HomeMy WebLinkAbout093096 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
September 30, 1996, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Watff District's
Board Room
4213~ W'mchester Road
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairm~n Fahey
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address
not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to filre~ (3) minUtp~ e~ch. ~f
Commi~io~rs about an iP..m not listed on ~he Agend~ a pink "Request to Speak"
and filed with the ~~-~7'
I:,~r a:l ,nher ag, mla i-*-"ms a "Reqttmt Io Spe~k.'
il.'d wi~l die P:arnnng S:;rctary before
i;ll~' litnil lot indt~ tJ,:a[ s|k:ak,.q .~
CO t f I fISSION
I'l. Ill.lC
/ /* i,~
' C~e No:1 '
3./
......... i
.~ppvOT~.l of September 16,
nneot Plan - Fast
'huodred ~fi.~ (350) feet east
,eralion of a 12.500 square foot
I.)lGroomerfipl Actioo: M
Planner: Matthew Fagan
Recommendation: Approval
Continued from the September 16, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting.
Case No:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Action:
Future Middle School Site
Temecula Valley Unified School District
N/A
Campos Vetdes and Nicolas Road
N/A
Debbie Ubnoske
Provide direction to the Temecula Unified School District on the
selection of a site for a future middle school
C~seT'To:
Locstion:
l_~oc,d~on:
?ropos~:
DeveTopment Code Amendment 8umber
A ~ent %o the text o( the Development Code
~lr~ssMin°r Amen
ApprovsT
O~.~vme Uesi~ G~deU~ ·om re~ie.w
CIPJ ot~:ec~ ~ the ~esi~a, .co ~nd
~e~op
Next
2
96-4a~
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR M~-~..TING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 19~
A reg.lar meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, September 16,
1996, 6:06 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula,
California. Co-Chairman Slaven presiding.
PRESENT: Miller, Slaven, Soltyslak, Webster
ABSENT: Fahey
Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Senior Planner
Dave Hogan, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz, Associate Engineer John
Pourkazemi, Associate Engineer Larry Cooley, Assistant Engineer Annie Bostre-Le, and Minute Clerk Pat
Kelley.
PUBLIC CO1VIMR, NTS
Co-Chairman Slaven called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:10 P.M. There were no requests to
speak.
COMMISSION BUSIN~..~S
1. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to approve the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: 7ahey
2. Approval of July 15, 1996 Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes
of July 15, 1996, with the following amendments:
Page 1, 7th Paragraph - The motion carried as follows: Ayes: add Slaven
R:\pLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb I
PLANNING COMMISSION SF, FI~,MRI?,R 16, L_ ~,
Page 4, 5th paragraph - ...Commission felt it was something that would not enhance sales to minors...
Page 4, 6th paragraph - Commissioner Miller inquired about...
Page 6, 5th paragraph - Commissioner Miller expressed concerns...
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Approval of August 19, 1996 Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes
of August 19, 1996, with the following amendment.
Page 5, 9th paragraph - ...15 gallon sycamore trees and 24' box...
Page 6, 6th paragraph add The Commission is requesting that the parking ratio be met if the pr0jeet is
downsized.
The motion carried as follows:
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
3. Director's Hearing Update
No update was submitted.
Chairman Fahey was present at 6:13 P.M.
R:\PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 2
.... ' PI,ANNING COMMIgSION SI~.P'ff, MBI~,R 16, 1996
4. Planning Application No. PA96-0130 (Development Agreement) Van Daele Development Corporation
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the Staff report recommending approval to reduce the
Development Agreement fees from $5,334.00 to $3,590.00 per unit for Planning Areas No. 8, 9 and 12
(Final Tract Maps 22761 and 22762), within Specific Plan No. 180.
Commissioner Slaven stated this request is consistent with past practices and a.eed if this agreement
would have a new exp'n-ation date or continue the existing expiration date. Mr. Fagan answered a new
expiration date is in effect.
Commissioner Solty~iak questioned if Riverside County would receive any of the monies under the new
agreement. Mr. Fagan restx~nded upon adoption of this agreement, the County would not receive monies
for Planning Areas 8, 9 and 12. Undeveloped areas remain in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan subject
to the existing development agreement.
Commissioner Miller inquired ff it was necessary to make a finding that if the fee was not decreased,
there was a likelihood the project would not be developed. Mr. Fagan replied it was not necessary to
make that finding.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:18 P.M.
Bryce Kitfie, 2900 Adams, Riverside, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any
questions. There were none.
Chairman Fahey closed the Public Comment Section at 6:20 P.M.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and ~econded by Commissioner Webster to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0130 and Resolution No. 96-NEXT recommending
approval of planning Application No. PA96-0130 to the City Council, based upon the amended Analysis
and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, and to
close the public hearing.
The motion carded as follows:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS None
R:\PLANCO~14\MINUTES\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 3
PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTF, MRI~ 16, x
5. PA96-0090 (Development Plato Construction of Industrial Buildings, Rich Byer
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the Staff report recommending approval for construction of two
17,000 square foot. industrial buildings on two different parcels on the southside of Winchester Road,
west of Diaz Road.
Commissioner Webster stated Conditions of Approval should be mended stating the entire lot be graded,
landscaped, and parking spaces completed in Phase I.
Chairman Fahey asked if applicant has indicated a time frame between the construction of the two
buildings. Mr. Hogan replied no as construction was market-driven. Chairman Fahey remarked there
would be a large visible blank wall until the second building was built.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked whether the docks are at grade or slope down. Mr. Hogan replied he
believes the docks slope down with the building' s floors at grade and it was felt the docks were well
screened from the street.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern regarding adequate space for trucks to enter the loading dr '-
area without hitting the trash enclosures. Mr. Hogan replied the plans are somewhat misle-qding as t
is sufficient space for trucks to pass the trash area and the trucks will exit onto Winchester Road.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M.
Steve Smith, 6867 Nancy Ridge Road, San Diego, representing Rich Byer, applicant, stated the wall will
be finished in an attractive manner and the unbuilt area will be hydroseeded.
Chairman Fahey asked if the applicant was willing to have those items added as Conditions and Mr. Smith
answered yes.
Commissioner Webster asked Mr. Smith to expand on the wall treatment. Mr. Smith replied it will be
painted and details continued from the front of the building.
Commissioner Webster questioned if the hydroseeding, landscaping around the perimeter, and paving are
being done in Phase 1. Mr. Smith answered they were. Curbs not descriptive for the second building
will not be done in Phase I.
Commissioner Miller asked if everything shown in green on the Landscaping Plan is to be completed in
Phase 1. Mr. Smith replied all of the perimeter landscaping will be completed in Phase 1, but not the
landscaping adjacent to the second building. Bottle trees are planned for the back of the building and
drake elms, flowering plums and/or crepe myrtles planned for the parking area.
R:\PLANCG~\MINUTES\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 4
PLANNING COMMISSION SF,,P'IT, MB~',R 16, 1996
Chairman Fahey closed Public Comments at 6:35 P.M.
Chairman Fahey stated Conditions should include additional landscaping for vacant lot, and the front
color treatment continued on the wall.
Commissioner Webster stated the elevations show scoring lines and paint on the wall which is
approlniate. He also said it is not practical to plant additional trees since the perimeter trees will be an
adequate screen in the interim phase. He added, some of the trees shown on the landscape plans are not
appropriate for this area and recommended the City Landscape Architect take a close look at the tree
palate. Tree size shown is 15 gallon and somewhere between 40 to 50% should be 24' box trees.
Mr. Hogan clarified the Commissioners were looking at a conceptual landscaping plan and the final
construction landscape plan would be submitted later to the City Landscape Architect. Mr. Hogan asked
fithe request for 24" box trees was because the Commission was looking for immediate screening on the
site. Commissioner Webster replied that was correct.
