HomeMy WebLinkAbout060299 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special asistance to participate In this meeUng, pieaM contad the
office of the Community Devebpment Department at (i0q el4-6400. Notification 48 hours pdor to · rneUng will enable the CIty to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting ['28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title Iq
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALLrlZ:
ROLL CALL:
**********REVISED AGENDA**********
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1999, 6:00 PM
43200 Bus'mess Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Chairperson Guerr~ero
Reso Next In Order #98-015
Fahey, Cmeffiero, Naggar, Soltysiak and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 min.lt~S iS provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on
the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item
not listed on th~ Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fffied out and-filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the planning Secretary before Commission gets
to that item. There is a throo (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Approval of Agenda
Minutes from April 21, 1999
Commissioner Attendance @ Council Meetings
Public Convenience or Necessity for Trader Joe's
Power Center Corner Monument ~. SWC Margarita/Winchester Roads
Capital Improveml:nt Program-Project Descriptions and Maps
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
7. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
planning Application No. PA98-0511 (Zone Change)
Planning Application No. PA98-0512 (DeVelopment Plan)
Curt Mffier, Pacific Goff Properties
4220 Von Karman, Newport Beach, CA 92660
A 12.3 acre lot on the northwest corner of Winchester Rosd and Nicolas Reed, (APN
911-170-078 and 085)
PA98-0511: A proposal to change the Zoning designation at tins location from
Business Park OlP) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO); and, PA98-0512: A
pmpesal to develop a 244 unit seinor's only apartment complex with a two and three
three story buildings on an 83 acres of the 12.3 acre site.
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Thomas Thorosley
Approval
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: June 16, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California
R:\wimbervg\plancomm~agendas\1999\6-2-99.doc
1
-- in compliance with the Americans with Disabilrdes Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeUng, please contact the
office of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-6400. Notificatio n 48 hours pdor to a meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeUng [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1999, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Reso Next In Order ~98-015
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Gueniero
Fahey, Guerriero, Naggar, Soltysiak and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the pubhc can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on
the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. ffyou desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item
not listed on th~ Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name atut cutdress.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets
to that item. There is a three (3) mim~te time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSIlNESS
2.
3.
4.
5.
Approval of Agenda
Minutes from April 21, 1999
Commissioner Attendance @ Council Meetings
Public Convenience & Necessity for Trader Joe's
Capital Improvement Program-Project Descriptions and Maps
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Enviromental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Appfication No. PA98-0511 (Zone Change)
Planning Application No. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
Curt Miller, Pacific Golf Properties
4220 Von Karman, Newport Beach, CA 92660
A 12.3 acre lot on the noahwest comer of Wincliester Road and Nicolas Road, (APN
911-170-078 and 085)
PA98-0511: A proposal to change the Zoning designation at this location from
Business Park 0IP) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO); and, PA98-0512: A
proposal to develop a 244 unit senlor's only apartment complex with a two and three
three story buildings on an 8.3 acres of the 12.3 acre site.
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Thomas ThornsIcy
Approval
PLANNI~IGMANAGERSREPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
June 16, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temeeula, California
R:\WIMBERVG\pLANCOMM\AGENDA$\ 1999 \6-2-99 .doc
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 21, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M.,
on Wednesday Apdl 21. 1999, in. the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Naggar.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Commissioners Naggar, *Soltysiak, Webster, and
Chairman Guerriero.
Commissioner Fahey.
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attomey Cudey,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Assistant Planner Anders,
Project Planner Thornsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
*(Commissioner Soltysiak arrived at 6:04 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Larry LeDoux, 32004 Merlot 'Crest, relayed his concem regarding the installation of
an additional water tank in the Chardonnay Hills area, specifically in the vicinity. of Tract
No. 23100.6,7,and 8.
In response to Mr. LeDoux's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted
that while the issue couldn't be opened for discussion at the public hearing due to the
fact that it was not an agendized issue (per Attorney Cudey's advisement), he would
address the matter with Mr. LeDoux via a phone call.
It was noted that Commissioner Soltysiak arrived at the meeting at 6:04 P.M.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADleroval of Aeenda
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent.
Vice Chair Election
While expressing apprehension with regard to appointing Commissioner Fahey in her
absence, Commissioner Webster nominated Commissioner Fahey for the position of
Vice Chairman. Commissioner Soltysiak seconded the nomination.
Chairman Guerriero nominated Commissioner Naggar for the position of Vice Chairman.
Commissioner Naggar relayed that he would accept the nomination.
Voice vote reflected approval in favor of appointing Commissioner Naggar as Vice
Chairman of the Planning Commission with the excol~tion of Commissioner Fahey who
was absent.
3. Al~l~roval of Minutes-March 17. 1999
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Plannine Al~l~lication No. PA98-0511 {General Plan Amendment And Zone
Chanee) PA98-0512 {Develol~ment Plan)
Request to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Business
Park (BP) to Professional Office (PO) and change the Zoning designation
from Business Park (BP) to Professional Office (PO) for a proposed
development of a 244 unit senior's only apartment complex.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission continue the matter Off-Calendar.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to accept staff's recommendation. (This
motion ultimately died for lack of a second,)
Senior Planner Fagan presented the staff report; reviewed the cdteda upon which this
matter was continued from the March 17, 1999, Planning Commission m. eeting,.
specifically, in order for staff to address conflicts that would be created by the project, as
proposed; noted that since staff has determined that a Plan Development Overlay (PDO)
would be more compatible in this particular area for'this particular project, staff's
recommendation would be to withdraw the General Plan Amendment and that the
zoning amendment with the PDO be brought before the Commission at a future point in
time; corrected the recommendation indicated on the agenda to continue the project as
proposed, off-calendar, advising that the project would be re-designated with a new case
number, be re-noticed, and then the project would be brought before the Commission; in
response to Commissioner Soltysiak, confirmed that staff's recommendation would,
essentially, be deletion of the existing case, and then assignment of a new case
designation in conjunction with the PDO would be brought forward.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public headng; and accep'~ staff
recommendation to bring this project back to the Commission at a future point in time
with a new case designation in conjunction with a Plan Development Oveday (PDO.)
Commissioner Soltysiak seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the.
exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent.
Plannina Application No. PA99-0044 (General Plan Amendment And Zone
Chanqe) PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
Request to design, construct and operate a two-story, 85,056 square foot
office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a parcel containing 4.92
acres.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
By way of overheads and color renderings, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff
report (of record), highlighting access, architecture. and landscaping; noted that the
applicant agreed to delete twenty-three (23) parking spaces in order to preserve a large
number of existing mature Eucalyptus trees; relayed that the applicant had requested
assurance that staff would support a Minor Exception Permit to allow the reduction of
twenty-three (23) parking spaces if in the future the mix of uses/square footages would
be modified, which would require additional parking; advised that staff would support the
Minor Exception Permit in order to preserve the treeS, as reflected in Condition No. 4; for
Commissioner Soltysiak, clarified that the recommendation to preserve the trees was
initiated by staff, relaying that the Minor Exception Permit would be for the purpose of
maintaining the trees in the future, if the mix of square footage and uses were modified;
for Commissioner Naggar. provided additional information regarding the design of the
half-wall on the site plan; and clarified that the canopy would be a metal material,
painted blue.
Mr. David Beckman, representing the applicant, relayed that the business of operation
would be a diagnostic manufacturing firm; noted that the products manufactured were
small in size, predominantly water-based, and non-hazardous; utilized in the medical
community; displayed various products; for Commissioner Naggar, relayed that the
customer base encompassed hospitals, laboratories, and academic researchers
throughout the wodd; and for Commissioner Soltysiak, noted that the company has been.
located in the City of Temecula for approximately 11 years.
Mr. Russell Rumansoff, representing the applicant, furlher specified the building design;
provided additional clarification as to the entry wall; requested that Condition No. 30 (d)
(per agenda material), regarding the construction of a sidewalk, be waived or postponed
to a future point in time when the contiguous area would be developed, rather than
conditioning this project to install a sole portion of sidewalk; for Commissioner Webster,
specified the location of the monument walls; for Commissioner Soltysiak, provided
additional information regarding proposed options for screening the lunch area; and
clarified the soil investigation procedures for this particular site.
With regard to the installation of the sidewalk, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
noted that the. sidewalk would be City mainta.ined if it was: required by the City, built in
the public right-of-way, and build in accordance with the City's standards and conditions;
relayed that Diaz Road is proposed to be realigned, and that Business Park Ddve would
tie into Diaz Road; cladfled the rationale for conditioning this project to install a sidewalk
would be to prevent pedestrian traffic crossing at the major thoroughfare; advised that if
the project was bonded for, the Public Works Department would support postponing the
installation of the sidewalk until occupancy or to a future point in time.
The applicant was agreeable to bond for the project.
For Commissioner Naggar, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks estimated the time of
completion for the realignment project at Diaz Road to be eighteen months to two years.
The applicant relayed that the estimated completion date for this particular project would
be December of 1999.
Attorney Cudey advised that Condition No. 35, regarding Development Impact Fees
(DIF) be modified, as follows: Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with the terms and
conditions approved by the City of Temecula City Council; and for Commissioner
Soltysiak, provided additional clarification as the to the rationale for the modification.
Commissioner Naggar expressed a desire for assurance that the metal canopies for this
particular project would be maintained; recommended that due to the proximate timing of
the estimated completion dates for this particular project and the City's Diaz Road
Realignment Project that the applicant install the sidewalk as conditioned in the
Conditions of Approval.
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that additional language could be added to
Condition No. 6 to read, as follows: Metal canopies shall be continuously maintained to
the satisfaction of the Planning Manager.
The applicant relayed agreement to the aforementioned additional Condition.
Commissioner Webster relayed that he could support postponement of the construction
of the sidewalk until prior to Certificate of Occupancy if that was the desira of the
applicant.
Commissioner Soltysiak relayed that he could support a delay in the installation of the
sidewalk in order to synchronize the construction of the sidewalk with the street
improvements, if the applicant made provision of a cash deposit for the sidewalk project.
For the record, Chairman Guerriero indicated the Commission's receipt of a letter from
the Equity Management, representing the Rancho California Business Park Association,
regarding the construction of the sidewalk.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public headng; accept staff
recommendation; adopt Resolution No. 99-011 appreving Planning Application No.
PA99-0044 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff. Report, and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and adopt a notice of Exemption for
Planning Application No. PA99-0044 per the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines Section 15332.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-011
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0044
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A TWO-STORY, 85,056 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE,
WAREHOUSE AND MANUFACTURING BUILDING ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 4.92 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF SINGLE OAK DRIVE AND BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-051.
Add
That staff provide direction to the applicant regarding the screening of
the lunch area
Modify
That additional language be added to Condition No. 6, as follows: Metal
canopies shaft be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the
Planning Manager.
That Condition No. 30 be modified to require construction of the
sidewalks and ramps along Single Oak Drive frontage prior to
Certificate of Occupancy via staff's direction, rather than pdor to
Issuance of a Building Permit, as indicated.
That Condition No. 35 be modified to read, as follows: Developer shall
pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with the terms and conditions approved
by the Cib/ of Temecula City Council.
Commissioner Soltysiak seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent.
5
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Proposed Modifications to BuildinQ three (3) for the Power Center (PA97-0118)
Senior Planner Fagan presented the previously approved site plan for the Power Center;
noted that there 'was a Condition requiring that there be consistency with the design of
the proposed elevations; presented the modified design plan; relayed that staff is
pleased with the submitted design; for Commissioner Soltysiak, provided additional
clarification regarding the variance between the original site plan and the proposed
project; for Commissioner Webster, noted that the colors will be consistent with the
colors of the originally approved site plan; for Commissioner Guerriero, relayed that the
landscape plan and parking ratio would not be modified; and updated the Commission
regarding the proposed tenants of the Center.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Soltysiak commended the Public Works Department for their
diligent efforts associated with the signalization at Enterprise Circle West, and
the Pala Bddge Project.
In response to Commissioner Webster's concern regarding the signalization at
Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas with respect to the distance
between the signals, as well as, the vertical curve in the area of discussion,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission will be further investigating the driveways out of the Target Center.
