HomeMy WebLinkAbout050300 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need spedel assistance to paffidpate in this
meeting, please contact tOe office of tOe City Clerk (909) 694-8: ', ',. NoMcation 48 hours pdor to a meeting will
enable tOe City to make reasonable srrangements tO ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Tfde II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
MAY 3, 2000 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-016
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Webster
Roll Call:
Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster and Chairman Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no__t on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
VVhen you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for He record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary pdor to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individdal speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote, There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action,
Approval of Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 3, 2000.
R:~PLANCOMM~AGENDAS~2000%5-3-00.dOe
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from February 16, 2000
COMMISSION BUSINESS
None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and he heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the Ume of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may he limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public healing.
3
Plannine Aoolication No. PA99-0478 (Development Plan1 to desion and construct three
(31 speculative industrial bulldines totalino 66.116 scluars feet on 4.72 acre of vacant land
and Plannine Application No. PA00-0084 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 296431 to subdivide
4.72 vacant acres into throe (31 parcels within the light Industrial (LIt Zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entiUed:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-016
3.2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0478, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) SPECULATIVE
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 66,116 SQUARE FEET
ON 4.72 VACANT ACRES WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
(LI) ZONE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSINESS
PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF THE
BUSINESS PARK DRNE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-020-068;
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0478 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines;
R:~PLANCOMM%AGENDAS'2000~t-00,dOC
2
3.3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2iX)04)18
A RESOLUTION OF THE .PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA004)084, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29143 TO
SUBDIVIDE 4.72 VACANT ACRES INTO THREE (3) P/IRCELS
WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (U) ZONE GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE VIEST SIDE OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
APPROXIMATELY ~00 FEET SOUTH OF THE BUSINE~
PARK DRNE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 921-O2O-O68;
Adopt a Notice of E~emption for Planning Application No. PA00-0084 pursuant to
Section 5315 of the CEQA Guidelines.
4
Plannino A~olication No. PA99-0317 (DeveloPment Plan) to desion. construct and ooemte
a 246-unit. two and throe-story aoartment complex with oool. clubhouse. workout buildino
and tot lot.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entiUed:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 20004)16
A RESOLUTION OF file PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA994)317, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 24&.tJNIT, TWO AND
THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL,
CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON
APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 944-2904)11
COMMISSIONEWS REPORTS
PLANNING MANAGEWS REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: May 17, 2000
R:~PLANCOMIVAAGENDAS~000~5*3-O0.doc
3
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 16, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M.,
on Wednesday February 16, 2000, 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 Fahey.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I ADDroval of AQenda
RECOMMENDATION:
Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson. Telesio, Webster, and
Chairman Guerdem.
None.
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Project Planner DeGange, and
Project Planner Thomsley,
Minute Clerk Hansen.
1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 16, 2000.
(Agenda Item No. 8 was continued to the March 15, 2000 Planning
Commission meeting.)
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from December 15, 1999
planComm/rninutes/021600
2.2 Approve Minutes from January 5, 2000
3 Director's Hearing Update
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 Receive and File
4
Findine of Public Convenience or Necessity for the Hiah Society Billlard and Dart
Club, located at 28950 Front Street, Suite 102-105
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Support a Finding of Convenience or Necessity
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-4.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval. (This motion was ultimately amended, Consent Calendar Item
No. I being considered separately.)
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that it had been recommended that the agenda be
revised.
At this time the Commission considered Consent Calendar No. I (the Agenda)
separately.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant for Agenda Item No. 8, requested that the
item be continued to the March 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting,
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved that the Agenda (Consent Calendar item
No. 1 ) be amended, an that Agenda Item No. 8 be continued to the March 15, 2000
meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who abstained.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos, 2-4
(Item No. I being amended in the previous motion). The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5
Planning Application No, 99-0239 (Development Plan) and Planning Application
No. PA99-0373 (Tentative Parcel Map 29406), located at the knuckle of Enterprise
Circle West (225 feet west of the intersection of Enterprise Circle West and
Commerce Center Drive) - Proiect Planner John DeGanGe
RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PllnComm/minute$1021600
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0239 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
OF TWO INDUSTRIAL SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS
TOTALING 14,593 SQUARE FEET ON A 1.87-ACRE
SITE LOCATED AT THE KNUCKLE OF ENTERPRISE
CIRCLE WEST (225 FEET WEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST AND
COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE) AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-480-015;
5.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0239
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines;
5.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-009
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0373, TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 29406 TO SUBDIVIDE A t.87 ACRE PARCEL
INTO TWO (2) PARCELS WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK
ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE KNUCKLE OF
ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST (225 FEET WEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST AND
COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE) ON AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-480-015:
5.4 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0373
pursuant to Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines
Providing an overview of the project, Project Planner DeGange presented the staff report
(of record), highlighting the two-building development plan; relayed that in 1998 the
Planning Commission appreved a project on this site which encompassed a larger single
building, noting that the applicant was of the opinion that the market and the site would
be better suited for a two-building project; specified the access points, parking areas,
inclusive of the parking that would be fenced with wrought iron, the proposal to subdivide
the project into two parcels, clarifying that each parcel was required to meet standards
with respect to landscaping, parking, and all other aspects of the Development Code;
relayed that shared access agreements and shared landscape maintenance agreements
would be required as a condition of the final map; with respect to the architecture, noted
that both buildings were identical as far as design and coloring with the exception of
Building No. 1 which was slightly smaller, and had a tapered adiculation element which
made provision for the easement; clarified that the previous approval was for a larger
building, relaying that staff was of the opinion that this particular project which
encompassed two smaller buildings was preferable, breaking up the size and massing of
the building; relayed that the applicant had attempted to address the box-like visual
pilnComm/minute~/021600
appearance of the buildings by adding additional features (i.e., a project entry statement,
accent diamonds, design entry wall); and with respect to landscaping, relayed that each
parcel would provide twenty-five percent (25%) landscaping, as required.
In response to Commissioner Websters queries regarding the letter from Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct (per agenda material), Project
Planner DeGange relayed that Mr. Larry Markham, the applicant's representative had
worked with Flood Control concerning this matter, as well as with the previous
application which was approved on this site. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
noted that staff had reviewed this condition with previous applications, concurring that
Mr. Markham could further address the matter.
Via overheads, Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, via overheads, specified
the location of the project site inclusive of the drainage channel that currently exists. the
flood plain line which was outside the boundaries of the project site with the exception of
within the drainage easement of the existing manufactured channel which was
maintained by the property owners association; clarified that this project would not
impact that area; relayed the discussions with Flood Control regarding the following: the
Flood Control topographical map as opposed to the design topographical map, and the
re-grading of the property subsequent to the 1993 flooding event; advised that Flood
Control would not retract their letter; noted that the applicant did not see the need for
(Development Plan) Condition No. 53 (regarding the obtaining of a Flood Plain
Development Permit); and relayed that the applicant was of the opinion that ()Parcel
Map Condition Nos. 28, and 29 (regarding obtainin9 a Flood Plain permit) were,
additionally, not necessary.
In response to Commissioner Websters queries regarding Flood Control's letter,
specifically the comment regarding the dedication of a 22-foot access road adjacent to
the top of the channel, via overheads, Mr. Markham specified the right-of-way that Flood
Control owned, relayed that Flood Control owned the entire channel down to Old Town
Temecula; clarified that there was no need for the referenced access road, noting that it
would dead-end into the parking lot of the adjacent building; and advised that alternate
properties were not required to provide additional right-of-way provisions, clarifying that
Flood Control does not have a permit to impact the banks (i.e., mowing).
Commissioner Webster referenced the item in the Flood Control's letter conditioning this
project to participate in a funding mechanism for the ultimate flood control
improvements; and queried whether a condition should be added to address this matter.
In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant would be
opposed to an added condition that other projects in the watershed area were not
required to be subject to.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided
additional information regarding Condition No. 53, clarifying that if the project was not in
the flood plain the requirement would not be applicable, noting that this was a standard
condition for a project adjacent to a flood plain.
In response to Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Mr. Markham requested that with
respect to Condition No. 53 that the term if required be added, if the condition was not
planComrnlminutes/021600
deleted. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed no opposition Mr. Markham's
recommendation.
Mr. Brian Fonk, the applicant, thanked Project Planner DeGange and the Planning staff
for their diligent efforts with respect to this project; for Commissioner Telesio, provided
additional information regarding the rear fenced parking area, noting the desire of
potential buyers to have secured parking.
In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the architectural treatments
on the north elevation of Building No. 2, and the west elevation of Building No. 1, Mr. Jeff
Rabbit, architect representing the applicant, relayed that the referenced north elevation
was adjacent to a six-foot block wall which was located on top of a three-foot bank,
noting that this elevation was completely screened from the street, and only partially
visible from the adjacent property; with respect to the referenced west elevation, noted
the location of the drainage easement, large-scale landscaping, and the adjacent
parking area; specified the building articulation, noting the color differentiation, the
banding, the reveals in the concrete panels, the diamonds, and the pillar effects; relayed
the point on the building that the existing block wall would reach; provided additional
information regarding the capping decorative feature; and clarified that the proposed
project was the result of the diligent efforts by staff and the design team, noting that the
applicant was of the opinion that this was a decorative approach for this type of building.
For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner DeGange clarified that the applicant had
not submitted a color palette since the previously approved colors had not been revised.
For Commissioner Fahey, Mr. Rabbit specified the area for the proposed fencing,
relaying that the fencing would be six-foot wrought iron picket style; and noted that the
applicant would be agreeable to the project being conditioned with respect to all fencing
being required to be wrought iron.
With respect to landscaping, Chairman Guerriero commented on the current problem
regarding 1 -, 5-, and 15-gallon plants not being satisfactory in size due to the shortage of
these plant sizes on the market; and queried whether the project could be conditioned,
requiring the landscaping to be inspected by the City's landscape architect prior to
installation of the plantings.
In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments, Senior Planner Fagan confirmed that
per private and the City's landscape architect's comments the plantings have been
smaller due to the shortage of material; and advised that staff explore the matter further
rather than conditioning this particular project, noting that the solution may be to
increase the quantity.
Chairman Guerriero relayed the negative impact for the applicant if the City's landscape
architect does not accept the plantings after installation, advising that if the issue was
initially addressed, time and effort could be saved.
in response to Chairman Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that if staff was
to pursue his recommendation, the contract with the City's landscape architect would
have to be amended; and noted that the landscape architect for the project should know
the appropriate size of 1 -, 5-, and 15-gallon plantings, and could inspect the plants prior
to installation.
PlanComm/minutes/021600
For Chairman Guerriero, the applicant's representative relayed that the applicant's
landscape architect could be required to sign a letter of compliance that the plant
installation was in compliance with the proposed landscape design plan, or that a
maintenance bond could be posted guaranteeing that the landscape would be
maintained.