Chairman Fahey said the final landscape plan should have approximately 40% of the trees designated 24"
box instead of 15 gallon and the vacant lot should be hydroseeded.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if there are current mix requirements for landscape plans. Mr. Hogan
replied that the ordinance minimum requirement is 15-gallon trees and 5-gallon shrubs.
Commissioner Miller stated he did not see the need for 24" box trees and prefers to see a couple of
specimen trees in the front and the major portion of screening trees left at 15 gallon size because they are
generally a better tree.
Commissioner Webste~ reiterated 24" box t~es are definitely needed on the side of the lot facing the wall
to provide adequate screening for a blank wall. He also said although the City Design Guidelines are not
in effect, they do call for a mix of 36"-box, 24"-box and 15-gallon trees. Mr. Hogan clarified it is his
understanding the larger trees would be adjacent to the street and at the northwest comer.
Chairman Fahey stated the proposed guidelines have a mix of 20%-36" box, 30%-24' box and 50%-15
gallon trees which is what is being suggested.
Commissioner Miller asked about the traffic count for this street. Mr. Hogan replied there is not a lot
of traffic at this time, but development plans for this area are being submitted.
R:\PLANC(2~4\MINUTBS\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 5
PLANNING COMMISSION SRPTRMRER 15, b_.,
Commissioner Slaven asked if the blank wall will be seen from Diaz Road and what the time frame was
for constructing the second building. Mr. Hogan replied the wall could not be seen from Diaz Road; only
from Winchester Road when going towards Diaz Road. Mr. Smith said construction was dependent upon
the market, but hopefully within a year or two.
Commissioner Soltysiak recommended hydroseeding the vacant lot and leave it to staff to make certain
temporary screening of the blank wall and the dock area is provided and work out the ratio details with
the applicant.
Commissioner Webster disagreed that requesting a certain percentage is getting too specific or is
redesigning the landscaping plan, but rather is providing a minimum requirement.
Chairman Fahey clarified Commissioner Webster was a.sldng the permanent landscaping have larger trees.
Commissioner Webster replied that was his intent.
Chairman Fahey closed the public hearing at 6:55 P.M.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adopt the Negal;
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0090; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA96-0090; and to adopt Resolution No. 96-_ approving PA96-0090 based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval as amended and to close the public heating.
Chairman Fahey clarified the amendments to be:
0
0
0
0
Temporary hydroseeding of vacant lot;
All perimeter landscape to be in place with Phase 1;
All paving to be completed in Phase 1;
Wall to be painted and treated with same design as front of building.
Mr. Hogan stated the following changes in the Conditions of Approval:
O
O
Condition 5, extra treatment given to the wall;
Condition 7 to be reworded "In the front component of the lot, additional trees, 24"- and 36"-box,
will be provided."
Condition 17 addition "With the issuance of the permit of the first building, all the perimeter
landscaping will be in and any undeveloped areas will be hydroseeded."
R:\PLANCOb~4\MINUTES\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 6
PLANNING COMMIgSION SF,,~,,R 16, 1996
The motion carried as follows: '
5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS None
6. Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan - N~a Auto Part1)
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report recommending approval for design,
construction and operation of a 12,500 square foot Napa Auto Parks Facility at the intersection of
Jefferson and Sanborn Avenues.
Chairman Fahey opening the public hearing at 7:02 P.M.
Russeli Rumansoff, 27349 Jefferson, Temecula, representing Alan Orr, the applicant, stated 1. The
storefront is clear anodized aluminum with solar glazed glass, orange-yellow stripe, and blue. 2. Sides
will be sandblasted to bring out the grey-blue tone. 3. Signage is limited to the south and east-facing
comers with the logo sign facing north. 4. He requested a correction to Condition 4c, 'bicycle rack will
be a Standard 2 as opposed to a Class 1 locker'. He stated the applicant does not have a problem with
302 street outlets. Surrounding businesses were notified of the proposal and supporting letters were
received. 5. This building has been approved by the North Jefferson Business Park Architectural Review
Committee.
Chairman Fahey asked Mr. Rumansoff if the applicant agreed with the change in Condition 8 with
Ordinance 663 no longer applicable and the Temecula Code on habitat conservation applying. Mr.
Rumansoff replied the applicant agreed.
Commissioner Slaven inquired if the plastic tubing was 2' wide and Mr. Rumansoff replied it was, but
because it curves back, it will appear thinnet.
Commissioner Slaven asked about the business hours. Mr. Rumansoff answered 8 A.M. to 6 P.M.
Commissioner Slaven asked about the makeup of the North Jefferson Business Park Architectural Review
Committee. Mr. Rumansoff replied
there were two people on the committee, the owner of the property and himself. The owner has 5 1% of
the vote and while she has the authority to change the CC&Rs, there has not been a change since they
were recorded.
R:\PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 7
PI.ANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, i_ ~
Chairman Fahey clarified the COmmission must base its decision based on City guidelines, not CC&Rs.
Commissioner Soltysiak noted that the Bank of Commerce letter references a dark blue strip with gold
pipeline, but the submitted plans show a blue storefront with an illuminated tube as the gold accent band.
Mr. Rumansoff replied the submitted plans were correct.
Chairman Fahey closed Public Comments at 7:10 P.M.
Commissioner Slaven stated the dark blue color and the 2' illuminated tube are not appropriate and not
compatible with other area businesses. A dark blue strip with a gold stripe would not be as loud and
would be more appropriate. She cannot suppen the project as submitted.
Commissioner Solty~iak stated the front of the building looks more like a billboard, not compatible with
surrounding building colors and he would support the project if the color scheme can be reworked.
Commissioner Miller stated he has no problem with the project as designed.
Mr. Rumansoff stated the gold band could be eliminated from going around the entire building and"
front would be blue above the gold band and the bottom sandblasted with a compatible tune.
Chairman Fahey asked if the owner was willing to eliminate the illuminating Light band. Mr. Rumonsoff
stated the stripe must be illuminated as it is a Napa requirement and the store will be opened til 9 P.M.
at times.
Commissioner Webster stated he thought it was a fair proposal.
Chairman Fahey said she could support the project without the lighted band.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the blue band was 9 feet wide and Mr. Rumansoff stated that was
correct. Based on dimensions shown on the elevations, the band may be 11 feet.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to continue the item to the
September 30, 1996, meeting to allow time for Staff and the applicant to resolve the concerns raised
tonight as this is a vital business to Temecula.
Commissioner Webster remarked the only legitimate concern is the light on the building and would rather
the Commission resolve the matter at this ticfie causing no delay.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 8
' PI.ANNING CO1VIMI~SION SF. FFF..~I~R 16, 1996
Commissioner Slaven stated sh~ does not agree this project should not be continued just because it is a
fast track project. She stated th~ applicant and the architect understand the Commiss'ton's concerns that
ll'x60' of blue is too much.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated he was comfortable with continuing the matter and getting the color
scheme more in line with Bank of Commerce's letter of approval.
Chairman Fahey stated the public hearing remains open.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COM1VIISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak
NOES: 1 COMM/SSIONERS: Webster
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Chairman Fahey called for a recess at 7:35 P.M.
Chairman Fahey called the meeting back to order at 7:45 P.M.
7. Planning Application PA96-0176 (Development Plan - The Allen Group
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report recommending approval for the design,
construction and operation of a 77,582 square foot corporate office and distribution facility for FFF
Enterprises on the northeast corner of Ynez Road and County Center Drive.
Commissioner Miller inquired about the required landscap'rag percentage. Mr. Fagan responded 20%
is the minimum landscaping requirement and this project has planned 22% of the site to be landscaped
which does not include the hydroseeded area. The landscaping percentage is determined by the project' s
acreage, not building size.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Steve Stock, 4365 Executive Drive, San Diego, representing the applicant, The Allen Group, said he was
available for questions.
Commissioner Solty~iak asked fithey had a tenant for this project. Mr. Stock replied, FFF Enterprises,
a medical product distribution company, has leased the property.