In response to Commissioner Naggars concam with regard to safety with
respect to the water area of the Pond Project, Mr. Parks relayed the he would
obtain additional information for the Commission.
Commissioner Naggar noted that he was contacted by phone by Mr. Dean Adawi
from the Starlight Ridge area: requesting additional information with respect to
the installation of a sidewalk. Mr. Parks relayed that he would contact Mr. Adawi
for provision of additional information; and further specified the City's funding
process for sidewalk projects.
With regard to the request for installation of a sidewalk in the Starlight Ridge
area, Chairman Guerriero relayed that the City of Temecula worked with the
Homeowners Association prior to the signalization at Cosmic Drive, noting that
the installation of sidewalks versus the signalization was a discussed issue; and
advised that staff investigate the minutes of record for that particular project.
Commissioner Naggar presented photographs to the Commission of his recent
travels to the Philippines.
In response to Chairman Guerriero's concern regarding the line-of sight with
respect to the view of the trucks in the Power Center, Senior Planner Fagan
provided additional clarification, noting that Associate Planner Donahoe could
bring additional information back to the Commission.
6
H,
For Chairman Guerdero, with regard to phone calls received, expressing concem
regarding the concrete wall at the apartment complex on Rancho California
Road, Senior Planner Fagan relayed that staff would investigate and contact him
with additional information.
W~h regard to the aforementioned apartment complex project, Planning Director
Ubnoske provided clarification regarding the County approved project; reiterated'
that staff will further investigate.
From a legal perspective Attorney Cudey provided additional clarification
regarding the apartment complex project and the constraints associated with the
City's authority with respect to the project, in light of it being County approved.
K=
In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments, Senior Planner Fagan relayed
that staff will bring the design plan for the comer monument at Winchester and
Ynez Roads to the Commission for review; and for Commissioner Soltysiak,
relayed that the monument installation has been conditioned to be completed
prior to occupancy.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:23 P.M. chairman Guerriero formally adjourned .this meeting to Wednesday, May 5,
1999 at 6:00 P.M. , in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula.
Ron Guerdero, Chairwoman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
ITEM #3
ITEM #4
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske., Planning Manager
June 2, 1999
Consideration of Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the proposed Trader
Joe's Market at 40665 Winchester Road
Prepared by:
GENERAL PLAN:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
Steve Griffin, Project Planner
Subject: CC Community Commercial
North:
South:
East:
West:
BP Business Park
CC Community Commercial
CC Community Commercial
CC,Community Commercial
Subject: CC Community Commercial
North:
South:
East:
West:
Subject:.
Nodhi
South:
East:
West:
LI Light Industrial
SP Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
CC Community Commercial
CC Community Commercial
Vacant tenant space, Winchester MarketPlace
Drainage channel and Business park"
Winchester Road and Regional mall (under construction)
Pep Boy's, Winchester MarketPlace
Vacant tenant space, Winchester MarketPlace
BACKGROUND
The Trader Joe's Company is requesting the Temecula City Planning Commission to make a finding
of public convenience or necessity in order to authorize the sale of packaged beer, wine and liquor
from a proposed Trader Joe's market to be located in Suites 4,5&6 of the Winchester MarketPlace
commercial center at 40665 Winchester Road. State law requires a local finding of public
convenience or necessity before an alcoholic beverage sales license will be issued by the Alcoholic
Beverage Contol Board.
R:\griffins~C StaffRprt. PCorN Trader Joe's.doc
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission has developed several criteria to determine whether or not a finding of
public convenience or necessity can be made. The cdteria and the responses are as follows:
Criteria to Justify Makin{i a Findin¢l of Public Convenience or Necessity
Q. Does the proposed establishment have any unique features which are not found in other similar
uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, and other special serviceS)?
A. Yes. According to Trader Joe's, their establishments are unique in that they offer many value-
priced gourmet and organic items that are not always readily available in other markets. Included
among these items are fine wines, beers and liquors.
Q. Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e., patrons of a different
socio-economic class)?
A. No. Trader Joe's will serve a gourm~t and specialty market not now served in the area. But the
success of Trader Joe's can be attributed to the fact that they offer unique gourmet and specialty
items at a value price that appeals to a broad cross-section of the community representing all
socio-economic and ethnic groups.
Q. Are there geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e. freeways, major
roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from other establishments?
A. No. There are five other establisments within the Winchester MarketPlace center with licenses
either granted or pending for alcoholic beverage sales. These include Costco, Chevron Mini-
Market and Ralph's Market (off-sale), and Mimi's Care and Anthony's Ristorante (on-sale).
However, there are no other specialty markets in the center or area. The area also contains no
"drinking-only" establishments.
Q. Are there any sensitive uses within 600 feet of the proposed establishment?
A. No. The closest land use which could be considered sensitive is Rodpaugh High School, which
is located about one-half mile fo the east of the proposed Trader Joe's location.
Q. Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by
residents of the area?
A. No. The Trader Joe's will be located in a commercial center on a major thoroughfare. It should
have no impact on residential neighborhoods, the closest of which are located more than one-
half mile to the east in the Roripaugh Estates area.
Q. Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area?
A. No. According to the Police Department, Trader Joe's is not expected to create or exaccerbate
a law enforcement problem in the area.
Q. Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed
establishment?
R:\griffinsXPC StaffRprt PCorN Trader Joe's.doc
2
A. No. There are five (5) facilities within one quarter mile of the location, all on the north side of
Winchester Road in the Winchester MarketPlace commercial center. But these are markets and
restaurants, not the drinking establishments that this cdteda is intended to address.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the information presented above and
make the appropriate finding.
Attachments
1. Exhibit - Zoning/General Plan Map - Blue Page 4
R:\griffmsXPC StaffRprl, PCorN Trader Joe's,doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
EXHIBIT
ZONING/GENERAL PLAN MAP
R:\FiffmsXPC StaffRprL PCorN Trader Joe's.doc
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
SC
sC
cc
A
cc
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
TRADER JOE'S: FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 2, 1999
R',Gri~ns%Trader Joe's Report.doe
ITEM #5
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
June 2, 1999
Review of the 1999 - 2004 Capital Improvement Program
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the proposed Capital Improvement Program and provide
comments to the City Council on the consistency of the 1999 -
2004 Capital Improvement Program with the adopted General
Plan.
DISCUSSION:
The City Departments have been meeting over the last few months to ~nalize the 1999-2005
Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP programs funding and timing for major capital and
construction projects throughout the City. The role of the Planning Commission is to review the
proposed projects and determine if the projects are consistent with the City General Plan. Each
project has been assigned a priority. The priority classification system is as follows:
Priority h
The project is urgent and must be completed as soon as feasible. Failure to address
the project may impact the health, safety, or welfare of the community; or have a
significant-impact on the financial well being of the City. The project must be
initiated or financial opportunity losses may result.
Priority Ih
The project is important and addressing it is necessary. The project impac.t,s safety,
law enforcement, health, welfare, economic base, and\or quality of life.
Priority I Ih
The project will enhance the quality of life and will provide ~ benefit to the
community. Completion of the project will improve the community by providing
cultural, recreational, and\or aesthetic value.
Priority IV:
The project will be an improvement to the community, but does not necessarily need
to be completed within a five year capital improvement program time frame.
A copy of the project listing is included with this staff report in Attachment No. 1. The
Commission's comments and concerns will be forwarded to the City Council when they consider
adoption of the Capital Improvement Program.
Attachment
1.. 1999-2005 Capital Improvement Program - Blue Page 2
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATAMZ)EPTS~PLANNINGMSTAFFRPTxCIp Review 1999 PC.doe
1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
1999-2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
\\TEMEC FS201\DATA\DEPTSXPLANNINGXSTAFFP, PTXCIP Review 1999 PC.doc
2
r~
CI'T'( BOUNDARY
B~ ~mRFIELD STAGE
ROAD
ROAD
'E
FREEWAy
ST
,ViNMO.ai"IY::)
Z
z
YNEZ
0
[-
<
[-
~.
0
0
Nr,~
Z
~-
~Z
~=
~,~
O~
r~
~0
Z~
0
~,.
0
- E
Z
[.,
Z
Z
Z
.9
.<
Z
Z
Z
Z
c~
f~
~,.
~0
Z
8
0
~ ::::
Z
is &
ISL
0
[,,,
Z
0
0
0
~,,
Z
0
r~
Z
0
z
IVI~I
/
~lD
· s ~ ONZ
NIV~
'C
Z~
/S"I
~s L
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2,1999
Planning Application No. PA98-05'11
(Zoning Amendment, Planned Development Overlay)
Planning Application No. PA98-0512
(Development Plan)
Prepared By: Thomas K. Thornsley, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment,
Planned Development Overlay) based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report;
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application Numbers PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment,
Planned Development Overlay) and PA98-0512
(Development Plan);
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application Number PA98-0512 (Development Plan);
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning
Application No. PA98-0512 (Development Plan); based upon
the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval..
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Curt Miller, Pacific Gulf Properties, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
Planning Application No. PA98-0511: a request to amend the
Zoning Map designations of property totaling 12.3 acres,
from Business Park (BP) to Planned Development Overlay.
Planning Application No. PA98-0512: a Development Plan
proposal to build a 244 unit senior housing complex with two
and three story apartment buildings on 8.3 acres.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
1
LOCATION:
Located on the northwest corner of Nicolas Road and
Winchester Road (Parcel "A" of Lot Line Adjustment PA98-
0477 previously Assessor's Parcel Numbers 911-170-078
and 911-170 085)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park)
EXISTING ZONING:
BP (Business Park)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: M (Medium Density Residential)
South: PI' (Public Institutional)
East: NC (Neighborhood Commercial); SP (Roripaugh
Estates Specific Plan)
West: M (Medium Density Residential) and PI (Public
Institution)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Residential
South: Chaparral High School
East: Vacant
West: Residential and Chaparral High School
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area Gross:
Total Area Net:
Total Building Area
Building Footprint:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Hardscape:
361,548 square feet
355,580 square feet
217,900 square feet
90,400 square feet
126,770 square feet
100,810 square feet
37,600 square feet
(8.3 acres)
(8.1 acres)
25.42%
35.66%
28.35%
10.57%
Parking Required:
Senior Housing (¼ covered .spaces per unit)
+1 uncovered space per 5 units for quest parkinq
Total
122spaces
49 spaces
171 spaces
Parking Provided:
Covered 122 spaces
Uncovered 151 spaces
Handicapped 8 spaces
Total 281 spaces
Building Height:
30 feet for two story building
42 feet for three story buildings
BACKGROUND
Planning Applications No. PA98-0511 and PA98-0512 were brought before th~ Planning
Commission on March 17, 1999. Planning AppliGation No. PA98-0511 was a request for a General
Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment and Planning Application No. PA98-0512 was a
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc
2
Development Plan for senior apartments. The Planning Commission raised a number of issues
regarding these projects at that meeting and continued this item to the April 21, 1999, meeting. At
the April meeting the Commission continued this item off-calendar. Staff distributed a revised Initial
Study and re-noticed the projects for the June 2, 1999 Planning Commission hearing.
The following issues were raised by the Commission: traffic, potentially permitted and conditionally
permitted uses, and development standards. Traffic concerns dealt with the coni]icts between the
senior apartments. the high school, and the future development on the remaindei' of the site. Also
of concern was the possibility that the project might not be built and any one of a number of more
intensive uses allowed under the Professional Office (PO) Zone could be developed at this site
furlher impacting traffic conditions. Additionally, the PO zone would allow 75 foot tall structures,
which would impact the neighboring residential development. Staff was directed to address these
concerns when the project was brought back before the Commission.
During the re-evaluation of Planning Application PA98-0511 (General Plan Amendment and Zoning
Amendment) staff determined that this application should be changed to a Planned Development
Overlay (PDO) with defined uses and development standards for this properly. The establishment
of the PDO would be adopted through a Zoning Amendment only, therefore, the applicant withdrew
his request for General Plan Amendment. Planning ApplicatiOn PA98-0512 for the senior
apadments has remained virtually the same with the exception of a new driveway being added on
Winchester Road to help with traffic circulation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Application No. PA98-0511 is a request for a Zoning Amendment to change the City's
Zoning designations on 12.3 acres of property from Business Park (BP) to Planned Development
Overlay (PDO) and amend the Development Code, adding PDO-3. Planning Application No.
