HomeMy WebLinkAbout100699 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
October 6, 1999, 8:00 PM
43200 Businert Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92590
Resolution Next In Order 199-037
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Guerriem
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Guerdero, Mathewson, Nagger, and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that
are not listed on the Agende. Speakers am limited to three (3) minute 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 ~led out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come fortNard and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Ranning Seoreta~ before
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
m
Minutes from September 1, 1999
Minutes from September 15, 1999
3. Director's Hearing Update
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Project Planner:.
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA99-0128 (Development Plan)
Growth Management Company
Parcel 28 of Parcel Map 21382 (north side of Rio Nedo, between Calle
Empleado and Via Industria)
Construct a 19,691 + sq. ft indust~al building on a 1.02 acre parcel zoned
for "Light Industrial" development
Exempt
Steve Griffin
Approval
F:'~Dl~PTS~PLANNING\wint~rvi~plar~omm~ndas%1999XI0-6-99.do¢
1
5. Case
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Plannen
Recommendation:
Planning Applioation No. PA99-0284 (Development Plan)
Planning ApplicaUon No. PAgS~3286 (TentaUve Parcel Map No.
29431)
Planning ApplicaUon No. PA99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA99-0283 (Development Agreement)
Del 8ol Investment Company, LLC
North of State Highway 79 South. south of Montelegro Way, east of
Margadta Road and west of Meadows Parkway
1. The design, construction and operation of 276,243 square feet of
retail commercial uses, including a 132,646 square foot Home
Depot Store, a 7,000 square foot automotive supply store, and
136,597 square feet of village shopping space;
2. The subdivision of 66.828 gross acres into seven CO lots;
3. Amendment No. 7 to Spedtic Plan No. 219 (Paloma dal 8ol),
amending the following: land uses within Planning Areas 1,6 and 8;
the realignment and reconfiguration of Campanula Way between De
Podola Road and Meadows Parkway; the allocation of acreage
within Planning Area 1 from 32.3 acres to 35.0 acres; the allocation
of acreage within Planning Area 6 from 36.3 to 34.3 acres; the
division of Planning Area 6 into Planning Area 6A (22.3 acres, high
density residential, 9-12 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum of
268 dwelling units) and Planning Area 6B (12 acres, very high
density residential, 13-20 du/ac, with a maximum of 240 dwelling
units), resulting in an overall reduction of units from 590 to 508
dwellings; the development of an active, pdvate, gated senior
community within Planning Area 8 that includes a pdvate recreation
area; and an update of Design Guidelines that incorporate the
village vignettes and the senior amenities.
4. The request for approval of a Development Agreement between the
City and del Sol Investment Co., LLC, a limited liability company
Addendum to previously certified Environmental Impact Report
No. 235 for Spedtic Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol)
Carole K. Donahoe
Recommend Approval for Planning Application No. PA99-0285 and
Planning Application No. PA99.0283
Approve Planning Application No. PA99.0284 and Planning Application
No. PA99-0286
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
October 20, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590
F:~DEFl~\PLANNINO\wimb~rvgXplan~ommXagendas\1999\10-6-99.do~
2
ITEM #2
MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M.,
on Wednesday September 1, 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:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
t. Am}roval of A~lenda
Commissioners Mathewson, Naggar, Webster, and
Chairman Guerriero.
Commissioner Fahey.
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Diaz,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Project Planner Griffin, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
Chairman Guerriero recommended that Agenda item No. 4 be considered prior to
Agenda Item No. 3.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda, as revised. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent
2. Approval of Minutes-Auqust 4, 1999
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes, as written. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Fahey who was ,absent.
R: PlanCommlminutes/090199
3. Planninq Application No. PA98-0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12)
Proposal for a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment covering the
557-acre site. The proposed Specific Plan includes a maximum of 2,60t
dwelling units (overall density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre), or a maximum
of 2,144 dwelling units and three school sites (3.8 dwelling units per acre
density), 20 acres of commercially zoned property, roadways totaling 29
acres, public facilities and a private recreation center on 5 acres, a 14-acre
community park, and a variety of parks, drainage greenbelt, roadway
paseos and linear park totaling 35 acres.
This Agenda Item was heard out of order. See page 3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Plannin¢l Al~l~lication No. PA99-0128 (Develol3ment Plan)
Request to construct a t9,691 square foot industrial building on a t .02-acre
parcel zoned for "Light Industrial."
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
By way of overheads, Project Planner Griffin presented the staff report (of record));
referenced the supplemental agenda matedal [denoted as Revised Project Statistics for
the GMC project (PA99-0128)], noting the modification to the project statistics; reviewed
the landscape and architectural design plan. noting the enhancements; relayed the
applicant's request for a ten percent (10%) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase, specifying
the criteria requirements; for Commissioner Naggar, provided additional information
regarding the criteria for a FAR increase met by this particular proposal, specifying the
enhanced architectural and landscape design plans; for Commissioner Mathewson,
further specified the patio design inclusive of the grooved colored concrete divided into
12 inch squares; and noted that it was standard procedure to include the area within the
public right-of-way in the landscape plan, noting the process of developing the
calculations.
Mr. Shane Shaw, representing the applicant, applauded the planning staff, and
specifically, Project Planner Griffin, for their diligent efforts associated with this particular
project; clarified the rationale for the request for the FAR increase; for Commissioner
Naggar, relayed that there was a potential buyer for the use; for Commissioner
Mathewson, relayed the significance of the FAR increase for this particular project,
noting the additional enhancements added to the project.
The applicant's landscape architect provided a brief overview of the landscape plan; and
provided further specification regarding the decorative concrete tiles.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that in his opinion this particular project did not meet
the standards required for the FAR increase requested.
R: PlanCommlrninutes/090199
With respect to the cdteria for FAR increase, Commissioner Webster specified the
examples set forth in the Design Guidelines, as follows: I) variation on the building
setbacks in order to reduce the effect of the long blank walls, 2) provision of additional
texture on the walls (i.e.. variant textures, sandblasting), and 3) true architectural
enhancement features (i,e., addition of cornices or trim elements); and recommended
that this particular project incorporate vadous elements specified in order to qualify the
project for the FAR increase.
Commissioner Naggar and Chairman Guerriero relayed their concurrence with the
previous Commission comments.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to
Commissioner Naggar seconded the motion.
withdrawn.)
deny the project, as proposed.
(This motion was ultimately
Planning Manager Ubnoske recommended that the Commission continue the project in
order for the applicant to address the comments of the Commission with respect to the
criteria for the FAR increase.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue the project to an October
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was
absent.
At this time the meeting continued back to Agenda Item No. 3.
3. Planning3 Application No. PA98-048t (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12)
Proposal for a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment covering the
557~acre site. The proposed Specific Plan includes a maximum of 2,60'1
dwelling units (overall density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre), or a maximum
of 2,'144 dwelling units and three school sites (3.8 dwelling units per acre
density), 20 acres of commercially zoned property, roadways totaling 29
acres, public facilities and a private recreation center on 5 acres, a 14-acre
community park, and a variety of parks, drainage greenbelt, roadway
paseos and linear park totaling 35 acres.
