consistent with the project description
analyzed in the EIR, and no subsequent environmental review is necessary per Section
15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems;
The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Safety Division and the
Building Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their
concerns. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan, Development Code and
Specific Plan to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The
project is consistent with these documents.
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G:\PIanning\2006\PA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A-1TM 30767\PlanningIPC RESOLUTION draft,doc
2
The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Safety Division and the
Building Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their
concerns. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan, Development Code and
Specific Plan to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The
project is consistent with these documents.
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially
equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided;
All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Tract
Map. The Public Works Department and Community Services District have reviewed the
proposed division of land and adequate conditions andlor modifications have been made
to the Tentative Tract Map.
H.
(Quimby);
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
Per the Development Agreement approved with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan,
Quimby fees will not be required. Appropriate parkland dedication and in-lieu fees have
been provided.
Section 3. Environmental Comoliance. On November 26, 2002, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 02-111 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan and Related Planning Applications, including the Development Agreement
("EIRn). The Planning Commission finds, based on the administrative record, that the EIR
properly addressed all of the environmental issues encompassed within the Tentative Tract Map
application and that: (1) there have been no substantial changes in the Project which require
major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) no substantial
changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project has been
undertaken which require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; and (3) no new information of substantial importance exists, which was not know or
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the
certification of the EIR which shows the Project would have one or more significant effects or a
more severe significant impact not discussed in the EIR or that mitigation measures or
alternatives not found feasible would in fact be feasible or that other mitigation measures or
alternatives would substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects. Therefore, neither
a subsequent nor a supplemental EIR is required and the Planning Commission recommends
that a Notice of Determination (Determination of Consistency) for which an Environmental
Impact Report was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations) be filed.
Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves
Planning Application No. PA06-0002, a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 11.5 acres into 14
residential lots and four open space lot in Planning Area 33A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific
Plan, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-OOO2 Roripaugh PA33A-TIM 307671P1annioglPC RESOLlITION draft.doc
3
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 4th day of April 2007.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
ATTEST:
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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 07- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of April
2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A-TIM 30767\PlanningIPC RESOLUTION draft,doc
4
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
mplanning\2006\PA06-0002 Roripangh PA33A-TIM 30767\P1anningIPC RESOLUTION draft,doc
5
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA06-0002
Project Description:
Planning Application No. PA06-0002, a Tentative Tract
Map (No. 30767) to subdivide 11.5 gross acres into 18
lots (14 single-family residential lots and four open space
lots) within Planning Area 33A of the Roripaugh Ranch
Specific Plan, generally located on the south side of
Nicolas Road, at the future intersection of Nicolas Road
and Butterfield Stage Road.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
964-460-004, -005, -010 and -012
MSHCP Category:
Residential (less than 8.0 dulac)
DIF Category:
Per Development Agreement
TUMF Category:
Residential - Single Family
Approval Date:
April 4, 2007
Expiration Date:
April 4, 2010
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00)
County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the
previous Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section
21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required
above. the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition
(Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for
their files.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-OOO2 Roripaugh PA33A.TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft,doc
1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-QOO2 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767lPlanning\COA draft,doc
2
Planning Department
3. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 60 days prior to the expiration date.
4. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
5. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a ohasino alan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director.
6. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan
No. 11, Roripaugh Ranch (PA94-0075) as approved on November 26,2002, and the Third
Operating Memorandum.
7. The Applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract
Map No. 29353 (PA01-0230) as approved on November 26,2002.
8. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to the Roripaugh
Ranch Development Agreement (PA99-0299).
9. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR (PA94-0076).
10. The applicant shall file and receive approval of a Development Plan (Home Product Review)
for all the residential products.
Public Works Department
11. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
12. A Grading Permit for rough grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of way.
13. 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.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\Planning\COA draft.doc
3
14, All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for
consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
15. This project shall be consistent with Roripaugh Specific Plan and Tentative Tract 29353.
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
force 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 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure 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 III-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 access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade
of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B).
19. All traffic calming devices that could impede or slow emergency vehicle access are
prohibited, except those expressly approved by the fire prevention bureau individually on a
case by case basis when they maintain the required travel widths and radii.
20. 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). This will include all internal roads,
connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in
and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map,
and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field.
Community Services Department
21. The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park and recreation component of
the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) pursuant to the Development Agreement.
22. All perimeter landscape areas, open space, v-ditch, entry monumentation, fencing, entry
gates and residential street lights shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association
(HOA).
23. All down slopes within residential lots shall be maintained by the HOA.
24. The MWD easement area within lots 8 and 9 shall be maintained by the HOA.
G:IPlanning\2006\PA06.Q002 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft,doc
4
25. Open Space Lot 15 shall be owned and maintained by the HOA.
26. The developer shall contact the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of the
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
G:lPlanning\2006\PA06-OOO2 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft.doc
5
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-QOO2 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA drafl,doc
6
Planning Department
27. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the
property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the
discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
determining that the discovery is an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the
Director of Planning."
28. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
Public Works Department
29. As deemed necessary by 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
30. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
31. Prior to the City approval of the grading plans or any other plans requiring MWD clearance
that may impact their property and easement(s) the developer is responsible to provide the
City with MWD's clearance for the said plans.
32. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all
soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered
structures and preliminary pavement sections.
33. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the
site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage
facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall
capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property.
The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any
G:\PI.nning\2006\PA06-OOO2 RoMp.ugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PI.nning\COA dr.ft,doc
7
upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall
be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall
be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
34. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading,
Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's
standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control.
35. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for
Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number
(WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be available at the site throughoutthe duration of
construction activities.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
40. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone 'D"
meaning areas in which the flood hazards and base flood elevations are undetermined and
is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the
Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the T emecula
Municipal Code for development within a Flood Zone. A Flood Plain Development Permit is
required prior to issuance of any permit. Residential subdivisions shall obtain a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or equivalent Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) application prior to issuance of a grading permit.
41. A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to the
Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
a. Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting
site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
c. The impact to the site from any flood zone and any necessary mitigation to protect
the site.
G:\Planning\2006IPA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PianninglCOA draft,doc
8
d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway or floodplain.
e. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the improvement plans.
42. The Developer shall, as required by the City and Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of
the drainage patterns including concentration or diversion of flow and increases in flow
and/or velocity. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate channel
improvements, drainage facilities, and by securing drainage easements, as necessary.
43. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of
the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(RCFC&WCD). All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the 1 OO-year storm flows,
subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
44. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent
of any other lot.
Fire Prevention
45. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial
(CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4).
46. Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each
side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road.
47. 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).
48. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4).
G:\Planning\2006\PAO~2 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft.doc
9
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft.doc
10
Planning Department
49. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
ii. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (PA94-
0076) was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula
Planning Department.
c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's):
i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open
space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings
and all landscaped and open areas including parkways.
ii. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
iii. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Planning
Director, City Engineer and the City Attorney and shall include such
provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem
necessary to protect the interests of the City and it's residents.
iv. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Public Works
Departments and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with
the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
v. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage
and facilities.
vi. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and
maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
vii. The CC&R's shall provide that the association may not be terminated without
prior City approval.
viii. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand
and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the
owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or
the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the
City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed.
ix. Every owner of a suite or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or
lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2)
a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning
the common areas and facilities.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-QO02 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\Planning\COA draft,doc
11
x. All open areas and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the
association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this
maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works
Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
50. No lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, properly
owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties
individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the
common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be
sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to
maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall
operate under recorded CC&R's, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners
of lots and/or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance,
repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions
required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with
this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This
condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
51. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
Public Works Department
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the
following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed
and securities posted:
52. 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. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
d. Planning Department
e. Department of Public Works
f. Community Services District
g. Metropolitan Water District
h. Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
53. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements
to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Streets "An (Local Road Standards - 47' R/W) to include dedication of full-
width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb
and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer).
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-OO02 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767lPlanning\COA dran,doc
12
b. Improve the Entrance Street "B" (Local Road Standards - 61' R/W) to include
dedication 01 lull-width street right-ol-way, installation 01 full-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
c. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-ol-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
54. Unless otherwise approved the lollowing minimum criteria shall be observed in the design 01
the street improvement plans:
a. Street centerline 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 Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights along the public and private streets shall be designed and installed in
accordance with City Standard No. 800 and Roripaugh Ranch Specilic Plan.
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400
and 401.
e. Design 01 street improvements shall extend a minimum 01 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties.
f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
g. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
h. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
i. All knuckles shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 602.
j. All cul-de-sacs shall be constructed in accordance in City Standard No. 600.
k. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-ol-way does not exist for installation 01 the lacilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
I. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground
55. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design 01 private streets:
a. Minimum road widths of 32-ft. paved with 47-ft./61-ft. right-of-ways or easements
(shown on typical section).
b. Knuckles shall be required at all 90 degree 'bends' in the road.
c. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards (200-ft.
minimum).
d. Cui de sac geometries shall meet current City Standards.
e. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required (all centerline radii should
be identified on the site plan).
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-QO02 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA drafl,doc
13
f. Identify whether gates will be proposed at entrances to project. If so, configuration,
stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be reviewed and approved by
the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works.
g. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90 degrees).
56. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Nicholas Road on the Final Map with the
exception of 1 opening(s) as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map.
57. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities
shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
58. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encurnbrances as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
59. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessrnent District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City
Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
60. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
61. An Environrnental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final
Map to delineate identified environrnental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A
copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The following information shall be on the ECS:
62. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying rnaps related to the subject property.
63. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the forrn of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencernent of the appraisal.
64. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV,
and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
65. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
G:\Planning\2006\PAOS-DOO2 Roripaugh PA33A-TIM 30767\Planning\COA draft.doc
14
66. An easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and emergency vehicle access for all
private streets and drives.
67. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the final map.
68. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the
final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept
free of buildings and obstructions."
Community Services Department
69. All maintenance easements for HOA maintained areas shall be dedicated on the final map.
70. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-OO02 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft,doc
15
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-QOO2 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft,doc
16
Planning Department
71, Two copies of the recorded CC&R's (or annexation documentation) shall be submitted for
the City's files.
72. Home Product Review for the residential units must be approved by the Planning
Department.
73. Landscape plans for the slopes, paseos and front yards shall be approved by the Planning
Department.
Public Works Department
74. Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
75. The Developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutters rights of access along Nicholas Road
pursuant to the new location of Street "B".
76. A Rough Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
77. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the
approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and
accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
78. 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.
79. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Developer shall provide a flood control
Maintenance Agreement for the portions of Santa Gertrudis Creek within the project site. It
must be mutually agreeable to the City of Temecula Department of Public Works, the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the homeowners
association. This agreement shall state that the City is only responsible for maintaining flood
control facilities under public roads, and is not responsible for maintaining the Santa
Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channels or detention basins.
Fire Prevention
80. Prior to building permit or 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 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
81. Prior to building permit and building construction, this development and any street within
serving more than 35 homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of
access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC
902.2.1).
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft.doc
17
82. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be:
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures, The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1).
83. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall
include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block
walls), and fuel modification zones (CFC Appendix II-A).
Community Services Department
84. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
85. The 2.3 acre park and ride/trail head (Tract Map 29353-2 Lot 5) shall be improved and
conveyed to the City prior to the first residential building permit as per the First Amendment
to Agreement to Defer Completion of Conditions of Approval Until After Recordation of Final
Map for Tract No. 29353-2 dated June 28, 2005.
86. The 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Tract Map 29353-2 Lot 2) shall be improved, including the
completion of the 90-day maintenance period, and the conveyance accepted by the City
Council prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit within the overall
Roripaugh development.
87. The 21.1 acre sports park (Tract Map 29353-2 Lot 9) shall be improved including the
completion of the 90-day maintenance period, and the conveyance accepted by the City
Council prior to the issuance of the 700th residential building permit within the overall
Roripaugh development.
88. The park portion of the private recreation center (Tract Map 29353-F Lot 5) shall be
completed to the satisfaction ofthe Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the
800th residential building permit within the overall Roripaugh development.
89. The building and the pool portion of the private recreation center (Tract Map 29353-F Lot 5)
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the
issuance of the 1150th residential building permit within the overall Roripaugh development.