PA98-0512 (Development Plan) is a request for the construction of a 244 unit senior housing
complex, consisting of two and three story apartment buildings on 8.3 acres. The remaining four
acres, being re-designated to PDO, are not being proposed for development at this time.
ANALYSIS
Zoninq Amendment - Planned Development OverlaV
The applicant had sought a location for senior housing in this community. They found there was
a limited amount of available property within the city that permits their type of development and also
met their criteria to be centrally located to goods and services, on a main transportation route, and
on flat terrain. The proposed site meets their needs, but is designated Business Park (BP) under
the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map, which does not permit senior housing. By
re-zoning the property for a PDO, senior housing and congregate care housing could be permitted
uses. By creating a PDO at this location, the City and the applicant can propose uses that meet
the needs of the community. In addition, the PDO will establish a list of uses that are less impacting
that those currently permitted.
Staff and the applicant 'worked together to establish a list of uses that would be allowed under the
PDO. Our criterion was to select uses that would not be intensive traffic generators nor would
conflict with the surrounding land uses [Exhibit B (PDO-3, Schedule of Permitted Uses) of Draft City
Council Ordinance]. The development standards have remained consistent with the standards that
are currently in effect under the Business Park zoning designation. The developer feels satisfied
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
3
that there are a sufficient variety of uses to allow versatility for the use of the undeveloped portion
of the site should they be unable to find a developer for an assisted living project.
DeveloPment Plan
Planning Application No. PA98-0512 proposes to build 244 dwelling units for senior housing (55
years of age and older) on 8.3 acres. There will be four building on the site with-one building, the
largest, designed as a two story structure and the remainder being three story structures. The
facility will have a mix of one and two bedroom units with a kitchen, dining area, living room. and
one or two baths.
This facility is designed for active seniors and will provide amenities like any apartment complex.
The applicant does not propose to offer any assisted living services in this complex.
Site Desian and Circulation
The project originally took it's only access directly across form the high school's student parking.
To provide for better circulation a second driveway on Nicolas Road will be opened for tenants and
a new tenant access will be installed on Winchester Road. With three points of .ingress and egress
tenants will have an opportunity to avoid the traffic congestion dudrig the schools peak traffic times.
All three points of ingress and egress will have card key gates located far enough into the site to
prevent vehicle stacking back onto the roadways. The Winchester Road access will be shared with
the undeveloped portion of the site north of the senior apartments when it is dev. eloped. Caltrans
has consented to this access on the condition that it is right-in and right-out only. The applicant is
currently in the process of securing the design standard and proper permits from Caltrans.
Four buildings make up this complex (reference Exhibit D). The main building, is a two story
building and is located on the corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads and is the largest with an
east and west wing. Each wing is rectangularity shaped with an internal courtyard. Building two
is located to the west of building one and is an "L" shaped three story structure. To the north,
buildings three and fou~ are placed at angles away for the center of building one providing an
internal space between the three buildings. In this area are a pool, spa, patio, and garden areas.
Access to all of the apartments will be from inside the structure with outside access at the ends or
the middle of the building. No units are designed to have direct outside entries.
Courtyards, patios, and walkways will connect the buildings. The walkways meander between the
buildings through gardens and landscaped areas. Building two is located adjacent to a putting
green. Between buildings two and three and three and four are decorative patio areas that function
as entry points into the complex and provide access for emergency services.
Parkincl Analysis
The City's Development Code requires ~ covered spaces per unit (244 / ~ = 122) and one
uncovered space per five units for guest parking (244 / 5 = 49): As designed the applicant is
proposing 122 covered stalls, 8 handicapped and 153 additional stalls for a total of 283 parking
stalls. The site provides 112 more parking stalls than required. The applicant indicates that they
need one space for each unit in the complex and that reduces the number of extra spaces down
to thirty-nine.
R:\STAFFRP'r%511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
4
Architecture & Colors
The design of the apartments takes elements of the "Craftsman" style with clean lines, exposed
beams, low sloping roo~ines with gables, and neutral tones. The fascias of the buildings will be
finished with a wood float stucco finish in light shades of gray, beige, and tan. To add relief, the
exterior walls will have multiple planes giving the building fascia depth. The windows wilt be
recessed and the second and third floors will appear to step back from the lower floors. Each unit
will have either a patio or a balcony with stucco walls on the ground floor patios ~nd wrought iron
on the upper floor balconies.
Building one is the main building with its entry facing the driveway from Nicolas Road. A fountain
will be the focal point into the building. Stacked sandstone veneer will enhance this entrance and
the other entry points around the buildings.
Roof colors will be a mix of light and dark grays and grayish-tan concrete tiles. The exposed wood
fascia and outlooker beams will be finished with light olive green for accent coloring. As designed,
the building will be very distinctive and appealing.
The carports proposed are post and beam design with a metal trimmed roof that will have a
finished color to match the building stucco color. Staff felt that the carports should incorporate
some additional features such as the outlookers and utilize accent colors used on the main
building. The applicant has requested to maintain the simple unaccented look of the carport so that
they are less noticeable. Some of the carports are located along Winchester and Nicolas Roads
were they will be visible, Staff has added a condition of approval to assure that-the styling of the
carports be more articulated to be consistent with the main building.
Landscaping
Thirty-five percent (35.66%) of the site has been landscaped. This exceeds the twenty-five percent
minimum landscaping requirement in the PO (Professional Office) zone. The bulk of the
landscaping is provided along the two street frontages (Winchester Road and Nicholas Road) and
around the perimeter of the buildings. A' twenty-five foot landscape buffer has been provided
between the streets and the buildings. The street trees will be African Sumac (Rhus lances) and
dominant trees throughout the property are Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis Anacordioides), California
Sycamore (Pantanus Racemosa), African Sumac (Rhus Lancea), and Bottle Tree (Brachychiton
Populneus). Additional landscaping is provided between the buildings including landscaped paths
and gardens and two landscaped courtyards in building one.
Traffic Study
The Commission directed staff to address the following concems pertaining to traf:ric. The following
information was gleaned from a traffic study prepared by the applicant.
1. Compatibility with Chaparral High School: According to the study, traffic at the "high school is
a discreet and predictable event that happens during the same time every weekday." The peak
traffic is from 7:00-7:15 AM in the morning and 2:30-2:45 PM in the afternoon. When the high
school is at full capacity and the senior apartments are in full operation the peak traffic volumes
indicate that left turn movements into the student parking lot at the high school will be at level "C".
This is the lowest rating at any driveway during the entire day.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
5
2. Senior Housing -vs- Business Park Uses: The study also provides a comparative assessment
of the volume of traffic that could be generated under the Business Park designation. The study
indicates that the trip generation for the senior apartments would be 890 trips per day while
business park uses could be 1,218 trips per day. The comparative study further analyzes the AM
and PM peak hours. According to the study, the AM peak traffic hour would have 11 tdps for senior
housing versus 135 in-bound thps for Business Park uses. The afternoon traffic is negligible
because the senior housing's peak PM traffic occurs later than the school's mid-afternoon peak=
Therefore, the peak AM traffic would have the greatest direct conflict with the' high school. In
summary, the traffic study concludes: 1) only two short (30 minutes) peak traffic times wilt occur
on Nicolas Road during the AM & PM hours; 2) the senior apartments will generate only six to nine
outbound trips per hour; and 3) other potential uses found under the Business Park designation
would generate more traffic than senior housing during peak commuter periods.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study 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 for the project. Any impacts will be mitigated to levels less than significant.
In addition, because the site has been previously disturbed, it contains no biological resources. As
a result staff is recommending that a De Minimus Impact Finding be made.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION
The current General Plan land use designation and the zoning classification is Business Park (BP).
Planning Application PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment) is proposing to amend the Zoning Map, for
the requested 12.3 acres, to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-3).
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The development of the requested senior housing complex (PA98-0512) requires a change to the
City's Zoning Map and amendment to the Development Code. By changing the designation (PA98-
0511 ) from Business Park to Planned DevelOpment Overlay many of the least intensive uses
currently allowed will be permitted including senior housing. This project provides a specialized
housing need in the community that is not being met elsewhere. Converting this site to a
residential use is consistent with the varied mix of surrounding uses. Additionally, this site is in
proximity to a wide variety of community services that will be convenient to the future residents.
Therefore, the proposed Zoning Amendment (PA98-0511 ) will create zoning that is compatible with
the surrounding land uses without impacting the community. The Development Plan (PA98-0512)
for senior housing can be considered compatible and consistent with the surrounding area of
Nicolas Road and Winchester Road. With the approval of the Zoning Amendment the proposed
project will therefore be consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. Staff,
therefore, recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of PA98-0511 (Zoning
Amendment) to the City Council and approve PA98-0512 (Development Plan) for a senior housing
project.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
6
FINDINGS -ZONING AMENDMENT
The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of this Zoning Amendment - Planned
Development Overlay, makes the following findings:
The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Planning
Application No. PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment) as proposed is compatible with the health,
safety and welfare of the community. The change in land use is in conformance with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City..
The change is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan Land Use
Designation is Business Park and the requested Zoning Amendment will change the zoning
to Planned Development Overlay, which is consistent with the amended General Plan Land
Use Map.
The change will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the
goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed amendment will not have
an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and
policies of the adopted General Plan.
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
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'~ 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 welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets
the-standards a~dopted by the City of Temecula designedfor the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and 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.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site
has been previously disturbed and graded, and street improvements have already been
installed on site. There are no native species of plants, no unique, rar. e, threatened or
endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further,
there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration
corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
R:\STAFFRP'R511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
7
Attachments:
4.
5.
6.
PC Resolution No. 99- - (PA98-0511 ) - Blue Page 9
Exhibit A - (Draft Ordinance No. 99- ) - Blue Page 13 Exhibit A- Vicinity Map - Blue Page 17
Exhibit B - Planned Development Overlay District No. 3 - Blue Page 19
PC ResolUtion No. 99- - (PA98-0512) - Blue Page 29
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 33
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 46 '
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 67
Correspondence - Blue Page 73
Exhibits - Blue Page 74
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Landscape Plan
G. Floor Plans
H. Rendering
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
9
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP AND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CITY FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOTS '166 AND
181 OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY; ALSO
KNOWN AS PARCEL "A" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA9~-
0477, PREVIOUSLY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-170-078
AND 911-170-085. (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0511)"
WHEREAS, Curt Miller, of Pacific Gulf Properties, Inc., initiated Planning Application No.
PA98-0511, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application'No. PA98-0511 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Applications No. PA98-0511
and PA98-0512 on March 17, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which
time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or
opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Applications No. PA98-0511 and
PA98-0512 to April 21, 1999, to allow the applicant time to address concerns and issues raised at
the March 17, 1999, Planning Commission Hearing;
WHEREAS, the Applicant withdrew the request for a General Plan Amendment, opted to
pursue a Planned Oveday District, and requested that Planning Applications PA98-0511 and PA98-
0512 be continued off calendar while revisions were being made;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission re-considered Planning Application No. PA98-0511
on June 2, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0511;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
10
Section 2. Findinqs.
A. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of this General Plan
Amendments, make the following findings:
B. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of this Zoning Amendment,
Planned Development Overlay, makes the following findings:
1. The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Planning Application No. PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment) as proposed is compatible with, the
health, safety and welfare of the community. The change in land use is in cOnbrmance with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City.
2. The change is consistent with the approved revisions to the General Plan Land Use
Map, The General Plan Land Use Designation is Business Park and the requested Zoning
Amendment will change the zoning to Planned Development Oreday, which is consistent with the
amended General Plan Land Use Map.