Although this issue was not a public hearing item, Commissioner Naggar queried
whether the Commission should hear public comments on this issue due to the vast
amount of community members present.
Having attended a previous community public workshop with respect to this issue,
Chairman Guerriero listed the comments and concerns of the community previously
relayed regarding this particular project, as follows: densities of the project, traffic,
commercial aspects of the project, the width of Pala Road after the proposed
improvements are complete, access, locations of the schools, views of the schools from
the neighboring backyards; and queried the community whether there were any
additional issues the public desired to be addressed; and the following issues were
added: potential for an apartment complex within the project, additional information
regarding the proposed Fire Department, seismic studies, impact of noise generated
from additional traffic on Loma Linda Road, and drainage.
R: PlanComm/rninutes/090199
By way of overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe provided a brief overview of the
proposed project (of record); noted that the formal application for this project would be
brought before the Commission in approximately a month; and introduced the project
representatives who would provide the informational presentation, and the School
District representatives who were available for Commission querying.
Mr. William Griffith, representing the applicant, relayed the history of the Spring Pacific
Properties Company with respect to the successful development of alternate master
planned communities; relayed the goal of the applicant to work with staff and the
community to address the expressed concerns; relayed the family-oriented design of the
project; and noted that he would be available for questions after the presentation.
Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, provided a detailed presentation of the
proposed project; specified the site location inclusive of the adjacent properties and
roadways (existing and proposed); provided additional information regarding the site
elevation, drainage, seismic data. landscaping, and access; relayed the consistency with
the General Plan with respect to this particular project. specifying the densities, and the
Village Center design of the commercial area; provided additional information regarding
the existing and proposed drainage plan, and the associated channel improvements;
noted the connecting links from the residential areas to the commercial centers. and to
the parks; specified the amenities, specifically citing the proposed parks, as follows: 1) a
14oacre community park, 2) a neighborhood park, and 3) a linear park, inclusive of three
activity centers; relayed the location of the proposed elementary, middle, and high
school sites (and the associated access); noted the location of the ballfields; provided
additional information regarding the two commercial centers; presented an overview of
the residential areas, inclusive of the variance in densities and the location for the multi-
family housing units; specified the fault zone and the seismic conditions; clarified the
view of the site from the adjacent properties; and specified the reduction in densities on
the site plan from the allowable densities for this particular area per the Development
Code.
Mr. Burnell addressed the comments of the Commission, as follows:
For Chairman Guerriero provided additional information regarding the higher density
uses and the multi-family area, noting the potential future uses; relayed the potential
for a senior's project facility; further specified the potential uses for the commercial
centers, differentiating between the type of uses for the neighborhood and the
community-type commercial centers; and noted that the project's development would
most likely span over a ten-year period.
For Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the estimated population at build-out
would be between 6,000 and 7,000 residents; noted that the drainage channel
improvements were not included as part of the parkland requirements, specifying the
sites that would be included in the parkland requirements, as follows: 1) the minor
contribution to Kent Hindergardt Memorial Park, 2) the 14-acre park in the center
location, 3) the neighborhood park, 4) the linear park inclusive of its activity nodes,
and 5) partial credit would be given for the private recreational facility (per the City
standard); noted that the improvements to Kent Hindergardt Memorial park would be
to expand the parking provisions; with respect to the proposed 4,000 square foot lots
in the Low Medium Density area. relayed that further detail would be provided at a
R: planCommlminutes/090199
future point in time in order to provide additional specific.~tion; and relayed additional
information regarding the location and size of the propos-d parks.
For Commissioner Webster, relayed that Pala Road would be striped as a four-lane
road. initially, with the capacity of provision for a six-lane road; and confirmed that
the community facility site would permit a library use.
For Commissioner Naggar, provided further specification with respect to the location
of the multi-family area, and the 256 proposed Courtyard homes; with respect to the
widening of Pala Road and the associated potential noise impact for the adjacent
residents, relayed the mitigating effect of the existing block wall. landscaping, and
sloping; noted that there most likely were acoustical studies performed at the time of
development of the existing residential area that would have addressed the ultimate
build-out of the road; specified that the controlled intersections would be the
recommended crossing points over Pala Road; relayed that the community park
would be a lighted park, noting the potential for the middle school to have a lighted
field if at a future point in time there was a joint use agreement with TCSD; with
respect to the proposed Fire Department location, noted that the pad was currently
paved with provision of utilities; and provided additional information with respect to
the proposed channel and the associated drainage issues.
For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional
information regarding the proposed additional crossing over Temecula Creek, noting that
at this time this particular project would not be required to participate in the Temecula
Creek Bridge Project.
In response to Commissioner Naggar. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided
additional information regarding the Pala Road Improvements Project, clarifying that the
associated environmental mitigation would address any noise impacts.
Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson, Commissioner Naggar relayed concern
regarding the Low Medium density areas, specifically with respect to the proposed 4,000
square foot lots; and relayed his preference over the proposed Courtyard resident
dwellings in lieu of apartments, reiterating the concern of the residents.
Ms. Janet Dixon, representing the School District, noted that there was a 1,000 square
foot distance between the proposed high school site and the Pechanga property; relayed
the area that would encompass students attending the new high school; for Chairman
Guerriero, confirmed that the middle school would be proposed to open in the year 2001,
and the high school in 2002; noted the School Districrs policy regarding bussing high
school students at a radius of 2.5 miles; specified the distance between the residential
area and the school sites, noting the height of the proposed school buildings; for
Commissioner Naggar, relayed the designation at the high school site for a future pool,
noted the various amenities the high school would provide, as follows; 1 ) a multi-purpose
room with a 1200 person seating capacity, 2) a triple-sized gymnasium, and 3)
installation of surveillance cameras; advised that it was not unusual for students to cross
four-lane roads in order to access school sites; for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed
that eighty percent (80%) of the students attending the high school would be coming
from east of Pala Road, noting the access; relayed that she would obtain additional
information regarding the location of the proposed lighted stadium at the high school
site; relayed the access points to the middle school; advised that the School District
R: planCommlminutes/090'199
would not need provision of lighteel fields at the middle school; in response to
Commissioner Webster's querying whether the location of the middle school could be
sited adjacent to Wolf Valley Road in lieu of Pala Road, provided additional information
regarding the proposed site location.
Commissioner Naggar relayed concern regarding locating the high school in close
proximity to the Pechanga Casino, requesting that the School District further investigate
the issue.
For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero relayed the vast and efficient security
program that the Pechanga site maintains.
Mr. Camille Bahri, representing Spring Pacific Properties, for Commissioner Mathewson,
relayed additional information regarding the site design of the high school, and the
feasibility to slightly modify the location of the stadium; in response to Commissioner
Webster's comments, provided clarification with respect to the carrying capacity of Loma
Linda and Pala Roads, after the improvements are complete; provided additional
information regarding the access to the proposed middle school site; relayed that there
would be provision of protected bus drop-off points; and provided further specification
with respect to the traffic analysis and the proposed location of the school sites.