With respect to the condition requiring the installation of sidewalks, Mr. Markham relayed
that since this was the sole site with sidewalks in the entire interior of the subdivision,
that it was his request that the applicant be required to make a cash payment for a future
point in time if the City constructed sidewalks on the remainder of the park in lieu of
installing the sidewalks; with respect to the parcel map condition regarding archeological
resources, relayed that this property was rough-graded in 1980, assuring the
Commission that there were no archeological resources on the site; reiterated the desire
to have the conditions regarding the flood plain which were previously addressed (see
page 4), deleted; with respect to (Parcel Map) Condition No. 30, regarding recordation,
recommended that it be amended to be required prior to the sale of either building.
The concluding remarks of the Commissioners were, as follows:
Commissioner Fahey recommended that the project be conditioned to install solely
wrought iron fencing; commented that she preferred this particular project to the one that
had been previously approved on this site; noted that while she was in favor of additional
articulation that since the elevations of discussion were not easily seen she would not
recommend requiring additional articulation; relayed her support of the project; and with
respect to the landscape issue (smaller planrings being represented as larger plants),
advised that this matter was not relevant to the conditions of this particular project, but
instead a matter to be addressed via staff procedure.
Commissioner Mathewson queried staff regarding the last two conditions addressed by
the applicant, as to whether staff was in concurrence with the requests, Deputy Director
of Public Works Parks relayed that if there were no archeological resources found on the
site, it would not be a requirement of the project; and relayed that staff preferred to have
Environmental Constraint Sheets on all parcel maps.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed his support of the project.
Commissioner Telesio concurred with the applicant's request to provide a cash
payment rather than to install a sidewalk at this point in time; with respect to the
landscaping issue, queried whether a bond could be issued for this matter; and relayed
his support of the project.
Chairman Guerriero miterated his concern regarding the previously discussed
landscaping issue, relaying his opposition to notifying the applicant after installation that
the plantings were not the correct size and would need to be replaced.
With respect to the landscape issue, Attorney Curley recommended that a specified
standard be set by the City with respect to the required minimum height of a 1-, 5-, or
15-gallon plants in order to ensure that a certain performance standard of plants; and
relayed that the City's landscape architect could address the matter by redefining the
requirement since the size stated was inaccurate.
PlanComm/minutel/021600
For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the
landscape issue was not project-related but industry-related, noting staffs reluctance to
condition this particular project with respect to the landscape matter.
In response to Commissioner Fahey's queries regarding further defining the landscape
requirements without conditioning this project, Plannin9 Manager Ubnoske relayed that
the Development Code would need to be amended in order to expand the language
addressing 1 -, 5-, and 15-gallon plants and to further define staffs interpretation of what
each size should be; and for Chairman Guerdero, relayed that if this project's landscape
was undersized that staff would pursue the matter.
Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape architect for the applicant, confirmed that there was a
problem with the availability of plants, advising that this project would most likely not be
landscaped for approximately eight months, noting that the shortage may be over at that
point in time; provided additional information regarding the ultimate size of plants in
relation to the spacing available; while concurring with the Commission' s desire to install
the proper sized plants, advised that smaller plantings would be healthier and outgrow
larger plants; noted that he would be opposed to conditioning the project with respect to
this issue; provided additional information regarding the landscape plan; advised that for
this project he would inspect all the plantings prior to installation; and noted that the tree
installations were specified as to height and width, suggesting that for the future all
plantings could be so specified.
With respect to the landscape issue, Commissioner Telesio, echoed by
Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the Commission could rely on the integrity and
knowledge of the projecrs landscape architect with respect to adequate sizing of the
plants while making the applicant aware that improperly sized plantings would be
required to be removed; and advised that the project not be conditioned with respect to
the matter.
Commissioner Webster relayed that within the General Plan, one of the main policies
was excellence in architecture for all zoning classifications, and for all sides of a building,
noting that the Design Guidefines provided avenues to implement that policy; advised
that in his opinion this project did not meet the architectural standards due to his
previously addressed comments; and recommended that if this project was to be
approved, that staff work with the applicant to add additional articulation on the west
elevation of Building No. 1, and on the north elevation of Building No. 2.
In response to the Commission comments, the applicant provided additional information
regarding the project's enhanced elements in comparison to the surrounding projects;
and in response to Commissioner Webster comments, noted that the adjacent property
was an automotive use.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to move
staffs recommendation with the following modifications;
Add-
A condition requiring that the fencing behind both buildings be required to be
wrought iron.
7
PlanComm/minutes1021600
That (Development Plan) Condition No. 53 be modified to add language stating if
required.
That staff investigate the matter of the applicant bonding for the sidewalk rather
than installing it.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (This motion ultimately
passed, see below.)
For Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Mathewson confirmed that the motion was
silent with respect to architecture.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner
Webster who voted n_go.
6
Plannincl APPlication No. PA99o0472 (Development Plan) located on the southwest
corner of Diaz Road and ReminGton Road (41906 Reminclton Road) -Associate
Planner Carole Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-010
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0472 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN),
TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 62,'100 SQUARE
FOOT MINI-SELF STORAGE FACILITY WITH A 2-
STORY OFFICE, RESIDENT MANAGER'S QUARTERS,
AND A COVERED RV STORAGE SPACE ON 3.92
ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
DIAZ ROAD AND REMINGTON ROAD (4t 906
REMINGTON ROAD), AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 909-370-014
Associate Planner Donahoe provided a detailed overview of the proposed project (of
record), highlighting the location of the site, the zoning specification as Light Industrial
(LI), the site design, the hours of operation, the 24-hour gate accessibility, and the
architecture inclusive of the detailed enhancements and the surrounding wall height
variations, which provided a breakup of the wall massing; apprised the Commission of
the additional recommendations, revisions, and conditions added to the project by staff,
as follows:
With respect to the aluminum gridwork proposed on the pop-out elements for the
provision of visual interest, noted that staff was of the opinion that the elevation
along the southeast corner (adjacent to the Zevo parking area) was sparse and due
to the visibility from Diaz Road had conditioned the project, requiring that the
gridwork element be wrapped around to the southeast wall, as well (denoted in
Condition No. 8b).
PlanCommlminutes/021600
With respect to the height of the perimeter walls proposed to be 14 feet at the
location of the RV storage space, relayed that the project had been conditioned to
limit the vehicle storage canopy to 14 feet in order to assure that there was no
visibility from the street (denoted in Condition No. 10).
With respect to the proposed landscaping plan, relayed that it was the opinion of the
City's landscape architect that the Queen Palms proposed along the south and west
walls would be inappropriate in this area due to the fact that this species of tree was
effectively utilized as an accent tree, noting that this area would be better suited with
a tree providing a crown for the purpose of breaking up the masSing of the wall; and
advised that staff had, therefore, recommended that an alternate plant species be
proposed (denoted in Condition No. 7a).
With respect to the landscaping planter proposed on the west property line, noted
that staff had conditioned the project to increase the planter width to four feet; and
with respect to the planter proposed to buffer the parking spaces, relayed that staff
had conditioned the project to increase this planter area to a minimum of five feet.
Specified that the City's landscape architect had recommended that 36-inch boxed,
and 48-inch boxed sized trees be installed for quick vegetation, noting for the
Commission's consideration that the project had not been conditioned with respect
to this recommendation.
Relayed that with respect to the Agenda, under Recommendation, an additional
component should have been added, stating the following: Adopt a Notice of
Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0472 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe confirmed that with respect
to the City's landscape architect's recommendation to add larger plantings, specifically
36-inch and 48-inch boxed trees, that this matter had not been added in the Conditions
of Approval; specified that the material proposed at the canopy area would be a metal
material with a matte finish, conditioned to a maximum height of 14 feet; confirmed that
the height along Diaz Road would also be limited to a 14-foot maximum height; with
respect to the exterior elevations along the west and south portions of the project,
specified that there would be two types of paint color application proposed to breakup
the massing, that there would be a reveal treatment (which would be the same color as
the adjacent stucco), and a cap element on the wall, confirming that the wall was long
and expansive; noted that the gridwork was not proposed or conditioned to be added
along this particular area; and specified that the parcel west of this particular project was
currently vacant.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Commissioner Webster relayed
that with respect to the wall area, the Design Guidelines required the planting of vines,
noting that the applicant had proposed planting Boston Ivy around the perimeter of the
site.
With respect to the Design Guidelines standard regarding the provision of offsets,
Commissioner Webster noted that the applicant had proposed offsets along the public
view points; and queried why the offsets had not been extended around to the alternate
sides of the project. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that staff was of the
plenComrrdmtnuteg021600
opinion that in light of the fact that this project was located within a Light Industrial area,
that the proposed landscaping would be sufficient.
For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that with respect to
future development on the west property boundary, staff would most likely require
perimeter landscaping with setbacks.
Chairman Guerdero recommended that the berming currently located along Diaz Road
be continued along this particular site in order to provide continuity.
For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the
proposed wall would replace the berming; and confirmed that at a future point in time
Diaz Road was proposed to be a four-lane road.
In light of the fact that at a future point Diaz Road would be heavily traveled, Chairman
Guerriero relayed concern with respect to the view of the wall expanse from Diaz Road,
specifically on the south side of the building.
Associate Planner Donahoe provided the material and color board for the Commission's
review.
Mr. Kenn Cartell, representing the applicant, relayed that with respect to the concern
regarding the expanse of the wall, that the wall along the south side of the site was
solely 12 feet in height (noting the typical industrial wall height as between 24-30 feet),
specifying that this portion of the site faced the loading dock of the adjacent property;
relayed the enhanced articulation elements proposed on the most visible portions of this
area; for Commissioner Webster, provided additional information regarding the blue tone
of the paint application, noting the desire to create a contrast between the base and the
upper color application; advised that the stucco finish had been proposed via staff
recommendation; and specified that the cap treatment was a minor detail treatment,
measuring approximately two inches in width.
Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape architect representing the applicant, for Commissioner
Webster, relayed the restrictions associated with the recommendation to replace the
palm trees with an alternate tree, specifying the three-foot wide planter area; noted the
proposed plan to soften the visual impact of the wall expanse with the provision of vines;
relayed that in his opinion, if the Commission concurred with staffs recommendation to
remove the palm trees, that the plan to propose any trees in that area should be deleted
due to the size constraints of the landscaping area; advised that larger shrubs (installed
as a scalloped treatment) could be added to the area of discussion; reiterated the impact
of proposing a tree with a larger canopy due to the size restrictions; noted that in his
opinion the proposed Boston Ivy would provide an effective contrast against the blue
tone of the paint application; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional
information regarding the existing landscaping located on the adjacent property (the
Zero Development).
In response to Chairman Guerdero's previous comments, Associate Planner Donahoe
confirmed that there was existing berming along Diaz Road, noting that the herruing was
a requirement of the Westside Business Center where parking was adjacent to the
street.
10
planComm/mlnute$1021600
Mr. Vince Didonato relayed that if it was the Commission's desire to continue the
berming along this site, the applicant would be agreeable; and provided additional
information regarding the vine plantings proposed to soften the visual impact of the
project.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Vince Didonato clarified the concept of adding
scalloped shrubbery plantings (installed at varying heights) with the proposed ivy; and
for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the Sycamore
Trees existing on the adjacent property.