3. The change will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with
the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed amendment will not have an
adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the
adopted General Plan.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for
this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond
those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The
Initial Study indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
would have not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. Two
areas, circulation, and air quality impacts, are expected to see small reductions in the anticipated
environmental impacts because there are fewer trips generated by senior housing than that
potentially generated by professional offices. As a result, the Planning Commission determines
that the potential impacts of these changes were adequately addressed by the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the City General Plan and that no further environmental analysis is required,
Section 4. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Planning Application No. PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment) and recommends that the City Council
do the following:
A. Adopt an Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Temecula Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Temecula City for Property known as Lots 166
and 181 of the Temecula Land and Water Company, also Parcel "A" of Lot Line Adjustment PA98-
0477, previously Assessor's known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-170-078 and 911-170~085
(Planning Application No. PA98-0511 )" substantially in the form that is attached to this Resolution
as Exhibit A.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc
11
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2"d day of June 1999.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of June,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
12
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 99-
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
13
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 99- ..
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND
DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY FOR
PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOTS 166 AND 181 OF THE TEMECULA
LAND AND WATER COMPANY; ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL "A"
OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0477, PREVIOUSLY
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-170-078 AND 911-170-085
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0511)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City
Council of the City of Temecula, State of California,. pursuant to the. Planning and Zoning law of the
State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The changes to the land use district
as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Zoning
Map, and Exhibit "B" is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Development Code for
the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as many be amended hereafter from time to time
by the City Council of the City of Temecula. The City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended
by placing in affect the zones as described in Planning Application PAgB-0511 and listed below:
A. For the parcels identified as Parcel "A" of Lot Line Adjustment PA98-0477,
previously Assessors known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-170-078 and 911-170-085: change the
Zoning Designation from Planned Development Overlay (PDO) to Professional Office (PO); and,
Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of
the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at
least three public places in the City.
Section 3. Findinqs The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0511
(Zoning Amendment) hereby makes the following findings:
A. The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Planning Application No. PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment) as proposed is compatible with the
health, safety and welfare of the community. The change in land use is in conformance with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City,
B. The change is consistent with the approved revisions to the General Plan Land Use
Map. The General Plan Land Use Designation has been changed to Professional Office and the
requested Zoning Amendment will change the zoning to Professional Office, which is consistent
with the amended General Plan Land Use Map.
R:\STAFFRPT%511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
14
C. The change will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with
the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed amendment will not have an
adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the
adopted General Plan.
Section 4. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its
adoption.
Section 5. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for
this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond
those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The
Initial Study indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
would have not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. Two
areas, circulation, and air quality impacts, are expected to see small reductions !n the anticipated
environmental impacts because there are fewer tdps generated by senior housing than that
potentially generated by professional offices. As a result, the Planning Commission determines
that the potential impacts of these changes were adequately addressed by the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the City General Plan and that no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 6. 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:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
15
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this __ day of ,1999.
ATTEST:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California: do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and' placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the ~ day of , 1999, 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 of ,1999 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\STAFFRP'R511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
16
EXHIBIT A
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRP'F,511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
17
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
· " PDO 3
'"
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0511
(Zoning Amendment - Planned Development Overlay PDO-3)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 2, 1999
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
18
EXHIBIT B
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 3
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
19
NICOLASRVINCHESTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
17.22.120 Title
Sections 17.22.120 through 17.22.128 shall be known as "PDO-3' (NicolasNVinchester Planned
Development Overlay District).
17.22.122 Purpose and intent
The NicolasANinchester'Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-3) is intended to
provide regulations for the safe and efficient operation, and creative design of a unique commercial
area within the city. The area is significantly constrained with easements, flood plains, potential
fault zones, and adjacent residential development. This special overlay zoning district regulation
is intended to permit a range of neighborhood convenience uses, with selected outdoor storage and
other appropriate rural serving commercial uses, Supplemental performance standards have also
been provided to ensure compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods and to protect adjoining
uses from excessive noise, odor, smoke, toxic materials, and other potentially objectionable
impacts. It is the intent of the City to use these special regulations to supplement the regulations
of land uses and development already existing within the adopted Developmen~ Code.
17.22.124 Relationship with the Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines
A. The list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses for the
NicolasNVinchester Planned Development Overlay District is contained in Table 17.22.126.
B. Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.128, the following rules and
regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area.
1. The development standards in the Development Code that would apply to
any development within a Neighborhood Commercial zoning district that are in effect at the time
an application is deeme~J complete.
2. The citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application
is deemed complete.
3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in
effect at the time an application is deemed complete.
4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time an
application is deemed complete.
17.22.126 Use Regulations
The list of permitted land uses for the NicolasANinchester Planned Development Overlay
district is contained in Table 17.22.126. Where indicated with a letter "P" the use shall be a
permitted use. A tetter'"C" indicates the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to the approval
of a conditional use permit. Where indicated with a "-", the use is prohibited within the zone.
R:\STAFFRP'R511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
20
Table 17.22.126
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Northwest Corner of Nicolas & Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay
District
Description of Use I PDO-3
A
Adult business
Aerobics/dance/gymnasticslja7_zerciselmartial arts studios (less than 5,000 sq. ft.) C
Aerobics/dance/gymnasticsIjazzerciselmartial arts studios (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.)
Airports
Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities
Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient)
Alcoholic beverage sales
Ambulance services
Animal hospital (indoor only)
Antique restoration
Antique sales
Apparel and accessory shops
Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances)
Arcades (pinball and video games)
Art supply stores
Auction houses
Auditoriums and conference facilities '-
Automobile dealers (new and ,used)
Automobile sales (brokerage)-showroom only (new and used)-no outdoor display -
Automobile Oil Change/Lube Services with no major repairs
Automobile painting and body shop
Automobile repair services
Automobile rental
Automobile salvage yards/impound yards
Automobile service stations with or without an automated car wash
Automotive parts -sales
Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine -with or without an automated
car wash
Bakery goods distribution
Bakery retail
Bakery wholesale
Banks and financial institutions
B
P
R:\STAFFRPT%511-512pa98 pc2a,doc
21
Table 17.22.126
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Northwest Corner of Nicolas & Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay
District
Description of Use
Barber and beauty shops
Bed and breakfast
Bicycle (sales, rentals, services)
Billlard parlor/pool hall
Binding of books and similar publications
Blood bank
Blueprint and duplicating and copy services '
Bookstores
Bowling alley
Building material sales
Butcher shop
C
Cabinet shop
Camera shop (sales/minor repairs)
Candy/confectionery sales
Car wash, full service
Carpet and rug cleaning
Catering services
Clothing sales
Coins, purchase and sales
Cold storage facilities
Communications and microWave installations
Communications equipment sales
Community care facilities
Computer sales and service
Congregate care housing for the elderly~
Construction equipment sales, service or rental
Contractor's equipment, sales, service or rental
Convenience market
Costume rentals
Crematoriums
Cutlery
Data processing equipment and systems
R:\STAFFRP'R511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
D
22
I PDO-3
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
I P
Table 17.22.126
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Northwest Corner of Nicolas & Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay
District
'Day care centers
Delicatessen
Discount/department store
Distribution facility'
Drug store/pharmacy
Dry cleaners
Dry cleaning plant
Description of Use ~ PDO-3
C
E
Emergency shelters
Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor storage)
Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage)
F
Feed and grain sales
Financial, insurance, real estate offices
Fire and police stations
Floor covering sales
Florist shop
Food processing
Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity
Freight terminals
Fuel storage and distribution
Funeral parlors, mortuary
Furniture sales
Furniture transfer and storage
G
Garden supplies and equipment sales and service
Gas distribution, meter and control station
General merchandise/retail store less than 10,000 sq. ft.
Glass and mirrors, retail sales
Governmental offices less than 5,000 sq. ~.
Grocery store, retail
Grocery store, wholesale
Guns and firearm sales
P
P
P
P
P
P
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
23
Table 17.22.126
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Northwest Corner of Nicolas & Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay
District
Description of Use
H
Hardware stores
Health and exercise clubs (less than 5,000 sq. ft.)
Health and exercise clubs (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.)
Health food store
Health care facility P
Hellports
Hobby supply shop
Home and business maintenance service
Hospitals
Hotels/motels
Ice cream parlor
Impound yard
Interior decorating service
Junk or salvage yard
J
K
Kennel
L
Laboratories, film, medical, 'research 0r testing centers
'Laundromat
Laundry service (commercial)
Libraries, museums and galleries (private)
Liquefied petroleum, sales and distribution
Liquor stores
Lithographic service
Locksmith
M
Machine shop
Machinery storage yard
Mail order businesses
J PDO-3
P
P
P
P
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
24
Table 17.22.126
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Northwest Corner of Nicolas & Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay
District
Description of Use
Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited to, the
Following:
PDO-3
Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, and fabrication of
goods within enclosed building (no outside storage), such as jewelry,
furniture, art objects, clothing, labor in!ensive manufacturing, assembling,
and repair processes which do not involve frequent truck traffic.
Compounding of materials, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment or
fabrication of materials and prodbcts which require frequent truck activity or
the transfer of heavy or bulky items. Wholesaling, storage, and warehousing
within enclosed building, freight handling, shipping, truck services and
terminals, storage and wholesaling from the premises of unre~ned, raw ~or
semirefined products requiring further processing or manufacturing, and
outside storage.
Uses under 20,000 sq. ft. with no outside storage
Massage
Medical equipment sales/rental
Membership clubs, Organizations, lodges
Mini-storage or mini-warehouse2
Mobile home sales and service
Motion picture studio
Motorcycle sales and service
Movie theaters
Musical and recording studio
Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club
Nurseries (retail)
Nursing homes/convalescent homes
N
Office equipment/supplies, sales/services
Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq. ft.
P
C
C
P
P
P
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc
25
Table 17.22.126
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Northwest Corner of Nicolas & Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay
District
Description of Use PDO-3
Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 sq. ft., including, but not limited
to, business law. medical, dental, veterinarian. chiropractic, architectural, p
engineering, real estate, insurance.
P
Paint and wallpaper stores
Parcel delivery services
Parking lots and parking structures
Pawnshop
Personal service shops
Pest control services
Pet grooming/pet shop
Photographic studio
Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenctosed)
Postal distribution
Postal services
Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals. books, etc.)
Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities Commission)
Q
Reserved
R
Radio and broadcasting studios, offices
Radio/television transmitter
Recreational vehicle parks
Recreational vehicle sales
Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within an enclosed building
Recreational vehicle, trailer and boat storage-exterior yard
Recycling collection facilities
Recycling processing facilities
Religious institution, without a day care or private school
Religious institution, with a private school
Religious institution, with a day care
Residential (one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use
for use of the proprietor of the business)'
P
P
P
P
C
C
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc
26
Table 17.22.126
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Northwest Corner of Nicolas & Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay
District
DesCription of Use ~PD0-3
Residential, multiple-family housing '"
Restaurant, drive-in/fast food
Restaurants and other eating establishments p '
Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment
Retail support use (15 percent of total development square footage in BP and LI)
Rooming and boarding houses
S
Scale, public
Schools, business and professional
Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12)
Scientific research and development offices and laboratories
Senior citizen housing (see also congregate care)3
Solid waste disposal facility
Sports and recreational facilities
Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building
Swap Meet, outdoor
Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales
Taftor shop
Taxi or limousine service
Tile sales
Tobacco shop
Tool and die casting
Transfer, moving and storage
Transportation terminals and stations
Truck rentals (no sales or/service)
TVNCR repair
Upholstery shop
rending machine sales and service
T
U
V
W
Warehousing/distribution
P
P
P
P
P
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
27
Table 17.22.126
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Northwest Corner of Nicolas & Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay
District
Description of Use
Watch repair
Wedding chapels
Welding shop
Welding supply and service (enclosed)
Y
Reserved
Reserved
Z
PDO-3
1. See Section 17.06.040. Dwelling units per net acre, High Density Residential
2. See Section 17.080.050(R), special standards for self-storage or mini-warehouse facilities.
17.22.128 Supplemental Design and Setback Standards
A. All development within PDO-3 shall also comply with the following supplemental
buffering requirements:
1. When adjacent to residential uses: a transitional landscaped area, not less
than five feet in width shall be installed. The landscaping shall include (at a minimum) trees,
shrubs, and appropriate ground cover and should be located outside of the walls used to screen
these commercial uses.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
28
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
29
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA98-O512 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) A PROPOSAL TO BUILD A
244 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX WITH T~NO AND THREE
STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON 8.3 ACRES; LOCATED ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND
WINCHESTER ROAD~ KNOWN AS LOTS 166 AND 181 OF THE
TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY; ALSO KNOWN AS
PARCEL "A" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0477,
PREVIOUSLY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-170-078 and 911-
170-085
WHEREAS, Curt Miller, of Pacific Gulf Properties, Inc.,filed Planning Application No. PA98-
0512, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0512 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Applications No. PA98-0511
and PA98-0512 on March 17, 1999, at a duly noticed public headng as prescribed by law, at which
time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in suppod or
opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Applications No. PA98-0511 and
PA98-0512 to April 21, 1999, to allow the applicant time to address concerns and issues raised at
· the March t7, 1999, Planning Commission Hearing;
WHEREAS, the Applicant withdrew the request for a General Plan Amendment, opted to
pursue a Planned Overlay DiStrict, and requested that Planning Applications PA98-051.1 and PA98-
0512 be continued off calendar while revisions were being made;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0512, on
June 2, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0512;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc
30
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA98-0512 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section
17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with
all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent
with all City Ordinances including: the Citys Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar
Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
B. The overall dev~lopmen~ of the land is designed for the protect. ion of the public
health, safety and 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.