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Griffith relayed that line-of-sight diagrams could
be provided to demonstrate the view from the residential area to the school sites.
The architect for the School District was available for questions and comments from the
Commission.
Initially, Commissioner Webster relayed the following comments: with respect to the
location of the proposed high school in the proximate area of the Pechanga property,
noted that the casino is currently located at the existing location temporarily and could
be relocated at a future point in time; regarding the distance separation requirement,
recommended addressing whether or not the requirement applies to a sovereign tribe. or
to a use that sells alcohol; recommended investigating further the location of the
southern property owned by the Pechangas and the distance relationship with that
property.
For Commissioner Naggar, Chairman Guerriero relayed that the Pechanga Casino use
does not serve alcohol on a regular basis, but solely by the use of special permitting.
At 7:59 P.M. A short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 8:16 P.M.
Mr. Peter Lucia, representing the Wolf Valley Homeowners Association, relayed concern
regarding the following: 1) the noise impact due to the additional traffic generated on
Loma Linda and Pala Roads, 2) provision for bike lanes on Pala Road, 3) opposition to
the small lot sizes proposed in the Low Medium density area, and 4) queried the type of
permitted uses in the commercial center within the residential area.
6
R: PlanCommlminutes/090199
The Commission relayed their concluc;ine remarks.
Commissioner Webster relayed the following:
With respect to the Design Guidelines within the Specific Plan, recommended
that there be detailed design requirements consistent with the City's
Development Code.
Relayed his preference for a pedestrian-oriented community, commending the
Village Center Design of the commercial centers; recommended installation of
parkways in lieu of constructing sidewalk curbs.
Recommended provision of a preliminary master tentative map in order to review
the street layouts, ensuring provision of adequate pedestrian linkages, and to
examine the length of the resident roadways.
With respect to the lot design, recommended provision of a variety of lot sizes,
with alternate lot configurations; and suggested installing alleyways.
Regarding the size of lots and the square footage of the dwellings, recommended
development of an equitable Floor Area Ratio to ensure that a proper scale is
utilized.
Recommended investigating the feasibly of further separating the commercial
centers in order to maintain a proximate walking distance for the residents.
Relayed concern with the location of the middle school site; recommended
locating the site adjacent to Wolf Valley Road due to the speed of traffic on Loma
Linda Road.
Recommended placement of the housing garages away from the streets.
Chairman Guerriero relayed the following:
Recommended installation of additional loop roads.
Concurred with Commissioner Webster's recommendation to place the garages
at the rear of the lots.
With respect to lighting the fields, recommended provision of informational data
regarding the use of non-glare lighting in order to allay the concerns of the
residents.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed the following:
Relayed concurrence with Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the
development of the lot design.
7
R: PlanComrn/rn~nutes/090199
Commissioner Naggar relayed the following:
Expressed concurrence with the previous Commis~-ion comments, relaying that
he had no additional comments other than those previously mentioned.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Gdffith relayed additional information regarding the
subsidence issues; noted that additional data would be included as part of the geology
report associated with the project; and relayed that the County geologist had reviewed
the issue, as well.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Planning! Al~nlication No. PA99-0'128 (Development Plan)
Request to construct a 19,691 square foot industrial building on a 1.02-acre
parcel zoned for "Light Industrial."
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 2.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
With respect to the previous querying regarding bicycle parking ratio calculations,
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff is further investigating the issue,
and would update the Commission at a future point in time.
Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the Home Depot issue would be
presented to the Commission at the September 15, 1999 Planning Commission
meeting.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Naggar, echoed by Commissioner Mathewson, relayed concern
regarding the view from Margarita Road of the loading zones at the Power
Center.
Commissioner Naggar commented on the Director's Hearing Item regarding an
alternate Large Family Daycare use.
For Commissioner Naggar, Planning Manager Ubnoske updated the Commission
with respect to the Border Restaurant mural issue.
Via overheads, Chairman Guerriero relayed concern with respect to the visual
blighting due to the location and number of newspaper stands in the public right-
of-way.
8
R: PlanCommlminutesl090199
Attorney Diaz provided information with regard to the legal restrictions associated
with regulating newsstands.
With respect to the newsstands, Commissioner !'."aggar relayed the issues that
could be regulated, as follows: 1) the distance from the curb, 2) the number of
bundling of the racks together, and 3) the condition of the racks.
For the record, Chairman Guerriero stated that the low height of the tennis court
fences in the Portofino project creates an unsafe condition for the City with the
potential of having tennis balls enter the roadway.
Commissioner Webster relayed that he would be unable to attend the September
15, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:45 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday,
September t5, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
9
MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 15, 1999
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTf:MBER 15, t999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:15 P.M.,
on Wednesday September 15, 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 Mathewson.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, and Vice Chairman
Naggar.
Absent:
Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Webster.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Cudey,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Project Planner DeGange,
Project Planner Thornsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADDroval of A~lenda
Vice Chairman Naggar recommended that the Agenda be revised, and that the
Commission consider the Agenda Items in the following order: Agenda Item No. 7 would
be heard second, Agenda Item No. 4 would be considered third, Agenda Item No. 6 be
considered fourth, Agenda Item No. 3 considered fifth, Agenda Item No. 5 considered
sixth, and Agenda Item No. 2 would be heard last.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve the agenda, as revised. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval With the
exception of Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Webster who were absent.
R:PlanComm/minutes/091599
2. Approval of Minutes-August 18, 1999
This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 7.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Planning Application No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Parcel Map) and PA99-0238
(Development Agreement)
Request to subdivide 6.31 acres of land into twenty-four (24) residential
lots and Planning Application Development Processing Coordinator No.
PA99-0238 is a request for a Development Agreement to allow a minimum
five (5) foot side yard setback.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that
Commission approve the request.
This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 6.
the Planning
Planning Al~l~lication No. PA99-0273 (Development Agreements between
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department
Commission approve the request.
This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 7.
Planning Apl~lication No. PA99-0274 (Development Aclreement)
Request to approve a Development Agreement with Eli Lilly & Company.
that the Planning
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning
Commission approve the request.
This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 4.
5.
Department that the Planning
Pala Rainbow LLC and the City of Temecula)
Request to approve a Development Agreement with Pala Rainbow LLC
R:planCornrn/minutes1091599
6. Planning Al~l~lication No. PA99-0215
Request to amend No. 4 to Vesting Tentative Tract map 24187 (A
subdivision of 72.9 acres into 256 single-family detached residential lots
and nine open space lots.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 5.