The Commission relayed concludina comments, as follows:
Commissioner Fahey relayed that after the additional information 'provided by the
applicanrs landscape architect, she had no objection to the proposal to plant palm trees;
with respect to the impact of the wall expanse, relayed that perhaps the applicant could
propose additional treatments to break up the massing, noting that the proposed ivy may
serve as an adequate screening provision due to the fact that this portion of the site
faced the adjacent property's loading area; commended staff and the applicant on their
diligent efforts associated with the features proposed on the street side of the project;
and relayed that overall, she would support the project.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that overall he also could support the project; relayed
that the proposal to plant palm trees would not address the impact of the expansive wall,
and relayed concurrence with the applicant's landscape architect's proposal to plant
shrubbery at this location, recommending that this proposal serve as an alternative to
softening the effect of the wall.
Relaying concurrence with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Commissioner
Telesio relayed that the palm trees would be ineffective at this location, noting that the
adjacent existing Eucalyptus Trees would break up the massing of the upper reaches of
the wall, relaying that with additional bushes, and the proposed ivy, the wall would be
adequately screened; noted the visual inconsistency of the mix of planting palm trees
adjacent to the existing sycamore trees; and relayed that he would support the omission
of the palm trees with the additional plantings described by the applicanrs landscape
architect (the scalloped shrubbery treatment).
Relaying concurrence with the omission of the proposed palm trees, Commissioner
Webster relayed that in his opinion there should be either no trees, or larger-sized trees
added to replace the palm trees; with respect to the conditions that staff had added to
enhance the project, expressed commendation to staff with respect to a job well done;
suggested that if the Commission had a concern regarding the expanse of the wall, there
could be additional architectural treatments added (i.e., additional split-face brick); and
advised the he was in concurrence with Chairman Guerdero's recommendation to
continue the berming on Diaz Road at this particular site.
Chairman Guerriero relayed his concern with respect to the visual impact of this
particular project from Diaz Road, noting that even with the plantings of vines on that
particular wall, there may need to be additional trees or an alternate architectural
treatment to break up the expanse; and queried the potential of staff requesting the PHS
development (the southern adjacent use) to add additional landscaping on the property
11
PlanComm/minutes/021600
line. In response, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that requiring the adjacent
property to add landscaping would most likely not be feasible.
For Chairman Guerriero, Associate Planner Donahoe provided additional information
regarding the wall on the east end of the south elevation of the project, noting that the
applicant had been conditioned to add additional gddwork to this particular portion of the
project. In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments, the applicant's representative
relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to adding an additional 100 feet of
gridwork in the area of discussion.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve the
project, including staffs recommendation to adopt a Notice of Exemption (See page,
under the bullet) with the following added conditions:
Modify-
W~th respect to the west side of the project, that no trees be planted in this area,
recommending that staff require future development to install trees at this particular
location.
With respect to the south side of the project, that the palm trees be replaced with
alternate larger-sized evergreen trees suitable for this particular area via the City's
landscape architect's discretion,
Add-
That berming along Diaz Road be added per Chairman Guerriero's
recommendation.
With respect to the aluminum gridwork treatment (denoted in Condition 8b.)
specified that a hundred feet of additional gddwork shall be added for the provision
of visual interest.
· That the recommendations setforth by staff be added.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey. (This motion ultimately passed.
See page 13.)
For Commissioner Mathewson, Commissioner Webster clarified that the motion had
included the replacement of the palm trees with evergreen trees, maintaining the
shrubbery plantings, as proposed.
Associate Planner Donahoe reiterated the Commission's comments for clarification with
respect to the conditions included in the motion, as follows:
With respect to Condition No. 5, noted that there would be an additional section h.
added, to add berming along Diaz Road for provision of continuity of the existing
berming. In response, Chairman Guerriero specified that he recommended that the
berming also wrap-around onto Remington Road, as well.
12
pllnCcmn,,/mlnutes/021600
With respect to Condition No. 7a, relayed that the Queen Palms would be eliminated
from the south and west perimeter planters, that the palm trees would be replaced
with evergreen trees in the south planter area, and that there would be additional
clustered shrubs and ivy. In response, Commissioner Webster specified that the
shrubs and ivy were not conditioned, and would remain as proposed.
Regarding Condition No. 8b, specified that the gridwork treatment shall be added for
a hundred feet.
In light of the previous comments expressed by the applicant's landscape architect,
Commissioner Telesio queried whether the conditions added by the Commission would
present a hardship with respect to replacing the palm trees with an alternate tree in light
of the restrictions associated with the size of the planting area.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended that if staff could not replace the palm trees
with an alternate evergreen tree suitable for the southerly location that additional
shrubbery be installed.
Commissioner Fahey advised that if the City's landscape architect who had originally
recommended the installation of larger alternate trees could not find a suitable tree, that
staff could investigate an alternate solution.
Commissioner Webster, echoed by Chairman Guerriero, clarified that the motion did not
specify a size of tree.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval.
7
Planning Application No. PA99-0476 (Development Plan15 & Diner, located on the
east side of Ynez Road south of Winchester Road north of the north mall entrance
RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-0t 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0476 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,205
SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (5 & DINER), ON A .73-
ACRE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ
ROAD NORTH OF THE NORTH ENTRANCE TO THE
PROMENADE MALL SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-320-037,
AND LOT "N" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0495o
13
PlanComm/minute$1021600
7.2
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0307
(Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project
for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and
Negative Declarations
Project Planner Thornsley presented an overview of the staff report (via agenda
material), highlighting location, access, size of the building and the overall site,
landscaping, and parking, specifying that the parking provisions had exceeded the
requirements; with respect to architecture, relayed the 50's ere style of the building
design; relayed that staff was recommending that Condition No. 54 (regarding the
sprinkler system) be deleted; for Chairman Guerdero, provided additional information
regarding the trash enclosure area, and the exterior of the service areas; for
Commissioner Webster, relayed that staff would not be opposed to striking Condition
No, 6f. (Regarding the tresh enclosure); advised that the project had been conditioned
regarding installation of the drive aisle (Condition No. 6e.), providing additional
information; presented the color and matedal board to the Commission; noted that the
rendering in the agenda packets had been revised, clarifying the differentials (i.e.,
removal of the rounded glass block corners); for Commissioner Mathewson, specified
the exterior areas with respect to the portions that would have a shiny-finish, and the
quilted stainless steel areas; and advised that the applicant had complied with Condition
No. 6a. (regarding the conceptual site layout).
In response to Commissioner Fahey, Senior Planner Fagan relayed that the Park and
Ride facility, and the transportation issues associated with the Malls' Specific Plan would
be addressed by Associate Planner Donahoe. Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that
staff was still investigating the matter, advising that she would update the Commission.
Mr. Dan Cardiff, the applicant, for Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, provided
additional information regarding the decision to not utilize the block wall corner treatment
in the final design plan, and clarified the visual appearance of the glass front doors;
presented a rendering of the site at night; and for Commissioner Webster, after
specification of the exterior stucco locations, relayed that the rationale for utilizing the
stucco was for a positive visual appearence.
The Commission relaved its conclusions, as follows:
After commenting on the 50's style of the building, Commissioner Telesio relayed his
support of the project.
Commissioner Webster recommended that the project replace the exterior stucco
application with stainless steel.
For the record, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he had had communication
with representatives from Forest Development, noting that this site had been discussed;
while relaying his support of the project, noted that he would concur with the
recommendation to replace the stucco, minimally on the side elevations, echoed by
Chairman Guerriero; and relayed his recommendation that the glass corner treatments
reflected on the original rendering be added back into the design.
PlanCommlminutes/021600
With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the Design Guidelines for
the mall, specifically referencing the requirement that the design be consistent with the
mall design, Project Planner Thornsley provided additional information regarding the
discretion of the Planning Commission with respect to this matter.
Commissioner Fahey relayed that she supported the project, as proposed.
Chairman Guerriero commended the applicant for the great project.
In response to the Commission comments, the applicant relayed that he would be
agreeable to replacing the stucco with stainless steel on all the elevations with the
exception of the rear elevation.
For the applicant, Project Planner Thornsley provided additional information regarding
the landscaping in the rear of the building, relaying the intent to provide a buffer.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staffs recommendation with the following modifications:
Delete-
That Condition No. 6f. (regarding the trash enclosure) be deleted.
· That Condition No. 54 (regarding a sprinkler system) be deleted.
Modify-
That the design of the building be modified to reflect the stucco solely on the rear
elevation.
· That the glass blocks would be included in the front corner treatments.
That staff work with the applicant regarding the landscape in the rear of the
building.
The motion was seconded by Chairman Guerriem and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
8
Planning ADDlication No. PA99-0307 (Tentative Parcel MaD 28627) Marclarita
Canyon, located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old
Town Front Street and Hiqhwav 79 South/future Western Bypass - John DeGanqe
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
15
planComm/mlnutes/021600
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 28627) A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 37-
ACRE PARCEL INTO 11 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND
ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO
INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND
HIGHWAY 79 (SOUTH) I FUTURE WESTERN BYPASS
CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210-
047);
8.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-
0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
8.3 Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-
0307 Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
(This Agenda Item was continued to the March '16, Planning Commission
meeting.)
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
With respect to the monuments at the Power Center, Associate Planner Donahoe
provided an update.
Regarding the Forest City monument, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that
the project was expected to be completed by March 3, 2000.
With respect to the landscaping on Margarita Road, and the screening of the
loading docks, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that staff and Chairman
Guerriero had met with the applicant and his representatives on February 15,
2000, advising that the applicant was proposing to add additional trees.
Chairman Guerriero commended Associate Planner Donahoe and Senior
Planner Fagan for their diligent efforts associated with ensuring that the
applicants follow through with the standards and conditions setforth in
conjunction with their projects.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that Senior Planner Fagan was going to be
leaving City Planning staff, noting that he would be greatly missed; and wished
him well in his future endeavors.
16
planComm/mlnutes/021so0
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:14 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesdav. March
15, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
17
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 3, 2000
Planning Application No. PA99-0478 (Development Plan)
Planning Application No. PA00-0084 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643)
Prepared by: Denice Thomas, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO, 2000-._
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0478, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
THREE (3) SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 66,116
SQUARE FEET ON 4.72 VACANT ACRES WITHIN THE LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSINESS
PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF THE BUSINESS
PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-020-068;
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0478 pursuant to Section
15332 of the CEQA Guidelines;
3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0084,
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643 TO SUBDIVIDE 4.72 VACANT
ACRES INTO THREE (3) PARCELS WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
(LI) ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSINESS
PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF THE BUSINESS
PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-068;
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0084 pursuant to Section
15315 of the CEQA Guidelines.
%\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
1
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Mike Linkletter, Linkletter Temecula L.P.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Luis Aguilar, Lungstrom & Associates (PA99-0478)
Dennis Armstrong, Armstrong Development Services (PA00-0084)
PROPOSAL:
PA99-0478: The design and construction of three (3) speculative
industrial buildings totaling 66,116 square feet on 4.72 acres of
vacant land.