R:\PL~4COb~\MINUTES\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 9
PLANNING COMMISSION SF,,~k':R 16, ,__,~
Chairman Fahey closed the Pubfie Comment Section at 7:58 P.M.
Commissioner Webster observed this is a light industrial site and the landscape plan shows 24" box and
15 gallon trees.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0176; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application PA96-0176; and to adopt Resolution No. 96-Next recommending approval of PA96-
0176 as amended and based upon the amended Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and to close the public hearing.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
8. Planning Application PA96-0206 (Minor Change to Tentative Parcel Map 24085), City Associates I
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the Staff report recommending a modification to Condition
of Approval No. 29 of PA96-0140 (Tentative Parcel Map 24085) pertaining to restricted access on Diaz
Road. After a review of the Development Plan submitted by Zevo Golf, staff deter-mined that the
condition can be modified for the following reasons:
1. The project can be found consistent with Ordinance No. 460 which allows flexibility for
intersection spacing due to the use of the word ~ be limited.
2. A similar condition exists to the south of this project.
3. The PA96-0190 access design to and from Diaz Road is superior for track traffic.
He also stated environmental review was handled under the previous map. This is not a change that
requires additional environmental review.
Commissioner Webster asked if the access modification was for this parcel' s Phase I only or also for the
parcels to the north. Mr. Fagan answered access to Diaz Road is limited to Phase I only.
R:\PLANCOb~4\MINUTES\I996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 10
PLANNING COMMISSION SF, I'TI~mER 16. 1996
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired if a minimum dimension is applied to the separation. Engineer Larry
Cooley stated street design criteria mentions a minimum dimension of 660 feet spacing between
intersections and there is about 800 feet between Remington Road and Averrich de Ventas.
Chairman Fahey opened public hearing at 8:07 P.M.
Max Harrison, 41975 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, Zevo Golf, stated he was
available to answer any questions. There were no questions.
Chairman Fahey closed Public Comments at 8:09 P.M.
Assistant City Attorney Rubin Weiner stated the Resolution needed the following amendments in Section
2, Finding No. 1, end of first line. Inseffion to read: *,with conditions as modified in Seelion 3 below,."
The last sentence to read "The Findings made for Planning Application PA96-0140 are hereby
readopted." Add a new Section 3 executing the Commissinn's intent to read "The Planning Commission
hereby approves Planning Application PA96-0206 to revise Condition of Approval 29 of Planning
Application PA96-0140 allowing access to and from Parcel 1 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085 onto
Diaz Road." Renumber Section 3 to 4 and 4 to 5.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to find the proposed
modification is consistent with the impacts included in the previously adopted Negative Declaration for
Planning Application PA96-0140 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085); and to adopt Resolution No. 96-
approving PA96-0206 as amended based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report,
and to close the public hearing.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
R:\PLANCOb~4\MINUTES\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 11
PLANNING COMMISSION SgFr!~2VIR!~ 16, ~ ~_.,
9. PA96-0190 (DEVF1.OPMENT PLAN, ZF, VO GOLF)
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report recommending approval for design,
construction and operation of a 235,249 square foot office/manufacture building and a test golf driving
range at Diaz Road and Avenida de Ventas (Zevo Drive). Mr. Fagan stated staff discussed concerns
about goff balLs being nit over the fence onto Avenida de Ventas (Z~vo Drive). The applicant plans a 6-
foot fence around the perimeter, but more for security reasons than restricting golf bails as the driving
range will only be used by testing machines and PGA golfers.
Commissioner Miller questioned the meaning of "comer cut off area" in Condition 47j. Engineer Larry
Cooley stated a diagonal cut off provides a clear space easement for the site obstructions and oncoming
traffic; intent is to limit landscap'me to low lying shrubbery. He said planting a specimen tree would not
impact the line of sight as long as 3 % feet is maintained.
Chairman Fahey opened the Public Hearing at 8:20 P.M.
Scott Staley, 157 Linda Vista Drive, San Marcos, representing Zevo Golf, the applicant, stated
equipment is assembled at this location, not manufactured, and he was available to answer any questie-
Commissioner Slaven asked ff all 500+ parIcing spaces were planned to be used. Mr. Staley replied the
parking number was dictated by the City requirements and employees planned would not exceed 400
working varying shifts.
Commissioner Webster asked about the fencing. Mr. Staley stated the testing range was more
representative of a fairway. The fence would be a 6' chain link with barbed wire on top wnich is why
both sides of the fence are being landscaped.
Chairman Fahey closed public comments at 8:25 P.M.
Commissioner Webster discussed concerns about keeping balls within the driving range so they do not
become a public safety issue. He recommended the City have some recourse for remedial action if there
is a problem in the future. Mr. Fagan said he believes the applicant will monitor themselves, but perhaps
an annual review would also be in order.
Chairman Fahey asked if straying balls can be listed as a potential public safety item and have a
mitigation plan requiring annual monitoring of any problems. Mr. Fagan replied that should be
possible.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the oleander trees are meant to screen the fence and barbed wire.
R:\PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1996\091696.pC 9/25/96 klb 12
.... ~ PLANNING COMMISSION SI~.FI'~.MBI~.R 16. 1996
Commissioner Webster repli~l landscaping is outside the fence and them is a fair mount of oleanders
and other trees to adequately sdreen the fence.
Chairman Fahey reiterated that barbed wire does not meet City guidelines.
Commissioner Webster asked if the applicant would go with a higher fence without barbed wire. Mr.
Staley answered security is a problem, but a 6' or 8' fence does not really keep people out.
Commissioner Slaven stated an 8-foot chain link fence, even with landscaping, is not going to do a better
job. She said other applicants have agreed to a 6' fence with no barbed wire and that was be sufficient.
It was moved by Commissioner MiLler and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0190; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program as
amended for Planning Application PA96-0190; and to adopt Resolution No. 96- recommending
approval of PA96-0190 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval as modified and to close the public hearing.
-,, The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Chairman Fahey recessed the meeting at 8:33 P.M.
Chairman Fahey called the meeting back to order at 8:40 P.M.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to continue Item 11.
Review of City-Wide Design Guidelines, to the September 30, 1996 meeting.
Mr. Ruiz asked the Commission to submit any questions/concerns to the Planning Department as soon
as possible and a sheet with questions and answers will be prepared and given to each Commissioner
before the September 30, 1996 meeting.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\091696.pC 9/25/96 klb 13
PLANNING COMMISSION
The motion carried as follows:'
5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
10. Workshop - Planning Application No. PA96-0157 (Lucky Shopping Center
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz stated the project is in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and is located at
Margarita Road and Hwy 79. The staff and applicant have met several times regarding the design of the
project. Staffs primary concern is the site design may not be consistent with Village Center Guidelines
contained in the General Plan. At this time, the Village Center designation does not apply to this
property. However, an application has been submitted for an amendment to the Paloma Del Sol Specific
Plan and Staff will recommend the Development Agreement be amended to apply the Village Center
designation to this property. He said the applicant requested a workshop with the Commission to receive
informal input and direction regarding the site, landscape and elevation plans prior to proceeding furl~
with the project.
David Powell, 1 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, representing the applicant, Pacific Development
Group, said they were here tonight requesting Commission input to determine if they are heading in the
fight direction or wasting their time. This property is 12 acres, currently in escrow, and there are fu'm
deals with Lucky and Sav-On. Elevations have not evolved too much from the original plan, and are
responsive to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan regarding ingress/egress. Perimeters are a little bit
different for this size parcel than for the 25-acre parcel across the street. Pedestrian walkways from
paxking lots, perimeter streets and eventual adjacent properties allow people to gather in areas in front
of the multi-shop area (selling food, coffee, ice cream, etc). Sidewalks outside the canopy area will be
lined with seating areas and planters with built-in benches. Due to the required parking spaces, there is
not much room left to create gathering spots in other areas.