Plannin¢l ADl~lication No. PA99-0284 (Develol~ment Plan) and Planning
Al~l~lication No. PA99-0286 (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431 )
t. Request to design, construct and operate a 276,243 square feet of retail
commercial uses, including a 132,646 square foot Home Depot Store, a
7,000 square foot automotive supply store, and 136,597 square feet of
village shopping space;
2. Request to subdivide 66.828 gross acres into seven (7) lots;
3. Request to Amend Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma
del Sol), amending the following: land uses within Planning Area 1, 6,
and 8; the realignment and reconfiguration of Campanula Way between
De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway; the allocation of acreage
within Planning Area I from 32.3 acres to 35.0 acres; the allocation of
acreage within Planning Area 6 from 36.3 to 34.3 acres; the division of
Planning Area 6 into Planning Area 6A (22.3 acres, high density
residential, 9-12 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum of 268
dwelling units) and Planning Area 6B (12 acres, very high density
residential, 13-20 dulac, with a maximum of 240 dwelling units),
resulting in an overall reduction of units from 590 to 508 dwellings; the
development of an active, private, gated senior community within
Planning Area 8 that includes a private recreation area; and an update
of Design Guidelines that incorporate the village vignettes and the
senior amenities.
4. Request for approval of a Development Agreement between the City
and del Sol Investment Co., LLC, a limited liability company.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue the matter to the September 29,
1999 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the excel~tion of Chairman Guerriero
and Commissioner Webster who were absent.
At this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 4.
R:PlanCommlminutes1091599
Planning Application No. PA99-0273 (Development Agreements between
Pala Rainbow LLC and the City of Temecula)
Request to approve a Development Agreement with Pala Rainbow LLC
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
By way of overheads, Attorney Curley presented the staff report (of record); noted the
modifications to the proposed Agreement, as follows: 1) in Section 14.5, on page 15,
subsection B.1 entitled Easement Quit Claim, noted that additional language would be
added stating that the City will prosecute the completion, inclusive of the street vacation.
2) on page 16, in subsection C, entitled Conveyances to City from Owner, noted that this
portion of the Agreement will be removed, 3) there would be added an additional right-
of-way that the property owner has agreed to convey [specifically twelve feet (12') on
each side] in order to attain the width required for the improvements, and 4) on page 5,
Section 2.2.3 entitled Term the language will be modified to reflect a period of ten (fO)
years in lieu of the stated period of five (5) years; for Commissioner Mathewson,
provided additional information regarding the determination of the length of the 10-year
Agreement; for Vice Chairman Naggar, clarified the terms of the Development
Agreement, specifying the proposed scope of development in per the Agreement for a
future point in time, in accordance with the existing zoning districts; and relayed the legal
specifications with regard to the Development Agreement.
In response to Commissioner Fahey's recommendation, Attorney clarified the process of
development of a Development Agreement and the associated role of the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
Commissioner Fahey provided additional information regarding the purview of the
Planning Commission with respect to this proposal.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley provided additional information
regarding the issues for analysis of the Commission, notin9 that the Commission could
provide comments on any portion of the Agreement; for Vice Chairman Naggar, relayed
additional information regarding the ten-year length of the Agreement.
With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's querying with respect to page 14, Section
4.3.3 subsection A (regarding the zero foot lot line) Attorney Curley provided additional
information, noting that this allowance was not a grant of right but would take place
solely via the determination of Deputy City Manager Thornhill; with respect to subsection
B (regarding a landscape credit for a portion of the wetland mitigation area) provided
clarification with respect to the restrictions of the Agreement, noting that this credit would
be granted via the discretion of Deputy City Manager Thornhill.
Mr. Phil Oberhansley, representing Pala Rainbow LLC. was available for questions and
comments.
R:planComm/minutes/091599
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the pub;;,, hearing; adopt Resolution
No. 99-033 approving/recommending approval of Plannine; Application No. PA99-0273
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Stair Report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval; and to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA99-0273.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-033
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CiTY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AND PALA RAINBOW, LLC FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND PALA ROAD (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0273)
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Webster who were
absent.
At this time, the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 6.
6. Planninq Application No, PA99-0215
Request to amend No. 4 to Vesting Tentative Tract map 24187 (A
subdivision of 72.9 acres into 256 single-family detached residential Iota
and nine open space lots.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
Project Planner DeGange provided an overview of the proposal (per staff report),
highlighting location, densities, and lot sizes; provided the rationale for the applicanrs
request for modification due to a shift in the home market; and specified the proposal to
increase the size of the lots.
At this time Vice Chairman Naggar closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve staffs recommendation. (This
motion ultimately died for lack of a second.)
For Commissioner Mathewson, Vice Chairman Naggar reopened the public hearing, and
invited the applicant's representative to the podium.
Mr. Dean Meyer, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified the
request for the larger lot sizes.
At this time Vice Chairman Naggar closed the public hearing.
R:PianComm/minutes/091599
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to have made a Determination of Consistency
with the project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified
and findings that a subsequent EIR was not required; and to adopt Resolution No. 99-
034 approving Planning Application No. PA99-0215 (Amendment No. 4 to Vesting
Tentative Tract map No. 24187), based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-034
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0215 (AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24187),
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79
SOUTH WITHIN THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC
PLAN (SP-4) (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 955-
030-009, -030, AND -028).
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson.
Vice Chairman Naggar applauded the developer for the proposed request to enlarge the
lot sizes.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception Chairman
Guerdero and Commissioner Webster who were absent.
At 6:46 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 7:09 P.M.
Vice Chairman Naggar advised that he would be abstaining with regard to Agenda item
Nos. 3 and 5.
Due to the lack of a quorum with regard to Agenda Item Nos. 3 and 5, Attorney Curley
relayed that the matters would be continued to the September 29,1999 Planning
Commission meeting.
At this time, the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 3.
Plannin¢l Application No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Parcel MaD) and PA99-0238
(Development Aclreement)
Request to subdivide 6.31 acres of land into twenty-four (24) residential
lots and Planning Application Development Processing Coordinator No.
PA99-0238 is a request for a Development Agreement to allow a minimum
five (5) foot side yard setback.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
6
R:PlanComm/rninutes1091599
Commissioner Naggar advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue.
Due to the lack of a quorum this matter was continued to the September 29, 1999
Planning Commission meeting.
At this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 5.
5. Planninq ADI}lication No. PA99-0274 {Development A~lreement)
Request to approve a Development Agreement with Eli Lilly & Company.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
Commissioner Naggar advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue.
Due to the lack of a quorum this matter was continued to the September 29, 1999
Planning Commission meeting.
2. Al~proval of Minutes-Auclust 18, 1999
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the minutes, as written. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Webster who were absent.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that provision of a memorandum detailing
the specification of the bicycle parking calculations had been provided to the
Commissioners.
B. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the Planning Commission Tour of the City
would be held Tuesday, September 21, 1999 at 10:00 A.M.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
A. Commissioner Mathewson commended staff for their diligent efforts with respect
staff report prepared for the August 31, 1999 City Council meeting, regarding the
issue he represented to the Council.
R:PlanComrnlrninutes/091599
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:15 P.M. Vice Chairman Naggar formally adjourned ~nis meeting to Wednesday,
September 29, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
ITEM #3
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
October 6, 1999
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for August, 1999:
Date Case No.