G:lPlanning\2006\PA06-0002 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PJanninglCOA draft.doc
18
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT
G:lPlanning\2006\PAO&OOO2 Rorlpaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft,doc
19
Public Works Department
90. The project shall demonstrate that the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP
have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for
immediate implementation.
91. 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
92. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits in those lots adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek, the
Developer shall submit appropriate documentation to the Department of Public Works or the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and obtain approval of Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) or equivalent.
93. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
94. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
95. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to
the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Fire Department
96. Prior to Occupancy and 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 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness
of .25 feet (CFC see 902).
97. 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).
98. Prior to issuance of Occupancy 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).
99. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a
georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including
parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI
ArclnfofArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone
VI ) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and
format prior to satisfaction of this condition.
G:\Plannlng\2006\PA06-0002 Rorlpaugh PA33A.TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft.doc
20
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
G:\Planning\2006\PAOS-m02 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft.doc
22
102. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's transmittal dated February 2, 2006, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or
money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the
District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
103. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated January 9,2006, a copy of which is
attached.
104. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated January 20,2006, 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 Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-<lOO2 Roripaugh PA33A-TTM 30767\PlanninglCOA draft.doc
23
ARREN D, WILLIAMS
era} Manager-Chief Engineer
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951. 788.9965 FAX
(04685,4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
February 2,2006
Ms. Cheryl Kitzerow
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
D~~~DW~ 1
fl FEB 0 7 2006 j
By
Planning Department
Dear Ms. Kitzerow:
Re:
TIM 30767
(PA06-0002)
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in
incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases or provide State Division
of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations
for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master
Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered
a logical component or extension of a master plan system and District Area Drainage Plan fees
(development mitigation fees). In addition, information ofa general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following comments do not in any
way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood
,,=<1. r"hl;c health and safety or apy nth"r o,,~h ;oo'le:
. This proposed project is adjacent to facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or
a logical extension of Santa Gertrudis Channel. The District would consider accepting
ownership of such facilities on written request of the City, Facilities must be constructed to
District standards and District plan check and inspection will be required for District
acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required,
. This project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creek - Santa Gertrudis
Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should
be paid prior to the issuance of grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect
at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES) permit from the
State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval
should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown
to be exempt.
104685 4
Ms. Cheryl Kitzerow
Re: TTM 30767
(PA06-0002)
-2-
February 2, 2006
If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then
the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information
required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of
the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
The applicant shall show written proof of compliance with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP) for any drainage facilities the applicant proposes to be maintained by the District. All
applicable CEQA and MSHCP documents and permits shall address the construction, operation and
maintenance of all onsite and offsite drainage facilities. Draft CEQA documents shali be forwarded to
the District during the public review period.
If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the
applicant to obtain all applicable Federal, State and local regulatory permits. These regulatory permits
include but are not limited to: a Section 404 Permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
compliance with section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a California State Department ofFish and Game
Streambed Alteration Agreement in compliance with the Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.,
and a 401 Water Quality Certification or a Report of Waste Discharge Requirements in compliance
with Section 401 ofthe Clean Water Act or State Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, respectively, from
the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. The applicant shall also be responsible for
complying with all mitigation measures as required under CEQA and all Federal, State, and local
environmental rules and regulations.
Very truly yours,
~4
ARTURO DIAZ
Senior Civil Engineer
c: Riverside County Planning Department
Attn: David Mares
AM:blj
~~
o CG0NTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEAL!, I SERVICES AGENCY 0
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
January 9, 2006
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
ATfN; Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30767
iY~@~OW~ Y
n.. JAN 1 2 2006 .!J
By
Planning Department
To Whom It May Concern;;
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map 30767 and
recommends;
a A water system shall be installed in accordance with plans and specifications as
approved by the water company and the Department of Environmental Health.
Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate;
with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the
original drawin~ to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints shall show the
internal pipe dIameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint
specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part I,
Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative
Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be
signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following
certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Tract Map
30767 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Eastern
Municipal Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution
system will be.adequate to provide water service to such "Tentative Tract Map".
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such
Tentative Tract Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose. A '''.l'vusible official of the water company shall
sign this certification. The nlans must be submitted to the C..ountv SurvlfYor'S
Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the reouest for the recordation of
the final man. -
2. This Department has no written statement from Eastern Municipal Water District
agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand
providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the sub divider. It will
be necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final
map.
.
.
Ical Enhw:ement Agency. PO. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 . (909) 955.8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501
(nd Use and Water Engineering. P.O. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-8930 . FAX (909) 955-8903 . 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501
Page Two
Attn: Kitzerow/Peters
January 9,2006
3. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to
the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed in accordance with plans
and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor's Office and the
D"l'...~ent of Environmental Health. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system
shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the origmal drawing, to the County Surveyor's
Office. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete
profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new
system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and
waterlines shall be a portion of the sewa~e plans and profiles. The plans shall be singed
by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify
that the design of the sewer system in Tentative Tract Map 30767 is in accordance with
the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the
waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the
proposed Tentative Tract Map". The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's
Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final
map.
2. This Department has no written statement from Eastern Municipal Water District
agreeing to serve sewer service to each and every lot in the subdivision. It will be
necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final
map.
Sincerely,
";'uLUuental Health Specialist
r
@
Rancha
Water
Board of Direc!.<lrs
BCD R.. Drake
Presid~nt
Stephen J. Corolla
Sr VIl:ePr€sldl'llt
Ralph H. Daily
Lisa D. Herman
John E. Hoagland
Michael R. McMillan
William E. PlumtDt'r
Officers.
Brian J. .Brady
(',.eneral Manag"f
Phillip L. Forbes
Assistant General Manager f
Chief FinandaI Officer
E. P. ''Bob" Lemons
Ulrecwr ofEn~neering
Perry R. Louck
Dlf"'CwrofPlanning
Jeff D. Armstrong
Controller
Kelli E. Garcia
District Secretary
C. Michael Cowett
Best Best & Krieger LLP
General Counsel
'\
January 20, 2006
Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters, Project Planners
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
D'~~~ ~ \yJ[~ 1
n. JAN 2 5 2006 j)
By
Planning Department
SUBJECT: WATER A V AILABILITY
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30767
RORIP A UGH PLANNING AREA 33A
LOT NO.6 OF TRACT NO. 29353-2; APN 964-460-010
CITY PROJECT NO. PA06-0002 [ASHBY USA, LLC]
Dear Ms, Kitzerow and Mr. Peters:
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 construction of any required on-site and/or
off-site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees
and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
R ~~M^e-.^t'..o "t th's AmOO "t fO':1) ')06 6000
"'vl-".L'-'~ Ui..:.i.o.l 'f"-' '" LlU. v.I.J..l......... U \-'-' J. ../ ,. ./ v.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
7l}ciOA.
Michael G. Meyerpeter, P.
Development Engineering Manager
061MMoImOI OIFEG
cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
/
RanchoCIDUOnllaWa~cD~trict
42135WinchesterRoad . Post Office Box 9017 . Temecula,California92589-9017. (951)296-6900. FAX(95l)296-6860
ATTACHMENT NO.4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-OOO2 Roripaugh PA33A.'fTM 307671PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT draft,doc
10
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING
COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Planning Application No. PA06-0002
Ashby USA
On the south side of Nicolas Road, at the future intersection of Nicolas Road and Butterfield
Stage Road,
A Tentative Tract Map (No. 30767) to subdivide 11,5 gross acres into 18 lots (14 single
family residential lots, and four open space lots) within Planning Area 33A of the Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan.
Consistent with Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR per CEQA Section 15162
Matt Peters, Associate Planner
City of Temecula, Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Date of Hearing: April 4, 2007
Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be
heard in support of or opposition to the apprqval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,
the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m, until 4:00 p.m. Questions concerning the
project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400,
Proposal:
CEQA Action:
Case Planner:
Place of Hearing:
XI
\-;" L
~~, -----
\~\ .-.-- lIlcOt,Jls.ro
\ '--'""". -
j -
/~
~:::::--
2
~
-'_ )i,
-----__...1.... I
,
Q
,
!CO
1.~C
Fe'
G:\Planning\2006\PA06"{)002 Roripaugh PA33A.1TM 30767\Planning\NOPH-PC.FRM.doc
I
ITEM #5
DATE OF MEETING:
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
RECOMMENDATION:
CECA:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 4. 2007
Dale West
TITLE: Associate Planner
Planning Application Nos. PA05-0365 and PA07-0061, a
Development Plan and Minor Exception, submitted by the YMCA, to
construct and operate a 26,100 square foot YMCA building within a
0.66 acre lease area of a 20.23 acre site and to increase the
maximum height limit from 35 feet to 40 feet for the YMCA building,
located at 29119 Margarita Road. (APN: 921-300-006)
[8J Approve with Conditions
o Deny
o Continue for Redesign
o Continue to:
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
o Recommend Denial
o Categorically Exempt
(Section)
(Class)
o Notice of Determination
[8] Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
(Section)
DEIR
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-0365 YMCA - DPIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: YMCA
Date of Completion: November 29, 2005
Mandatory Action Deadline Date: April 4, 2007
General Plan Designation: Open Space (OS)
Zoning Designation: Public Park & Recreation (PR)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site: Marqarita Community Park
North: Low Medium Residential is located approximately 460 feet north of the
proposed proiect.
South: A portion of Margarita Park lies immediately to the south of the proposed
project with Community Commercial and High Density Residential south of the
park.
East: Temecula Elementary School is located approximately 430 feet to the east of
the proposed project.
West: High Density Residential is located approximately 155 feet to the west of the
proposed proiect.
Lot Area/Lease Area:
Margarita Park: 20.23 acres/YMCA Lease Area: 0.66
acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio:
2.9%
Landscape Area/Coverage:
96%
Parking Required/Provided:
80 spaces designated as shared parking of 187 existing
spaces
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
In the spring of 2002, the YMCA approached the city with an interest in leasing park ground to
construct a community recreation center. At that time, the City had plans for a community
recreation center to be located at the Margarita Community Park; however, no funding for
construction was identified in the 5-year Capital Improvement Program. The City determined
that the Margarita Community Park was an appropriate location, and thus entered into a
ground lease agreement with YMCA on January 14, 2003, to construct an 11,000 square foot
or larger community recreation center at Margarita Community Park.
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-()365 YMCA - DPlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT,doc
2
On November 25, 2005 the applicant submitted Planning Application No. PA05-0365 for a
Development Plan to construct the recreation facility and on February 24, 2007 the applicant
submitted Planning Application PA07-0061 for a Minor Exception to the maximum allowable
building height. Through subsequent meetings and plan revisions, staff has worked with the
applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the
recommended Conditions of Approval.
ANALYSIS
Develooment Plan
The proposed project would be located within the Margarita Community Park, generally at the
northwest corner of the park along Margarita Road. The General Plan designation for this park
is Open Space and the zoning designation is Public Park and Recreation. The existing
amenities of the park include soccer and baseball fields, tennis courts, roller hockey, basketball
courts, children's play area, picnic tables, barbeques, public restrooms and the recently
designated Dog Park located at the southwest portion of Margarita Community Park. The
proposed project is for the construction of a 26,100 square foot recreation center to be
operated by the YMCA, which includes an indoor swimming pool, a basketbalVmulti-purpose
room, an exercise/weight room, and office space.
The proposed use ;s consistent with the City's General Plan designation for Open Space (OS)
and the zoning designation for Public Park and Recreation (PR), which allows for a wide range
of public and private recreational uses, including community facilities and health clubs. The
building meets the minimum setback requirement of the Development Code and is well below
the maximum lot coverage of 20 percent; however, the proposed building height is 40 feet,
which is 5 feet or approximately 14.25 percent above the maximum allowable height of 35 feet
in the PR zoning District. The Development Code allows for a minor exception of less than 15
percent increase in the building height, when no impact will occur to the public health and
safety of adjacent properties. The applicant is requesting a minor exception for building height
to accommodate the desired pitched roof form while allowing for adequate ceiling height for
playing basketball in the multi-purpose room of the recreation center.