Chairman Fahey asked if the proposed design guidelines for a Village Center were reviewed by the
applicant. Mr. Powell responded they were.
Commissioner Webster asked for clarification of the areas of contention between the applicant and staff.
Mr. Ruiz's summarized Staffs concerns: 1) There is a High Density Residential parcel located adjacent
to this property with Lucky's truck-leading docks facing that property; 2) There is a possibility of the site
ending up as strip commercial; 3) there is the possibility of too much commercial in area; and 3) on
circulation problems may exist.
R:\PLANC(~\HINUTES\1996\091696.pC 9/25/96 klb 14
.... · PI,ANNING COMMISSION SF,~ER 16, 1996
Chairman Fahey stated having loading docks facing a High Density Residential area does not meet the
Village Center concept which ii to encourage pedestrian traffic and non-auto uses.
Commissioner 8oltysiak asked if this eight acre parcel was driving the Village Center concept. Mr. Ruiz
answered the proposed site plan is oriented to 798 and a Village Center should be oriented more toward
the residential sections. He also said traffic should be funneled thru the interior as opposed to the
exterior.
Commissioner Solty~iak remarked that this site appears to be on the fringe and the Village Center concept
works better if located within the hub of a Specific Plan area. Mr. Ruiz replied that design guidelines
in Specific Plans talk about neighborhood commercial centers and design guidelines talk of similar things
such as village centers.
Commissioner Slaven stated that the other comers in this particular location are also pan of the Village
Center concept. She felt this commercial comer is being piece mealed out and does not satisfy the
concept of Village Center. She noted the same standard of development should be required as was
expected for the center across the street.
Chairman Fahey stated the massive parking areas and building orientations do not follow General Plan
guidelines to meet the Village concept.
Jim Costanzo, of Pacific Development Gwup, stated this project may not fit on this particular property
in this particular city. In dealing with City parking space requirements, size constraints, and tenant
requirements, this is the best building orientation. He said they don't own the adjoining property, but
street at the easterly boundary which will attach to Campanula and provide vehicular and pedestrian access
is envisioned.
Chairman Fahey asked how many parking spaces are shown in excess of the ordinance requirement. Mr.
Costanzo replied about 100 over City requirement, but they are required by American Stores and Sawon
for their customers' convenience. He said amendments to change zoning of surrounding parcels are in
the offering and pedestrian access will be provided to the surrounding properties as they develop.
Barry Nelson, land consultant, stated Parcel 38 was changed from Commercial to High Density
Residential after Lucky submitted their plan which makes it incumbent on the designer of the High
Density parcel to work with Lucky's loading docks. He added this commercial center is pan of an overall
comprehensive plan that is half-built, the Specific Plan itself is pedestrian oriented and has green belts
throughout the area.
R:\PLANC(34~4\MINUTES\1996\091696.pC 9/25/96 klb 15
PI.ANNING COMMISSION S!~.el'~;Mlll~!! 16, 1,_.,
Commissioner Miller asked if the park being mentioned is where the fenced ballfields are located. Mr.
Nelson replied he was talking about the ballfields and they propose that area be opened to provide access
when the high density residential parcel is developed.
Commissioner Webster stated the applicant might come up with a preliminary site plan for the adjacent
properties, which the applicant would not be held to, but whe~ would demonstrate how this particular site
relates to adjacent properties and the overall Specific Plan in regard to vehicular and pedestrian access.
Commissioner Solty~iak remarked the problem of applying the Village concept to this particular property
is inappropriate. The pwperty is located on major roadways with high traffic counts, yet is txying to
promote pedestrian access from residential areas.
Mr. Ruiz said the development agreement states the developer w'ffi be held to the standards of 348 and
not to any future regulations unless both parties agree. There is a new development code which allows
for 150 less parking spaces, but the vendors are not interested. Village Center concept is two tiered: 1)
getting to the site; and 2) what they do once they are there. The second part is what needs to be worked
on for this project. Once people are there, how do they get from one pad to the congregational areas.
The City does not want to preclude people in cars, but would prefer they drive in from the interior ratF
than from Hwy 79 or Margarita Road. ~
Chairman Fahey remarked adjustments can be made to the plan to work toward meeting the Village
concept. She suggested grouping some of the buildings together to establish public congregation area
rather than parking spaces around each separate building. She feels there is some flexibility due to the
extra parking spaces that would meet our concept as well as other requirements. She also suggested
changing orientation of Lucky to be located closer to Hwy 79 and to turn it around so the parking lot is
closer to the highway.
Commissioner Slaven stated the City's intarested in satisfying "people concerns'. She agreed with
Commissioner Webster about having a bigger picture to understand how this could work.
Commissioner Miller stated the VillaEe Center concept is trying to make people do things they do not do
because this is a car-oriented society. He said it seems possible to move retail buildings to allow foot
traffic between stores and Lucky, and perhaps create a paseo with gazeboes at each end between Sav-On
and Lucky.
Mr. Powell stated they would try to address the issues raised tonight but rextented they do not own Parcel
2 so it is impossible for them to design it. The best they can do is show vehicular access and enhance
pedestrian access to neighboring properties.
Rt\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1996\091696.PC 9/25/96 klb 16
PLANNING COMMISSION SI~,FFEMBi~R 16, 1996
Mr. Ruiz mentioned there was a school in the Specific Plan at Meadows and Hwy 79S and a conceptual
landscape plan giving a general idea of building locations, landscaping, and other items of that nature was
done. The Commission has the option to ask for a conceptual landscaping plan as part of the Specific
Plan amendment.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated he saw two components: 1) pedestrian or alternative access; 2)
congregation on the site. The amended Specific Plan needs to show how the alternate access would be
provided and how to enhance the congregational areas.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated she had nothing to report.
PI,ANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
There was no further discussion.
-,,
it was moved by Chairman Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Solty~iak to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 P.M.
The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held September 30, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\PLANCOt~4\MINUTES\1996\091696.pC 9/25/96 klb 17
ITEM #3
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September 30, 1996
SUBJECT:
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan, Fast Track -Napa
Auto Parts )
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No.
PA96-0170;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA96-0170;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 based upon the Analysis
and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 was originally before the Planning Commission on
September 16, 1996. At this meeting, the Commission expressed concerns with the
amount of blue color used on the building, the illuminated gold tube used as part of the
signage for the project, and the gold band (painted) around the entire building. The
Commission expressed concerns regarding an alternate description of the project in a letter
which was received in support of the project.
ANALYSIS
Modifications to the Elevations
Staff met with the applicant on September 17, 1996 to discuss the direction that was
provided by the Planning Commission at the September 16, 1996 meeting. Based upon this
meeting, the applicant has re-submitted elevations for the project. The changes listed below
have been made to the elevations:
The gold acrylic band will be non-illuminated.
The painted gold band has been removed from the remainder of the building.
,
The amount of blue on the east elevation has been reduced from sixty-nine (69) feet
to forty-nine (49) feet in length.
The amount of blue on the south elevation has been reduced from fifty-five (55) feet
to forty-four (44) feet ir~ length.
New Letter Received
Staff received a new letter from the Bank of Commerce in support of the project as
proposed. This letter clarifies the mis-understanding created by their previous letter. The
letter has been included as Attachment No. 3.
Revised Conditions of Aooroval
Staff recommended changes to Conditions of Approval No. 8 and 37e at the September 16,
1996 hearing. Condition of Approval No. 8 has been modified to read: "The applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat
Conservation)."
Condition of Approval No. 37e is recommended to reference Standard No. 302 not Standard
No. 301. These changes have been made in the attached Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State Law and other ordinances of the City. The project
is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code,
Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping provisions.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City
Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has
determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation
measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to
the project.