C. 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.
D. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species
or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals ~nd birds. The project site
has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There are no native
species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native
vegetation on or adjacent to the site. 'Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist,
or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus ,impact finding can be made for this
project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for this project and
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there wilt not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described ih the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration with
a DeMinimus impact finding, therefore, is hereby adopted.
Section 4. ConditiOns. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No, PA98-0512 (Development Plan) a proposal to build
a 244 unit senior housing complex with two and three story apartment buildings on 8.3 acres,
located at the northeast corner of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road, and known as Parcel "A"
of Lot Line Adjustment PA98-0477, previously assessor's parcel no. 911-170-078 and 911-170-
085, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
31
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of June,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
32
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc
33
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
A proposal to build a 244. unit senior housing complex
with two and three story apartment buildings on 8.3
acres. LOcated on the northwest corner of Nicolas Road
and Winchester Road.
Development Impact Fee Category: Multi-Family
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
911-170-078 and 911-170-085
June 2,1999
June 2,2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this' Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of
Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file
the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative
Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code
of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has
not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality, thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner
of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take,any and.alE
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
34
This development plan approval date is contingent upon City Council approval of the Zoning
Amendment and the date the implementing ordinance goes into effect.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially to Exhibit D (Site Plan),
approved with Planning Application No. 98-0512, or as amended by these conditions.
The development of the building shall conform substantially to Exhibit E (Elevations),
approved with Planning Application No. 98-0512, or as amended by these conditions.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan,
Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall
be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the
Development Code. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the
Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the
landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
The colors and materials used for this industrial building shall conform substantially to the
approved color and material board, or as amended by these conditions.
Material Color
Exterior Plaster in wood float sand finish
Wood Fascia and exposed wood trim
Accent Color on handrails, gutters & downspouts
Tile Roof
La Habra Plaster Co. #x9511 (grey)
La Habra Plaster Co. #x3713 (beige)
' La Habra Plaster Co. #x80220 (tan)
Olympic Satin "Outside White"
Frazee 4904D (light olive green)
Pioneer Concrete Roof Tiles WS-503 (dark grey)
Pioneer Concrete Roof Tiles WS-516 (medium grey)
Pioneer Concrete Roof Tiles WS-472 (tan/grey)
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
10.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10"
glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and the colored
architectural Elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall
be readable on the photographic prints.
11.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
R:\STAFFRP~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
35
12.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one
signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files,
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
13. Lot Line Adjustment PA98-0477 shall be recorded.
14.
All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were
designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building.
15.
The carports shall be redesigned to include architectural elements and color enhancements
similar to the main structures.
16. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
17.
The perimeter landscaping shall provide shrubs, berms and/or walls to screen the parking
areas.
18.
Three (3) copies of detailed Construction Landscaping. and Irrigation Plans shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review approval. The location, number, genus,
species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent
with the Water Efficient Ordinance and conform substantially to the approved Exhibit "F"
Conceptual Landscape Plan or as amended by these conditions. The cover page shall
identity the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. Theplans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
19.
The development of a bus stop as requested by the Riverside Transit Authority shall be
done so at no expense to the City. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining all
required encroachment permits.
20.
Separate building permit applications for the installation of signage shall be submitted in
conformance with City Ordinances, Design Guidelines, and Development Code.
21.
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.
22. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction
landscape and irrigation plans, shall be filed with the Community Development Department
- Planning Division for one yea~from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
R:\STAFFRP'F~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
36
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Planning Manager, the bond shall be released.
23.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed re~ectodzed 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 cantered at the interior end of the parking space at aminimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-
street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued fDr
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000.".
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3
square feet in size,
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
24.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing
and Mechanicel Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title
24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.
25.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other
outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building
and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as no*, to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
26.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
27.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
28. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be R-1.
29. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
30.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
31. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
32. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
R:\STAFFRP'~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
37
33. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
34. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
35. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
36. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
37. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
38. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
39. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
40. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
41. A pre-construction meeting is required wi{h the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
42. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate
approvals and permits
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
43. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to
any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site
plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement
constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
44. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
45. 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.
46. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Califomia Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State Right-of-
Way.
47. The vehicular movement for the driveway on Winchester Road is restricted to right in/right
out.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc
38
48.
All improvement plans, grading plans'shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula rnylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
49.
A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic
calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit.
50.
A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required
for work within their Right-of-Way.
51,
A permit from Army Corps of Engineers is required for any work within the Santa Gertrudis
Channel.
52.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private
property.
53.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
54,
A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
55.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards ide,ntifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and
identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations t~ protect
the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream
facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make
required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
56.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
57.
The Developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans prior to commencement
of any construction, including the proposed driveway, within the existing State Right-of-
Way.
58.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
39
59.
60.
61.
62.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Army Corps of Engineers
Planning Department
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may
include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain DevelOpment Permit
shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
63.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P,C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving..
Driveways shall Conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining 'the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
64.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Department of Public Works:
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
40
Improve Winchester Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to
include installation of sidewalk, street lights and utilities (including but not limited
to water and sewer.
65.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public
Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: sidewalks, drive
approaches a~d street lights
Storm drain facilities
Sewer and domestic water systems
66.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside
Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works.
67.
All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
68.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
69. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property.
70.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
71.
The existing Memorandum Of Understanding between the City and Caltrans dated October
13, 1995 shall be amended to allow a dght in/right out vehicular movement onto Winchester
Road.
72.
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
73. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
74.
All public improvements, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works,
R:\STAFFRP'R511-512pa98 pc2a,doc
41
75.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired. or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department
of Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
76.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform
Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the
time of building plan submittal.
77.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is r~quired to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a
total fire flow of 2400 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic
fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as
given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix
Ill.A)
78.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC
Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"
x 4" x 2-2 "outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent
to public streets. Hydrants shall be.spaced at 450 feet apart and shall be located no more
than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access rOad(s) frontage to
an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the
system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 90:j~4.2, and
Appendix Ill-B).
79.
As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of
150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this
project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2).
80.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approVed access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
81.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
82.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
42
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15).
83.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15).
84.
Prior to building construction, dead end mad ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4).
85.
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC 902.2.1).
86.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be:
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ).
87.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3).
88.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building..-The
numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for
suite identification on a'contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the
suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15).
89.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy" or building final, a directory display
monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home
parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which
indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire
hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall
be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation.
90.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15).
91¸.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC
Article 10).
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a .doc
43
92.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by
the alarm system. (UFC 902.4).
93.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4)
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICESDEPARTMENT
The TCSD has reviewed the aforementioned development plan and conditions the project as
follows:
General Conditions:
94.
Prior to installation of arterial street lighting, the developer shall file an application with the
TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street lighting into
the respective TCSD maintenance program.
95.
During construction, the developer shall provide temporary measures acceptable to the
Department of Public Works for the protection of the Santa Gertrudis Recreational Trail
from any silt, drainage, or other construction debris.
96
All parkway landscaping and slope areas adjacent to the development shall be maintained
by the property owner.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits:
97.
The developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment
of in-lieu fees equiyalent to 1.43 acres of parkland, based upon the City's then current land
evaluation. Said requirement includes a 50% credit for private recreational opportunities
provided on-site and shall be pro-rated at a per dwelling unit cost prior to the issuance of
each building permit requested.
Prior to Certificate of Occupancy:
98.
The developer shall provide permanent measures acceptable to the Department of Public
Works for the protection of the Santa Gertrudis Recreational Trail from silt and drainage.
OTHER AGENCIES
99.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's transmittal February 18, 1999, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or
money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by
the District), based upon the prevailing area d rainage plan fee.
100.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal January 7, 1999, a copy of which is
attached.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Districts transmittal January 11, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information
Centers transmittal January 11, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Riverside Transit Agency
transmittal January 12, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in CALTRANS transmittal
February 3, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in CALTRANS transmittal
February 17, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish' to make to' the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
R:\STAFFRP'R511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
45
DAV'D P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Febmary 18, 1999
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/955-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
Mr. Thomas Thomsley
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. ThornsIcy:
Re: PA 98-0512
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions. or other land use cases in
incorporated Cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases, or provide State
Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District
comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the
District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage
facilities which could be considered a logical component or exiension of a master plan system, and
District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general
nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following
comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed
project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue.
PA 98-0512 is a proposal for a development of a 244 unit senior apartment complex with two and
three story buildings on an 8.13 acre lot located on the northeast comer of Winchester Road and
Nicholas Road.
This project is adjacent to Santa Gertmdis Channel. The applicant should ensure that the grading of
the site would not create a levee condition in relationship to the channel. If a levee condition is
created it would jeopardize the District's CLOMR-#91-09-48R for Santa Gertrudis Channel.
Any work that involves the District's right of way, easements or facilities, will require an
encroachment permit from the District.
The City should condition the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans or other information
needed to meet FEMA requirements. This project is located within the limits of the District's
Murrieta Creeks'Santa Gertmdis Creek Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been
adopted. Applicable fees should be paid to the Flood Control District, at the time of issuance of
Mr. Thomas Thomsley
Re: PA 98-0512
February lS, 1999
Questions regarding this matter may be directed to me at 909/955-1214.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
SM:mcv
PC\55938
TO:
FROM:
Pdi:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: January. 7, 1999
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~A~lonmental Health Specialist III
PLOT PLAN NO. PA98-0512
I. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan PA98-0512 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
h)
Tkree complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture
schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food
Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022.
c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-5055
will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
·Underground. storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2).
· Waste reduction management.
3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
CH:dr
1909) 9554980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building
Plan review for final Department of EnvirOnmental Health clearance.
cc: Doug 'Fhompson
stand3b,doc
L': i t4 i 4 '.'999
Rancho
Water
Kenneth C. D~nly
Lindfi M, Frsgoso
C. Michael Cowett
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Janua~ 11,1999
Thomas Thornsley, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PORTION OF LOT NO. 181
MAP BOOK 8, PAGE 359, SAN DIEGO
APN 911-170-085 AND APN 911-170-078
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0512
Dear Mr. Thornsley:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questicns, please contact an Engineering Ser,,ices
· Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E
DevelolSment Engineering Manager
99\SB:rnc011 ~012-T6/FCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of Califomia
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
January 11,, 1999
Thomas Thomsley
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Case No.:
Applicant:
PA98-05 12
Curt Miller, Pacific Gulf Properties
Dear Mr. Thomsley:
Please find enclosed our comments for one project tnmsmittal as requested by the Planning
Department. If you have any questions, please contact the F~tern Information Center at
(909) 787-5745.
PA98-0512 ....................................... Jan. 19, 1999
S~ncerely,
Martha Smith
Information Officer
Enclosure(s)
· :, ~ jAN 12 ~999 i I,,'
3y I
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
MONO
INtO
RIVERSIDE
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology =
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418"
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW
DATE: ('7/2,~, '7-//qq~/
RE: Case Transmittat Reference Designation:
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not b~cn surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adja;ccnt to known cultural
resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended.