PA00-0084: To subdivide 4.72 vacant acres into three (3) parcels
within the Light Industrial (LI) Zone.
LOCATION:
West side of Business Park Ddve approximately 800 feet south of the
Business Park Drive/Rancho Way intersection.
EXISTING ZONING:
Light Industrial (LI)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Light Industrial (LI)
South: Light Industrial (LI)
East: Light Industrial (LI)
West: Light Industrial (LI)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Business Park (BP)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Vacant
South: Chemicon
East: Industrial User
West: International Rectifier
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Lot Area (Parcel 1):
Lot Area (Parcel 2):
Lot Area (Parcel 3):
102,462 square feet (2.35 acres)
56,703 square feet (1.30 acres)
46,236 square feet (1.06 acres)
Building Area (BIdg 1):
Building Area (Bldg 2):
Building Area (Bldg 3):
Total Building Area:
33,851 square feet
21,165 square feet
11,100 square feet
66,116 square feet
Building Height:
31 feet- bldg 1, 35 feet- bldg 2, 29 feet- bldg 3
Landscaped Area (Bldg 1):
Landscaped Area (BIdg 2):
Landscaped Area (Bldg 3):
24,307 square feet (24%)
13,898 square feet (25%)
13,163 square feet (28%)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI~Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
2
Parking Required (Bldg 1):
Parking Required (BIdg 2):
Parking Required (Bldg 3):
Parking Provided (Bldg 1 ):
Parking Provided (BIdg 2):
Parking Provided (Bldg 3):
Lot Coverage:
Floor Area Ratio:
75 vehicular, 3 handicapped, 3 bicycle,
45 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle,
24 vehicular, 1 handicapped, 1 bicycle,
80 vehicular, 4 handicapped, 4 bicycle,
50 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 4 bicycle,
25 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 4 bicycle,
29%- bldg 1, 32%- bldg 2, 24%- bldg 3
0.33- bldg 1, 0.37- bldg 2, 0.24- bldg 3
3 motorcycle
2 motorcycle
1 motorcycle
4 motorcycle
2 motorcycle
2 motorcycle
PROJECT STATISTICS (TENTATIVE MAP)
Total Area:
205,401 square feet (4.72 acres)
BACKGROUND
The Development Plan was submitted as a pre-application to the Planning Department for review
on September 14, 1999. The formal application was submitted to the Planning Department on
November 29, 1999. The Applicant was provided Development Review Committee (DRC)
comments on November 3, 1999 for the pre-application. Additionally, a Development Review
Committee meeting was held on December 30, 1999 for the formal application. The Development
Plan was deemed complete on April 12, 2000.
The Tentative Parcel Map (Tentative Parcel Map Number 29643) was submitted to the Planning
Department for review on March 3, 2000. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was
held on March 30, 2000 to review the map. The map was deemed complete on April 12, 2000.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Development Plan is a proposal to develop three (3) parcels totaling 4.72 acres with 3
speculative industrial buildings totaling 66,116 square feet. At present the site is legally one (1)
parcel, however the applicant is also proposing Tentative Parcel Map Number 29643. The
Tentative Map proposal proposes to subdivide the vacant 4.72 acre parcel into three (3) parcels
(2.35 acres, 1.3 acres, and 1.06 acres).
ANALYSIS
Site Desiota
The project is generally located on the west side of Business Park Drive, approximately 800 feet
north of the Business Park Drive/Rancho Way intersection. Two (2) driveways located at the
northeasterly and southeasterly corners of the site provide access to the site from Business Park
Drive. At present there are three (3) ddveway aprons that exist, however after review by the Public
Works Department, the applicant has agreed to remove one (1) apron and only utilize the two (2)
driveways represented on the plans.
Parking for the project is located in front of the buildings (the easterly side of the site), due largely
to the fault line that traverses the site. The applicant is required to provide 144 parking spaces total
(75- building 1,45- building 2, 24- building 3). The parking spaces indicated by the applicant shows
an excess of 11 vehicle spaces. It is important to note that this proposal is for a speculative
building. Staff is relying on the use ratios provided by the applicant to calculate the parking for the
site. The applicant is proposing the ratios indicated in Table 1.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff repo~l.doc
3
Table 1- Use Ratios
Use Building 1 Building 2 Building 3
Office 28% 27% 27%
Manufacturing 37% 34% 36%
Warehouse 35% 39% 37%
The ratios provided by the applicant are reasonable disbursements of uses. To ensure that future
tenants have adequate parking, Staff is including a condition that requires a synopsis of proposed
uses to be provided to the Planning Department for compliance with the Planning Commission
approval.
The floor area ratios (FAR) have been calculated for all of the buildings, as well as, the total site.
The Development Code allows for a target floor area ratio of 0.40 for development within the Light
Industrial (LI) Zone. The overall FAR for the project is 0.32, which is below the amount allowed by
code. Individually, the FAR's for each of the buildings are as follows: 0.33- building 1, 0.37-
building 2 and 0.24 building 3. The FAR's for the individual buildings are also below the amount
allowed by code.
The lot coverage for each of the buildings and the overall project has been calculated. The Code
allows a maximum lot coverage of 40% in the Light Industdal (LI). The applicant is proposing the
following lot coverage percentages: 29%- building 1, 32%- building 2, 24%- building 3. The
proposed lot coverages are below the percentages set forth in the Development Code.
Finally, the project provides three (3) employee lunch areas, one (1) for each building. Each
employee lunch areas contains one (1) Class II bicycle rack. The design of the site is compatible
with existing industrial development in the area.
Access, Traffic and Circulation
Access for the site will be taken from Business Park Drive. Parking is provided along the easterly
side of the site. The Public Works Department has reviewed this project and has not indicated that
the impacts of the project will not be significant. Emergency vehicles have access to all parts of
each building.
Architecture, Color and Materials
The building "pop-outs" , the decorative glass and the scored concrete provide architectural
interest. The tilt-up concrete buildings are three shades of gray progressing from light gray at the
tops of the buildings, to an intermediate gray, to a dark gray along the bottom of the building. The
windows and doom are composed of tinted blue glass accented by reflective blue glass.
Additionally, the windows are trimmed with white paint. The architectural style of the project
complements the existing development on Business Park Drive.
Signage
Signage is not a pan of this application. The review of signage will be conducted under a separate
application at a later date.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
4
Landscapinq
The Development Code requires projects within the Light industrial (LI) Zone to provide a minimum
landscaping and open space area of 20% of the project site. The amount of landscape materials
proposed by the applicant exceeds what is required by code as can be seen in Table 2 below.
Landscape Amount
Landscape in sq. feet
Landscape by percent
Table 2- Site Landscaping
Building 1 Building 2
24,307 13,898
24% 25%
Building 3
13,163
28%
The existing slope along the westerly boundary of the property was created when the project was
originally graded under County standards. The slope is not in compliance with the City's
Development Code. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing mature trees on the slope and
will be conditioned to provide additional plant materials to bring the slope into compliance.
Tentative Parcel MaD No. 29643
The proposed tentative parcel map is in compliance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance as well
as the California Subdivision Map Act. Further, the map as proposed is consistent with the
development requirements of the City's Development Code, Light Industrial (LI) Zone. The
applicant's proposal was routed to the City's Public Works Department, as well as, the Fire Safety
Division for review. The responses from the various departments indicate that the proposal is
acceptable, assuming the attached conditions of approval are met.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0478 will be made pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332.
The proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA
Guidelines based on the following reasons:
The site is 4.72 acres which is less than the 5 acres required
The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area
The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species
The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services
The speculative industrial buildings are being approved pursuant to the zoning and
general plan designations for the site.
A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0084 will be made pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15315.
The proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15315 of the CEQA
Guidelines based on the following reasons:
The property is in an urbanzied area zoned for commercial use
The division is for fewer than four (4) lots
The proposed division conforms to the General Plan, the Development Code, and
the California Subdivision Map Act
Services are available to the parcels
The parcel is not a division of a larger parcel divided within 2 years
The parcels do not have an average natural slope greater than 20 percent
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM2964,3 Linkletter~staff report.doc
5
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for the
site is LI (Light Industrial). A variety of industrial uses are permitted within this zone, with the
approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project
as proposed, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with the General Plan,
Development Code, the Design Guidelines, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, and the California
Map Act. Further, the parcels created by the proposed tentative map exceed the minimum lot size
of 40,000 square feet required in the Light Industrial (LI) Zone.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all applicable City ordinances,
standards, guidelines and policies. It is staffs opinion that the project is compatible with
surrounding developments in terms of design and quality.
FINDINGS
Develol3ment Plan
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (BP)
Business Park development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards for (LI) Light Industrial Zone 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 commercial 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.
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.
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 cumulativeiy have an adverse effect on
wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Tentative Parcel Mao No. 29643
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent
with the City Subdivision Ordinance, General Ran, and the City of Temecula Municipal
Code. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use Designation and
zoning standards of Light Industrial. Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643 proposes to divide
4.72 acres into one 2.35 acre parcel, one 1.3 acre and one 1.06 acre parcel, which exceeds
the 40,000 square foot minimum lot area required by the Development Code.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter%staff report.doc
6
The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered
into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will
not be too small to sustain their agricultural use. The tentative map has not been previously
divided in the last two years and it is not designated as an agricultural land use area.
The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed
by the tentative map. The site does not have any serious topographical or environmental
constraints which, would inhibit the type of development permitted by the Development
Code or the General Plan.
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval,
are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The site is within the vicinity of in-fill development and
is considered an in-fill site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse
effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. The
City's Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department and Fire Department have reviewed the
project. These departments have conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and
welfare.
The design of the subdivision provides future passive natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided. The map proposes access from
Business Park Drive. The proposed access points will not obstruct any easements.
Attachments-
PC Resolution - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA99-0478 (Development Plan) - Blue Page 10
PC Resolution - Blue Page 21
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA00-0084 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643)- Blue
Page 25
Exhibits for PA99-0478 (Development Plan) - Blue Page 35
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Grading Plan
F. North and South Elevations
G. East and West Elevation
H. First Floor Plan
I. Second Floor Plan
J. Landscape Plans
Exhibits for PA00~0084 (Tentative Parcel Map) - Blue Page 45
A. Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\p M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
APPROVING PA99-0478
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report,doc
8
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA99-0478, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL
BUILDINGS TOTALLING 66,116 SQUARE FEET ON A TOTAL OF
4.72 VACANT ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH
OF THE BUSINESS PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-068.
WHEREAS, Luis Aguilar, Lundstrom & Associates, filed Planning Application No. PA99-
0478, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0478 was processed including, but not limited
to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA99-0478 on May 3, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA99-0478 subject to the conditions
after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No, PA99-0478 conformed to the City
of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA99-0478 (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, as well as the development
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 commercial 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 cenditioned 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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~taff report.doc
9
C. 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
is no fish or wildlife habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish or wildlife
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.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. PA99-0478 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332,
This Section allows exemptions for infill 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. PA99-0478 (Development Plan) for the design and
construction of three (3) speculative industrial buildings totaling 66,116 square feet on a total of
4.72 vacant acres of land located on the west side of Business Park Drive approximately 800 feet
south of the Business Park Drive/Rancho Way intersection, and known as Assessor's Parcel No.