R:\STAFFRPT'~lTOPA96.PC2 9/25/96mf 2
Attachments;
PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Elevations - Blue Page -16
Letter received - Blue Page 17
R:\STAFFRPTxI70PA96.PC2 9/25/96mf 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0170 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
FAST TRACK - NAPA AU'I~ PARTS) TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 12,500 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY FOR NAPA
AUTO PARTS ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.27 ACRES
LOCATED ON SANBORN AVENUE, TItREE HUNDRF. D
FIFTY (350) FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
JEFFERSON AND SANBORN AVENUES AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 910-202-023
WHEREAS, Alan Orr - Napa Auto Parts fried Planning Application No. PA96-0170
(Development Plan- Fast Track) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan- Fast Track) was
processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WI-IF. REAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA96-0170
(Development Plan- Fast Track) on September 16, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support
or in opposition;
WHF. REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0170
(Development Plan- Fast Track) on September 30, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support
or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon heating and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan - Fast Track);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are tree and correct.
R:\STAFFRFr\I70PA96.PC2 9/25/96 mf 5
Section 2. F_jadillgl The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0170 (Development Plan - Fast Track) makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformmace with the General Plan for Temecula mad
with all applicable requiremer/ts of State law mad other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), mad the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety mad welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety mad welfare.
C. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are
not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 to construct and operate a 12,500 square foot facility for
Napa Auto Parts on a parcel containing 1.27 acres located on Sanborn Avenue, approximately
three hundred fifty (350) feet east of the intersection of Jefferson and Sanborn Avenues and known
as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-202-023 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of September, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chainnan
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 30th day of
September, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAFFRPT\170PA96.1~2 9~25~96 mf 7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\lTOPA96.PC2 9/25/96mf 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
+
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan, FastTrack - Napa Auto
Parts)
Project Description: A Development Plan to construct and operate a 12,500 square
foot facility for Napa Auto Parts
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-202-023
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
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 Seventy-Eight Dollars
(~78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application
No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan - Fast Track). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is
sought and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
R:\STAFFRPT\ITOPA96,pC2 9/25/96 mf 9
4, The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, approved
with Planning Application No. PA96-0170, or as amended by these conditions.
a. A minimum of forty-six (46) parking spaces shall be provided.
b. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided,
c. Four (4) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions,
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F and Exhibit G (Color
Elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H (color and material
board), or as amended by these conditions.
Materials
Sand Blasted Concrete
Painted Concrete & Pipe Rail
Acrylic Band (non-illuminated)
Metal doors and Frames
Glazing
Aluminum Storefront
Colors
Grey
Benjamin Moore #819
Napa Standard Pantone Matching System (PMS) 123
Frazee//8804 Pavestone
Light Solar Gray
Clear Annodized Aluminum
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation).
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
12.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Ranning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing
R:\STAFFRPT\170PA96.PC2 9/25196 mf l0
13.
fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover
page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
15. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
16.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
18.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense, Towed vehictes may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
19.
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.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
R:\STAFFRPT~I?0PA96.PC2 9/25/96 mf ] ]
20,
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
21.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in-the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
22.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
23.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
24. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
25.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
26.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
27.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
28.
Provide appropriate stamp of s registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
29.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
30. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government
Agency.
General Requirements
R:\STAFFRPT\lTOPA96,PC2 9/25/96 mf ]2
31.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
32.
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.
33.
All grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency
with adjoining projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. Precise
Grading plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
34.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
35.
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.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
36.
A Precise 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.
37.
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City Standards subject to approval by
the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment Permit will be required for any work
performed within the City right-of-way. The following design criteria shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Commercial driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard
No. 207A.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Onsite curb and gutter shall be constructed per City of Temecula Standards Nos.
200 and 204.
Street outlets for onsite drainage shall be constructed per City of Temecula
Standard No. 302.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility,
R:\STAFFRPT\I70PA96.11'C2 9/25/96 mf 13
38. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
39.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil 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 pavement sections.
40.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
41.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, or verification that such a fee has been previous paid for this lot,
prior to issuance of any permit.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
42.
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 Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
43.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
44.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be
paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or
final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date
on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof,
the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving his/her right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
R:\STAFFRPT\l?0PA96.~'2 9/25/96 mf
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
45.
The Developer shall construct all public and private improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
46.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
47.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
48.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 14, 1996, a
copy of which is attached.
49.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated August 12, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
50.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated August 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
51.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Fire Department's transmittal dated August 7, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPT\lTOpA96.PC2 9/25/96mf ]5
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH By
DATE: August 12, 1996
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Matthew Fagan
FROM: (~ ~R~GOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0170 (FAST TRACK)0-023
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Fast Track Plot Plan No. PA96-
0170 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
3. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
4. A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-
5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
a) Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.3.
b) Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.2.
c) Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.1).
d) Waste reduction management.
5 Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
NO TE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of
Building Plan revie~v for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
Eastern ] unicipa[ '- erDistrict
Matthew Fagan
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 925E9-9033
August 12, 1996
SUBJECT: PA96-0170 (Napa Auto Parts) - Agency Case Transmittal
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
GENER~I~
Our understanding is the proposed subject project will develop a
12,500 sq. ft. Napa Auto Parts sales and distribution facility on
t.27 acres in APN 910-202-023. The subject project is located on
the north side of Sanborn Avenue, east of Jefferson Avenue in the
City of Temecula.
The subject project is within the District!'s sewer service
boundary. A matter of importance which must be understood is the
available service capabilities of the District's systems are
constantly changing due ~o Ehe continuous ~evelopmen~ within the
District and the improvement of District facilities. Hence, the
service for the subject project will be dependent upon the
available capacity of the District's systems at the time service
agreements are made with the District.
DOMESTIC WATER
The subject project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Any
potable water service must be arranged with the Rancho California
Water District.
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA
Operations &; Maintenance Center: 2270 Ttumble Road. Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
Mr. Matthew Fagan
PA 96-0170
August 12, 1996
Page 2
SANITARY SEWER
The subject project is tributary to the District's Temecula Valley
Regional Water Reclamation Facility. An existing 6-inch sewer
lateral is located on the north side of Sanborn Avenue,
approximately 279 feet southwesterly of the intersection of Madison
and Sanborn Avenues. This lateral is adequate to serve the subject
project. However, the subject project must be reviewed by the
District's Source Control Division to determine the need for grease
traps, sand traps, sampling boxes or other provisions.
RECLAIMED WATER
The project is outside of EMWD'S water service area. Reclaimed
water service must be arranged with Rancho California Water
District.
ADDITIONAL INFORFd%TION
Additions or improvements to off-site facilities are not required
to adequately serve the subject project. The existing lateral is
adequate to provide service to the subject project. The project
will be processed through the Customer Service Department for
determination of appropriate fees and Source Control requirements.
Tracking of the project shall be coordinated through the 'lOne-Stop"
program by Ms. Judith Conacher at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4409.
Thank you for soliciting our concerns and if you have any questions
regarding the above matter, please call me at (909) 766-1810.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Mike Gow, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Customer Service Department
anchu
Water
August 8, 1996
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
AUG 1 L%..,. L
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
Parcel 10 of Parcel Map 23561-1, APN 910-202-023
Planning Application No. PA96-0170
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative
at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
. .-&,~
steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
w96\SB;cb202/F012/FEF
cc: Laurie Williarns, Engineering Services Supervisor
CITY
August 7, 1996
TO:
ATfN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MATTHZEW FAGAN
PA96-0170
NAPA AUTO PARTS
OF TEMECULA
m
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department
recommends the following fLre protection measures be provided in accordance with Temecula
Ordinances and/or recognized fLre protection stanrtards:
The fnre Depmt~nent is required to set a minjtrhum fire flow for the remodel or construction
of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow
of 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available
before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super tim hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1 "), will be located
no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured
along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
The required water system, including rue hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as
mitigation for fee protection impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automaticall~ fn'e sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fLre alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to
the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Departmere for approval prior to installation.
9. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
10.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section
3314(a),
11.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
12. . It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
13.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fLre hydrant.