August 5, 1999 PA99-0294
August 12, 1999
August19,1999
August19,1999
PA99-0113
PA99-0248
PA99-0249
· ,,. ProPosal
To operate a micro-
brewery and
restaurant in an
existing building
To operate a billlard
and dart club
(relocation of an
existing facility)
Product review for
two different product
types, both known as
Chantemar Estates.
Product review for
four different plans
ranging in square
footage from 2,005
to 2.469 which
consists of 138 lots
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 3
Applicant
Ned Montgomery
High Society Billiards
Woodside Homes
Woodside Homes
Action
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DEPTS\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\MEMO\I999~August 1999.memo.doc
1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
\~TEMEC_FSIOBVOLI\DEFrS\PLANNING\DIRI-IEAR\MEMO\I999',August 1999.memo.doe
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARiNG
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 5, 1999 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43:200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 9:2590
CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three i3) minutes each,
If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARiNG
1, Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Application No. PA99-0294 (Minor
Use Permit)
Ned Montgomery
41915 3~ Street (Old Town) on the southwedt comer of 3~ and
Mercedes Streets
To operate ~. micro-brewery and restaurant in an existing
building.
Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a).
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
John Pourkazemi
Approval
APPROVED
P:\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\1999\8-5-99.AGENDA.cloc
1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA D!RECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 12, 1999 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Application No. PA99-0113 (Minor Conditional Use
Permit)
High Society Billiards and Dart Club, Mike McMillen, owner
27496 Commerce Center Drive, Unit C, at the northeast comer
of Commerce Center Drive and Overland Drive
To operate a billiard and dart club (relocation of an existing
facility at 27309 Jefferson Avenue)
Exempt per CEQA Section 15301
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Clement Jimenez, Assistant Engineer
Approval
APPROVED
\\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\USERPUBL\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\I999\8-12-99.AGENDA.doc
1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIR_ECTOR'S HEA_oJNG
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 19, 1999 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA99-0248 (Development
Plan - Product Review)
Woodside Homes
North of North General Kearny Road and east of Margarita
Road in Planning Axea 8 and 9 of the Campos Verdes
Specific Plan, adjacent to the existing Meadow View
Development.
Product Review for two different product types, both known
as Chanetmar Estates. One product type is in Planning Area
8 and consists of 39 lots. This product offers three different
elevations that range in size from 2,816 square feet to 3,727
square feet with various options.
The second product consists of 19 lots that are estate homes
adjacent to Meadow View in Planning Area 9. This product
offers three different elevations that range in size from 4,040
square feet to 5,845 square feet with various options,
including a second unit or "Cassita" option of 378 square feet.
Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3).
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
Approval
APPROVED
P:\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\I999\8-19-99.AGENDA.dOC
1
Case No:
Applicant.
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA99-0249 (Development Plan
- Product Review)
Woodside Homes
The area at the northwest comer of Butterfield Stage Road and
De Portola Road in Paseo del Sol Specific Plan, Planning
Area I0.
Product review for four different plans r.anging in square
footage from 2,005 to 2,469 which consists of 138 lots.
Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3).
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
P:\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\I999\8-19-99.AGENDA.cloc
2
ITEM #4
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEr'ARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
October 6, 1999
Planning Application No. PA99-0128: Development Plan for 17,841
square foot industrial building on 1.02 acres located at 42600 Rio Nedo
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Steve Griffin, Project Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning Application No.
PA99-0128 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein, and
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0128
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines
Backaround
This application was odginally considered by the Planning Commission on September 1, 1999. At
that time, the proposal included a request to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by 10% beyond
the target FAR specified in the Development Code - from 0.40 to 0.44 FAR. The request was based
on the proposition that the project exhibited exceptional architectural and landscape design.
The Commission expressed concem that the project did not exhibit the exceptional level of design
that would support the requested increase in FAR and voted to continue consideration of the project
to the meeting of October 6, 1999,
The proposal has since been modified to reduce the floor area by 1,850 square feet and the project
now complies with the 0.40 target FAR specified in the Code. The floor area has been reduced by
eliminating an intedor mezzanine level and therefore the building envelop and site plan have not
changed. The following changes have been made to the appearance of the project:
Landscape Plan:
Twc spedmen Canary Island Date Palms formerly proposed on either side of the project entry drive
have been replaced with two Queen Palms to match those used at other locations on the site.
Elevations:
Two upper-level horizontal rows of windows - one row on the southerly front elevation, and one row
on the easterly parking lot elevation - have been deleted. These were originally intended to serve
the former mezzanine level.
Two horizontal rows of spandrel (false) windows, one over the other on the westerly podion of the
front elevation, have also been deleted.
Other than these modi~cefions and the reduction in the FAR, the project has not changed. The
revised Project Statistics are as follows:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscaped Area:
Parking/Paved Area:
Lot Coverage:
Target Floor Area Ratio:
Proposed Floor Area Ratio:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
44,567 sq. ft. (1.02 acres)
17,841 sq. ft. (40% of site)
10,785 sq. ft. (24% of site)
15,941 sq. ft. (36% of site)
17,941 sq. ft. (40% ofsita)
17,941 sq. ft. (0.40 FAR)
17,941 sq. ft. (0.40 FAR)
29 spaces, plus 1 motoroyde & 4 bicycle spaces
34 spaces, plus 1 motorcycle & 4 bicycle spaces
25 feet high
Note: The required parking is based on the proposal to provide 1,850 square feet of office, 4,800
square feet of manufacturing, and 11,191 square feet of warehousing.
Planning Staff finds that the project as modified meets or exceeds all of the standards called for in
the Development Code, and is consistent with all applicable City polides and design guidelines. Staff
is therefore recommending approval based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
in the attached resolution.
Attached is the Planning Commission Resolution with the Conditions of Approval and revised project
exhibits. Please note that Exhibit I shows the previous building elevations. Also attached is a copy
of the September 1, 1999, staff repod (without attachments). Please refer to that report for a full
discussion of the project.
F:~DEPTS~PLANNINO'r,n-i~ms\I28PA99.GMC 10-6 St,d~Memo.(Ioc
2
Attachments
1, PC Resolution Blue Page 7
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
2. Exhibits Blue Page 20
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Grading Plan
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plan
H. Landscape Plan
I. Previous Elevations
J.
3. Staff Report from the meeting of September 1, 1999 Blue Page 29
F:XDEPTS~PLANNINOXCffiffm.\I28pA99,OMC 10-6 StaffMffao,doc
3
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
F:\DEpTS\PLANNING~Gdffins',128PA99.GMC Staff Repo~ (revised).doc
7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA99-0128, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 17,841 SQUARE FOOT
BUILDING ON 1.02 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
RIO NEDO BETWEEN CALLE EMPLEADO AND VIA INDUSTRIA
AND KNOWN AS PARCEL 28 OF PARCEL MAP 21328
WHEREAS, Growth Management Company filed Planning Application No. PA99-0128, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0128 was processed, including but not limited
to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0128 on
September 1.1999, 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, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing and consideration of
Planning Application No. PA99-0128 to the meeting of October 6, 1999
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA99-0128.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA99-0128 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section
17.05.010. F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (BP)
Business Park development in the City of Temecula General Plan, and the standards for (LI) Light
Industrial development contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly
planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of industrial
development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the CityWide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and
other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety
of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for and as conditioned has
been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations
intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare.
C. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\Gdffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
8
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or
habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. Furthermore, grading
has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger industrial park. The project will not
individually or cumulativety have an adverse effect on wildlife rasources, as defined in Section
711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption has been adopted for
Planning Application No. PA99-0128 per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15332. This Section allows exemptions for in-fill development projects that meet certain
prescribed criteria. The subject site complies with these criteria and therefore the exemption can
be applied to this project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA99-0128 (Development Plan) for the design,
construction and operation of a 17,841square foot building on 1.02 acres located on the north side
of Rio Nedo between Calle Empleado and Via Industda, and known as Parcel 28 of Parcel Map
21328, subject to the project specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 6th day of October, 1999.
Ron Guerdero, 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 6th day of October,
1999, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:~DEPTS~PLANNING\GdffinS~128PA99,GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING%GdffinS\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMFCULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: PA99~0128 - Development Plan
Project Description:
Construct and operate a 17,841 square foot Industrial
building on a 1.02 acre light industrial parcel
DIF Category:
Business Park/Industrial
Assessor's Parcel No:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
909-290-028
October 6, 1999
October 6, 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 Dollare ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file
the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and
California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of this condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4c).
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnity, 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, direcUy 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 all
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), E (Grading Plan), F (Elevations), G (Floor Plans), and H (Landscape Plan),
contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division.
\\TEMEC_FS101~VOLI\DEPTS\PLANNING~Gdffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Repor~ (revised),doc
11
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuc'.'s!y maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authcrity to require the property owner
to bdng the landscaping into conformance with the abproved landscape plan. The
continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer
or any successors in interest.
The two rows of glass windows shall be aligned with the surrounding reveals by either
making the windows nattower or wider or adjusting the reveals so that they provide a space
designed to accept each panel of windows. The specific design solution shall be subject to
review and approval by planning staff.
All roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed below the I_ow,_est
level of the surrounding parapet wall.
The trash enclosure at the rear of the site shall be architecturally treated to complement and
blend with the design of the building.
All landscape planters shall maintain a minimum clear inside dimension of five (5) feet. All
planters adjacent to parking spaces shall be provided with a 12" wide step-out the length
of the planter.
10.
All compact parking spaces will be marked for "COMPACT CARS ONLY." Handicap parking
spaces shall be 18 feet rather than 16 feet in length.
11.
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and Exhibit "1" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
Primary wall:
Accent wall and fluted surface of column features:
Smooth portion of column features:
Glass:
Glass frame:
Vist Paint # 49 "Vista White"
Vista Paint # 50 "Antique White"
Vista Paint # 82 "Madposa"
Beger "Green/Silver Gray"
White Anodized aluminum:
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
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.
13.
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.
14.
The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G, H and I", (Site Plan, Grading Plan,
Elevations, Floor Plan, Landscape Plan, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final
conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department -
Planning Division staff, and shall submit five (5) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1"
copy of Exhibits D through H, and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of
approved Exhibit "1" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved
Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations, to the Community Development Department
* Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations
shall be readable on the photographic prints.
7
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\GdffinS\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).t~oc
12
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
16.
Throe (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irdg.~tion Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Divi~,on for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "H", :." as amended by these conditions.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
17.
An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any
signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A
separate building permit shall be roquired for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits
"D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
18.
All requirod landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning
Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be pmpedy constructed and in good working order.
19.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the landscape plantings, in accordance with the approved
construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development
Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that
year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition
satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released.
20.
Each parking space roserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed roflectodzed 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 aroa and shall be centered at the intedor end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking spaco finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the
off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3
square feet in size.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\Gdffins\128PA99,GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
13
21. Atl of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with pdor to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
22.
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to
any Govemment Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site
plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements. traveled ways, improvement
constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
23.
A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of-any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
24.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
25.
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.
26.
The Developer shall post secudty 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.
27.
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,
28.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and
identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect
the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream
facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make
required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
29.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Planning Department
b. Department of Public Works
30.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\Gdffins\128PA99,GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
14
31. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be subm;tted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
32.
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.
33.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area DrGinage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
34.
Imprevement 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:
35.
36.
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos, 400. 401 and 402.
d. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works: Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to sidewalks and
driveway approaches.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department
of Public Works.
37.
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.
38.
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.
39.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to
the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass
Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
40,
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\GdffinS\I28PA99.GMC Staff Report (revise~J).doc
15
b. Eastem Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
41. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and rep!aced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department
of Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
42. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing
and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title
24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.
43. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other
outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building
and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
44. 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.
45. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
46. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/S-I/F-1.
47. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
48. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (Califomia Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
49. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
50. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
51. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
52. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
53. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Chapter 29.
54. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
55. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
56. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
57. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
F:~DEPTS\PLANNI NG\GdffinS\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc 16
58. Prev;de precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
59. A pre-construction meeting is req, lired with the building inspector pdor ~.o the start of the
building construction.
60. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the appreved
building plans, will require separate apprevals and permits.
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.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are
in force at the time of building plan submittal.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for
a total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic
fire protection measures as appreved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as
given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2,
Appendix Ill-A)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
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 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access reads and adjacent
public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than
250 feet frem any point on the street or Fire Department access read(s) frontage to a
hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available frem any adjacent hydrant(s) in the
system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required, (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and
Appendix Ill-B)
As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the 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. (CFC 903.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access reads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access reads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
Pdor to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have appreved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access reads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
F:\DEPTS~PLANNING\GdffinS\128PA99,GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
17
67.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6)inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
68.
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
69.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. Plans shall be:
signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3,
901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
70.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
71.
Pdor 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). (CFC 901.4.4)
72.
73.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the spdnkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC
Article 10)
74.
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 dght side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by
the alarm system. (CFC 902.4)
75.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4).
76. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81 )
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING~GdffinS\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).cloc 18
77.
Pdor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, ~ammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from
both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
OTHER AGENCIES
See attached correspondence from the Rancho Water Distdct dated Apdl 12, 1999.
See attached correspondence from the Department of Environmental Health dated Apdl 14, 1999.
See attached correspondence from the County Flood Control District dated April 30, 1999.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the
above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained
in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make
to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING~Gdffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised),doc
19
- G~=ral M~nag=r-ChicfE~.gin~'r
RIVERSDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin De anment
g033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
R.[VERSIDE. CA 92501
909/955-1200
909,788-9965 FAX
51[801
Re: PA 99 -
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in inco~orated
cities. The Disthct also does not lan chec~ city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for su~l~ cases. Disffict commenta/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific ~nterest to the Dist~ct including District Master Draina · Plan facilities other re ional flood
control and d/aina · facilities which could be considered a logical componentgot extension of a master ~;~l~n s stem,
and District Area ~rainage Plan fees (development mffigation fees). In addition, infon'nation of a general ns-Tusre is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked 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:
This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other radiities of
r
regional inte est proposed.