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study
is recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #
) identified one or more culraral resources.
The project am contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the
project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not
recommended.
~'/A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ,~e);.G ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
__ There is a low probability of cultural rr. sources. Further study is not recommended.
..L/~f, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while
a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and ,makes recommendations.
__ Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earth.moving during construct on shou d be monitored by a professional
archaeologist.
The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological
Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Of~cc of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin
4(a). December 1989,
Phase l
Phase II
Phase ill
Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource significance; preposc mitigation measures for "significant" sites.]
Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in placc, or a combination of the two.]
Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
January12,1999
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O. 80× 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909} 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
Mr. Thomas Thomsley
City of Temecula
Temecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Thornsicy:
RE: PA98-051,,[
RTA presently provides transit service on Winchester Road via RTA Route 23A. We currently do
not have a bus stop serving the area in the proposed senior apartment development site, however,
based on the size of this development and our own plans for future growth, we are requesting that
a bus turnout be incorporated into the general design. Ideal site for the bus turnout would be on
Winchester Road farside the future access driveway adjacent to the proposed Building Four.
If possible, we would also like to request that pedestrian openings be provided near the turnout
locations specified above. Paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway
consistent with ADA standards should be provided between the stop and the project site. I can
indicate the exact location for the ramout as the project progresses.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Please keep us updated on the status of this
request and should you require additional information, please call me at (909)684-0850.
Sincerely,
x~n~Cle':mente~,
Transit Planner
jsc/PDEV#248
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, 464 W, 4th STREET, 8th FLOOR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-t400
Gray Davis, Governor
February 3, 1999
08-Riv-79-R3.98
Mr. Thomas Thornsley
Assistant Planner
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Thornsley:
Planning Application No. PA98-0512
Thank you for forwarding the preliminary site and grading
plans to this office. We have completed our review of the
documents and have the following comments:
The preliminary grading plan submitted to this office
depict a median on Winchester Road (State Route 79), but does
not indicate whether that median is raised or not. Section A-A
doesn't indicate any median.
After reviewing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the State of California, Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) and the City of T~mecula which was finalized on
November 13, 1995, the proposed access driveway on the future
Care Facility parcel will onlybe allowed if the median on..
Winchester Road is in fact a raised median. In addition, 1/8
mile spacing is required for limited access driveways and shall
be right-in, right-out only.
This project may require an encroachment permit if there
is any work, including work pertaining to: access,
grading, or drainage; within, abutting or impacting the
State highway right of way. The Department of
Transportation would be a responsible agency and may
require certain measures be provided as a condition of
permit issuance.
If an encroachment permit is required, it can be
obtained from the District 8 Permits Office p~i~r t~
beginning of work. Their address and phone n~_~r~. D ,.,~.~ ~
listed below: !~ ~ ~
B
Mr. Thomas
February 3,
Page 2
Thornsley
1999
Office of Permits
California DeparEment of Transportation
464 West Fourth Street, 6th Floor, MS619
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
(909) 383-4526
If you have any questions, please conracE Jim Belty at
383-4473 or FAX (909) 383-5936.
cc:
CC:
Sincerely,
LINDA GRIMES, Chief
Office of Forecasting/
Development Review
Hideo Sugita, RCTC
Naidu Athuluru, Encroachment Permits Riv Co., D8
,
RATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCy
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, 414 W. 4th STREET, ith FLOOR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400
Gray Davis, Governor
Mr. Thomas Thornsley
Assistant Planner
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Thornsley:
February 17, 1999
08-Riv-79-R3.98
Planning Application No. PA98-0512
This letter is in response to our conversation on Tuesday,
February 16, 1999. I received your letter from the Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA) via FAX requesting a bus turnout on the
above-mentioned project.
A bus turnout will be allowed only if it meets Caltran's
approval. Please submit previously requested plans in a letter
dated February 3, 1999 from this office which includes the bus
turnout design. All previously requested items in that letter
still apply.
For sight distance safety it is recommended that PROPOSED
FAR-SIDE BUS TURNOUT ADJACENT TO BUILDING NUMBER 4, begin its
'approach taper' a minimum distance of 50' (feet).to the west
from the proposed access driveway on the propose~ future'Care
Facility property. This is very near the property line between
the Care ~acility and the Senior Apartment Complex.
This project will require an encroachment permit if
there is any work, including work pertaining to: access,
grading, or drainage; within, abutting or impacting the
State highway Right of Way. The Department of
Transportation would be a responsible agency and may
require certain measures be provided as a condition of
permit issuance.
If an encroachment permit is required,
obtained from the District 8 Permits
beginning of work. Their address
listed below:
it can be
Office prior to
and phone n!/~cr
/:' EB 19 1999
Mr. Thomas Thornsley
February 17, 1999
Page 2
(909)
Office of Permits
California Department of Transportation
464 West Fourth Street, 6th Floor, MS619
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
(909) 383-4526
If you have any questions, please contact Jim Belty at
383-4473 or FAX (909) 383-5936.
cc:
Sincerely,
LINDA GRIMES, Chief
Office of Forecasting/
Development Review
Hideo Sugita, RCTC
Naidu Athuluru, Encroachment Permits, Riv Co.,'D8
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRP"~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
46
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation (Current)
Zoning (Current)
Description of Project PA98-0511 (Zoning
Amendment, Planned Development
Overlay)
Description of Project PA98-0512
(Development Plan)
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval is
required
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Planning Application No. PA98-051.t (Zone Change, Planned
Development Overlay) and Planning Application PA98-0512
(Development Plan)
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Thomas Thornsley
(909) 694-6400
Located on the northwest corner of Nicolas Road and
Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 911-170-078,
911-170-085)
Curt Miller, Pacific Golf Properties
4220 Von Karman, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Business Park (BP)
Business Park (BP)
A request to change the land uses and development standards
on three parcels totaling 12.3 acres with a current Zoning Map
designation of Business Park (BP) by creating a Planned
Development Overlay (PDO) zone with defined uses and
development restrictions.
A proposal to develop a 244 unit senior housing complex with
two and three story apartment buildings on an 8.3 acre site.
This will be a permitted use under the PDO zone. Although the
density for the apartments is at the maximum 30 units per acre
the actual population will be less intensive than regular
apartments because each unit is likely to house only one or two
people.
The project is separated from single family homes to the north
and west by the San Gertrudis Creek (channeled), by Nicolas
Road and Chaparral High School to the south, and vacant
commercial land in Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan to the east.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health
Department, Temecula Police Departmerit, Eastern Municipal
Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern
California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company,
General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
47
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the folldwing pages.
X
X
Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
X
X
Hazards
NoiSe
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
X not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
May 13. 1999
Signature Date:
Thomas K. Thornsley
For: The City of Temecula
R:%STAFFRP'~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 48
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentjally
Significant
impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitjgation
Incorporated
Less Than
Signiticent
tmpact
No Impact
i 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
1 .a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
~ 1 .b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
1 .c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
1 .d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
1.e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including low-income or minodty
community)?
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
1 .a., c. The Zoning Amendment (ZA) is a proposal, that upon approval, creates a specialized Zoning Designation
overlaying the current Business Park (BP) zoning with Planned Development Overlay (PDO). The PDO
is confined within the City's Development Code. The impact of the ZA is e~pected to be less than
significant because the uses being permitted under the PDO will be equal to or less intensive than most
of those currently allowed under BP. The mix of uses proposed will be compatible the other commercial
designations in the vicinity with senior housing as a permitted use under the PDO.. The Development Plan
for senior apartments is also compatible with the residential uses in the surrounding area. As a
consequence, the impacts associated with this Development Plan are expected to be less than significant,
1.b ,
It is ndt anticipated that the ZA will conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The environmental impact of the proposed ZA and the proposed
Development Plan are expected to be less than significant because the PDO includes use comparable with
Business Park zoning and they are equal or less intensive uses. Impacts from all General Plan Land Use
Designations were originally analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan.
Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and
how the land uses would impact their particular agency. All agencies with jurisdiction over these projects
are now being given the opportunity to comment on them at this time. It is anticipated that they will make
the appropriate comments as to how the ZA and Development Plan relate to their specific environmental
plans or polices. The Development Plan site has been previously graded and services have been
extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or
polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the Development Plan. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
1.e
Neither the ZA nor the Development Plan will disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). It will provide for a specific housing need in the
community. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT%511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 49
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
2.a.
2.c,
Curnulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source 1, Page 2-23)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped .area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
X
X
X
Comments:
2.a.
The ZA Will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The Development Plan
will result in the construction of senior apartments. It is likely that this project will bring some people to the
City that currently live elsewhere, while some people will relocate within the City. The residential land uses
in the City have maintained their target densities j~s the have developed. Although this site has a high
potential density, the average occupancy for each apartment will be one or two persons. The proposed
development will not be a significant contributor to population growth that would cumulatively exceed
official regional or local population projections. Therefore, less that significant effects are anticipated as
a result of this project.
2.b.
2.c.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly.
The Development Plan may cause some people to relocate to Temecula, but will also accommodate the
needs of existing residents (see 2.a.), Therafore, the Development Plan will not induce substantial growth
in the area, and no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The ZA will not effect exiting housing. The Development Plan proposes senior housing which will expand
the existing housing inventory within the city.. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 50
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
Expose people to potential impacts involving?
3.b.
3.c.
3.d.
3,e.
3.f.
3.g.
3.h.
3.i.
Fault rupture? (Source 1, FigUre 7-1, Page 7-6 )
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
Landslides or mudflows? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page
7-8)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions form excavation, grading or fill?
Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page
7-8)
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
3.b., f., The ZA will not have an effect but the proposed Development Plan may expose people to some potentially
significant impacts involving seismic ground shaking and to erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. The project site is located in Southern California, an area
that is seismically active, and any potential impacts are mitigated through building construction that is
consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. In addition, this site will require fill to raise the site in
compliance with the Riverside County Flood Control District. Preliminary soil reports have been submitted
and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be
used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations
for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic
ground shaking, erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill. After mitigation measures are performed, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
3.c., g. The ZA and the Development Plan site is located within an area delineated as a liquefaction/subsidence
hazard zone. Potentially significant impacts associated with the development of this site will be mitigated
through building construction, which is consistent with Uniform Building Code.standards. In addition,
preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and
recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval prior
to the issuance of grading permits. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will be
utilized in the development of this site, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from
liquefaction. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of
this project.
3.d.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The
project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 51
3.e.
3.h.
3.i.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final
Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or
mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
This site should not be subject to expansive soils. Soils test in the general area have not indicated that
the conditions or mineral elements exist that create and/or cause there to be problems with expansive
soils. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geol;3gic features or physical
features exist on the site. No impacts are anticipated as aresuit of this project.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentjally
Significant
Potentjally Unless Less Than
Significant Mitjgatjon Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4.a.
4.c.
4.d.
4.e.
4.f.
4.g,
4.h,
4.i.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source .1, Figure 7-3,
Page 7-10; Figure 7-4, Page 7-12 and Source 5)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, 'either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater.
Otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source
2, Page 263)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
4.a.
This land ZA will not have an effect, however, the proposed Development Plan of the site will result in
changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems and the rate and amoun~ of surface runoff. While absorption
rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts will ultimately be mitigated through site design.
Drainage conveyances will be required at the time that a development proposal is proposed to safely and
adequately handle runoff that is created. The impact as a result of this project will be less than significant,
and mitigated to a level less than significant.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 52
4.b.
4.c.
4.d.,e.
This ZA will not expose people to water relat.ed hazards. The site is located in Zone A of the Temecula
Creek floodplain (areas within the 100-year floodplain) as identified by Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel
No. 060742-0005-B (November 20, 1996). As a consequence the proposed Development Plan will be
required to comply with Riverside County Flood Control measures to mitigate the development from
potential flooding hazards. This site is also located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City
of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts will be mitigated by utilizing
existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate
setvice provision as the City develops. Impacts associated with this project with respect to the threat of
flooding can be mitigated to levels that will be less than significant.
The ZA does not effect discharge into surface waters. The Development Plan for this site may have a
potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior
to issuance of a grading permit for a development proposal on this site, the developer will be required to
comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from
the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent
has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any
potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant as a result of the development of this site.