14.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepaxe and submit to the Fire
Depmhiient for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and or signs.
15.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
16.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
17. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All cltiestions regarding the me~nlng of these conditions sh.ll be referred to the Fire Depm'Lmr
Planning and ~ngineering section (909)694-6439.
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT\I70PA96.PC2 9/25/96 mf
i!
zl
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
LETTER RECEIVED
R:\STAFFRPT\170PA96.PC2 9125/96mf 17
September 18, 1996
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Bank of Commerce Letter to you of August 8 1996 re:
Napa Auto Parts Store/North Jefferson Business Park
Dear Mr. Fagan:
I am writing to you again to clarify that Bank of Commerce has reviewed the plan for the
exterior design colors and signage for Mr. Allan Orr's Napa Auto Parts Store proposed to
be built in the North Jefferson Freeway Business Park and find it to be acceptable in
design and suitable for this business park.
I understand that you interpreted our previous letter to be restrictive in our approval to "a
dark blue stripe and gold pipeline". I apologize for any confusion my letter may have
caused in the limitation of our approval. We have reviewed the sign plans with the
colored sign panel and recommend approval of the plans by your department. If you have
any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me by calling me at
(619) 536-4540, extension 332.
Sincerely,
First Vice President
Branch Administrator
CC
Mr. Allan Orr
Mary Jane McLamey, Asst City Manager
s~forSlnapal
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
T0:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 30, 1996
Future Middle School Site
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to the Temecula Valley Unified School District on
the selection of a site for e future middle school.
BACKGROUND
The Temecula Valley Unified School District is planning for a new middle school (grades 6, 7,
and 8) with a projected opening date of July 1999. At this time, the School District is looking
at two potential school sites. Site 1 is located within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and Site
2 is at the northwest corner of Roripaugh Road and Nicotas Road.
The School District is requesting the Planning Commission provide direction as to which site
would be better suited for the future middle school. A formal presentation by a representative
of the School District will be made at the September 30, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Aerial Photograph showing both school sites - Blue Page 2
Exhibit showing both school sites - Blue Page 3
Preliminary Comparison Factors for both school sites - Blue Page 4
Preliminary lot layout for Site 1 - Blue Page 5
Preliminary lot layout for Site 2 - Blue Page 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING BOTH SCHOOL SITES
R:~TAFFRP'Fk~°~OOL.I~C 9/23/96
SITE I
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBIT SHOWING BOTH SCHOOL SITES
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PRELIMINARY COMPARISON FACTORS FOR BOTH SCHOOL SITES
MIDDLE SCHOOL #4 POSSIBLE SITES
PRELIMINARY COMPARISON FACTORS
1. Current zoning
2. Adjacent commercial
(possible alcohol sales)
3. Transportation (at buildout)
Neighborhoods bussed
Total students bussed
4. Probable "true walkers"
at buildout
SITE 1 SITE 2
Campos Verdes Wall Street
Residential/Elementary School Commercial
Possibly Yes
Winchester Collection?
Barclay Estates
Willows (E. Silverhawk)
All Roripaugh
454
Campos Verdes
Roripaugh Hills
West Meadowview
Porti~no?
Martinique?
Woodcrest Country
Winchester Collection?
East Roripaugh Ranch
151
Campos Verdes
Roripaugh Hills
Portifino
Martinique
Silverhawk?
Amberwood
Summerfield
Sagewood
0~13~6
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PRELIMINARY LOT LAYOUT FOR SITE I
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PRELIMINARY LOT LAYOUT FOR SITE 2
II:',ST~OOL.PC 9/23196 ldb 6
ITEM #5
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September 30, 1996
SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment Number I
Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT PC Resolution No. 96- entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING
CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE
TYPOGRAPHIC AND OTHER MINOR CHANGES TO THE
DEVELOPMENT CODE"
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the City's Development Code in 1995. Since adoption of the
Development Code, staff has identified a number of needed modifications to the Code. The
purpose of this Agenda Report is to bring these initial amendments to the Planning Commission
for your consideration.
DISCUSSION
The proposed Development Code amendments can be divided into two categories. Because of
the relatively straightforward nature of the first category of changes, only the second category
of changes will be discussed in the staff report. These categories of changes are as follows:
Incorrect code references, typographic corrections, improper grammar, and missing
words; and
· Minor changes to the text and amendments to the land use matrix.
Incorrect Code References and TyDograDhic Corrections
The amendments to correct internal code references and improper grammar are relatively
straightforward and will not be discussed in detail within the staff report. The typographic and
code reference changes are described Exhibit A of Attachment 1. Staff is available to answer
any questions concerning these recommended changes.
R:~PLANNING\DCAJVlEND1 .CC1 9125/96 dwh
Minor Changes to the Text of the Ordinance
These changes involve an adjustment to the amount of required slope landscaping and
additional clarification on outdoor storage screening requirements. The current slope landscape
requirement requires one 15-gallon tree per every 150 square feet of slope area, in addition to
the required shrubs and groundcover. Planting a landscaped slope area to this standard creates
a dense forest where the trees begin to physically interfere with each others growth in just a
few years. In staff's opinion, this standard is excessive. Staff is recommending that the
standard be changed to one 15-gallon tree per every 600 square feet of slope area, in addition
to the required shrubs and groundcover. This more reasonable standard will provide adequate
erosion control and enable the City to continue to require high quality landscaping from new
development. Sample plottings of one tree per 400 and one tree per 600 are included in
Attachment No. 2.
The other minor change to the Development Code involves setting clear minimum and maximum
heights for screening outdoor storage areas. The current Code does not provide clear standards
for screening these areas. To address this, staff is recommending that the following detailed
standards for screening of outdoor storage areas be adopted.
Fence, wall or hedge screening
outdoor storage - Minimum Height
NC CC HT SC PO BP LI
6 ft 8 ft Not 8 ft
allowed
8ft
Fence, wall or hedge screening
outdoor storage - Maximum Height
6ft 8ft 8ft 12ft Not 12ft 12ft
allowed
Land Use Matrix Changes
The first proposed amendment to the land use matrix is the deletion of Automotive Service
Stations Selling Beer and/or Wine from the Professional Office (PO) and Business Park (BP)
Zones as conditionally permitted uses. This appears to be inconsistent with other parts of
Table 17.08(a) because Automotive Service Stations that do not sell beer or wine are
prohibited in these zones. It is staff's concern that the Commission and Council may not have
intended to allow this type of use in the PO and BP zones. To correct this oversight, staff is
requesting that the Commission consider making Automotive Service Stations Selling Beer
and/or Wine a prohibited use in the PO and BP zones. This will make Table 17.08(a) internally
consistent.
The other amendment to the land use matrix concerns locating private schools in the City's
industrial areas. Staff is concerned that putting schools, with large numbers of young children,
in the middle of industrial areas could result in a significant risk in the event of an industrial
accident, hazardous material release, fire or explosion. As a result, staff is recommending the
following changes to Table 17.08(a).
The first change is to add the following line:
NC CC HT SC PO BP LI
through Grade 12)
R:~PLANNING\DCAIvlEND1 .CC19/25t96 dwh 2
The second change is the modification of an existing category, religious institutions. The
specific changes are as follows:
Religious Institution, without a
daycare or private school
NC CC HT SC PO BP LI
C C C C C C C
Religious Institution, with a daycare C C C C C
or private school
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed amendments do not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the
environment and are consistent with the impacts included in the previous Negative Declaration
for the Development Code and Zoning Map as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report
of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. Therefore, the Planning Manager has
determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to
Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed cleanup amendment to the Development Code is consistent with the adopted
General Plan.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendments are necessary to protect the public health, safety and
welfare.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 4
2. Sample Landscape PIottings - Blue Page 15
R:\PLANNING~DCAMEND1 .CCq 9/25/98 dwh 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC 96-
R:\PLANNING\DCNvlEND1 .CC1 9125/96 dwh 4
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
PC I~-~OLUTION NO. ~-_
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECO1VIMV-NDING THAT ~ CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLI~ "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AlV~NDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE TYPOGRAPHIC AND
OTHER MINOR CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE"
WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted
the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, On January 25, 1995, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the
City's Development Code; and
W]HF. REAS, the City has identified a need to amend the adopted Development Code; and
WItFREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on September 30, 1996, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMIRSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES HERF~RY RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE A
RESOLUTION ENTfiI,~,n 'A I~V-qOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO1VIMI~SION FOR
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
AN ORDINANCE ENTITL~} AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMv-NDING CHAFFER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO MAKE TYPO GRAPHIC AND OTHi~R MINOR CHANGES TO ~ DEVELOPMENT
CODE" THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A.