This project involves Dist~ct Master Plan radiities. The District will acce t ownership of such fadfities on
written request of the City. Fadlities must be constructed to District standPards, and District plan check and
inspedon will be required for Disthct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a I icol extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The Disb'ict ~o~l°~J consider accepting ownership ot such tac~l!tles on wo~en request
of the C. ity. Fad!itie~. must be constructed to Di.sffict standaids. an .d plsth.ct plan ch.ec~ and in. sl~4ffio~it
be required for Dlstlict acceptance. Plan check inspection and administrative fees wfil be required. j~
........ /<, df/''
check or money order only to ~e Rood Control District pdor ~o~ issuance of bui~ng or gra in penn'
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance o ~te actua
perraiL
GENERAL INFORMATION
Th s project ma re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water
Resources Con~ol Board. Clearance for grading reccrdation or other final approval should not be g van until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a penn t or s shown to be exempt.
If ~is projea revolves a Federal Emergen~'y Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain, then the City should
require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and o~er information required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should further require that the a plicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
pdor to grading, recordation or other final approva~Pof the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMRI prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapbed flood plain is im acted by this pro oct, the City should require fie a li~ant to
obta n a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the CaJ~mia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wdtten correspondence from these ncies
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Ce~cation
may be requ,red,oca, C.,,fo= R..iona, W.tar Oua,,ty Control .o.rd prior to issuance o,,0,
permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:
TO2
FROM:
COUNTY OF RIVERSZ
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIKONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: April 14, 1999
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNTNG DEPARTM'gNT
PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0128 CLOT 2g OF PM 21382)
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0128 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:
"Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewerhag agencies.
a)
b)
c)
Three 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 sped fie reference, please contact Food
Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022.
A clearance letter from the H~-~rdous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-5055
will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4.
· H~Tnrdous 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
(909) 955-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building
Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
cc: Doug Thompson
..... ,.~ ~:~
stand3b.doc
April 12. 1999
Steve Griffin, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL'NO. 28 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 21382
APN 909-290-028
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0128
Dear Mr. Griffin:
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 questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative ai this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
99%SB:mc089~F012-TS~FCF
C: Laurie Willjams. Engineering Services Supervisor
.... i '9S9
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
F:\DEPTS\PL_~NNING~GriffinS\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
20
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 6, 1999
VICINITY MAP
F:\DEPTS',PI_ANNING\Gdffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B -ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP BUSINESS PARK
CASE NO.- PA99-0128
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 6, 1999
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\GdffinS\I 2BPA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
22
CITY OF TEMECUL~
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 6, 1999
SITE PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\GdffinS~128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
23
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 6, 1999
GRADING PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\GdffinS\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
24
CiTY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.- PA99-0128
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 6, 1999
ELEVATIONS
F:%DEpTS\pLANNING%Gdffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
25
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 6, 1999
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEpTS~PLANNING\GdffinS%128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).cioc
26
CITY OF TEMECULA
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 6, 1999
LANDSCAPE PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\GriffinS\128PA99,GMC Sift Report (revised).doc
27
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.- PA99-0116
EXHIBIT - I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 6, 1999
PREVIOUS ELEVATIONS
F:~D EPTS\PL-~NNING\Gdffins~128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).cloc
28
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 STAFF REPORT
R:%Grif~ns\128PA99,GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
29
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 1, 1999
Planning Application No. PA99-0'128 (Development Plan)
Case Planner: Steve Griffin, AICP
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning Application No.
PA99-0128 based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein, and
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-
0128 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines,
APPLICATION INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME: GMC Building
APPLICANT: Growth Management Company (GMC)
REPRESENTATIVE: Shane Shaw
PROPOSAL: The design, construction and operation of a 19,691 square foot
industrial building on a 1.02 acre parcel.
42600 Rio Nedo (Parcel 26 of Parcel Map 21328)
BP Business Park (subject and surrounding)
LI Light Industrial (subject and surrounding)
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
PUBLICINPUT:
Subject: Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
C&H Specialties (under construction)
Four Slide Engineering (under construction)
Solid State Stamping
OJ Insulation & Fireplaces
To date the staff has received no public input on this application.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\Gdffins\128PA99,GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
1
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscaped Area:
Parking/Paved Area:
Lot Coverage:
Target Floor Area Ratio:
Proposed Floor Area Ratio:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
44,567 sq. ft. (1,02 acres)
19,691 sq. ft. (44% of site;
10,785 sq. ft. (24% of sit~-)
15,941 sq. ft. (36% ofsit~)
17,841 sq. ft. (40% of site)
17,841 sq. ft. (0,40 FAR)
19,961 sq. ft. (0.44 FAR)
34 spaces, plus 1 motorcycle & 4 bicycle spaces
34 spaces, plus 1 motorcycle & 6 bicycle spaces
25 feet high
Note: The required parking is based on the proposal to provide 3,700 sq. ft. of office, 4,800 sq. ft.
of manufacturing, and 11,191 sq. ft. of warehousing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal involves the design and construction of a 19,691 square foot industrial building on
1.02 acres located at 42600 Rio Nedo (north side of Rio Nedo, between Calle Empleado and Via
Industria). The 25 foot-high structure includes 17,841 square feet on the first level and 1,850
square feet of office space in a second-level mezzanine.
The project - which we have termed the GMC building - meets or exceeds all of the basic
standards called for in the Development Code with the exception of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
The target FAR for this zone is 0.40, whereas the proposed FAR is 0.44.
The Planning Commission may grant an increase in FAR beyond the 0.40 target - up to a
maximum FAR of 1.0 - based on a determination of the extent to which the project provides
exceptional benefits or aspects consistent with three incentive categories outlined in the
Development Code. This issue is discussed below under "FAR Incentives."
BACKGROUND
The application was submitted on Apdl 2, 1999, and the Design Review Committee reviewed the
plans on April 22, 1999. Several discussions were subsequently held on the applicant's original
proposal to increase the lot coverage beyond the 40% maximum allowed by the Development
Code. The applicant eventually decided to pursue additional floor area in the form of a request to
increase the FAR beyond the 0.40 target by adding a second-level mezzanine offace rather than
the original proposal to have a larger building footprint (lot coverage). The application was
consequently deemed complete on July 29, 1999.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The property measures 175.5 feet wide by 254 feet deep and sits below the adjoining property to
the west and essentially at-grade with the properties to the north and east. The structure is situated
on the southwesterly portion of the site, separated from the property lines by setbacks of 25 feet
in the front, 15 feet and 40 feet respectively to the west and east sides, and 35 feet to the rear.
Access is provided by a single entry drive off Rio Nedo and by a shared drive located at the
northeast corner of the site, Single-loaded parking aisles are distributed along the easterly and
northerly property lines, to the side and rear of the building.