Architecture
The proposed recreation facility is designed to be consistent with the architecture of the
existing amenities within the park, and to compliment the adjacent multi-family residential
neighborhood located to the west of the project. The proposed building has the following
features: rough finish stucco exterior walls and split face CMU block added to the base of the
building for durability; significant window areas on the front elevation; and a standing seam
metal roof, which is consistent with the roofing material on existing park buildings. The main
entry into the building is located on the north side of the project, facing the parking lot. The
building will be color blended stucco in "Eggshell" with "Sandstone" accents. Columns are
placed along the building to break-up the wall plane and for the placement of the bronze
"Pillars of the Community" plaques. Storefront windows and door frames will be bronze
aluminum with bronze dual glazed solar windows.
Staff has determined that the proposed design of the building is consistent with the
surrounding development and the Citywide Design Guidelines and Development Code
requirements.
G:IPlanning\200SIPAOS-0365 YMCA. OPlPlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
3
Landscaoino
The conceptual landscape plan generally conforms to the Development Code and Citywide
Design Guidelines; however, landscaping is not placed between the building and sidewalk,
which is typically required of other commercial developments. This is due in part to the ground
lease between the YMCA and the City, which identifies the boundaries for the building and
sidewalk placement. Additionally, the topography of the site limits the area where the building
and sidewalks can be placed. For maintenance purposes, Temecula Community Services
District (TCSD) has requested not to have landscape planter between the building and
sidewalk, unless the landscape planter is at least 4 feet or greater in depth. Tree and ground
cover placement will effectively soften building elevations and provide screening from the
public right-of-way and the view from the park. Approximately 96 percent of the site will remain
landscaped/open space, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 80 percent in the PR
zone. To ensure consistency with the Development Code and with TCSD, the project is
conditioned to submit construction landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department
and the Director of Community Services.
Parkinq
The required parking is accommodated through the ground lease agreement with the City of
Temecula, which allows for 80 of the 187 existing spaces to be shared with other users of
Margarita Community Park. The project does not propose any changes to the existing
circulation for parking or for emergency access to the park. Emergency access to the
recreation facility is provided at the existing ingress/egress points of the parking lot, and via the
proposed driveway that runs parallel along the western boundary of the lease area.
LEGAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on March 14, 2007 and mailed to
the property owners within the required six hundred (600) foot radius.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is not exempt from review under CEQA and an Initial Study has been prepared.
The Initial Study indicates that the project will not have potentially significant environmental
impacts. Based on the Initial Study, staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration for
the project.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project, as conditioned, is
consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all applicable ordinances,
standards, guidelines, and policies. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt a Resolution approving the Development Plan and Negative Declaration
with the attached Conditions of Approval.
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-Q365 YMCA - DPIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
4
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010.F)
1. 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 proposed recreation facility is permitted in the Public Park and Recreation (PR)
zoning designation standards contained in the City's Development Code. The project is
also consistent with the Open Space (OS) land use designation contained in the
General Plan. The building is properly planned, designed, and as conditioned, is
physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The project, as conditioned,
is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances,
including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
As conditioned, the overall design of the recreation facility, including the site, building,
parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, are consistent with the
development code and have been designed 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.
Minor Exception (Code Section 17.03.060)
1. That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict
application of the code due to the physical characteristics of the property.
The Code does not consider the additional height requirements for the type of proposed
use (basketball) for the multi-purpose room of the recreation center. The pitched roof
allows for the variation in the roofline, and it allows the project to be consistent with the
surrounding development.
2. The minor exception 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 persons located in the vicinity.
A minor exception for building height is available to surrounding properties that also
face practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship created by the strict application of the
Code. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the
property of other persons located in the vicinity and therefore no special privileges are
granted to this project.
3. The minor exception places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding
properties and does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the zone.
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-Q365 YMCA. OPIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
5
The proposed project has been designed with the fenestration of the gable windows
and architectural elements to minimize the bulk of the building. The proposed
recreation facility is consistent with the permitted uses of the Public Park and
Recreation Zoning District.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 7
2. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 8
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
3. Draft PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 9
4. Initial Study - Blue Page 10
6. Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 11
G:IPlanning\2Q05IPA05-o365 YMCA - DPIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT,doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
G:IPlanningl200SIPAOS-Q365 YMCA. DPlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT,doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PLAN REDUCTIONS
G:IPlanning120051PA05-o365 YMCA - DPlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
B
.
-~- . -
-~--~
-~--
-'.--"--
-.---
-.----
--
..........--
=--.....- --
~..--....-=--.::--H~-
E:=-"=-==_...::...t..::i'S..=='-::
--;;;,.....~..__._-
-...--- .-
-
~..:.:...::.:=:- -,- """. ".".,=':Y
~-:r- ---:-='0='--
:$:.--:.:=-:.:;;..$..:=----...::=:.-
::er=..:..'":""-==---~...-
. ==..":i\~==::'~-=--==-
L...........A__~=.':"..._
::=...=........;-.....,........."';....---
-...-.;:;.....
::i-o...._... ...........:..
:::'==l:':.~....=;;::..'"='..=::::=.OO:-
""""''"''"'::J'
~.._------ -...
=--==--=======-_....
"'_T___"___"
~-,--------
:L..-:"'''':':=-- ----
"--
~--_.._----_..._...-
-.:==--.....---
---
="="..=.===~~
-...-...:=':'..-......--.
?'.=-~-=-:~~"'t~:;!:......
"_.
:3:F-=$:..:,;,~==~S
.-.......-....-.--..----
.--
...-....
..... - .-.
~:.-=:E~::~~~
-_.._~-...
~:=~SS;;.~~-
----==-:---..----
:"_if.::...-::E::;';~-=-
-.... --.. ...-...-....-..
~.._---........
e-.:5!oi"=r-=-..r'..:J.:'":E':r:
:l,.....____._..=."='".:.........................
-..-.....--,,==..::=.'=""..::..
.~., '::"..:====....
:J...............-.::::.-:-___
-&rMIf::.-==-~ ~
==.......=~=-~~..:
==-.='.:.~'==.::..
~-==-...........
===='==.==----==
=.=-..=---.--.--.......
---
~-=-
--
FIREDEPARTMENTNOTES
SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE FAMILY
Y~CA
29119 MARGARITA ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591
PROmCI' TITI.E
~~-=
=~:r'=-
~ ..-----..--
--...._--- --
-"''---...------
--.-......-
:1.....__..:.=.-==___
"'._-r::::==~====,~
=-_._-.:::::::=.'="--
=",..:.-=.::.."::\.oz::.:o.":._--==-
--- .--.....-
=:=-=-'::.:~.aii-==;.,.
~.....- .... ,~"';.''''-'::'''':
=:.:=-~_.-",-;-........--
---
..
-..-------........---'"
===.-==l"~__~="'::.':.":.
--- ....----...
~._----_...-
..-----...-----..-
----..------.-...
..-- .. .--....-..-
=--:..=;;.;,:..:r=:.~,"===.':
2=....' ==.:::'~~"
FlRENOTES
-
"""-
- -
--
-
--
-,--
---
-...-......
-.-
--,
-..--
......
...
~
..
_ CODE ANALYSES
--, "".--.-
-......-. --'-
-
-.-
.......- ......,..-..
-'-
-,-_.
----.
--
--
--- .....
------...-
---
----
----- -."""..,
-...........-
--....-
-----
----.... -
---- -
--.
--
a;;;;-
-.
.-,--...-.
.-..--.
."."""
.-
--
.BASIS OF DESIGN
""'SPRINXlJ!RS
_u....., __.
-...--.---...-"'--
--- --
:z:..":':oo;.":.'":"~----_==_-
-~---_.
.......-----,
---,...-.
.,'.Il..'
-.,........
^'-""'"
!:-:i:.-5:-'":'-:=.'==----
-...-,
-..--,
PRomer mFORMATION
DEFERRED SUBMrITAlS
I
1r~~ I
---- - !
~__ i
I ,
I !
_'I~I
r\ -- .1'.
I".........U..' MAP .1
.
I
I
I
I
I
i
.
I
'\.~
-....-
---
---
---
-- .....-
-... ...._.-
-.-
----
_._-
-.....-
-... ......-
----
--
5o-:::::':
- -
PROJECf DIREcroRY
--
---
---....
--
---....
-----
:=.---
--
-......--.-
----.....
--......
__w.....
--
--
--
--
---....
---
..
..
====
-..................
-.-
SHEETlNDEX
,..
IClIIlIIIUl"F-.y
YMCA
---
---
ill'...
==-
-
~~
IMIlIDmYlaucn-
---
a-::i:'=
--
:...--,:::.-:-
===' 1:::=
HURD architecture
HeberJ,Hurd
----
--
---
....,.
-
-~.-
.
!
.
I
I
.
I
I
,
I
I
I
.
I
I
i
'I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
e
-----
_W1N1!Ilo\~
.--
-~""'"'
---
---
.--
--
~no1'F.ll'
"
"
"
"
"
.....'"
_,a
JOIIMIIIBt
11I.11I.111
P1~_.l:A1DI
M"."
~
.
coYER
"EfT
A-1.0
~
--
_w
_w
...._.......I'Iu.I2I_DItJ
~ww
--
--
--
--
--
....--.....
--
-
--
~~~~ i ~ \
, : aw"='~_
I J r-.F--~~=-" '-i ~\ \\\\
'l i II _J ~- "l'.\\ \\
I J \L__~ I _ \, \~.. ..\ ,~ Ii
I -- :':"1Utf' \~ '\\ ':\ \\ \~
1--- ----1 - t: -. ::;"a_ " \\ .-\\ \ "'\ ~\ l
I r. I: "'"."''"'"" .;~~ . \\
---~ I,-~.~~I~~--- : ' , , ~~' \1
=::..:..-..- --------. --------~:::..=-==~-==:-:-,::::=.r(:--~: ""<~-....---~ :';;~-::~-j'-i '"_.'- / '\ $\ ":~\
::; ::: -. -----l.;::.-~--i=..,,"""-- ~-.--I t I L, ~ __1--- '\V< \\\'\,
_"___IIo___...v_ _n'p.,.,._ - L':'-~:-~"!~-:~ -' i l!l a.,,,,/ ~ ~""__.c.t"_ ..-.:;::;~, ,\..., f;.\, \'.(
--, .~\ -. I . .~ "\ 1 ~ lI-Ol'E __ _ __, .._..~,...- .;. \ \,\
' ~ .ry)~~- ~. --.- -=.:-llf_!-!.:V-=t.:!..=-"-'-~-:..:M~:P ~.'" ~ ~ ", , .
" ~ (" ~ ~ L. df.(~~ -<< -~ ":'!'~=t..~.;E~ :E"a::o~EJ€:::;ta::I-~=~ ~'-"'. I! " \
:"w ....-} 1'. ~ --=-. -~ ::::.~===~ ___ ..
=, .. X':~ ,- -___ ' , , '--, /1\ \ \
"1-lt-=---:;-r<:..-:..~ ~ ~ ::;~iE:-' ,.' ,'''t.',,-_.,;.;;/ "-' \, -.:'~\ I,
"': .., ,---- ......... <> ~ , I \
: :1:'.~G&J _.L ...............'..... "- /:/ / --:----; i ! t...m..';"""" ...J ","'
~',,; i';r~'~ :..- '~ct, '~, ~\;~~: ( ..'. ~.;:~-~' v' ~.::~~~-:-~~::. -:."::.:.-: '".. 'c' '-'i_ \.~;\
. ':"......"',< ~_ =':J~'"., \\~.'~rf \.,,/ EIllSrn>_..,; _~._l~'''.''''''''-- '.1,'.\\
'. ~~,~;I"'" ~.' 1 ~ ~ -. -~~ ~ --~, , \~,
' ' ,'j' ~~,~.~.'~~~'~~~:I.:~~~-"'-~: r::~-:-~ .~~~~~.~)_~ AI, . ).':'~
/ \ - ~~'" .......~ '!... :~..---t ~r,..J--~- --,. - fl ~- \\
\\ ...., ,,",.'.:' '"':;":,:--,-: ~ /~.'
\ '~.....>- -">'''' \. ... ........
~',' 'Z~:"" _.. _,. ~:""\")
---., "\~"'~:c.~\ti}~~~~~,,_.._ /:<.'1~~;~0"<~ '\
\ ~~, ,:,:"~'~<:.,,:p;~~;-~:.,- -"" ... ,// ,,:'>~' , \,
"::::/,c:...,,'<>"'::::,-.-;: )\.~,',~_'01.~S.. /!S::::::.> ~::I \, \\
j''.',,<::-,\- '_ ':::C::::::..,_/ \'/ ,;';;" .../~ //\' '<\
/ ~-""'" (I \ s=;,;;.~ --- ......,\\
~,.. .--- -", ..., ,- \ \ ! GRAPHIC$CALE
,,/ -""" \,,\ -""",_ ~ _ _ b: J \ 4
I ,_, '-... I '. - - - ~("fU/!