R:XPLANNING%DCA/dEND1 .CC1 9125196 dwh 5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 30th day of September, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 30th day of
September, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
A YES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONF, RS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnosla~, Secretary
R:%PLANNING\DCAMEND1 .CC1 9125/96 dwh 6
EXHIBIT A
· ORDINANCE NO. 96-
AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMI~NDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TE1VIECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE TYPOGRAPHIC AND OTHER
MINOR CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUIA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ~ The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the
following findings:
A. That Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such
general plan as may be in effect in any such city; and
B. That there is a need to amend the Development Code to ensure its clarity and
completeness; and
C. That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and
local ordinances.
Section 2. The following minor typographic errors and incorrect Code references of
Chapters 17.01 through 17.34 of the Temecula Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as
follows:
A. Section 17.02.010/Table 9.02(a) Relabel as Table 17.02(a).
B. Section 17.02.020/Table 9.(Y2Co) Relabel as Table 17.02Co).
C. Section 17.02.030 Fill in the date blank with "December 19, 1995".
D. Section 17.03.010/Table 9.03a Relabel as Table 17.03(a).
E. Section 17.03.020(a)(4)
"17.01"to "17.03.090".
At the end of this item, amend Code reference from
F. Section 17.03.060 (c)(3)
"17.0Y to "17.03.090'.
At the end of this item, amend Code reference from
G. Section 17.03.060(e) Replace the word "Action" with "Decision" in the title and
amend this section to read as follows: "Notice of decision upon an application for a Minor
R:~PLANNING~DCAbIEND1 .CC19/25/90 dwh 7
Exception shall be in accordance with Section 17.03.040(e) of this Development Code.
H. Section 17.03.090(i) At the end of this item, amend Code reference from
"17.03.040(f)" to "17.04.lM0(f)".
I. Section 17.04.010(a) Replace the code reference in the second sentence of the
second paragraph from '17.03.100" to '17.03.090".
J. Section 17.04.010(6 Replace the word 'Action" with "Decision" in the title and
amend this section to read as follows: "Notice of decision upon an application for a Conditional
Use Permit shall be in accordance with Section 17.03.040(e) of this Development Code.'
K. Section 17.04.020 (c)
'17.03.100" to "17.03.090%
At the end of this item, mend Code reference from
L. Section 17.04.020(0 At the end of this item, amend Code reference from
"17.03.090"to "17.03.080".
M. Section 17.04.030(a) In line two, replace "to those which" with 'that".
N. Section 17.04.030(d)(2) In line two, after the words 'is likely" add "to be".
O. Section 17.04.030(e) At the end of this item, amend Code reference from
"17.03.090" to "17.03.080".
P. Section 17.04.040 (c)
"17.03.100" to "17.03.090".
At the end of this item, mend Code reference from
Q. section 17.04.040 (e)
"17.03.100" to "17.03.090".
At the end of this item, amend Code reference from
R. Section 17.04.040 Relabel the second section 17.04.040 '(f)" to "(h)' and
amend the Code reference from "17.03.090" to "17.03.080".
S. Section 17.04.040(g) Replace the word "Action" with "Decision" in the title and
amend this section to read as follows: "Notice of decision upon an application for a Variance shall
be in accordance with Section 17.03.040(e) of this Development Code.'
T. Section 17.05.010(e) Replace the word 'Action" with "Decision' title and mend
this section to read as follows: 'Notice of decision upon an application for a Development Plan
shall be in accordance with Section 17.03.040(e) of this Development Code.'
U. Section 17.05.010(i) At the end of this item, amend Code reference from
"17.03.090"W "17.03.080".
R:~PLANNING\DCAMEND1 .CC1 9125/96 dwh 8
V. Section 17.05.020C0) Delete" reviewed by the approval body' from the end of the
last sentence.
W. Section 17.05.020 (c)
"17.03.020" to "17.03.030".
At the end of this item, mend Code reference from
X. Section 17.05.020 (i)
"17.03.090"to "17.03.080".
At the end of this item, mend Code reference from
Y. Section 17.06.030/Table 17.06(a) Replace the '-*' for Duplex (two-family
dwellings) in the L-l, L-2, and LM Zones with the following symbol
Z. Section 17.06.030/Table 17.06(a) Replace the unnumbered '*" footnote with the
following: "2 A Duplex or two family dwelling may be permitted on comer lots with a Planned
Development Overlay pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.22.'
AA. Section 17.06.050/Table 17:06(e) Add the words 'and air conditioning units'
after the word "Chimneys".
BB. Section 17.06.050(e) At the end of the first sentence, add "and buildings" after
"property lines".
CC. Section 17.06.060Co)(3) Amend this subsection to r~d as follows: 'Street trees
shall be planted along all streets in residential areas. On any street, at least one (1) street tree shall
be provided at the front of each residential lot and in street side yard, slope, landscape, and similar
areas, at least (1) street tree per forty five (45) linear feet of street shall also be provided."
DD. Section 17.06.070/Table 17.06(e) Should be relabeled as Table 17.06 (f).
EE. Section 17.08.030/Table 17.08(a) Change "HTC" to "HT".
FF. 17.08.040/Table 17.08 (c) Add the following lines from Table 17.08Co) to Table
17.08(c): "Interior Side Yard, Rear Yard, and Accessory Structure" between 'Yard Area adjacent
to a street" and "Yard Areas adjacent to a residentially zoned property".
GG. Section 17.08.050(g)(2)C0) At the end of this item, mend Code reference from
"17.03.100" to "17.03.090".
HH. Section 17.08.050(i)(1) Between 'be" and 'screened" in the second sentence
add "located on appropriate paving and
II. Section 17.08.050(m)(1) Add the word 'be' between "shall' and 'required".
JJ. Section 17.08.060(d)(1) Replace the first sentence with the following:
"Setback areas that are not used for vehicular and pedestrian access shall be landscaped.'
R:~PLANNING\DCAMEND1 .CC1 9125/96 dwh 9
KK. Section 17.08.070/Table 17.06(e) Should be relabeled as Table 17.06 (d).
LL. Section 17.16.020Co) At the end of this item, amend Code reference from
'17.03.100" to "17.03.040'. .
/VIM. Section 17.18.020Co) Replace the second sentence of this subsection with the
foUowing: 'Notice of hearings shall be given pursuant to the requirements of Section 17.03.040
of the Development Code".
NN. Section 17.22.060
sentence.
OO.
sentence.
PP.
"17.03.020" to '17.05".
QQ.
RR.
SS.
Delete the second "by the same procedure" in the second
Section 17.24.020(b) Replace the word "site" with "development" in the first
Section 17.24.020(b) At the end of this item, amend Code reference from
Section 17.24.020(d)(1)(h)
Section 17.24.020(d)(4) (c)
Sections 17.24.030(a) and 1~.24.030(b)
In line two, change "11.2 tons" to "Ph tons".
In the fourth., replace "; or" with
At the end of these items, amend the
Code references from ' 17.24.010(e)" to "17.24.020(ey.
TT. Section 17.24.050 (c) Between "parking spaces" and "and" add the
following: ", recreational vehicle storage areas, material storage yards,".