Other site plan components include an employee patio area at the front of the site, just to the west
side of the main building entry. The patio, along with adjoining surfaces, will be paved with
F:\DEPTS~PLANNING\GdffinS%128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
2
decorative colored concrete caw-cut into a pattern of 24"x24" squares and surrounded by a 30-inch
high decorative garden wail. Loading is provided for at four locations, two on the easterly side of
the building and two at the rear, including a truck well. Trash wi~l be accommodated within a single
enclosure at the rear of the property, directly abutting the north'.vastedy comer of the building.
Architecture
The 25 foot-high building is of standard tilt-up concrete construction consistent with the vast
majodty of other structures in the area. The southeasterly comer of the building is highlighted at
the first level main entry area by a 5-foot deep recess extending back 25 feet on both sides from
the corner and supported by two round, fluted columns. This corner of the building is furlher
enhanced by glass and a 45°, 16 foot-wide "cut-off' at the first level, with additional glass at the
second level extending to the top of the parapet. An additional, although perhaps less aesthetic
major offset to the rectangular shape of the structure occurs at the 16 foot-wide by 39 foot-long
truck well located at the northeast comer of the building.
All four building wails are equally divided by five horizontal reveals, each measuring 2 inches wide
by 3,/. inches deep. The reveals are interrupted at several points with vertical elements resembling
columns which extend the full height of the building - one on the front elevation, three on the
easterly side elevation, five on the westedy side elevation, and two on the rear elevation. These
features measure four feet wide at their base and for most of their height, and then widen out in
two one-foot steps to a total width of eight feet at top of the parapet. These column features are
defined at their outer edge by v-grooves in the concrete, and to the interior by a two-foot wide
vertical band of fluted concrete.
Spandrel glass provides additional interest on two of the most visible surfaces of the building. The
front elevation and the eastedy parking lot elevation feature a total of six horizontal rows of glass
divided into five lites each and which measure 17 feet-wide by 5-feet high. Four rows, two each on
the first and second levels, are located on either side of the column feature on the front elevation,
and two - one over the other - are located behind the front entry area on the easterly elevation
facing the parking lot. We have included a condition of approval which would have these rows of
spandrel glass aligned with the surrounding reveals.
The basic color of the smooth concrete wall surfaces is the "white-white" color used on four of the
horizontal "bands" defined by the reveals which encircle the structure. An "antique white" color is
used as an accent on the remaining two bands - the second and fourth bands from the top. The
smooth concrete outer surfaces of the vertical column elements are painted a "mariposa green"
color, and the fluted concrete areas intedor to the column elements are painted an "antique white"
color to match the two horizontal accent bands on the building. The glass will be a "green/silver
gray" color with supporting white anodized aluminum frames.
LandscaDina
Landscape planting is provided along all of the property boundaries, including 25 feet in the front
(plus six feet in the public right-of-way), 15 feet along the westerly boundary (which consists of a
2:1 up-slope), and seven feet (two feet wider than the minimum required by Code) along the
northerly (rear) and eastedy (parking lot) boundaries. These perimeter planrings are supplemented
with minimum five-foot wide landscape planters at the ends and middle of each of the parking
aisles and along the base of the easterly elevation of the building between the loading doors and
extending to the front entry area.
All of the landscaped areas are planted with trees, shrubs and ground covers consistent with City
standards and the comments from our Landscape Architect. Worthy of special note perhaps is the
use of Queen Palms along the building feC..ade on the front and easterly (parking lot) elevations,
and two Canary Island Palms at either side of the project entry drive.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\GdffinS\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
3
FAR Incentives
The Planning Commission may consider three incentive categories in determining whether or not
the proposed !0% increase in floor area ratio from 0.40 to 0.44 FAR is supportable. The incentive
categories are described in Section 17.08.050 of the Development Code. They include: (1) uses
which provide outstanding employment, fiscal, social and economic benefits, (2) projects which
exhibit exceptional architectural and landscape design, and (3) projects which provide public
facilities beyond the norm.
In support of the request, the applicant relies on the second incentive category - architectural and
landscape design - and cites the following:
Enhanced architectural features, including multiple decorative reveals and special column
features on all elevations, the unique scheme of colors represented by the white on white multi-
color walls with contrasting vertical accents, and the extensive use of high performance
reflective glass in and around the building entry and at additional locations on the most visible
portions of the building.
Enhanced landscape features, including two decorative Canary Island Palm trees at the
property entrance, Queen Palms along the south and east building walls, expanded planting
around the property's pedmeter, the employee patio area with pattemed paving and decorative
30" wall, the decorative walkway from the street to the building, and the decorative paving and
landscaping around the employee patio and at the building entry.
Staff believes a 10% increase is supportable in the present case. The primary basis for our
judgment is the fact that we would have endorsed the project design as it was originally
submitted if it had complied with the City's FAR standard. Since that time, the project has
been enhanced with additional landscape planting and significantly mere building articulation,
including the column features and the spandrel glass elements.
Traffic Analysis
The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed site plan and determined that the tdps
generated by this project will not exceed the trips anticipated by the Circulation Element for this
site. The project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) falls within the range of the average building intensity
anticipated under the traffic analysis for the General Plan. The applicant will be required tc~ pay
traffic signal mitigation fees and development impact fees as conditions of approval for the project
to address the impacts associated with the increased traffic on Rio Nedo and at the Rio Nedo and
Diaz Road intersection.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
It is anticipated that a Notice of Exemption will be filed for Planning Application No. PA99-0116 per
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332.
Section 15332 applies to in-fill development projects on sites that are: less than five (5) acres and
substantially surrounded by urban uses; consistent with the applicable general plan designation and
all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning; have no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species; and that can be adequately served by all required utilities
and public services.
The site meets all of the criteria for in-fill development, and therefore the project is eligible for a
CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\GdffinS\128pA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
4
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The project is consistent with i. he (BP) Business Park land use designation and the (LI) Light
Industrial zone applicable to the property in the Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
Upon approval of the Development Plan as conditioned, the project will meet all of the standards
and guidelines for industrial development prescribed by the Development Code and Design
Guidelines.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards
and guidelines, and compatible with the nature and quality of surrounding development. Staff is
supporting the requested increase of 10% in the FAR (from 0.40 to 0.44) based on the proposition
that we would have supported the project design before the additional enhancements were added
in support of the request. We are therefore recommending approval of PA99-0128 based on the
following findings.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (BP)
Business Park development in the City of Temecula General Plan, and the standards for
(LI) Light Industrial development contained in the City's Development Code. The site is
therefore propedy planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and
density of industrial development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent
with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other
associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and
safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as
conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines,
standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and
function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Furthermore it
has been found that the project provides enhanced design features consistent with the
incentive category for architectural and landscape design listed in the Development Code
(TMC 17.08.050A2), which supports the requested increase in FAR from 0.40 to 0.44.
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are
no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife
or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site.
Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger
industrial park. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on
wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\GdffinS\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
5
Attachments
PC Resolution - Blue Page
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval - Blue Page
Exhibits - Blue Page
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Grading Plan
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plans
H. Landscape Plan
F:~DEPTS\PLANNING\Gdffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report (revised).doc
6
ITEM #5
SUBMITTED U~DER SEPARATE COVER