- // / "... ~ \ " / .- ,,,,,,.~~.._-
/ / "aULn En,,;neenng' ,: : : ['Fl1 ClI'Y~U Irr'll
---f-,''''' III .,-- 1--- ....:;;r-_..__~~ II,
~ -", _:m- ,...._/(:i>iJ~_L-i~. . : ~
-'9l"'" J I' --~m1oo--- ~.. . ___ 16..,...,...............1U/J.JI .1
0";:- \ \" " ' ":::':'.. 1=:'--- -. S=, ..._,4=I=1~:""''''''':'''''''~ ~, ~:" '~~_':I
-.... L"'- I=.-r: ",,-.,_ ~';~ -:~_ '*'~ .
~
,~~
---
, i
: I
I\. i
: ... j
i '\.'
, I
i I
, ,
l r
i I
L-_ __~
r--J
"
I fJllSrlNG~ i
\ J--.....
I__-L___ .---- ---
- --- L____
I
I
J_
, ,
,
::ZI,
'~:
"
I-~
~:-
~
~- .~~~' ~'~- ';'=-
-__ _rill""!
-
-~-
~- ~
..
,
,
, '
;,/
, '
,/
/-,-
,I
,I
;'
,/
I" "
, "'..//'
"
'/
A,
i
I
/ "
:/
/
/"
/
,'~
-'-_:~
~-::=~
//
'/
,,'
I
"
./
'--
---+---
---1."--
"-ANTWG I ~
, -
EBO;:,~-:::---"-'
OQ;!:.F. I;;::-~ ,.-
..___ ;~; ~~~? i~; ~;~ I ~ 1~:~~5T ~
_.._.____._._.._.,_~--- ....=.",':':.,1 :::: ';~';,,~:,'~::.,
-..--.....- ---~......------
-.-
.....-.---
/i
');
.."..
; =J::!#.1,;~~'"""'""
~:;rn.~':~-:..~
J..,..................:r ttW....,..'I'.
,:.::"':~~'""--
'-'IC-"'......,,~..........,~...'"
@
~'::PMICS~t
~
___._~~.:~~~ARY PLANTING
..-.--...-.....""",,",
PLAN
~EVISED
w ~ I
g ~ ,j
I-~ Z .~
:;ll<l ~ 1.
~_.. i
I ",' ~ II'
cdSt
-4~ ~...-=
~1" I'
~i ~-I
~u 11:' ~~
~ · 'I
@
I
~
g i
~ i I
Uti
II
drown: v
checked, yg
dote:OJ/12j01
SHEET
L-1-
of Isheets
JOB NO
07_111
-i
.....:--.~>
,~ :aJ'
.'"
/><">
~ ~,:/~n. ~
" ,~' :,:';;;~
.'
"
^
n....J1
..... ...
OVERALL SITE PLAN
'''';'-"7<;~;"
"'""""'='~
~"-"
-.,
-
~.~,~~~
rr;1 \<,"~.. t; , ,. ,--- - .
_'.L.,.'),'_''l.',/"" .,. I
',', ~""~ <:":'"'::'':ii~i'" -,
I. "il.
.;.p:L
(:
'if"
,'.il,
"A<*,"-
,
"
\:1
"l
!
i
,
I
!
,
i
I
!
I
.. ;
,
;
.
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
;
,
I
!
.
i
.
I
,
.
.
i
I
!
,
.
i
I
,
l
I
i
,
I
,
I
i
,
i
(
(,>
-
SOOTIfflUTF_1
YMCA
-...--
-.-
-
~.
~crrt"0JI.0IIY
---
--.
:= :,,:=
-
::'':..'''="'-...
:= ::==
HURD architecture
~~~
----
~~
r_~_
.,........
-
_c.''',
~
~
""'-.--
_WlNGllAlE:
.--
_..n......
"_"""
-.-
.--
--
^
^
"
6
^
'l'!~1'!"'J'V'
-,.
d....II~ll-
....".
P1ANNINGAPp"r..."f~
.......
!Y"FlIONLJ.....
.
OVEIVoU
5\TEPl..AN
A-Z.O
,e"
.
..I
".
"
~
,-
'.
,/
~;;'\
<,' -_0'
0, 4
,,' "
;;
~
"..
/e,
) "
/'"
./
.~
"
,
"
/ 11
,
"
~ '...., "
@>-,,/
- ',\\1
"',
.. .
"
,/?
'"
"
/'
:1
.~~::>/
-i.!i'---
---';'-:.-:-- :-~~--~
:/,'
'---
ENlARGED PARTIAL SITE PLAN
';
"'-.....:-
'~
@-;~;
\0
,
o
~t~ 0
.e.',
"
~:-
....'
~.'
".
~'..
",II .
/
~"..
, -,.,
-,~:~' "':" '. .:
:~.
~?),~ '",
~:~,(. r"'-
j~~~ ( ~.
::'i>~'",
"
.. i
-,
--~~--~==::-'---'-
,.
.
i1ll.&J.,i41:<~.~~
",
~
, n....,r-"'1
---ll.)'dla'
, 141lrT'l':'.il! - ~ _
: ey.J EL '---,
, '),
------.- ,@! :
'"
;:~'"
o..~
:.1 ~-
"
"
"
; l~- . f.
'. ,,~
i i
~ 1-
~r---:;~:;
- i 1-- "'u,~
i t~HE?}
j;
^
--,:"---
!c!~
"...--.....-....--.,-.......... ,
:...;:===-::::-..:.a.:s:r
----- i
.
I
!
.
,
,
i
!
,
,
,
I
:~~i=~~~t
~~=::-~~;:=---
==..~.=.."'7i..~~
~~::=-=:.::.::~===~:.
-...--.....-....
-...cr___.___...
----....--... - """"""
-...---.'..---..."'..--.........
-- ...-.........
=:..-:..-"'='"""-..=..~~.......~~..
==i:=....-:-...;::..=::~~
~~~:f:=;~~~:-~-
-..--......--....-..--
..............-----.,..----...
------~-
..---........- ...-...
-------.--...
-..------...---.....-"""'-......
--........--
,,"'"___ "'-'-'___ML
..........-_________.-n.
'J_ _-.....-..___
=.."':.=---==-...:=.=:"'~:.~"=""'"" i
.
I
.
.
!
.
!
i
.
I
!
,
I
,
!
I
,
l
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
i
,
,
,
i
i
,
I
I
i
i
,
~-==-::..-=-.;::-==-..,:--:--=:-
...--............---.--..---
--....---.--....-.----..
---
ML___.....--.....-...._,..
--
----...--
..---..----
.-......-....
---.....--....
-------..-.--....
-------------...-
-
~--------_..---
<i>9
<i>9
<i>9
<i>9
-.....-.......
-
'GENERAL NOlES
Ii:l_r______-...._......--.....
""'--.........-....-
€l-"'-
$-----
0_______.........._
@---------
0--
(!}-.....------
@-.-
@--......-
@-"-""'-
1)1...---__
8--......-..._
0_______..___
A______..____...-..
.--
9_._ '... _-.._.......-..._
...............-...-
0----.....____
- --
0----.__
611...._...".,.._____..__..
_1U___......_.,....._
~....._......_........__..._...."
tl-----
'STIE NOTES
-
lIClIT>fOInI'......
YMCA
....--
---
-
~~
__ORIOCUlTY
---
---
"'- ......
- .......
-
..-
---
-.,....
.-. ,"""om
HURD architecture
HoIb'lfJ.Hwd
----
--
---
.,......
-
_c..,
e
-....,-..
~O'O'1i:
.--
...."''''''''k'
,,--
---
.--
--
......~-
^
^
^
^
^
rf'~~y.
-,.
.KllI~
....\l
..__r..Tnl
..".-
f'lAloIFlFNlAlllFR
"ENLARGED
PAATW.
SrrSPlAN
A-2.1
I
I
.
I
I
I
,
!
I
i
.
!
"
.
I HURD
I architecture
HebtrJHLIll
I ---
!( =:"'-.....
I -:-:.::
I
.
I
.
I
.
!
I
.
I
I
rr:r-- ~ '- --r,
"
~I I N .,..
I I
~ I I I
I ~ / I
0lJI""-- I~ I
~ I V-I" I
f-.. / I
I I I
~ ,r '\ I
@-@
I~"
/:,,'~ --
~~i"" ~.~@
..- ::: ' -- ~
-
ll1"
2:
!lI!'--
-
51! ...
1.
.-
FLOOR pLAN 166'.9'
I I
H I
,~ ~
" f l"
~, O~ I
f\ ...,-
,-'I f
~
,
~
, "
"
::
~
---
,
I
,
!
I
i
te>I.1'''',.... !
-D - .,-,
"
-
~F""'IU
YMCA
=--==-
!;F;':;-
-.-
-.-
-
-<<
__crrrlC>:un
::;:--
---
-., :u::=
-.-
=...--
=="'7:;"
-
_c._
~
Q
"--.--
_N.~.
.--
...."'''''mI.
.--
-.-
.--
--
.
I
I
I
,
I
I
i
i
I
!
,
I
~....""......
~
~
~
~
~
......~
_'0
.dI........
........
:.=_o.roo
~ANflEM_'
flOOR
PIN<
A-3.0'
Ir~~~-
-1._
~.
~
r 1l....--.
~:
i '~,
.~
h
"'D'"
,
~
I.J ~
"
. ~;-r-f:~~~"~~~:~_ :-'~--~~~~~=~JT-."
.~\ .r.:~l .;':~1l:- ~U~~-Il Fl;nOlnULTp :1
J ,"'::tU{":~[i;,._rS,lt:"';-;;i:J ~ ,J fB 1 ':1_ ~
. 1[1 ::?I /, ~1f - .11 r <~[-~ ,.", I~_I 1:,1 L_ ~g : ~il r
'J ~'~ ~..-'~ j~' "i2~ '!~bli':~ En I 51 '"ir' '
~ t_.~ 6. . _' .'~ I!:;; . .~. m I tj I
~_, II II L, .==~d
4- J ~ ffi.l ~I ~l
k__:J r- :Il 1l,IOLl. ll-l-Fi~ ~ '
I I ---" --=' ~
1,] nil C:" ,:
'-4<"F _' II ~
, II \l..IJI
_~_~ (,it
:F=4! 1 ! ~ ~ # '-1 '
I~-'- ---II ;T0 . . I /
I~~~ / "
" - _ ____- ~_ _ ___~...l._ _ ____ LF.J ..-I~
Ul ~l !j ,,1111~iIij. ~ ,,' ~.:
, ,
llltl
ROOFPLAN
,. 'b
'~~'~'I
. t
~
'-+-=:leI
;.
1 I II
II~
"
'..----.
'----------:1
'I-'I'~;I
1"'-.'
+-
.j
"
"
.,
1C><f.,,,,,,',f"
,,--,-.............---.--
--.....--........--.....----
"..-.....---"-
ROOF NOlES
ROOF LEGEND
-
-'-"
YMCA
---
e::-
-
~.
_aTfltlUlh'
=- ::::=
.
i
.
!
"
.
! HURD archltectur.
I
I
.
I
t
.
I
.
i
.
I
I
.
,
I
I
,
.
I
I
,
l
I
i
I
I
i
,
I
i
,
I
I
I
i
I
----
---
-- .,~.-
-- .......
HeberJ.Hurd
=:"'....-
-""--
OI'OlIIIOOLl
-
.......e._'
8
t.-____
_1IA~
,--
1SSl1E1IAlU:
1'__
......-
.--
.....-
_OOlllotft
o
o
o
o
o
""--
-,.
.n"'__
..."
__W1lCATDI
.......
.,.........-.
.
ROOF",,"
A-S.D
r-fj)
'--r '
..--
'-I- I
II
-,..,1
..-t'
I
..---- . ..--.-..",..
..-.--.-..---------
!;l.':,='='-==:--.---
:i.\!::'"..:.....--..-------
=............_.....:::\:.':';:='"'....e==
~_.... -..-;.,,-.............--.:===..