This ZA Will not effect the amounts of surface water in any water bodies nor changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water movements. The ultimate development of the site; however, may have a less
than significant impact in changes to the amount of surface water in any water body or impact currents,
or impact the course or direction of water movements. Consequently any impact as a result of the change
in land use designations is considered less than significant.
The ZA will not have any effects on ground water. The ultimate development of the site will have a less
than significant impact with respect to the change in the quantity and quality of ground waters.
issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigatjon Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
5.b.
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 3,
Page 6-11, Table 6-2)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Alter air movement, moisture OF temperature, OF cause
any change in climate?
Create objectionable odors?
X
X
X
X
Comments:
5.a
The proposed ZA will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation because the potential uses of the site are similar to uses considered in the EIR for the City's
General Plan. The proposed Development Plan will not violate nor contribute to existing or projected air
quality violations as defined by the AQMD Standards (ref. Source 3, Table 6-2) As a consequence no
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 53
5.b.,d.
The ZA will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants or objectionable odors. There is a sensitive
receptor, Chaparrel High School, adjacent to the Development Plan site. The development of this site may
create dust and/or objectionable odor during the grading and construction phas. e of the project. These
impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant over the long term. No other odors are
anticipated once the project is built and occupied. The impact as a result of this project will be less than
significant.
5.c.
Neither the proposed ZA nor the proposed Development Plan will alter air movement, moisture or
temperature, or cause any change in climate. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Signi~cent
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
6.a.
6.b.
6.c.
6.d.
6.e.
6.f,
Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses)?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source
4, Table 17.24.040, Pg. 125)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
6.a.
The changes in the allowed land uses for the PDO/ZA are of a similar nature to the uses currently allowed
and will not have an additional impacts on traffic. The development of the site will add new traffic to the
area because the site is currently vacant. However, the EI'R has already addressed the anticipated traffic
volumes generated by the development of this property under Business Park uses. Based on the trip
generation data of the General Plans Circulation Element and the project's traffic report the proposed
senior housing Development Plan has nearly half the daily trip rates of the current land uses permitted
under the Business Park designation. This location also provides the residents with convenient access to
community amenities with out the need to drive, Therefore, this project will create less traffic congestion
that previous anticipated in the Circulation Element and the EIR for the General Plan. It is anticipated that
the senior housing project will contribute a tow to three peruant (2-3%) increase in existing volumes dudng
the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Winchester Road and Nicolas
Road. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as
conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed and development impact
fees paid, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRP'r'~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc : 54
6.b.
6.c,
6.e.
6.f.
6.g.
The ZA will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The Development Plan is designed the
site to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. There
will be three points of ingress and egress to the preperh/to accommodate access and avoid increase traffic
conflicts. The internal circulation does not propose and hazards in its design. Because of the design
features contained within the project design, there will be less than significant ir:npacts as a result of this
project.
The-ZA and the Devejopment Plan will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses. This project is designed to current City standards and has three points of entry providing adequate
emergency access, No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The development of the site will provide parking and
storage for bicycles. A condition of approval of the project requires that a bus turnout be provided on
Winchester Road as requested by the Riverside Transit Authority. No impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none
exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\STAFFRPT%511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 55
Issues and Supportjng Information Sources
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
7.a.
Potentjally
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigalion
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
7.b
7.d.
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)? (Source 1, Pg. 5-15, Figure 5-3 & SOurce 4)
X
7.e.
Locally designated species (e.g.heritage trees)? (Source
1 Pg. 5-15, Figure 5-3)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
X
X
Comments:
7.a.
The project site for the ZA and the Development Plan does not lie within in an area designated by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as potential habitat for any Federally listed endangered species. This site is with
in the urbanized area of the city and has been continuously disced for weed abatement and has little
vegetation left to provide for potential habitat. As a result, no impacts are anticipated at this time.
7.b.-e. The ZA has no effect on these biological resources and the Development Plan site is currently disturbed
and undeveloped. There are no locally designated communities, wetland habitat areas, or wildlife corridors
on or around the site. As a result, no impacts are anticipated with the proposed development of this site.
R:%STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 56
issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
8.a.
8.c.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
Comments:
8,a.
8.b.
X
X
X
8.c.
Neither the ZA nor the DevelOpment Plan will impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans. The Development Plan will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy
conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be
consistent with these applicable laws. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The ZA will not effect non-renewable resources and the Development Plan will result in a less than
significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there
will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable
resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent
depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these
impacts are not seen as significant.
The ZA does not effect mineral resoumes and the Development Plan will not result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State, No
known mineral resource that Would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are
located at this project site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT%511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 57
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentjlllly
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
9.a.
9.b.
9,c.
9.d.
9.e.
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemical or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
'X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
9.a.
The ZA and the DeVelopment Plan will not result in an impact due to dsk of explosion, or the release of any
hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the
request. Development must receive clearance from the Department of Environmental Health prior to any
plan check submittal and must also receive clearance from the Fire Department prior to the issuance of
a building permit. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
9.b.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency
evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area, which could impact an emergency response
plan. The Development Plan proposes tQ take access from maintained streets and will therefore not
impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
9.c.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not result in the creation of any health. hazard or potential health
hazard. The Development Plan will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the
plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these
applicable laws. Reference response 9.a. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
g.d.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards.
No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
9.e.
ZA and the Development Plan will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project site is in an area of existing uses and proposed commercial uses. The project
is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\STAFFRPT~511~512pa98 pc2a,doc 58
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
lO.a. Increase in existing noise levels? (Source 1, page 8-9)
X
lO.b.
Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source 1,
Figure 8-5)
X
Commerlts:
lO.a.
The ZA will not have an effect on noise and Development Plan will result in a less than significant increase
to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in
increases to noise levels dudng construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long
run. Long-term noise generated by this Development Plan would be similar to existing and proposed uses
in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or
long-term.
lO.b.
The ZA will not expose people to severe noise levels. However, the Development Plan site is adjacent to
State Highway 79, (Winchester Road), which is designated on the City's General Plan as an access
restricted six-lane urban arterial roadway. Ambient noise levels 100 feet from centerline are 70.2 to 75.2
CNEL for Highway 79. This Development Plan will require an acoustical survey for noise mitigation. Site
design and building methods can mitigate the ambient noise to acceptable levels. The development of this
project may expose people to severe noise levels dudng the developmenfJ construction phase (short-term).
Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is
considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of
noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term
exposure of people to noise. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 59
Issues and Supportjng Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
11.a.
11.b.
11.c.
11.d.
i11.e.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governmental services?
X
X
X
X
X
CommeRts'
11.a.,
b.
ZA and the Development Plan will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or
altered fire or police protection. The Development Plan may consolidate seniors who are more likely to
need emergency services but will only incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection. The
development of this project will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these
entities through Development Impact Fees and increase property taxes. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
11.c.
The ZA and the Development Plan will have no impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school
facilities. The Development Plan is for senior housing and this segment of the population does not
generally generate a need for school. As a result of this project will not cause significant numbers of
people requidng schools to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need
for new or altered school-facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.d.
The ZA and the Development Plan will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public
facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax. which is
distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of CalifOrnia. Impacts to current and future needs for
maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be
considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
11 .e. The ZA and the Development Plan will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services, No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 60
Issues and Supportjng Infon'nation Sources
Potentjally
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No impact
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: Would the proposal
ReSult in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
Alterations to the following utilities:
12.a. Power or natural gas?
12.b. Communications systems?
12.c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
12.d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Pgs. 39-40)
12.e. Storm water drainage?
12.f. Solid waste disposal?
12.g. Local or regional water supplies?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CommeRts:
12,a.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not result.in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not result in a need for new systems or. supplies, or substantial
alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
12.c.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
12.d.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the Development Plan will have an
incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's
General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is
required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." It is anticipated that the
proposal to change the designation from Office to Commercial, and the limited nature of future
development under this designation, would not significantly increase the demand for systems or supplies.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.e.
The ZA and the Development Plan will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The Development Plan will need to provide some
additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for
the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
12.f.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to
solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can
be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs that are implemented
by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc 61
12.g.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not ~'esult in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
13.a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
13.b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic affect?
13.c. Create light or glare?
X
X
X
Comments:
13.a.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not affect a scemc vista or scenic highway. The project is not
located in an area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic
highways. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The
Development Plan consists of multiple apartment building in an area of mixed uses and aesthetic styling.
These buildings are consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and provide a well articulated design.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
The ZA and the Development Plan will have a less than a significant impact from light and glare. The
Development Plan will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new
light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The
Development Plan will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light
Pollution). No significant impacts are anti.cipated as a result Of this project.
R:\STAFFRP~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 62
issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentjally
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
14.a.
14.b.
14.c.
14.d.
14.e.
Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2, Fig. 15,
Pg. 70)
Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Fig. 14,
Pg. 67)
Affect historical resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
14.c.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not have an impact on historical resources. The site has been
previously graded and resources would have been disturbed at that time. No histodc resources exist at
the site or are proximate to the site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect
unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.c. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
14.e.
The ZA and the Development Plan will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 63
Issues and Supportjng Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
15.a.
15.b.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational faci(ities?
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
X
X
Comments:
15.a., b.
The ZA and the Development Plan is a residential facility that will cause some people to relocate within
or to the City of Temecula. However, this will cause only an incremental impact or increase in demand
for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities because the Development Plan for the
senior housing will provide some amenities for the tenants. Although this project will provide some
recreatbnal amenities they are required to contribute park mitigation fees. For the amenities provided
this project will therefore be conditioned to pay an adjusted rate of that fee. The same is true for the
quality or quantity of existing recreational resources for opportunities. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 64
Issues and Supporljng information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
16, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
16,a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
16,b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, t0 the disadvantage of long-term,-environmental
goals?
16.c. Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects).
16.d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
16.a-d No impacts are anticipated as a result of this ZA and the Development Plan.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
'x
X
X
X
EARLIER ANALYSES. None
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc 65
SOURCES ' '
2.
3.
4.
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat Map (compiled by the Riverside
County Transportation and Land Management Agency [TLMA] GIS Division - dated June 4, 1998)
Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 060742-0005-B (November 20, 1996)
Traffic Impact Analysis, The Fountains Senior Housing, Prepared by: Linscott, Lay, & Greenspan dated
December 21, 1998
Traffic Impact Analysis. The Fountains Senior Housing, Prepared by: Linscott, Eay. & Greenspan dated
April 21, 1999
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 66
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 67
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA98-0511 and PA98-0512
(Zoning Amendment and Development Plan for Senior Housing)
GeoloGic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes and undeveloped portions consistent with
Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by. the Department
of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or uristable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the
Development Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slopes and
undeveloped portions of the site to the Planning Department
for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils
or earthquake hazards.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial
grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2.a,doc 68
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure.of people or property to seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils
or earthquake hazards.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the
Uniform Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department
for approval.
Prior to the isSUance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage
patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not
negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage
conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will
be included on the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public
Works for approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding.
Comply with the recommendations of County Flood Control
for flood proofing the building by raising the finish floor one
foot above the stated flood level.
The applicant shall modify the grading plan and comply with
the building standards.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and building permit.
Department of Public Works and building and Safety.
R:\STAFFRP'R511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 69
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity).
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with
City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fees, which contribute to road
improvements and traffic signal installations.
Pay fees as computed by the Building Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Department of Public Works.
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee.
Pay pro-rata share for traffic impacts to be determined by the
Director of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 70
Bioloqical Resources
General Impact:
Mit!gation Measure: ·
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and
birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo
Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
An incremental effect upon and a need for new/altered
governmental services regarding fire protection. The project
will incrementally increase the need for fire protection;
however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of
service provision.
Payment of Development Impact Fees.
Pay currant mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire
Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department
An incremental effect upon and a need for new/altered schools.
No significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
R:\STAFFRP'R511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 71
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible MonitOring Party:
An incremental effect upon and a need for maintenance of
public facilities, including roads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements,
traffic impacts, and public facilities.
Pay fees computed by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Department Of Public Works.