UU. Section 17.24.060 (c)
"17.24(c)" to "17.24(a)".
In the first sentence, ~cplace the table reference from
VV. Section 17.26.025 (e)
"17.03.100" to "17.03.090".
At the end of this item, amend Code reference from
WW. Section 17.34(s) In the definition of Secondary Dwelling Unit, delete the
second sentence of the definition that reads: "The floor space of an attached Secondary Dwelling
Unit may not exceed thirty (30) percent of the floor area of the living space of the primary
residence nor shall the floor space of a detached second unit exceed one thousand two hundred
(1,200) square feet."
XX. Section 17.06.050(m)(3) Add after the comma add the following "and may not
exceed thirty (30) percent of the floor area of the living space of the primary residence."
R:\PLANNINGXDCAMEND1 .CC1 9125/96 dwh 10
Section 3. The following minor changes to Chapters 17.01 through 17.34 of the
Temecula Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Section 17.06.060(d)(5) Amend this Section to read as follows: 'Slope banks
five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes between 5:1 and 2:1 sha!L at a minimum, be
irrigated and landscaped with an appropriate groundcover for erosion control.
a. Slope banks five (5) feet or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or
equal to 3:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with appropriate groundcover for
erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows:
1. One fifteen (15) gallon or larger tree per each 600 square feet of slope area;
slope area; and
One (1) gallon or larger shrub for each one hundred (100) square feet of
3. Appropriate ground cover.
b. Slope banks in excess of eight (8) feet in vertical height with slopes greater or equal
to 2:1 shall also provide one five (5) gallon or larger tree per each 1,000 square feet of slope area
in addition to the requirements of subsection a. above.
c. All trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the
slope plane. Slope planting required by this Section shall include a permanent irrigation system
to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.'
B. 17.08.040/Table 17.08 (b) Add the following lines to the Table:
Fence, wall or hedge screening
outdoor storage - Minimum
Height
Fence, wall or hedge screening
outdoor storage - Maximum
Height
NC CC HT SC PO BP LI
6ft 8ft N~, 8ft 8ft
6 ft 8 ft 8 ft 12 fin No~ 12 ft 12 ft
sllow~d
R:\PLANNING%DCAMEND1 .CC1 9125/96 dwh 11
C. 17.08.040/Table 17.08 (c) Add the following lines to the Table:
Fence, wall or hedge screening
outdoor storage - Minimum
Height
Fence, wall or hedge screening
outdoor storage - Maximum
Height
NC CC HT SC PO BP LI
allow=d
6 ft 8 ft 8 ft 12 ft sot 12 ft 12 ft
D. Section 17.08.060(d)(5) Amend this Section to read as follows: "Slope banks
five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes between 5:1 and 2:1 shall, at a minimum, be
irrigated and landscaped with an appropriate groundcover for erosion control.
a. Slope banks five (5) feet or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or
equal to 3:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with appropriate groundcover for
erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows:
1. One fifteen (15) gallon or larger tree per each 600 square feet of slope area;
slope area; and
One (1) gallon or larger shrub for each one hundred (100) square feet of
3. Appropriate ground cover.
b. Slope banks in excess of ten (10) feet in vertical height with slopes greater or equal
to 2: I shall also provide one five (5) gallon or larger tree per each 1,000 square feet of slope area
in addition to the requirements of subsection a. above.
c. All trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the
slope plane. Slope planting required by this Section shall include a permanent irrigation system
to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.'
Section 4. The land use matrix contained in Chapter 17.08Frable 17.08(a) of the
Temecula Municipal Cede is hereby amended as follows:
A. Delete the "C~" symbol for Automotive Serdce Stations Selling Beer and/or Wine
in the PO and BP Zones.
R:\PLANNINGXDCAaMEND1 .CC1 9125198 dwh 12
B. Add the following Line to the permitted use matrix in Table l?.O8(a).
NC CC
Grad 12) lC IP
HT SC
P C
PO
BP
LI
C. Modify the current listing for Religious Institutions in Table 17.08(a) as follows.
NC CC I-IT SC PO BP ~
Religious Institution, without a
day care or private school
C C C C C C C
Religious Institution, with a day
care or private school
C C C C
C
Section 5. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions
of this Ordinance are severable' and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold
any sentence, paragraph, or Section of this ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City
Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption
of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish
a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:%PLANNING\DCA/vlEND1 .CC1 9125/96 dwh 13
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of ,
1996.
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 - __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the __ day ot , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:~PLANNING\DCAMEND1 .CC1 9125/96 dwh 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
SAMPLE LANDSCAPE PLOTTINGS
R:%PLANNING\DCAMEND1 .CC1 9125/98 dwh 15
C)
b~ b_ ~-~
b_ ~.d
~d 8~ b_
O 0 tO
0 ~' 0
UJ D
0
<
ITEM #6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 30, 1996
Design Guidelines
MEMORANDUM
Prepared by: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission:
Adoat a Resolution Recommending that the City Council Approve and Require
the Use of the Community Design Guidelines
BACKGROUND:
This item was originally scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on August 19,
1996. Due to the length of the agenda, the item was continued without discussion to the
September 16, 1996 Commission meeting. Again, due to the length of the agenda, the item
was continued to the September 30, 1996 Commission meeting. Staff has previously provided
the Commission with a copy of the Draft Guidelines.
The Community Design Element of the City's General Plan provides goals and policies that
address the City's visual form and character from both a city-wide and focused subarea basis.
The Element also calls for the preparation of Design Guidelines to carry-out these goals by
providing for detailed site, architecture and landscape design standards for both future
development and modifications to existing development.
On September 12, 1995, the City Council awarded a contract to Urban Design Studio to
prepare Design Guidelines. The Council also appointed a five-member committee to work with
the consultant and staff to formulate the Draft Guidelines. The committee consisted of Planning
Commissioners Miller and Webster, along with three members of the development community,
Vince DiDonato, Larry Markham and Russell Rumansoff.
Once appointed, the committee, consultant and staff took a field trip to review existing
development within the City. The trip provided a forum for the committee to discuss design
elements within the City. The consultant used this information to form the basis of the
Guidelines. Once the Draft Guidelines were complete, the committee met on two occasions to
again review and provide comments on the document. These comments were then
incorporated into the document that is now before the Commission. The Guidelines include
sections on commercial, multi-family residential, industrial, village center and public design.
Once adopted, the Guidelines are intended to guide the development community in formulating
development proposals and by staff in the review of Planning Applications. The Guidelines will
function as an extension of the requirements contained within the Development Code. Copies
of the Draft Guidelines were provided to the Commission on August 1, 1996.
Attachments:
1
2.
Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 3
Design Guidelines - Blue Page 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ATTACHMENTNO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION REQUIRING
CITY STAFF TO USE COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES
WI-IEREAS, the City Council adopted the first General Plan for the City of Temecula on
November 9, 1993 in accordance with Section 65300 of State Planning and Zoning Law; and,
WHEREAS, the General Plan contains the Community Design Element which calls for
the preparation and adoption of city-wide Design Guidelines; and
WI4~.REAS, the City has prepared the Design Guidelines as required by the General Plan;
and
WItF. REAS, the City Council appointed the Design Guideline Committee to assist in the
formulation of the Design Guidelines; and
WttEREAS, notice of the proposed Resolution was posted at City Hall, County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled on August 19, 1996, at which time interested
persons would had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
WHEREAS, the public heating was continued to September 16, 1996, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued to September 30, 1996, which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Environmental Compliance. The proposed project is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)
of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2. That Resolution No. 96-
adopt the Community Design Guidelines.
be adopted recommending that the City Council
R:\STAFFRPT\DF. SIGNGL.PC3 9/25196 cdr 4
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 30th day of September, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTI~ that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 30th day of
September, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
DESIGN GUIDELINES
(SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
R:~STAFFRIrI'XDESIGNGL.PC3 9/25196