I ELEVATION NOTES
----
=-....:-~-
.-
----
==-~-
"---
~~ ...---=-
t ~--
,.-- ::-c:::-.:"'-
~':--
-~-
--
"':=-...-
FRONTBLBVATlQN
Dd:W',r<l' COLOR SCHEDUlE
r-fj)
111111\\mlIIJjllllllll\IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII\~\III!11IllllllllllillP
.' III 111 1\ I I II II" l1 II I l'lf '
~~:1 It nut:
RIGHT ELEVATION
--- '--I'
'--I I
II
"-I 1
.._' t
.........
I
'~~,
,
Il:AI.LW'.'II'
I -
I --,
. YMCA
I ---
I ""JII-.
=..,-
....-
I
, -
! ~.
~c:rIY.CQIMI'l'
---
I =-:i'=
,
I -
. ~-:...
J = =:.="
.
I HURD~-:..;.o_.Jre
I
f __.._
1 __
!( -::::0
!
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
I
.
,
I
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
HeberJ.1WnI
-
_c..,
rO\
Q
--.--
'!!a."!m....=
,--
............-
---
-.-
.--
--
_0-._'
"
"
"
"
"
........
~,.
.pJIIP""
......
..__D:lIDII
.....
.u.........._
.
EXTBUOR
ELEVATIONS
A-6.0
I
~-:,,=~____':f"'-""-
~=-=-~-........_-- I
~..:..""--"------
....
~lTf_Y
YMCA
.
I
I
I
,
!
I
I
.
I
.
I HURD architecture
I
I
I
I
i
.
I
:.:..-====::::-;...,~.;,..,._.__..::.
...-,..............,:=-~.:===:=.-
---
---
::;l"1:".
~=-
-
~.
II'tfIlSIIICl!Ylcootm
~~- ._rt
---
=""7;:'=
ELEVATION NOTES
-
:f,':::"__
-,--
=::' J'. ==
=..~-
"-I I
II
""1 I
'-- ..~\~
I
-.- '-'-1 ~
-- .
..--..."--
---.........
HeberJ.HuIll
---
----
~-
---
-'.-
. --- s;:.--
-~-
---
-
_C.'_
e.
.,-
-.-
=':..-
.
I
.
I
I
.
I
I
,
I
I
I
.
I
I
i
'I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
&CAU!" lI!'; ,'.a' .1
-=:---
"'_'_lIIII
COLOR SCHEDULE
REAR ELEVATION
lICH..E: 111": ,'.0'
_WlIIHIll'i;
.--
_",N.""
"=-=-
,--
--
~..II,~~~"I"IIIIII"'IIIIIII~
"= 1lm. Jtlt!1= ~ run ",1 m
'-'I
M'VIIDI!M.TO
6
6
6
^
6
-~
~,.
"--I ,I
::::41
....-
......
.....i
..__J['..l1lCllt
""....
IUHFII~..-.
.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
A-7.0
LEfT ELEV AllON
~'
~.J
BUILDING SECTION A. A
....rT1....LLl...L,......,_."
!lII'--
,------------~-----------~~
l________________________J
TITI J IITfrf\:> '--I
../ .....1 I
"'''I > I
MJI'L- fiirNlB1Wo.T1OH ;1
,-,
$:U1.r r,v
-
- -.............--.-""'......--
---"....-----..
----
=:-........,..~..:....-.:::=:'=-~
-..-..-----
_ -~... --.....---
-...-..-..--.......-..-.,-..-.....
~---..__....._--...__.._..
:::::.-----.---
----.......---....
-----_-..~
=.::..':.==::.-..=--=.:..=-.-
=-'---..._-~-~~:::-...:......
___,__~......_.....___..____T
-, .. ,--"'...-........-
==-=:...-~--"...----
-......
.... -----..........----
--
....--.....----
- -----.-----..
-....,--..... -
- ---........--.......-.-......-
-...-..-......--,....--...--.
-.....,,-..,... ..--.
-----
.,,, -. --.--...........--
---
.,IO_____.....~
---
.,"--..----.---
---_..._------....'.,~
===-" "'-==~~:r;;:::"
.......-.....-.-----..-
=:=-===-~=--..;:..._..._'...
:::..-=-""='"_-:.::..-:::.~.~-,
-....--------
..- -..................- -
_........._~--_.-......::-~-
--.......
.... ------...-.....----
_..,"-'--_...--.::::::::::~~-
-. ----- -
........---.......--..-
'f""," _....
.,-_...-_..~
=-""'\::l==-on:--.,"'-.-----
.... -.............. --
--.......-.....-.......-....-.....-.......
;;:.::..~=:=s:..::.::E.~
-......-----..-
.... _____-.n.___
-----...-..-----
==:-..--:::==::..-=:.""~
--..-...----....-.-....-
=...--..-..-...-...--......
:...-=:.=..."":'~.::::=.:~-:.::.=--
=::.~~..=-~~-r:;;:
.... -...----..---.....--
:-,.::~-:::::=.....:......:....=:.7i.::
......--..--..----, ........,.
....--....---...
==--...-......=:::."'::,::=:.==::.--
......-----..----..-
:."'='.......,...,_................-.._........,.....'-
---....--................"""..-....
:::...--=.::-._.."'_..__..._-~'==.
- ---....,.- ----
=",~'".:...-"::'::'~-~""-"""I"
="_..____==.::::.;:.."'::l=_
:;'-=-":':=:'="~-"'-"':..~"'.:.'"
-....------,-..-.
- -------..--........
--.....-........-
="':':.:"~on;:'=.::.:'=:;:o;:::'""::;":
==-..=-::....-..--=..--.......--
!:"m~...::::;=::...;.':....._----=
=:=.-:::'.:=..."'='"..:=--=-.;:;,-
::::=.'==-';1;=-=--"':.,":"..:--.......-
--.............-
=---_..::::==::.=:"..:.~,
--..------- ---_.-
---..-..-----...
----------_._.-
=-~_..,-' .. --':"_-
=-~::.===_.;...:=:='=-~S--...
-......-.--,.-...-.....---
='-_..___..:0.......-.......--
SECTION NOTES
I -
I SCIIIlHWE&'rF/MLY
, YMCA
I -....--
, ::It..
I ::.=..
I
, -
I ~~
llMRSIDf.atrltwm
---
; ---
oa-. ........
, ...-., ....
i -
. -.-
j _._-
- .......
" -- ....""
,
I HURD architecture
I HeberJ, Hurd
I -----
-=
, t_~::"
!
I
-
_e","
9
. ~
i
.
! --.--
I DRllnlNGOATE'
. .--
,
,
I ISSHFOATI'~
"--
I -.-
.--
--
I
I
.
!
I
,
I
I ~-".'"
i ^
, ^
I G
^
, ^
I l'&4l'!!~'"
! ~,.
....t!!'M"..
, 1IS.",tll
I ...__1l'....1IrIH
,.....-
,
I Pl....FUllJ_~
, .
I BUltOlNGSECTlOH
! A-MB.B
i A-S.O
I
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION 07-_
G:lPlanning\200SIPAOS-Q365 YMCA - DPlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT,doc
9
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA05-0365, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT
AND OPERATE A RECREATION FACILITY TOTALING 26,100
SQUARE FEET ON A 20.23 ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT 29119
MARGARITA ROAD (APN: 921-300-006)
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On November 29, 2005, Hurd Architecture, filed Planning Application No. PA05-
0365, (Development Plan) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code.
B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and
environmental review on April 4, 2007, 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.
D. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA05-0365 subject to and based
upon the findings set forth hereunder.
E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred,
Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application
hereby finds, determines and declares that:
Develooment Plan oer Section17.05.020.F of the Temecula Municioal Cod~
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinance of the City;
The proposed recreation facility is permitted in the Public Park and Recreation (PR)
zoning designation standards contained in the City's Development Code. The project is
also consistent with the Open Space (OS) land use designation contained in the General
Plan. The building is properly planned, designed, and as conditioned, is physically
suitable for the type of development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also
consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances,
including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare;
As conditioned, the overall design of the recreation facility, including the site, building,
parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, are consistent with the
G:\P_ingl2OO5\PA05-0365 YMCA - OPlPlanninglDraft PC RESOLUTION,doc
1
development code and have been designed 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.
Minor Exceotion oer Section17.03.060 of the Temecula Municioal Code
A. That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict
application of the code due to the physical characteristics of the property.
The Code does not consider the additional height requirements for the type of proposed
use (basketball) for the multi-purpose room of the recreation center. The pitched roof
allows for the variation in the roofline, and it allows the project to be consistent with the
surrounding development.
B. The minor exception 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 persons located in the vicinity.
A minor exception for building height is available to surrounding properties that also face
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship created by the strict application of the
Code. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the
property of other persons located in the vicinity and therefore no special privileges are
granted to this project.
C. The minor exception places suitable conditions on the property to protect
surrounding properties and does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the zone.
The proposed project has been designed with the fenestration of the gable windows and
architectural elements to minimize the bulk of the building. The proposed recreation
facility is consistent with the permitted uses of the Public Park and Recreation Zoning
District.
Section 3. Environmental Findinas. The Planning Commission hereby makes the
following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the
Development Plan for the YMCA:
A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), City staff prepared an
Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the YMCA as described in
the Initial Study ("the Projeer'). Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff
determined that there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant
effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared;
B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of
the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration as required by law. The public comment period
commenced on March 15,2007 and expired on April 4, 2007. Copies of the documents have
been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Planning,
located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92589;
O,IPlanning\2005IPA05-0365 YMCA. DPlPlanninglDraft PC RESOLUTION,doc
2
C. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all
comments received regarding the Negative Declaration prior to and at the April 4, 2007 public
hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the Negative Declaration was
prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the Project will
have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) the Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission;
D. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the Planning Commission
hereby adopts the Negative Declaration prepared for this project;
Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves
Planning Application No. PA05-0365, a Development Plan to construct and operate a 26,100
square foot building within a 0.66 acre lease area (project area) of a 20.23 acre public park,
located at 29119 Margarita Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference,
G:\Planningl2005\PA05.0365 YMCA - DPlPlanningIDr.lft PC RESOLUTION,doc
3
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 4th day of April 2007.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
ATTEST:
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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 07- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of
2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:\Planning\2005\PA05.0365 YMCA. DPlPlanningIDraft PC RESOLUTION,doc
3
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
G:\Planning\2005IP A05.jJ365 YMCA - DPlPlanningIDraft PC RESOLlITlON,doc
4
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA05-0365
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct and operate a YMCA
recreational facility totaling 26,100 square feet within a
0.66 acre lease area of the 20.23 acre Margarita
Community Park, located 29119 Margarita Road
Assessor's Parcel No.
(APN: 921-300-006)
MSHCP Category:
D1F Category:
TUMF Category:
Commercial
Service Commercial
Service Commercial
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
April 4, 2007
April 4, 2009
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Eight
Hundred and Sixty-Four Dollars ($1,864.00) which includes the One Thousand Eight
Hundred Dollar ($1 ,800.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus
the Sixty Four Dollar ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice
of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources
Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said 48-
hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check
as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)J. (OR)
G:IPlanning\200SIPAOS.0365 YMCA - DPIPlanninglDraft COA,doc
,
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-0365 YMCA - DPIPlanninglDraft COA.doc
2
Planning Department
2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed setto the Planning Department for
their files.
3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this development plan.
5. This approval shall be used within two 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-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion,
er the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
6. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three 1-year extensions of
time, one year at a time.
7. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and
elevations contained on file with the Planning Department.
9. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials,
equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied
by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or
technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the
condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the
real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision
to the Planning Commission for its decision.
Material
Roofing Material
Stucco Base Color
Stucco Accent
Building Base
Color
Burnished Slate (49)
La Habra Eggshell (X-73)
La Habra Sandstone (X-86)
RCP Split Face Block (La Paz Tan)
G:IPlanning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA. DPIPlanninglDraft COA,doc
3
Rafter Tails
Storefront Window Frames
Vision Glass
Entry Pavers
Pillars of the Community Plaques
Vista Paint Persimmons (8029)
Arcadia Standard Medium Bronze (AB-5)
Dual Glazed Solar Bronze Old Castle Glass
RCP Stone Top Tumbled Brown Stone
Dark Bronze
10. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
11. The applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of the building for Planning Department
inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building.
12. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10"
glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored
architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be
readable on the photographic prints.
13. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These
shall be clearly labeled on site plan.
Public Works Department
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing
and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent
post-construction water quality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent
non-permitted runoff from discharging offsite or entering any storm drain system or receiving
water.
18. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be accepted by the City prior to the initial
grading plan check. The WQMP will be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and include
site design BMPs (Best Management Practices), source controls, and treatment
mechanisms.
G:IPlanning\200SIPAOS-Q365 YMCA - DPIPlanninglDraft COA.doc
4
Building and Safety Department
19. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plurnbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access
Regulations, and the Ternecula Municipal Code.
20. The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area
wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on
March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payrnent of these fees at the tirne of building
permit issuance. The fees, if applicable to the project, shall be subject to the provisions of
Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
21. 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 street-lights 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.
22. 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.
23. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
24. Show all building setbacks.
25. Developments with Multi-tenant Buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house electrical
meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire
alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall
clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the
operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically
proposed.
26. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
27. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1 , 1998)
28. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
29. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
30. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
31. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA. DP\Planning\[)raft COA,doc
5
32. 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. 94-21,
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
33. Please be advised of the following shell building/complete building policy in the City of
Temecula when preparing plans for submittals. It is our recommendation that buildings with
a known tenant or occupant be submitted as a complete building. Please consider the
attached Building and Safety Department policy in determining the course of your design
work and subsequent submittal.
34. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
35. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
36. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review.
37. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
38. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with
disabilities.
39. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Fire Prevention
40. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
41 . The fire sprinkler riser and fire alarm control panel will be located in the same room with no
other equipment. The room will require exterior access. This is per Temecula Municipal
Code 15.16.020.
42. 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 4,000 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure for a 4 hour duration. The Fire Flow as given above has
taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A).
43. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2"
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA. OPlPlanninglDraft COA.doc
6
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 III-B).
44. 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).
Community Services Department
45. The developer shall contact the Maintenance Superintendent for a pre-design meeting to
obtain TCSD design specifications for the landscape plan.
46. Construction of the project shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the
developer, TCSD Maintenance Superintendent, Building and Safety inspector and Public
Works inspector. Developer shall comply with City and TCSD review and inspection
processes.
47. The developer or the developer's assignee, shall be responsible for all maintenance of the
landscaping areas until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
48. Developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance.
49. Access to the area of the park south of the building will be provided at all times during
construction. This access will meet all ADA requirements.
50. 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.
51. Location of the project monument sign and the planting and irrigation retrofit plan will be
review and approved by TCSD prior to installation.
52. All utilities for the YMCA building will be metered separately from the park.
53. Security lighting will be provided on the sides of the building.
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-0365 YMCA - DPIPlanninglDraft COA.doc
7
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-o365 YMCA - DPIPlanning\Draft COA.doc
8
Planning Department
54. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Phase I Cultural Study as
requested by the Eastern Information Center's transmittal dated December 12,2005 (a copy
of which is attached), and the applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified
within the report.
55. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the
property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the
discovery is not an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the
Director of Planning."
56. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical
plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior
to final agreement with the utility companies.
57. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project
site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the
Director of Planning.
Public Works Department
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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,
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-0365 YMCA - DPIPlannlng\Draft COA.doc
9
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
62. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading,
Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's
standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control.
63. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for
Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number
(WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be available at the site throughout the duration of
construction activities.
64. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Planning Department
b. Department of Public Works
65. 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.
66. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
67. 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.
68. The Developer shall obtain any necessary lellers of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Building and Safety Department
69. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
Fire Prevention
70. 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).
71. 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).
72. 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 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-o365 YMCA. DPIPlanning\Draft COA.doc
10
73. 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).
74. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14).
75. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4).
76. 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).
Community Services Department
77. The construction contractor shall provide necessary insurance and name the City as
additional insured.
78. Demolition and retrofit plans for the existing irrigation system and walkway lighting shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. All remaining park lighting
will be functional at all times.
79. An amendment to the existing ground lease with the City shall be approved by the Council.
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-0365 YMCA - DPIPlanning\Draft COA.doc
11
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-o365 YMCA - OP\Planning\Dralt COA.doc
12
Planning Department
80. All downspouts shall be internalized.
81. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall be certified by a licensed
landscape architect and shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, 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:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submillal).
b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all
parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area.
c. Provide 24-inch box trees at the front and rear of the building (non-slope areas).
d. Provide concrete mow curb per Temecula Community Services District standards.
e. Proposed sidewalk improvements shall be ADA compliant.
f. A note on the plans stating that "Two landscape inspections are required: one
inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for
final planting inspection".
g. A note on the plans stating that 'The contractor shall provide two copies of an
agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection".
h. One copy of the approved grading plan.
i. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
j. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan).
k. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map.
I. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the
proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and
landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved
maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor
who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
m. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be
required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being
pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two (2) hours without loss of
pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to-
head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the
approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/owner shall contact the
Planning Department to schedule inspections.
82. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange".
83. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on
a 9-inch grid pallern with 4S-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
G:\Planning\2Q05\PA05-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanning\Draft COA.doc
13
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.
Public Works Department
84. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to
approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
Fire Prevention
88. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish three copies of the water
system plans directly to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans
shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval
signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow
standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be
presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system
including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior
to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3,
901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1).
89. Prior to building permit, 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 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet
(CFC sec 902).
90. Prior to issuance of building permit fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the
installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
91. Prior to issuance of building permit fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention
Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submilled by the installing contractor
to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
92. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-
vegetation interface (CFC Appendix II-A).
93. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall
be submilled to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall
G:\Planning\2oo5\PA05-0365 YMCA - OP\Planning\Draft COA.doc
14
include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block
walls), and fuel modification zones (CFC Appendix II-A).
94. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submilled and
to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life
safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA -13,24,72 and 231-C
Community Services Department
95. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
96. Landscape construction documents shall be submilled for approval by the Director of
Community Services. Developer will pay applicable fees.
97. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement for the landscape
improvements.
98. Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by Riverside County Department of
Environmental Heath.
99. All necessary utility easement documents (ie. water, sewer, electric, gas, phone and cable)
shall be submilled to TCSD for review and approval by the City Council. All costs
associated with obtaining the utility easements shall by paid by the developer.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DP\planning\Draft COA.doc
15
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT
G:\Planning\2oo5lPA05-o365 YMCA. OP\Planning\Draft COA.doc
16
Planning Department
100. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant
shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from
view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is
determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet
walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the
developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof
element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning.
101. 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.
102. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction
landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one
year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation
system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the
bond shall be released upon request by the applicant.
103. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-
street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating
the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with
disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed by telephoning 951 696-3000."
104. 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
three square feet in size.
105. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed
prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit.
106. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
Public Works Department
107. The project shall demonstrate that the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP
have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for
immediate implementation.
G:\Planning\2oo5\PA05-0365 YMCA - OP\planning\Draft COA.doc
17
108. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
wrillen clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
109. 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 Prevention
110. 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).
111. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a
contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau (CFC 901.4.4).
112. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display
monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home
parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which
indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire
hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be
submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation.
113. 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
(CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9).
114. 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).
115. 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).
116. 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).
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc
18
117. 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.
118. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both
the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3).
119. 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.
120. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports (CFC Appendix II-E).
Community Services Department
121. The parking lot will be resealed and restriped.
G:\Plannlng\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DP\Planning\Draft COA.doc
19
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-o365 YMCA - DPlPlanning\Draft COA.doc
20
122. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's transmittal dated December 28, 2005, a copy of which is attached. The fee is
made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's
check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later
date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
123. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated December 2,2005, 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's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - OPlPlanning\Draft COA.doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
DESCRIPTION:
Shell Buildings
APPROVED BY:
Anthony J. Elmo, Director of Building and Safety
REPLACES:
5/30/2003
Acceptance of Construction Plans for new commercial buildings shall fit one of the two (2)
following categories:
Shell Building
Complete Building
DEFINITIONS
Shell Buildinq- a shell building is one that does not support occupancy. It may be a building
built for speculation or built prior to finalization of lease agreements and/or tenant improvement
plans.
A Shell Building is comprised of :
Finalized exterior walls
Finalized roof diaphragm and roof covering, and may contain;
Lobby
Corridors
Core Restroom Facilities
Stairs hafts
Elevators
Mechanical Equipment mounted on roof (no distribution)
Comolete Buildinq- a complete building is one that can support occupancy. It also may be built
for speculation but has all components in place to support occupancy.
A Complete Building is comprised of:
Finalized exterior walls
Finalized roof diaphragm and roof covering
Core Restroom facilities
Complete lighting and mechanical distribution systems
Complete automatic fire sprinkler and alarm system, and may have:
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - OP\Pianning\Draft COA.doc
22
Lobby
Corridors
Stairs hafts
Elevators
MINIMUM PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Shell Buildinq
Soils Report
Structural Frame
Underground Plumbing Plan
Underground Electrical Plan
Electrical Switchgear Plan
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Plan
Mechanical Equipment Roof Mount Layout Only
Landscape/Irrigation Plan (separate submittal)
ComQ.lete Buildinq
Soils Report
Structural Frame/Architectural Plan
Complete Plumbing Plan and schematics
Complete Electrical Plan and Load Calcs
Complete Mechanical and Energy Plans
Automatic Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Plans
Landscape and Irrigation Plan (separate submittal)
RELEASE OF UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
Shell Buildin.q,- House Meter Onlv
Building Shall Be Weatherized
Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Shall Be Operational and Accepted
Fire Department Access Provided
Exterior Shell and Site Improvements Shall Be Complete
Interior Elements Shall Be Deemed Safe as Determined by Building Inspector
Comqlete Buildina-House Meter Only,
All Building and Site Construction Shall Be Completed or Deemed Safe by the Building Inspector
All Project Conditions of Approval Shall Be Complete and Accepted by the Conditioning City
Department
~ELEASE OF TENANT IMPROVEMENT PERMIT
Shell Buildina- Release of Tenant Improvement Permit will Not Be Issued Until After the
Release of the House Electrical Meter
Coml?lete Buildinq- Release of Tenant Improvement Permit will Not Be Granted Until Approval
of Building Shell Energy Inspection (framing, rough M,P&E (if applicable) and insulation).
Any variance to these requirements must be submitted in writing to the Director of Building and
Safety for consideration.
G:\Planning\2oo5\PA05-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanning\Draft COA.doc
23
DEC-12-2005 14:51
, rEIC/ANTHRO UCR
951 827 5409
P. 03/03
EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER
CAl.IFORNIA HISTORICAl. RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM
Deportment of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. CA 92521-0418
(951) 827-5745 - Fax (951) 827-5409 - eickw@ucr,edu
Inyo. Mono, and Riverside Counties
Oecember 12, 2005
TO: Stuart Fisk
City of Temecula Planning Department
RE: Cultural Resource Review
Case: PAOS-036S/YMCA@ Margarita/Morgana
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and comains or is adJacem to known
cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended.
L Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase
I study is recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (RI-
) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature
of the projeCt or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resourCeS is not anticipated. Further
study is not recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (RI-
recommended.
) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not
There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate
area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a
profeSSional archaeologist.
L The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following gUidelines for
Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation,
Preservation Planning 6ullerin 4(a), December 1989.
Jt.. Phase I
Phase II
Phase 1/1
Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource significance: propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.]
MItigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.]
Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS:
If YOll have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
TnTQI 0 1It"<'
VARREN D. WILLIAMS
:neraJ Manager-Chief Engineer
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 9250 I
951.955.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
51180_2
p:;-'~'~~
I~ ~;~ ;';I~~;:; ([)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSER V AnON DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033
Attention: .9f\A.~tt:'\ AS't-
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: V'''' oS - 1>:30(" $"
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities.
The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specific i";",,,,~; to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and
drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District
Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the rroposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approva or endorsement of the proposed project WIth respect to flood hazard, public health
and safety or any other such Issue:
No comment.
-X.- This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional Interest proposed. .