921-020°068 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 3rd day of May 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of May, 2000,
by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~Staff reporLdoc
10
EXHIBIT A
CONDITION8 OF APPROVAL
PA99-0478 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter%staff report.doc
11
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: PA99-0478 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
Design and construct three (3) speculative industrial
buildings totaling 66,116 square feet proposed for a
three (3) parcel subdivision
DIF Category:
Business Park
Assessor's Parcel No:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
921-020-068
May 3,2000
May 3,2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of
seventy-eight Dollars ($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 condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
2.. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and
all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek
monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality
thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by
the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within
the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13,
Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152
and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the
defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require
additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any
unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail
to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant
fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval
without further notice to the applicant.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-00E4 TPM29643 Linkletter~taff report.doc
12
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.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner
to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The
continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer
or any successors in interest.
All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed
below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall.
7. All compact parking spaces will be marked for "COMPACT CARS ONLY."
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and with Exhibit "1" (Color and Matedal Board), contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
Primary wall:
Secondary wall:
Tertiary wall:
Window Trim and Door Frames:
Window Trim and Door Frames:
Glass:
Glass:
I.C.I #800- Designer Grey
I.C.I. #791- Pewter Grey
I.C.I #689- Falcon Grey
I.C.I. #1335- West Pointe Blue
I.C.I #2013- White High Hiding RM
Visteon Versalux2000- Tinted Blue Glass
Visteon Versalux 2000R- Reflective Blue Glass
The applicant will bring the existing slope into compliance as specified by the City's
Landscape Architect; evidence of compliance shall be provided on the construction
landscape drawings.
10.
The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
11.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
12.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one
signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
13.
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 (7) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1"
%\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff reportdoc
13
Prior
14.
15.
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.
to the Issuance of Building Permits
A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "H", or as amended by these conditions.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The 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
16.
The applicant shall submit a use and parking ratio synopsis for staff review and approval
to ensure that the proposed tenant uses for the buildings are compliant with the uses and
parking ratios approved by the Planning Commission.
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 required for all signage identified on the appreved Exhibits
"D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
18.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning
Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
19.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the 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
satisfactonj to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released.
20.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
\~TEMEC_FS101~VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report,doc
14
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the
off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
21.
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.
22.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review
and revision.
General Requirements
23. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
24.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
25.
All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing
improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of
Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
26. 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.
27.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteein9 the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
28.
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.
\~TEMEC_FS101WOLI\Depts\PLANNING\p M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
15
29.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
30.
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.
31.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
32.
As deemed .necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
33. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
34. Planning Department
35. Department of Public Works
36.
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.
37.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
38.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
39. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving,
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
All concentrated drainage shall be directed towards an existing open channel along
the property frontage via over side drains per City of Temecula Standard No. 300.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\pLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Ljnkletter~staff report.doe
16
40.
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.
41.
a. Sewer and domestic water systems
b. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
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.
42.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
43.
The Developer shall provide a reciprocal access agreement for joint use of driveways and
parking. A copy of the recorded agreement or recorded Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions containing the agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.
44.
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.
45.
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
46 As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
47.
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department
of Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
48.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
49.
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.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOLI\Depts\PLANNI NG\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter\staff report.doc
17
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required, The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility,
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the appreved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
Show all building setbacks
Carry forward the comments from the Design Review Process in regard to the fire rated
walls, openings, seismic joints
Clearly identify what yards are being used to justify the allowable building square footage.
Further, you may only multiply the allowable area increase factor for yards by the amount
of which the lesser yard exceeds twenty.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
18
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.
68.
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.
69.
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 2000 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for
a total fire flow of 3850 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic
fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as
given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ili-
A)
70.
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 roads and adjacent
public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be
located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access
road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC
903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
71.
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)
72.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
73.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GV~/. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
74.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
75.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not tess 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)
76.
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
19
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82
83.
84.
85.
86.
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, 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 )
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)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The
numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for
suite identification on a contrasting background, In strip centers, businesses shall post the
suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4)
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 sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC
Article 10)
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by
the alarm system. (CFC 902.4)
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
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)
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, fiammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from
both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\[:)epts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
20
Special Conditions
87.
Prior to building final, CC&R's or easements for access and maintenance of the
underground fire water lines shall be approved by Fire Prevention, City Staff, and recorded
with the map.
OTHER AGENCIES
88.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
Distdct's transmittal dated January 12, 2000 a copy of which is attached. The fee is made
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or
money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by
the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
89.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in California Historical
Resources Information System transmittal dated February 23, 2000, a copy of which is
attached.
90.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated December 17, 1999. a copy of which
is attached.
91.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
transmittal dated December 13, 1999 a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff repoft.doc
21
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
APPROVING PA00-0084
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.dec
22
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0084,
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643 TO SUBDIVIDE 4.72 VACANT
ACRES INTO THREE (3) PARCELS WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE BUSINESS PARK
DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF THE BUSINESS PARK
DRIVE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO, 921-020-068.
WHEREAS, Mike Linkletter, Linkletter Development, filed Planning Application No. PA00-
0084 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General
Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
May 3, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the
project proposed in the Application conformed with the City of Temecula General Plan,
Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findines. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA00-0084 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643), hereby makes the following findings
as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code;
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be
too small to sustain their agricultural use;
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map;
\~TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\pLANNING\p M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.cioc
23
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are either:
1. Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; or
2. A Notice of Exemption is being filed pursuant to Section 15315 of the CEQA
Guidelines;
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems;
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements wilt not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those
previously acquired by the public will be provided.
H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. PA00-0084 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15315.
This Section allows exemptions for minor land divisions 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 approves
Planning Application No. PA00-0084 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643) for the subdivision of 4.72
gross acres into three (3) parcels, located on the west side of Business Park Drive, south of the
Business Park Ddve/Rancho Way intersection, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 920-020-068
subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of May, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
\%TEMEC_FS101WOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
24
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 3rd day of May, 2000 by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~taff report.dec
25
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA00-0084 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. 29643)
%\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
26
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No:
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PA00-0084 (Tentative Parcel Map No, 29643)
Subdivide 4.72 vacant acres into three (3) parcels
921-020-068
May 3, 2000
May 3, 2002
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount
of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to
file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative
Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code
of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall
be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of Califomia Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and
all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek
monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality
thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by
the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within
the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13,
Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152
and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the
defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
27
additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any
unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail
to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant
fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the lans use approval
without further notice to the applicant.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
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.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
6. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1)
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
Califomia Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
2) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency.
General Requirements
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
A Grading PerTnit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works pdor to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
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.
10.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOLI\Depts\PLANNI NG\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter%staff report. doc
28
Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
11.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastem Municipal Water District
c. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
e. Planning Department
f. Department of Public Works
g. Riverside County Health Department
h. Cable TV Franchise
i. Community Services District
j. Southern California Edison Company
12.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum cdteria shall be observed in the design
of the street improvement plans:
a. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207A.
b. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
C=
All concentrated drainage shall be directed towards an open channel along the
tentative parcel map frontage via over side drain per City Standard No, 300.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
13.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by 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.
14.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Business Park Drive on the Parcel Map
with the exception of two openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
15.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons
such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
\~TEMEC_FS101WOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~taff report.doc
29
16.
17,
19.
20,
21.
22.
23.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is par~ of an
existing Assessment Distdct must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to
City Council approval of the Parcel Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reappodionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency,
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map.
A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval. The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
d. Archeological resources found on the site.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject
property.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave 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' or "Medians in accordance with the General Plan". The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the final map.
An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided among the three proposed parcels
prior to approval of the Parcel Map.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on
the final map, A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be
kept free of buildings and obstructions."
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00o0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~taff report.doc
30
Prior
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
to Issuance of Grading Permits
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Planning Department
b. Department of Public Works
c. Riverside County Health Department
d. Community Services District
e. Southern California Edison Company
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction
of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnicat hazards for the site
including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of
the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private,
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or
private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all
facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm
water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis
and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI~Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
31
32.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
33. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded.
34.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location
and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Finat Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
35.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
36.
The Developer shall obtain a reciprocal access agreement for joint use of driveways and
parking and shall be specified in the CCR's.
37.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
38.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
39.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
40.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the
construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works.
BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION
41.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
\~TEMEC_FSIOI\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
32
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
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.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Provide an approved automatic fire
sprinkler system.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
Show all building setbacks
\\TEMEC_FS101~VOLI\Depts\PLANNING~P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.dec
33
59.
60.
61.
62.
Post conspicuously at the entrance to the project, the hours of construction as allowed by
City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and specifically Section G(1 ) of the Riverside County
Ordinance # 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday - Friday
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday
7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Code Holidays
Project shall comply with the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act.
Zero clearance building to maintain seismic separation as required by the California Building
Code.
FIRE SAFETY DIVISION
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.
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 residential land
division per CFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-I, The developer shall provide for this
project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating
pressure with a 2~hour duration, The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection
measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has
taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903,2, Appendix Ill-A)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The
upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix II1-
B)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating
pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection
measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has
taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI~Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff reportdoc
34
67.
68,
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The
upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-
B)
Maximum cul-de~sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs, GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6)inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
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)
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval 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 )
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)
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)
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 LinkletterLstaff report.doc
35
Special Conditions
78.
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the
wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A)
79.
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures
shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or
block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A)
OTHER AGENCIES
80.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's transmittal March 30, 2000, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable
to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money
order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the
District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
81.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 10, 2000, a copy of which
is attached.
82.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
transmittal dated March 14, 2000 a copy of which is attached.