Aesthetics
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light
and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No.
655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRP'R511-512pa98 pc2a,doc 72
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO~ 5
CORRESPONDENCE
R:\STAFFRP'~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc 73
,Phone (~19) ~42,008~
WM 11 Partners, LP
2398 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110
To: City of Temecula Planning Commission
May14,1999
From: Peter Sterling, Manager
Senior Housing Project/Winchester & Nicholas
PA 980512 and 980511
We are the current owners of the subject property where Pacific Gulf Properties is proposing to
build a senior housing complex. We strongly support this project for a number of reasons.
When we first approached the City of Temecula Planning Director and Staff regarding the most
appropriate use of the property, we were all perplexed. The existing BP zoning and permitted
uses were not ideal for many reasons, especially traffic next to the high school. In the course of
many discussions (and. given the need in the marketplace) we concluded that a seniors housing
use would be the most:suitable and have the least impact on the high school and surrounding
neighbors. Thus, it was out of careful consideration and discussions with the City that we
approached Pacific Gulf Properties.
If the senior housing use iS not permitted, we will either develop the property ourselves or sell it
to another developer. in today's market, the most likely use will be smaller industrial/
manufacturing buildings under 20,000 SF. The existing BP Zone permits uses under 20,000 SF
for the following purposes:
"Wholesaling, storage, and warehousing within enclosed building, freight handling,
shipping, truck services, and terminals, storage and wholesaling from the premises of un-
refined, raw or semi-refined products requiring further processing or manufacturing..."
The existing BP Zone also permits the following without a building size limitation:
"Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, and fabrication of goods
within enclosed building (no outside storage), such as jewelry, furniture, art objects,
clothing, labor intensive manufacturing, assembly, and repair processes which do not
involve frequent truck traffic."
Our preliminary plans indicate a BP Zone project size of between 140,000 SF and 190,000 SF. In
addition to truck docks and truck doors, we would have employee and visitor parking in excess
of 500 spaces.
Page 1 of 2
t
Any of these uses will involve significant trucking and many more cars. The hours of operation
for these industrial/manufactufing uses will conflict with the 7:00 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. school traffic.
Instead of a few seniors in cars, we will have to deal with many employees coming to work and
truck deliveries and pick-up. In addition, the concrete tilt-up construction with flat roofs and roo.f
equipment will not provide an attractive view for the neighbors above.
I sincerely hope that you will conclude, as we did, that the mgst benign and least intrusive use for
this site is a seniors housing complex. Pacific Gulf has, sincerely and in good faith, tried to
accommodate your suggestions and concerns from the last meeting. They will be good
neighbors.
Lastly, looking at the seniors for a moment, they will be within walking distance from the new
Ralphs/Rite-Aid shopping center at Margarita and Winchester as well as the Regional Mall.
They will be able to make use of the walkway along the Santa Gemdis Creek to go to and from
stopping and to just stroll along this footpath.
Pacific Gulfs revised application for a rezone to PDO (Planned Development Overlay) is the
right approach to achieve a quality senior housing project, which is the fight use for this parcel.
We thank you for your consideration.
Thank you,
WIVI 11 Partners
SPT Holdings LLC, General Partner
Peter Ste~ing
.7~~~,age~
Manager
Page 2 of 2
ARCHITECT
AIA
IS375 hrranca Pkwy,
Suite FIOT
lrvlne
Callfernia
92618-2207
949 450 T088
949 450 1072 fax
Transmittal
City of Temecula Planning D~partment
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033
Attn: Thomas Thornsley
Re: The Fountains at Temecula
Sent via: Fed 'X'
May 24, 1999
Thomas,
Enclosed with this letter are eleven folded copies of the revised preliminary design
package for The Fountains. These plans are for your distribution to the various
agencies and commissioners. The architectural site plan and landscape plan have
been changed to add the new driveway at Winchester. All other sheets within this set
are unchanged.
I recently sent you a letter which addresses the concerns of one of the Planning
Commissioners and the changes we have made to the design of the project. Please
include a copy of this response in your packages that are sent to the commissioners.
I also will be sending you eleven reduced copies of a computer generated rendering
.that we have had prepared. These will be sent in overnight delivery tomorrow.
Please include one of these in each of the commissioner's packages.
This rendering will clearly show the quality that Pacific Gulf Properties is bringing to
this project and I trust that it will help communicate the design intent to the
commissioners. We will have an enlarged version of this rendering at the Planning
Commission Meeting as well as a 'bird's eye view" rendering.
I believe this addresses all of the outstanding concerns on this project.
if you need any additional information or if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
James Mickartz
cc: file, Curt Miller
Please call me
ARCHITECT AIA
I5375.1errencm Pkwy.
Irvize
92618-2207
949 4~0 1072 fax
City of Temecula Planning Department
43200 Businsee Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033
Attn: Thomas Thornsley
Re: The Fountains at Temecula
Thomas,
April 21, 1999
We have received the comments from one of the planning commissioner' that you sent
to our office. The following are our response to these comments.
Consider relocatlng the project to another area of the site.
We have considered all areas of this property in the development of this project.
It is our belief that the site plan we have developed is the best use for the
property that is adjacent to the high school. The traffic generated by a senior
apartment project is far less than traffic generated by other potential uses.,
especially now that we have provided three driveway alternatives for our
residents. office uses. The traffic report that we are submitting will I~lentify the
greater impact by other potential uses.
Landscape median and texture paving.
The preliminary landscape plan has shown the use of interlocking textured
concrete pavers at the project entry. We have chosen to not provide a median
at this drive approach because of the increased widths that are required by the
fire department and the potential for traffic congestion at this point.
Show and Identify monumnet signs
The low level monument signs have been shown on the site plan.
and approval for these signs will be under a separate sign permit.
The design
Provide on site shuttle van parking and loading areas
We have revised the site plan to accommodate two shuffle van parking spaces
near the entry. The Entrance Lobby is within 40 feet of these spaces and we
feel it is better for our residents to wait for the shuttle buses inside the building
in a heated or air conditioned space, rather than waiting outdoors.
Provide a detail of stucco trim around the window
Please refer to the enlarged elevation on sheet #10 of this package. You will see
The Fountains at Temecula
April 21, 1999
Page Two
that it is our intention to have the windows attain a recessed appearance by
furring the walls adjacent to the windows. We will provide a plaster screed
around the windows to add detail definition. The computer generated rendering
that we will have at the Planning Commission Meeting will help illustrate this
concepL
The sandstone veneer should be used for a more complete
craftsman style,
The use of this simulated stone veneer is a costly item. A project of this type
is directed at senior citizens, most of which are on fixed incomes. We have to be
very sensitive to the budget on a project like this for this reason. It is our belief
that extra design enhancements are best to be applied to other elements in the
project i.e. increased landscaping, benches, fountains, etc.
This project makes reference to a California craftsman style through the use of
roof mateials, roof shapes and pitch as well as the overhangs and architectural
detailing. We have designed this project to be as true as it possibly can to this
style, given the nature of the buildings.
The "blank" end walls need more architectural improvements
It is our belief that the end walls are not "blank" We have added a furred base
to all of these conditions as well as stone veneer at the entrances, roof
overhangs for shadow relief and architectural brackets. The landscape is
enhanced at all locations, including these locations. There is no possiblity for
additional windows at these walls due to the limited furniture space that is
available within these Units. The three dimensional design of these areas will
be clearly illustrated in the computer generated rendering that we will have
available at the Planning Commission Meeting..
The carports need exposed wood rafter tails.
We have submitted the proposed design of the carports that we would like to
use for this project. These are the "Rustic Port" design by Baja Carports. These
carports do have rafter tails as shown in the previously submitted photographs.
As I discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, it is our belief that it is better
to not call attention to carports and let the main buildings provide the architectual
interest in the projecL
The use of tile roofs on carports is extremely cost prohibitive due to the structural
seismic requirements imposed by the added weight of roof tiles.
Identify the city approved street trees.
We have requested that the city identify the type of street trees that should be
The Fountains at Temecula
APril 21, 1999
Page Three
used along Winchester. There is a discrepency between the street trees to the
north and to the south. We are willing to install whatever trees the city
determines need to be installed.
10. Change the sycamore trees to a London plane tree.
We have changed the sycamores to London plane trees on the' revised
preliminary landscape plan.
I hope this letter and the revised site plan addresses these concerns, We will be able
to discuss these issues with the Planning Commision when we meet in May.
Please call me if you have any questions
cc.' file, Curt Miller
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc 74
CITY OF TEMECULA
./
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment) and PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 2, 1999
R:\STAFFRP'~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
-.... ,:~....~ .~ '~..~,'!*--;:.:.~..~..~'.-~- ,......:-:.-,...
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
ZONING MAP
LM
NC
LM
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 2, 1999
GENERAL PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a,doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 2, t999
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRFF\511*512pa98 pc.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 2, 1999
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
Partial North r, levation from the Porll Area
Partial South Elevation from Nicolas Road
Building One Exterior Elevations
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 2, 1999
BUILDING ONE ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT\511-512pa98 pc.doe
CITY OF TEMECULA
Paci/ic Gull Propertie~
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 2, 1999
BUILDING T~NO ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRYF\511-512pa98 pc.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
North Elevation
South Elevation Similar
West Elevatioll
Build t ~ Three E.~terior Elevations
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 2, 1999
BUILDING THREE ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT~II-512pa98 Ix:.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
m
North Elevation
South Elevation Similar
i
West Elevation
East Elevation
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 2, 1999
BUILDING FOUR ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT\511-512pa98 pc.doe
CITY OF TEMECULA
WINCHESTER ROAD
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 2, 1999
R:\STAFFRPT\511-512pa98 pc,doc
LANDSCAPE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 2, 1999
FLOOR PLANS
R:\STAFFRPT\511-512pa98 pc.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO..~A98-0512 (Development P',an)
EXHIBIT H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - Juice 2, '1999
RENDERING
F~\STAFFRPT~511-512pa98 pc2a.doc
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, If you need special assistance to participate In this meeting, please contact the
office of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-6400. Notificatten 48 ho ups pdor to a meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that mseUng [28 CFR 35.102.35,104 ADA Title Iq
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
ACTION ACENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
June 2, 1999, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Chairperson Guerriero
Fahey, Cmerriero, Naggsx, Soltysiak and Webster
Reso Next In Order #98-016
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A Wtal of 15 minutes is provLded so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that ave not listed on
the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each, If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item
not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fded with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets
to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
ACTION:
APPROVED 4-1, SOLTYSIAK ABSENT
Minutes from April 21, 1999
ACTION: APPROVED 3-1-1, FAHEY ABSTAINED, SOLTYSIAK ABSENT
Commissioner Attendance ~ Council Meetings
ACTION: RON GUERRIERO WILL ATfEND, VICE CHAIR WILL ATII;ND INHIS
ABSENCE
Public Convenience or Necessity for Trader Joe's
ACTION: APPROVED 4-1, SOLTYSIAK ABSENT
Power Center Corner Monument ~ SWC Margarita/Winchester Roads
ACTION: BRING BACK SIGN
Capital Improvement Program-Project Descriptions and Maps
ACTION: APPROVED 4-1, SOLTYSIAK ABSENT
R:\WlMBERVG\PLANCOMM\AGENDAS\I999\6-2-99.doc
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
7. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
planning Application No. PA98-0511 (Zone Change)
planning Application No. PA98-0512 (Development Plan)
CuR Miller, Pacific Goff Properties
4220 Von Karman, Newpea Beach, CA 92660
A 12.3 acre lo~ on the noahwest corner of Winchester Rood and Nicolas Road, (APN
911 - 170-078 and 085)
PA98-0511: A proposal to change the Zoning designation st this location from
Business Park (BP) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO); and, PA98.0512: A
proposal to develop a 244 unit senior' s only aFaranent complex with a two and three
three story buildings on an 8.3 acres of the 12.3 acre site.
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Thomas Thomsley
Approval
APPROVED 3-1-1, NAGGAR OPPOSED, SOLTYSIAK ABSENT
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Next regular meeting:
June 16, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California
R:\V, qlvlBl~,VG\PLANCOM/d\AGENDAS\I999\6-2-99.doc
2