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards. and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be
conSidered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership ot SUCh taClltlles on wrlnen request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection WIll be
required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
-L. This project is located within the limits of the District's 1-I1l\4.\~ ~~ -Wl"allJr Vi<W5>(Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been ado~ed; appllc:aDle tees snoUlo De pala DY casmers check
or money order only to the Flood Control District or Ci prior to issuance of grading permits. Fees to be paid
should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance 0 the actual permit.
An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right
of way or facilities. For further information, contact the District's encroachment permit section at
951.955.1266.
,By
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may ~uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for gradingJ recoroation, or other final approval should not be given until the City
has determined that the project has been granteo a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMAl mapped flood plain, then the City should
require t1\e applicant to provide all studies calculations, plans and other Information r~uired to meel FEMA
requirements, and should further require that ihe applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision ICLOMR) prior
to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior 0 occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this pro,'ect, the City should reqUire the applicant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Califomia Departmen of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from.the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act .Section 40t Water Qualitv Certification may be
requirea from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to. issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
V~~f\
~RTURO DIA,Z J
U 'Senior Civil Engineer
Date' h.'* Dc:.;;
c:
Riverside County Planning Department
Alln: David Mares
/
(Ot
~J..Y I%S_..< I.tANCIIO
".J';.O'} CALIF(lRNIA
~ V\lATEJ<t
~ DISTRICT
~ ."""""m",,'''~"''''''''''''''
.Im,'" I~f,.'
December 2, 2005
Board of Directors
Csaba F. Ko
President
Ben R. Drake
Sr. Vic~ President
Stephen J. Corona
Ralph H. Daily
Lisa D. Herman
John E. Hoagland
Michael R. McMillan
Officers:
Brian J. Brady
General Manager
Phillip L. Forbes
Assistant (fi:!neral Managerf
Chief Flnancial Officer
E.P. "Bob" Lemons
Director of Engineering
Perry It. Louck
DirecWrofPlanning
Jeff D. Armstrong
Controller
Kelli E. Garcia
DilltrictSecretal')'
C. Michael Cowett
Best Best & Krieger LLP
General Counsel
,
Stuart Fisk
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
/fD) [E @ IE [)[fl [E ~1
~ DEe 06 2005 ~I
By-
~. _.
---.-"'''-'----...
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED YMCA BUILDING
PORTION OF LOT NO. 14 OF TRACT NO. 3334
APN 921-300-006; CITY PROJECT NO. PAOS-036S
[HEBER HURD]
Dear Mr. Fisk:
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 construction of any required on-site and/or
off-site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees
and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. All
on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of
RCWD.
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATE DISTRICT
I~~~,p. .
Development Engineering Manager
051MM:atl76\FCF
c:
Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
-'
Rancho California Wate.r District
42135 Winchester lkllld . Post Office Bo:r.9017 . Temecula, Californla 92589-9017 . (951) 296-6900 . FAX (951l296-6860
www.rall.chowat.et..com
ATTACHMENT NO.4
INITIAL STUDY
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-o365 YMCA - DP\planninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
10
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Proiect Title
I Lead Agency Name and Address
I Contact Person and Phone Number
I Proiect Location
I Proiect SDonsor's Name and Address
I General pian Desiqnation . ---
I Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
I Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Environmental Checklist
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Public Park & Recreation I
A Development Plan to construct and operate a 26,100 square foot
YMCA building within a 0.66 acre lease area (project area) of a
20.23 acre public park located at 29119 Margarita Road. The
proposed project includes an indoor basketball court, exercise room,
and an indoor swimming pool. The proposed project will be open to
the public Monday through Friday from 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., on
Saturday from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and on Sunday from 12:00
p.m. to 4:00 p.m.. The YMCA will have an estimated six employees
on site.
Site: The proposed project is located within an existing public park
(Margarita Community Park). The park includes such amenities as
soccer and baseball fields, tennis courts, roller hockey, basketball
courts, children's play area, picnic tables, barbeques and public
restrooms. A designated dog park was recently approved by the City
at the southwest portion of the park; construction is anticipated to
begin early 2007.
North: Low Medium Residential is located approximately 460 feet to
the north of the proposed project.
West: High Density Residential is located approximately 155 feet to
the west of the proposed project.
South: A portion of Margarita Park lies immediately to the south of
the proposed project with Community Commercial and High Density
Residential south of the park.
East: Temecula Elementary School is located approximately 430
feet to the east of the proposed project.
I None
YMCA at Marqarita Communitv Park
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula. CA 92589-9033
Dale West
(951) 694-6400
I 29119 Marqarita Road
I YMCA. 261 i 1 Ynez Road. Ste. B26, Temecula, CA 92591
I Open Space
G:\Planning\2oo5\PA05-Q365 YMCA. OP\PlanninglCEQA INITIAL STUDY. 2oo5.doc
1
z
OOP'SooZ - AOnlS l'o'I.lINI '0'03::l\Bu!UU'eId\dO - 'o'::lt'lA S98o-So'o'd\SOOZ\Bu!uUeld\:~
Iv'
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
. Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Qualitv
Bioloaical Resources
Cultural Resources
I Geoloqy and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydroloay and Water Quality
Land Use and Plannina
. Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housina
Public Services
Recreation
TransportationfTraffic
I I Utilities and Service Systems
I I Mandatorv Findinas of Sianificance
I v' I None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be f)repared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the proiectproponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on allached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is reauired, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothina further is required.
~\2~
stgnafure
3-/ ~-D/
Date
Vi}L€ u/6S.r
Printed Name
C Itf () F H /I'V (!Cl0(J
For
G:IPlanning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DP\plannlnglCEQA INITIAL STUDY - 2005.doc
3
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a.
b.
Issues and Suo~rtina Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic hiqhway?
I Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighllime views in the
area?
Potentia'uy
Significant
Imoact
Potentially
Signifieant,Unless
Mitigation
IncorPorated
Less Than
Sigriificant
Impact
./
No
Impact
./
c.
./
d.
./
Comments:
1.a. Less Than Significant Impact. There are no scenic vistas or scenic resources within the proposed
project area; however, the adjacent multi-family residential property located to the west of the proposed
project site, overlooks the park where the proposed project is to be located. Although no scenic vistas
will be affected by the proposed project, some views of the public park will be obstructed by the
proposed project. The proposed project will be reviewed and conditioned to ensure compliance with
the adopted Citywide Design Guidelines. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
1.b. No Impact. The proposed project site does not have nor is located near historic buildings or scenic
highways. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.c. No Impact. The proposed project will be reviewed to ensure that architectural design is compatible to
the surrounding buildings on the site. In addition, most of the site will remain landscaped. No impact to
the visual character of the site is anticipated as a result of this project.
1.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes security lighting for the proposed
building. Projects that produce light/glare have the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory.
However, the proposed project will comply with the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance that will reduce
the spread of light to adjoining properties. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
G:\Planning\2oo5IPA05-0365 YMCA - DP\PlanninglCEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
4
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a.
Issues and Suqoortina Information SourCes
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-aQricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-aQricultural use?
Potentially
Sighificant
ImoaC't
Potentially
Significant UnleSs
Mitigation
IncorcOfated
Less Than
Significanl
Imoad
No
lmoact
./
lb.
./
c.
./
Comments:
2.a-c. No Impact: According to figure OS-3 of the City of Temecula General Plan, the project site is not
identified as land that is currently in agricultural production, nor in the past has the site been known to
be used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for
agricultural uses. The site is not considered private or unique farmland of statewide or local importance
as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In
addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated as a result of this proposed
project.
G:\Planningl2005\PA05-0365 YMCA. DPlPlanninglCEOA INfTlAL STUDY - 2005.doc
5
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pOllution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
I d.
Ie.
Issues and Suooortinalnformation Sources
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air guality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existinQ or projected air Quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
allainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number I
of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SrgnificantUnless
Mitigation
lncoroorated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
Comments:
3.a. No Impact. The proposed project will not obstruct policies and implementation of the Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) or the City
of Temecula's General Plan Air Quality Element. No impacts to air quality plans are anticipated as a
result of this project.
3.b. c. Less than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Basin is a non-attainment area for Ozone and
PM10. The project may contribute to a small incremental increase from short-term construction related
air quality impacts. These impacts are not expected to have long lasting effects because the project
will be conditioned to ensure compliance with the current air quality standards during construction. As
a result, this project is not anticipated to contribute substantially to additional Ozone or PM10 levels.
Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project
3.d. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors (Temecula
Elementary School) to substantial pollutant concentrations. While short-term construction related air
quality impacts are possible, these impacts are of a short duration and are not expected to have long
lasting effects. Any impacts resulting from this project are considered less than significant.
3.e. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project may create objectionable odors during the
construction phase. These impacts are short-term construction related impacts and are considered to
be less than significant.
G:lPfanning\2005IPA05-D365 YMCA - DPIPlanninglCEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2005.doc
6
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Issues and SuoC!,Ortina Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or im~ede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Imoact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incomorated
No
lmoact
Less Than
Significant
Imoact
./
./
./
./
./
,/
4.a-e. No Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of a 26,100 square foot building to an
existing park. The City of Temecula General Plan EIR did not identify any candidate, sensitive or
special status species, any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, any federally
protected wetlands, or any migratory wildlife corridors within proposed project area. No impacts to
biological resources or conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources are
anticipated as a result of this project.
4.1. No Impact. The proposed project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR)
Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan as well as the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The
proposed project does not conflict with these adopted plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanning\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
7
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
I a.
lb.
I c.
I d.
Issues and SUDoortina Information Sources
I Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
I Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
I Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique qeologic feature?
I Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Imcact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incoroorated
No
Imoact
Less Than
Signiticant
Imoact
./
./
./
./
Comments:
5.a, b. No Impact. The City of Temecula General Plan EIR does not identify the proposed project site as an
area associated with historic or archaeological resources that would substantially change the
significance of these resources. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Temecula General Plan identifies the project site as an
area having possible paleontological resources. Because the project site has been extensively graded
during its initial development, the discovery of paleontological or archeological resources is not
expected to occur in such highly disturbed conditions. However, in order to ensure that significant
impacts will not result, the project will be conditioned, consistent with City policy, that if during
excavation/construction of the site, any artifacts or other objects that reasonably appear to be evidence
of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, all further excavation or other disturbance of the
affected area is to cease immediately and a qualified specialist shall inspect the site to determine the
significance of the discovery. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d. No Impact. The project site is not anticipated to have any human remains. However, consistent with
City policy, if during excavation/construction of the site any human remains are discovered, all further
excavation or other disturbance of the affected area is to cease immediately. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2oo5lPAoS-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanning\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
8
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Issues and $uooortina Information Sources
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involvinQ:
i. The rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
(Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.)
I ii. I Stronq seismic [lround shakinQ?
I iii. Seismic-related Qround failure, includinQ liquefaction?
I iv. Landslides?
I b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreadinQ, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignifiCant. Unless
Mitigation
hicotoorated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
6.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Investigation of the site was prepared by LGC
Inland, Inc. on November 4, 2005. The report indicated that the Elsinore-Temecula Fault is located
approximately 0.8 kilometers to the southwest of the site, no active faults are known to project through
the site and the site does not lie within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. State and local
building codes require seismic hazard mitigation features to be incorporated into building design and
construction. The potential for adverse impacts are expected to be less than significant.
6.b-d. No Impact. None of these conditions apply to this site and/or are not expected to occur with this type
of activity. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.e. No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The ultimate
development of the site requires the future connection to the existing public sewer system; therefore, no
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2oo5\PA05-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanning\CEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
9
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Issues and Supoortina Information Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existinq or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workinq in the proiect area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Imeact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incoroorated
No
Imoact
Less Than
Significant
Imoact
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
./
./
7.a-c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the operation and maintenance of an
indoor swimming pool. The proposed swimming pool will require the use and storage of chemicals
typically used for operation and maintenance. The proposed project will be required to use and storage
of these supplies in manor that is consistent with the Riverside County Environmental Health
Department and the California Health and Safety regulations and guidelines. A less than significant
impact is anticipated for this project.
7.d. No Impact. The proposed project is not located on or near a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a
significant hazard to the public, the environment, or the school located adjacent to the park property.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanninglCEQA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
10
7.e-f. No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles
of a public or private airstrip. The nearest airport is French Valley, whose runway is approximately
three miles to the north. No impact from airport uses will result from this proposal.