83.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Historical
Resources Information System transmittal dated March 23, 2000
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
\\TFMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 LinkletteAstaff report.(joc
36
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\DeDts\PLANN~NG\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
37
CITY OFTEMECULA
CASE NOS. - PA99-0478 AND PA00-0084
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- MAY 3, 2000
VICINITY MAP
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
38
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP BUSINESS PARK
CASE NOS. - PA99-0478 AND PA00-0084
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\pLANN[NG\P M\00-00B4 TPM29643 Linkletter~taff report.doc
39
CITY OF TEMECULA
tinkletier Business Park
CASE NO. - PA99-0478
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 1999
SITE PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
40
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0478 AND PA00-0084
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
GRADING PLAN
%\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts~PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
41
CITY OF TEMECULA
EG'St Elevation A I
WesfElevoh~n
CASE NO. - PA99-0478 AND PA00-0084
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
\~TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter%staff report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
North Elevo~on A I
Sou~ Elevo~on BI
CASE NO. - PA99-0478 AND PA00-0084
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\pLANNING\p M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report,doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
North E/evohon
AI
?- E
Souf~ E/evohbn
BI
CASE NO. - PA99-0478 AND PA00-0084
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:%Depts\PLANNING%P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
43
CITY OF TEMECULA
AI
West EJevofion
CASE NO. - PA99-0478 AND PA00-0084
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 LinkletteAstaff report,doc
43
CITY OFTEMECULA
'/
F
81
CASE NO. - PA99-0478 AND PA00-0084
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
43
CITY OF TEMECULA
Non~h Ejevafion
AI
South ElevoNon
BI
CASE NO. - PA99-0478 AND PA00-0084
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~taff reportdoc
43
CITY OF TEMECULA
m m
CASE NO. - PA99-0478
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
FLOOR PLANS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter%staff report.doc
44
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0478
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
FLOOR PLANS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkietter~staff report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0478
EXHIBIT - I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
FLOOR PLANS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter%staff report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
F,,.U~rIN~
/
/
/
/
/
CASE NO. - PA99-0478 AND PA00-0084
EXHIBIT - J
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
LANDSCAPE PLANS
TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts~PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkie~ter~staff report.doc
46
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkietter~staff reporc.doc
47
CITY OF TEMECULA
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643
CASE NO. - PA00-0084
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 3, 2000
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\P M\00-0084 TPM29643 Linkletter~staff report.doc
48
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General ManagcPChiefEnginccr
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin De artment
Post ~-ff~ce ~x 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: _T) E, r,/ I r E '77-ho P~ ~ 5 ·
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKEl SIKEE I
RJVERSIDE. CA 92501
909/955 - 1200
909'788-9965 FAX
511801
The D str ct does not norma ly recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The Distdct also does not lan check cty and use Cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for suchP cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific nterest to the D stdct including Distdct Master Draina e Plan facilities, other re ional flood
control and dra na · fac litlee wh ch cou d be considered a logical componenJPor extension of a master ~lan s stem.
and Distdct Area Brainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). n add t on, information of a general ns=~usre 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 Distdct approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood haza d, p blic
health and safety or any other such issue: r u
This prpject would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional ~nterest proposed.
This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will acce t ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District StandPardS, and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels. storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
consadered regiona n nature and/or a o ical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District woul~ consider accept ng ownership of such tacdlt~es on written equ st
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and District plan check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance, Plan check, inspection and adm n strative fees will be required. r V.~ew!t.a..E,~t
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project ma re uira a National Pctlutant Discharge E m nat on System (NPDES permit from the State Water
Resources ContYrol ~oard C earance for grading recordat/on, or other final approva~ should not be given until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
f this project nvo ves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain. then the Cit should
requ re the app cant to provide all stud es, calculations, plans and other reformation required to meet~ FEMA
requirements and shou d further require that the applicant obtain a Cond tional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
pdor to grading, recordat/on or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR(~ prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project. the City should require the a l/cant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Ca~omia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean PV~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. or written correspondence from these a encies
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Qualit Cer~?fication
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of t~e Corps 404
permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:/' /
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: December 17. 1999
TO:
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM PENCE HA Environmental h Sp ist III
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0478
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0478 and has no
objections. SanitaO' sewer and water sen'ices may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBNIITTAL ti~r health clearance. the following items are
required:
a) "~'ill-sen'e" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
· Water- Rancho California Water District
· Sewer - Eastern Municipal Water District
b)
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be
submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to
ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific
reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022).
c) A clemrancc letter t?om the Hazardous Sen'ices Materials Managen~cnt Branch (909) 694-5055
will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks. Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazgdous Waste Generator Sen'ices. Ordinance # 615.3.
· Emergency Response Plans Disclosure fin accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Waste reduction management.
d) A letter gore the Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
CH:dr
(909) 955-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requiren~ents not covered, can be applicable at time ofl?,uilding
Plan review for final Department of Enviromnental Health Clearance.
Doug Thompson. Hazardous Materials
cO:
l ancho
Water
December 13, 1999
Denice Thomas, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
DEC 15 1999
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL li OF PARCEL MAP 19580
APN 921-020-068
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0478
Dear Ms. Thomas:
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 centact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
99XSB:mc328%F012-T6%FCF
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
lIESOURCES
INFORMATION
tYSTEM
9096946477;# 2
liversida, CA 9~a21..0418
CULTURAL RESOURCE REVW-W
DATB: Febrdazy 23, 2000
Case Tra~ml~al Rcfea~nce De~i~.H~n: pA 99-0478
Systcm have bcen reviewed to determine if this pt~ect would adversely affect prehistoric or
historic cultural x~sources:
__ ThepropeMdptoJectarcahasmabe~nmxveymlforcuitm'alrcaotm;esandcentajnsoria~tm~
cultm~l reaomce(s~ A Plmse I study
__ AHmaelcsdtunltesom~cst~iyOv~#
Phase I ~21taral ~ study (MF #1971 [pm ofla hr~= proJe~D identified no eultonl t~o~rces.
l~th= sudy is ~x
'liere is a low prchbility d chitreal teaogres. Ranher study is not
Dins to thc m'chs=olo~ical Mmnaitivity d th~ mP~ ~so. vin~ d~iq eo~lnscfion should be moultoral by
a profmmiomi a,chM~oSisc
The submission of · culmrd n~m~e management tclxat is recommended following guidclln~ for
Are.~o.~!ogical P.~ot~cc Management i~l~tta prc~ by the California Office of Hiatoric Prnm~vatioa.
Pra,~rvm'~ Ptann~ Ba, q'etin 4fa). l)~snhef 198~.
COMMENTS:
ff you have any questions, pl~se contsct us.
March 14, 2000
SUBJECT:
Denice Thomas, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Offiee Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 11 OF PARCEL MAP 19580
APN 921-020-068
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0084
Dear Ms. Thomas:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative
at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
99\SB:bs021\F012-T6\FCF
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin De atment
Post O~ce ~x 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: "~NIC~' '~OrfA
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 9250!
909/955-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
51180.1
The Distri~ does not riosally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in ineomorated
cities. The Distd~ also does not lan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate le~ers or
other flood h~ard repo~s for suc~ ~ses. Distnct comments/re~mmendations for such ~ses are normally limited
to items of sp~fic ~nterest to the Distd~ including Distdct Master Draina e Plan facilities. other re ional flood
~ntrol and dmina e facilities which could be considered a logical componen~or e~ension of a master ~n s stem,
and Dis~ ~ea ~rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addison, info~ation of a general n~re is
provided.
~e Distd~ has not review~ the proposed proje~ in devil and the falling choked ~mments do not in any way
~nstit~e or imply Dis~ appm~l or endo~ement of ~e proceed pmje~ ~ respe~ to flood h~ard, public
h
health and s~e~ or any ot er such issue:
t/~is pr~je~ ~uld not be impacted by Distd~ Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facili~es of
regional ~nterest pm~sed.
~is proje~ involves Distd~ Master Plan facilities. The Dis~ will a~e t ownership of such facilities on
~en request of ~e Ci~. Facilities must be constructed to Distd~ stan~rds. and District plan check and
inspe~on ~11 be r~uired for Distd~ a~ptan~. Plan ch~, ins~on and administrative fees ~11 be
required.
~is proje~ pro~ses channels sto~ drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a Io i~l e~ension of the adopted
Master Dm nage Plan. The Distri~ woul~ consider a~epting o~emhip ~ such ta~l~es on wn~en request
of the Ci~. Fadli~es must be ~nstm~ed to Distdct standards, and D~s~ plan check and inspe~ion will
be requir~ for Dis~ acceptance. Plan check, inspe~on and adminis~tive fees will be required.
che~ or money order only to ~e Fl~d Control Dis~ pdor ~ issuance of ~ng or gradin petite
~ichever ~mes flint. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effe~ at ~e ~me of issuan~ ~?he a~ual
petit.
GENE~L INFORMATION
~is pmje~ ma uire a National Poll~nt Discharge Elimina~on System (NPDES petit from the S~te Water
Resources COnrm Oa . Cleamn~ for grading reardamon. or other final appmva~should not be given until the
Ci~ has dete~ined ~at ~e pmje~ has been gmnt~ a permit or is s~ to ~ exempt.
If ~is proj~ involves a Federal Eme~en~ Management Agen~ (FE~ ma~ fl~ plain, then the Ci should
mqu m ~e appli~nt to pm~de all s~dies, ~l~la~ons plans and o~er ~o~ation mfiuired to me~ FE~
mfiuimmen~ and should ~er require ~at ~e a pliant ob~in a Conditio~l Le~er of Map Revision CLOMR)
pdor to grad ng, r~ffiat on or other final appmva~f the project, and a Le~er of Map Revision (LOMR~ pdor to
~pan~.
If a natural water~u~e or map~d fl~d plain is im acted by this pmje~, the Ci~ should require the a li~nt to
obtain a Se~ion 160111603 Agreement from the Ca~omia Depa~ment of Fish and Game and a Clean ~ater A~
Section 404 Petit from ~e U.S. ~y Co~s of Engineera, or ~en ~espondence from these a encies
indica~ng the pm'e~ is exem~ from these requirements. A Clean Water A~ S~on 401 Water Quail CeSSation
may be requir~mm the I~1 California Regional Water Quali~ Control Boa~ pdor to issuance of ~e Co~s 404
~it.
Venj truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: ~..~-~O-7~C,~
TO:
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: March 10. 2000
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ........
ATTN: Denice Thomas
~Ol~GOR DI3LLBNBACH, Interim Supervisor
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643 / PA00-00~4 ~:.
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643 and
will reqmre the following items PRIOR TO SAN 53 S[~BMrrTAL:
a) A "will-serve" letter for potable ~ater t~om the appropriate agency providing v, ater sen'ice.
GD:dr
(909) 955-8980
Stand2o ~joc
tThursdey Watch 23, 1900 10:47ae -- From
SENT FIY:UGR
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
,tYSTEM
,~o9, -- Pwe 21
; 3-24-00 ;10:26NI; ARCH RESEARCH UNIT'*
909694647?;~ 2
CULTURAL RKqOURCR REYncW
DATE,: Maids :7.3, 2000
Case Trmanita] b ]:)~on: PA(X).-00S4fFm'~h,dve Pro'eel it'2~:~43
__ TbeitopMed~,;,~tambmuetbeeamrveFdh'calbnhmo~mandc~ntaimoriaadja~mtoknown
ndtmslm). AHsselmadyisrg:--v
APluselmlumdmsssessusdy(MF#
),dmdI~ed~eewm~'~gdtard~smm:m.
Kdm p,,~,,~c slwiaf dm. ns:Hwery em advene_,edv.~__m,-,ih-dmso~cesismx~
Fmlbefladyisaotfetom~
APlmelcuhmalmom:esmdy(Ml~i445amlldF#iO71)idmfi~edaocallaalrcaowm. PmlbermMy
fa nm
__ Tbegtssiowlsdmbil~e~mlmrslrmsm~t Pmlzrmadyisnmm-.~m~-~
Hmml
Hme'm
If you havc my qucslious, pkasc coutsct us.
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 3, 2000
Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan}
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0317, DEVELOPMENT PLAN THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, 'TWO AND
THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL,
CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON
APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
944-290-011
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: A.G. Kading, AGK Group, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Markham, Markham & Associates
PROPOSAL: To design, construct and operate a 246-unit, two and three story
apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot
LOCATION: South side of Rancho Califomia Road, southeast of the intersection
of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road
EXISTING ZONING: M Medium Density Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: H High Density Residential
South: H High Density and LM Low Medium Density Residential
East: PO Professional Office
West: PO Professional Office and H High Density Residential
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
1
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
N/A
M Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre)
Vacant
SURROUNDINGLAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Woodcreek and Porto~no Apartments
Mira Loma and Rancho Apartments, and single family dwellings on Levande Place
Vacant
Vacant & Summer Breeze Apartments; Rancho California Medical Plaza beyond
PROJECT STATISTICS
Building Footprint:
Landscaping
Parking, Streets
Herdscape
39 structures
Total Area:
Density:
Max. Building Height:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
20.88 acres
11.7 units per acre
40 feet
268 covered
7 accessible
269 covered
32 accessible
181,156 square feet
393,586 square feet
248,280 square feet
86,230 square feet
909,533 square feet
236 uncovered
7 accessible
236 provided
8 accessible
20.0%
43.2%
27.3%
9.5%
100.0%
8 motorcycle
8 motorcycle
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA99-0317 was received on August 11, 1999, as a request to construct
a 266-unit apartment project. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on
September 16, 1999. Subsequent to the DRC comment letter dated October 5, 1999 a second
submittal was received January 6, 2000. A third submittal was received on February 22, 2000. The
project was deemed complete on March 14, 2000 and the Initial Environmental Assessment was
sent to the Governors Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, to circulate the
document for a 30-day review period.
Additionally, at the suggestion of the applicant, staff toured apartment projects in Orange County
to view first-hand similar architecture, materials, product finish, circulation, entry statements,
facades, parking clusters, amenities, open space, and density treatment as proposed by the
project,
Two neighborhood workshops on the project were noticed and held by the applicant on the
evenings of Janua~ 14, 2000 and February 11, 2000. At the February workshop 20 residents
attended who had concerns regarding the concentration of apartments in the area, the density of
the project, size of structures, grading, traffic, and impacts to schools. Property owners in the
vicinity had been previously invited to a community meeting on October 14, 1998 at City Hall,
prior to the actual submittal of the project. At that meeting, two residents on Mira Loma Drive,
three residents from Veradero and seven residents on Levande Place attended.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doC
2
The proposed site was the location of Plot Plan No. 10864, approved by the City of Temecula City
Council on December 11, 1990 as a referral of an appeal from the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors. Plot Plan No. 10864 proposed a 260-unit condominium townhouse development, two
and three-story in height, with pool, spa, tot lot, a 4,000 square foot clubhouse, indoor racquetball,
two tennis courts and 54,000 square feet of open recreation space. Plot Plan No. 10864 proposed
a density of 11.70 dwelling units per acre, but it has since expired.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Temecula Ridge Apartments are comprised of four different building types, 22
separate residential buildings, with dwelling units that range in size from 775 square feet to 1,380
square feet (including deck). Three of the building types offer ground-level, fully enclosed garages,
with the dwelling units either in a single level or multi-level floor plan, in one, two or three stories.
Additionally, there are separate, single or double wide garage structures. No carports are
proposed within the project. Guest parking spaces are provided throughout the site. A portion of
both the garages and guest spaces are handicapped accessible.
The project offers a centrally located clubhouse that provides a recreation room, meeting room,
and kitchen for tenants. It adjoins the leasing offices and is easily accessible from the two
entrances to the site. A pool, spa and work-out room completes the activity area, which has
connecting walkways that link it to the residential buildings. Additionally, a tot lot with play
equipment and seating adjacent to open space is provided at the southeast end of the site.
ANALYSIS
Access and Circulation
The project has two entrances which take access from two roadways that each intersect with
Rancho California Road. As a result of project development, Moraga Road shall be extended
southward beyond its existing location, and shall matchup and connect to existing Via Las Coilhas.
Street "A" is proposed as a cul-de-sac along the east side of the site, extending from Rancho
California Road southward. While the Moraga/Rancho California Road intersection will continue
to be signalized, the intersection of Street "A" with Rancho California Road will not be signalized,
and therefore, vehicular turning movements are limited to right in/right out only from this col-de-
sac.
The project's vehicular circulation comes off a main west-east spine drive, and generally there are
loop drive aisles around the garage structures. Both emergency vehicle access and handicapped
accessibility was analyzed during the design of the project. Pedestrian walkways are provided
throughout the site, adjacent to dwellings, through open space areas, and to garages.
Interface with Adiacent Properties
The project site is zoned for medium density residential, while adjacent property to the south is
zoned for high density residential, as is a portion to the west, and property across Rancho
California Road. The high-density residential areas have developed into the existing Mira Loma
and Rancho Apartments to the south, Summer Breeze Apartments to the west and Woodcreek
and Porto~no Apartments to the north. As designed, the project interface with these existing
apartments is acceptable.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC,doc
3
Of concern to staff was the interface with the single family residential homes at the end of the
Levande cul-de-sac. To address this concern, the applicant modified the project to provide a 112-
foot separation from the property line at this location to the nearest building. The buildings were
sited to have the narrower ends of the units face south and be limited to two stories, consistent
with adjacent single family homes. Berming and a four-foot high screen wall was added at this
location, and particular attention was given to the plantings provided along the slope. According
to the City Landscape Architect, the proposed acacias will grow very quickly, providing a decent
screening within two to three years. The proposed redwoods will grow approximately three feet
each year. With the addition of evergreen shrubs along with these trees, a reasonable screen can
be provided. The project is conditioned that final shrub species selection and placement is subject
to review and approval by the City.
Architectural Desloin
Staff worked with the applicant's architect to de-emphasize building mass. Large buildings and
garages were divided into smaller clusters. Building orientation provides visual interest and variety.
Building setbacks were vaded along the perimeter of the project, and the meandering spine drive
also varies the streetscape within the project. Building designs have varied heights and roofiines,
strong vertical and horizontal articulation, and vaded and broken facades. Windows and entrances
were extended or recessed. Enclosed stairwells were added.
Monument Signs
The project proposes corner monumentation at both the Moraga and Street "A" intersections with
Rancho California Road. Given the fact that the project sits on the ridge above Rancho California
Road and these monuments will be visible at street level, and given the fact that it would be
necessary for visitors to access the project from these intersections, the two monuments are
appropriate and necessary. Additional entry signage is proposed at each of the two physical entry
points to the project, in accordance with the "vehicular entry zone" concept as encouraged in the
City's Design Guidelines for multi-family projects.
Traffic
The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for a 40-acre project proposal which
includes the Temecula Ridge Apartments. The TIA was reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, who
approved the revised document dated February 18, 2000 by Wilbur Smith Associates. The
document analyzed peak hour traffic impacts at all signalized intersections on Rancho California
Road between Margarita Road and Interstate-15. However, the TIA was prepared prior to the
completion of roadway improvements at the Interstate-15 southbound and northbound ramps, the
intersection of Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, and the Overland Drive overpass. The
document states that with these roadway improvements, all intersections analyzed are projected
to operate at Level of Service "D" (LOS) or better, for both the year 2001 with or without the
project. Since all of the roadway improvements have now been completed and Overland Drive
overpass is now open to traffic, project impacts are within applicable General Plan LOS standards.
According to the City Traffic Engineer, the TIA adequately addressed the areas of concern and
identified mitigation recommendations for the project for the year 2001, such as the extension of
Moraga Road prior to occupancy, and the payment of Development Impact Fees for city-wide
roadway improvements. In addition, the City Traffic Engineer has conditioned the project to widen
Moraga Road, where it intersects with Rancho California Road, in order to provide the southbound
through lane required by the project, while retaining the existing two left-turn eastbound lanes and
singular right-turn westbound lane.
F:\DeptS\PLANNiNG\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC,dOC
4
An issue raised at the neighborhood workshop was a perceived high accident rate on Rancho
California Road in front of the project site. The City Traffic Engineering Division prepared a "Traffic
Collision History Report" from 1/1/91 through 1/1/00, between Moraga Road and Humber Drive.
The report indicates that there were a total of 25 collisions over the nine year period for the 0.43
mile segment. With an average daily traffic count of 32,000, the accident rate (collisions per million
vehicle miles) is 0.55. According to Caltrans in their analysis of roadways statewide, a rate of 2.4
is considered the basic average accident rate for a 4-lane divided roadway. Rancho California
Road, at the project site, is less than % the statewide average.
Grading
Because the project site is a prominent ddge that runs in an east-west direction, descending both
to Rancho California Road to the north and to the residential developments along Mira Loma to
the south, staff worked with the applicant to develop an acceptable grading program for the
project, utilizing the Hillside Design standards within the Community Design Section IV.G. of the
General Plan. Staff asked that the applicant work as much slope into the interior portion of the
project as possible, and to blend the land with existing oonditions at the boundaries of the site.
Staff asked that the applicant explore split-level units built into slopes, to minimize disturbance of
the natural terrain. The applicant opted to construct an upscale project with certain amenities,
particularly enclosed garages, which increased the need for graded pad sites. The applicant
proposes to treat the site in similar fashion as other apartment complexes in the City, and to
compete with comparable projects such as Tuscany Ridge and Solaria Ridge Apartments. The
applicant provided additional site sections to indicate the amount of slope throughout the project
in relation to buildings, and in relation to existing topography, See Attachment 4.E. for these
sections.
Consistency with the Growth Manaaement Proaram Action Plan
Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the Growth Management Program Action Plan
adopted by the City Coundl on March 21, 2000. The Action Plan directs the Planning Commission
to consider approving residential projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category.
However, the Plan states that the Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest
density if the project provides onsite or community amenities.
The General Plan density range designated for the project site is 7-12 dwelling units per acre, and
at 11.7 dwelling units per acre, the project is not at the lowest allowable density. However, the
project does offer onsite amenities, and in particular, is the first of its kind to provide fully enclosed
garages for all units (no carports). The project provides benefits to the community by constructing
traffic circulation improvements in the vicinity in conjunction with development. By providing
multiple family housing, the project satisfies the need for equal housing opportunities for all
existing and future residents of Temecula. Given the fact that several high density developments
odginally anticipated have been lost through the specific plan amendment process in recent years,
the project assists the City in meeting its General Plan Housing Element requirements. The
Growth Management Action Plan redirects urban development to urban areas. In this case, the
project site is in an area of already existing high density development, some with a density range
of 13-20 dwelling units per acre.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
5
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Environmental Study lIES) was prepared for the project, which determined that the
proposal couid potentially affect land use planning, geology and soils, water, biological resources,
noise, and cultural resources. However, these affects are not considered to be significant due to
the mitigation measures contained in the project design and conditions of approval. Any potentially
significant impacts will be mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels.