7.g No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.h. No Impact. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project is located within an existing neighborhood park and includes some vacant
land. The project is not located within or in proximity to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-o365 YMCA - DPlPlanninglCEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2005.doc
11
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
I h.
i.
Ii.
Issues and Sup'pottina Information Sources
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water
gualitv?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been Qrantedl?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
floodinQ on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Require the preparation of a Water Quality Management
Plan?
Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Imoact
Potentially
SigriificanrUnless
Mitigation
li1coroorated
Less Than
Significant No Impact
Impact
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
8a. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements. The project will be reviewed and conditioned to ensure compliance with
current City standards for construction-phase and post-construction pollution prevention measures
consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City)
NPDES programs. Construction-phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs)
consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and the SWRCB General
Permit for Construction Activities. The specific BMPs necessary to meet the water quality objectives
will be determined prior to issuance of a City Grading Permit. Less than significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2oo5\PA05-0365 YMCA. DPlPlanning\CEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2005.doc
12
8b. No Impact. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of groundwaters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the
site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume.
Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is
expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable
ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings and accompanying hardscape.
Conversely, the proposed project will reduce the amount of water used to irrigate some of the existing
turf areas. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts will be insignificant.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8c-e. No Impact. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pallern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site.
Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is
created. The proposed project is not anticipated to contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of
the existing storm drain facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
81. No Impact. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
established by the State of California. However, the project is required to prepare a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate Storm-Sewer permit (MS4 permit)
issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The water quality control measures
identified in the WQMP will be incorporated into the design of the project or will be added to the project
as specific conditions of approval and are expected to eliminate potential adverse impacts to receiving
waters.
8.g-j No Impact. The proposed project site is located outside the limits of the 100 year floodplain and dam
inundation areas as identified by the City of Temecula General Plan and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) map. The proposed project will not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, or flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam. The project site is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, as these events are
not known to occur in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G:IPlannlng\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DP\planninglCEQA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
13
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
I a.
b.
Issues and Suooortina Information Sources
Phvsically divide an established communitv?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Potentially
SignifiCant
lmoact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incoroorated
Less Than
Sigriificant
lmoact
No
Imoact
./
./
I c.
./
Comments:
9.a. No Impact. This project involves improvements to an existing neighborhood park. The park is adjacent
to Temecula Elementary School and an existing residential neighborhood. As a result, this project will
not divide an established community and no impacts are anticipated.
9.b. No Impact. This proposed includes an indoor basketball court, exercise room, and an indoor swimming
pool, which consistent with the types of uses commonly found in public parks. The proposed
recreational use is consistent with the General Plan and the requirements of the Development Code.
As a result, no impacts are anticipated with this project.
9.c. No Impact. The project does not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or community
conservation plan. The project is not within a Criteria Cell identified by the Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), which was adopted by City Council on January
13, 2004, and became effective March 12, 2004. Although the Summary Report generated by the
Riverside County Geographic Information Services indicates that the parcel has the potential for
burrowing owl habitat, the site is within a community park, completely landscaped with turf grass and is
not suitable habitat for burrowing owls. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanning\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
14
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
Issues and Suooortina Information Som("'.e~
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
. qeneral Dlan. sDecific Dlan or other land use Dlan?
Potentially
Significant
lmoact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
lncoroorated
Less Than
Significant
Imoact
No
Imoact
./
b.
./
Comments:
10.a b.No Impact. The proposed project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in
the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has
classified the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits,
which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate.
However, it has been determined that this area contains no deposits of significant economic value
based upon available data in a report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area,
Riverside County, California, Special Report 165, prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DP\Planning\CEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
15
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a.
lb.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Issues and SUDoortino Information Sources
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
aQencies?
I Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
qroundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
. project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Imoact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
lncorbbrated
No
Impact
Less Than
SignIficant
Impact
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
11.a-b.less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project may expose the Temecula Elementary School
and the adjacent residential properties to construction related noise and some groundborne vibrations
during the development/construction phase of the project. However, the duration of construction related
noise and groundborne vibrations are expected to be short-term. The proposed project will be
conditioned to comply with City's noise Ordinance during the construction phase of the project, which
regulates the hours of construction. The operation of the recreation center is not anticipated to create
severe noise levels and or groundborne vibrations. As a result, this project will not expose people to
severe noise levels or excessive vibrations, and a less than significant impact is anticipated with this
project.
11.c. less Than Significant Impact. Noise generated from the operation of the recreation center activities
are anticipated to be typical of the type of noise normally generated by regular park activities and are
not anticipated to result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise levels within the
vicinity of the project. Activities conducted through the recreation center are not expected to generate
noise levels that exceed the acceptable receptor noise levels identified in the General Plan Noise
Element for playground and park uses. less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
11.d. less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project may result in occasional periodic short-term
increases in ambient noise levels; however, activities are indoor and are not expected to exceed noise
levels typically generated by regular park activities and noise typically heard in the surrounding
neighborhood. less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanninglCEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2005.doc
16
11.e-1. No Impact. The proposed project is not within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private
airstrip. The proposed project is also outside the influence area for the French Valley Airport. The
proposed project will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-o365 YMCA - DPlPlanning\CEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
17
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a.
Issues and Supportinalnformation Sources
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
I Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housinQ elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
v'
b.
v'
I c.
v'
Comments:
12.a. No Impact. This proposed park improvements will not induce population growth within the City. This
project is in response to previous growth within the City, the current demands for additional recreational
activities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b-c.No Impact. This project will not cause cumulative increases to the local population to exceed regional
projections, induce substantial additional growth, or displace any housing units. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2005IPA05-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanninglCEOA INITIAL STUOY - 2005.doc
18
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
I a.
lb.
I c.
I d.
Ie.
Issues and Suooortina Infonnation Sources
. Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
I Parks?
I Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Imoact
Potentially
SignifICant Unless
Mitigation
Incomoraled
Less Than
Significant
Imoact
No
Imoact
.{
.{
.{
.{
.{
Comments:
13.a-e. No Impact. The proposed construction of the YMCA at the park will not substantially affect current
demands, or adversely affect acceptable service ratios, response times or performance objectives for
fire, police, schools, parks or other public facilities or services. No impacts to public services are
anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-D365 YMCA - DPlPlanninglCEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
19
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
a.
Issues and$uooortiilQlnformation Sources
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse phvsical effect on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
lmoact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incoroorated
Less Than
Significant
Imoact
No
Jmoacl
,/
b.
,/
Comments:
14.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is expected to result in an increase to the use of
the park site due to the addition of the indoor swimming pool, exercise room and indoor basketball
court; however, these proposed improvements at the park are also expected to improve the park
resources made available to the public without leading to substantial physical deterioration of the park.
The proposed improvements at the park also address local demand for these types of activities for the
community. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.b. No Impact. The project will provide additional recreational opportunities and will not affect the demand
for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational
opportunities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanning\CEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
20
15. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Ie.
I f.
g.
Issues andSuDDOrtin9 InfonnationSources
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ration on roads, or conQestion at intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
manaaement aaencv for desianated roads or hiahwavs?
~. ~ .
Result in a change in air traffic pallerns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.a., farm equipment)?
I Result in inadequate emeraency access?
I Result in inadBCluate parkina capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Imoact
Potentially
Significant Unfess
Mitigation
Incorborated
No
Impact
Less Than
Signific~1I1t
Imoact
01'
01'
01'
01'
01'
01'
01'
15.a. No Impact. The operation of the recreation center at Margarita Community Park is expected to have a
small incremental increase in the number of vehicle trips associated with its operations; however, the
proposed project will not result in a substantial increase in trips resulting in a change in levels of service
(LOS) to the roadway network. The streets within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project are
projected to continue to operate well within acceptable levels of service. No impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
15.b. No Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in an individual or cumulative impact to the
LOS on the designated Congestion Management roadways. No impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
15.c. No Impact. The proposed development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns
by increasing the traffic levels in the vicinity. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight
overlay district. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15.d. No Impact. The proposed project is adjacent to an existing residential area and the Temecula
Elementary School; however, the project does not propose to modify the current street pattern. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15.e. No Impact. The proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access
to nearby uses. The project will be reviewed and conditioned if necessary to ensure compliance with
current City standards and adequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
G:\Pianning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DP\planninglCEaA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
21
15.f. No Impact. The proposed project does not propose additional parking. The Margarita Community Park
is adequately parked to accommodate this type of use. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
15.g. No Impact. The proposed project is located adjacent to a multi-use trail and Class 2 Bike Lanes, which
provides access to the park site for pedestrians and bicyclists along Margarita Road. A Riverside
Transit Authority bus route is also along Margarita Road. No conflicts will occur to adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, as a result of this project.
G:IPlanning\2005\PA05-o365 YMCA - DP\PlanninglCEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2005.doc
22
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
I a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
If.
I g.
Issues and $uooortina Information Sources
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable ReQional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to I
accommodate the proiect's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and I
reQulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
Potenlially
Significant
Imoact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incoroorated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
linDact
"
"
,(
,(
,(
,(
"
16.a.b.e. No Impact. The proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the
construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The proposed
project will have a small incremental impact upon existing systems. Th~ Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the City's General Plan indicates that implementation of the proposed General Plan
would not significantly impact wastewater services, making the project consistent with the City's
General Plan. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.c. No Impact. The proposed project will not require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and will not cause significant environmental
impacts. The existing facilities have capacity to handle the proposed project. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
16.d. No Impact. The proposed project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require
expanded water entitlements. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems,
the park land use is included in the Urban Water Management Plans. According to the Plans, both
EMWD and RCWD have the ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.f-g. No Impact. The proposed project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Solid waste
generated from this project will be managed through the Riverside County Waste Management Plan
and the City of Temecula Source Reduction/Recycling Element. No impacts to landfill capacity are
anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0365 YMCA - DPlPlanninglCEOA INITIAL STUDY. 2005.doc
23
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
Issues and SUDoortina Information Sources
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California histOry or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
proiects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incoroorated
No
Impact
Less Than
SignifICant
Impact
./
./
,/
17.a. No Impact. The project area is not located within an area having the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number of, restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project is within an established
built-out area. There are no threatened or endangered species that would be impacted as a result of
this project.
17.b. No Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to have impacts that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. The potential cumulative impacts for the proposed project with regards to
geology and soils, air quality, transportation, noise, aesthetics and recreation will be mitigated through
compliance with the General Plan, Municipal Code and other required outside agency regulations.
Potential impacts generated by the proposed project will be no greater than what was anticipated at
build-out as analyzed in the General Plan. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17.c. No Impact. This project will provide benefits that outweigh any potential impact associated with the
construction of the project. The project will not have environmental effects that will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-o365 YMCA - DPlPlanninglCEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2005.doc
24
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
I a. Earlier analvses used. Identifv earlier anal~ses and state where thev are available for review. I
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitiQation measures based on the earlier analvsis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the proiect.
Comments:
18.a. The City's General Plan Final Environment Impact Report was used as a reference to identify earlier
analysis of the propose impacts of the project. This report is available at the City of Temecula Planning
Department Counter.
18.b. No earlier impacts were identified in an earlier document which affected this project.
18.c. No mitigation measures are identified and proposed for this project.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. City of T emecula Municipal Code
5. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, LGC Inland, Inc., November 4, 2005
6. Initial Environmental Study (EA 8), Temecula Elementary School Park Site, January 3, 1991
G:\Planning\2005lPA05-0365 YMCA. DP\plannlnglCEOA INITIAL STUDY - 2oo5.doc
25
ATTACHMEN" NO.5
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
G:\Planning\2005IPA05.()365 YMCA - DP\planning\PC STAFF REPORT.doc
11
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING
COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
Margarita Community Park located at 29119 Margarita Road
A Development Plan to construct and operate a 26,1 00 square foot YMCA building within a
0.66 acre lease area of a 20.23 acre site. In addition, a minor exception is being requested
to increase the maximum height limit from 35 feet to 40 feet for the YMCA building.
Negative Declaration
Dale West, Associate Planner
City of Temecula, Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Date of Hearing: April 4, 2007
Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m.
Any person may submit wrillen comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be
heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,
the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Questions concerning the
project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planning Application No. PA05-0365
YMCA
CEQA Action:
Case Planner:
Place of Hearing:
G:\Planning\2005lPA05'{)365 YMCA - DPlPlanningINOPH-PC.FRM.doc