The IES for the project was sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, in order that
the State Clearinghouse circulate the document for public review for a 30-day period. One
response from the State Department of Fish and Game was received, and a response to that
agency was prepared, which included a minor revision to the IES regarding jurisdictional wetlands,
and a more detailed discussion of alternatives for the impact to the California Gnatcatcher and
coastal sage scrub habitat identified on the project site.
In accordance with Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption, of
the California Environmental Quality Act's CEQA Guidelines, staff has concluded that the revision
to the IES is not considered substantial because:
1 ) A new, avoidable significant effect has not been identified.
2) No new measures are required.
3) New information has been added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies,
amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
Existing zoning and General Plan designations call for Medium Density Residential development,
with a density range of 7 to 12 dwelling units per acre maximum. The project proposes a density
of 11.78 dwelling units per acre and is therefore within the density range and consistent with the
General Plan. The project as designed and conditioned, is consistent with the Development Code,
the General Plan and the Design Guidelines for the City.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Planning staff recommends approval of the project because it is consistent with the City General
Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. The design of the project, the amenities offered,
the architecture and materials, and the landscaping proposed are equal to or superior to the
previously appreved project for the site, Plot Plan No. 10864. Concerns regarding the project's
compatibility with adjacent properties, traffic impacts, and grading have been addressed by the
design of the project, conditions of approval imposed upon the project, and by the mitigation
monitoring program attached to the project as a result of the Initial Environmental Study.
FINDINGS
The proposed use and the design of the project is compatible with the General Plan
designation and zoning of Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre).
The project proposes a density of 11.78 which is within the range specified. It is in
conformance with the policies as stated in the General Plan and with all applicable
requirements of State Law and other ordinances of the City including the Development
Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Light Pollution Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC,doc
6
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare. The type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public
health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General
Plan, Development Code, and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with
these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly
to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. Access and circulation are
adequate for the general public and for emergency vehicles.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page
Exhibits - Blue Page
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
General Plan Map
Surrounding Land Uses
Site Plan
Elevations
Floor Plans
Landscape Plan
Grading Plans
Color and Materials Board (under separate cover)
Color Elevations (under separate cover)
Color Landscape Plan (under separate cover)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.doC
8
ATI'ACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA00-0317, DEVELOPMENT PLAN THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TVVO AND
THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL,
CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON
APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
944-290-011
WHEREAS, AGK Group LLC filed Planning Application No. PA00-0317 Development Plan
(the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application,
on May 3, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the
project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code;
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City including the Development
Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Light Pollution Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance. The proposed use and the design of the project is compatible with the General Plan
designation and zoning of Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre). The project
proposes a density of 11.78 which is within the range specified.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare. The type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health
problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan,
Development Code, and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents
and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the
development conforms to City Standards. Access and circulation are adequate for the general
public and for emergency vehicles.
\\TEMEC_FSI01',VOLI\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99~}317 Teraecula Ridge Apts\RES-DP.PC.dOC
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study (IES)was prepared
for the project, which determined that the proposal could potentially affect land use planning,
geology and soils, water, biological resources, noise, and cutrural resources, However, these
affects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures contained in the project
design and conditions of approval. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated and reduced
to insignificant levels.
The IES for the project was sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, in order that
the State Clearinghouse circulate the document for public review for a 30~day period. One
response from the State Department of Fish and Game was received, and a response to that
agency was prepared, which included a minor revision to the IES regarding jurisdictional wetlands,
and a more detailed discussion of alternatives for the impact to the California Gnatcatcher and
coastal sage scrub habitat identified on the project site.
In accordance with Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption, of
the California Environmental Quality Act's CEQA Guidelines, staff has concluded that the revision
to the IES is not considered substantial because:
1 ) A new, avoidable significant effect has not been identified.
2) No new measures are required.
3) New information has been added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies,
amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally
approves the Application for the design, construction and operation of a 246-unit, two and three
story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot lot on approximately 21
acres, located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the intersection of Rancho
California Road and Moraga Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011, subject to
the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this third day of May, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the third day of May,
2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\DEFFS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\RES-DP.PC.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC,doc
21
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA00-0317 (Development Plan)
Project Description: The design, construction and operation of a 246-unit, two and
three story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout
building and tot lot on approximately 21 acres
Development Impact Fee Category:
Assessor's Parcel No.
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Residen~alAttached,$2,167.83 perunit
944-290-011
May 3, 2000
May 3, 2002
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashjerks check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One
Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One
Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not
delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of such failure
of to satisfy this condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and
all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek
monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality
thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by
the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within
the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13,
Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152
and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the
defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require
additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any
\%TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN,dOC
1
unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail
to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant
fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate this land use approval
without further notice to the applicant.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
If phasing of the project is proposed, the applicant shall submit a Phasing Plan, with
appropriate filing fees, to the Planning Manager for review and approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "El"
thru "E4" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department -
Planning Division.
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the appreved Exhibit "H 1" thru "H3" (Landscape
Plan) or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be
continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is
determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have
the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with
the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall
be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest.
Ligustrum or other large evergreen shrubs appreved by the City shall be used to
screen parking areas and shall be spaced at no more than 3' on center to
provide a screen in a reasonable time period.
All parking areas shall be fully screened using evergreen shrubs that can be
maintained at a minimum height of 3'.
All plantings shall be compatible with adjacent existing plantings as approved by
the City.
All parking row ends shall be provided with a minimum 5' wide planting area.
This planting area shall be clear of any hardscape and shall be provided with a
minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground cover.
Queen Palms, Canary Island Date Palms or other City approved palm shall be
used in place of Washingtonia robusta.
Final shrub species selection and placement is subject to the review and
approval of the City.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
2
City approved substitutes shall be provided for Lantana species and Myoporum
pacificurn. These species are subject to freeze in the Temecula area.
All off-site graded areas shall be planted and irrigated to the satisfaction of the
City Landscape Architect to provide erosion and dust control. All off-site slopes
graded or created by this project shall be planted and irrigated and shall meet
code planting requirements for slope areas.
AI. JI utilities shall be shown on the landscape construction plans. All utilities shall
be screened as approved by the City Landscape Architect. Utilities shall be
grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. The applicant shall plan planting
beds and design around utilities.
Code requirements for slope plantings and irrigation shall be met. Code requires
slope banks 5' or greater in vedical height with slopes greater than or equal to
3:1 to be landscaped at a minimum with an appropriate ground cover, one 15
gallon or larger size tree per 600 square feet of slope area, and one I gallon or
larger shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area. Slope banks in excess of 8'
in vertical height with slopes greater or equal to 2:1 shall also be provided with
one 5 gallon or larger tree per 1,000 square feet of slope area in addition to the
above requirements.
All requirements of the City water efficient ordinance, chapter 17.32, shall be
met.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "FI" thru "F7"
(Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department -
Planning Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view
by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
appreved colors and materials and with Exhibit "J" (Color and Material Board) contained on
file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from
the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Planning Manager.
Material Color
Building walls -Color One
-Color Two
Garage Doors -Color Three
Trim -Color Four
Trim -Color Five
Roof -Premium Slate Tile
Ledger Stone
"Kabuki"
"Burgundy"
"Eldorado"
Sinclair #CM8550
Sinclair #CM8510
Sinclair #CM8509
Sinclair #S-3-33T
Sinclair #966
Monier Life $5733
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
10.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
3
11.
Prior to any ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall address the impacts to coastal
sage scrub or any other sensitive resource, as required by the United States Department
of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) incidental take permitting process. The
applicant shall acquire compensatory mitigation off the project site, or comply with any other
requirement by the FWS, and shall provide the City a copy of the incidental take permit
issued for the proposed development, prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit.
12.
A qualified paleontologistJarchaeologist shall be chosen by the applicant for consultation
and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/
archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologistJarchaeologist, Community
Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the
commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The
paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert,
redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils, cultural resources or human
remains. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be
provided by the applicant to collect, curate and report these resources in accordance with
standard archaeological management requirements.
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 appiicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G" , (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations,
Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by
the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full
size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G"
(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.
15.
The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit
"G" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the
colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations
shall be readable on the photographic prints.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
16. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
17.
A noise review letter shall be submitted to the Planning Manager for review and acceptance
as confirmation that noise barriers will not be required to mitigate noise impacts from
Rancho California Road, as identified and discussed in the Preliminary Noise Analysis
prepared by Mestre Greve Associates dated February, 2000.
Mechanical ventilation shall be installed in those dwelling units closest to Rancho
California Road which require that windows remained closed in order to meet the
interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. Mechanical ventilation shall be noted on plans.
18,
The developer shall limit construction activities to the hours between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30
p,m. Monday through Friday, and to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p,m. on
Saturdays. No construction can occur on Sundays or holidays.
~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN,doc
4
19.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
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
20.
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 required for all signage identified on the
approved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
An Administrative Development Plan application for a comprehensive sign program
shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Manager.
21.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning
Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
22.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction
landscape and irrigation 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.
23.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed re~ectodzed sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be cantered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the
off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
5
"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.
24.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review
and revision.
General Requirements
25. 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.
26
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.
27.
All improvement plans, grading plans, and raised landscaped median plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous
to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
28. 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.
29.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
30.
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.
31.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction,
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-OEVPLAN,dOc
6
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
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.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage
facilities shall be installed substantially in conformance with the conceptual grading plan.
The Drainage Study shall investigate whether the storm drain shall enter empire creek
upstream or downstream of the existing concrete lined sewer line crossing. Improvements
in the southeast region of the development shall be constructed in such a manner as to not
increase flows into the existing Tract 8369-1 storm drain structure at any of its entry points.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners as specifically
shown in the conceptual grading plan for the release of concentrated or diverted storm
flows into the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be
submitted to the City for review.
All on-site drainage improvements shall be constructed substantially in conformance with
the conceptual grading plan, which calls for a storm drain system designed for the 100 year
storm.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
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
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.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to approval of the
grading plan, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the
Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide
for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
\%TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.dOc
7
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs
shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained
by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the
City prior to commencement of the appraisal,
42.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
43. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
44.
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. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402.
e. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries.
f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temeculas Standard
No. 113.
g. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section.
h. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
i. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades.
j. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
k. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Department of Public Works:
Improve Rancho Califomia Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' PJW) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised
landscaped median.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
8
45.
46.
b. Improve Moraga Road (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/VV) to include dedication
of half-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of full-width at the
intersection with Rancho California Road and then transitioned to half-width street
improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water
and sewer).
c. Improve Lot "A" (Local Road Standards - 60' RAN) to include dedication of half-
width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of half-width street
improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water
and sewer).
d. The Developer shall design and construct a 14-foot wide raised landscape median
on Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W)from Moraga
Road to Lot "A" (along property frontage). The Developer is eligible to receive
Development Impact Fee credits for one-half width of the raised landscaped
median. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
e. Modify the traffic signal at the intersection of Moraga Road/Rancho California Road
from a three way to four way signal to include signal interconnect. A traffic signal
plan shall be prepared by a registered engineer or traffic engineer and approved by
the Director of Public Works.
f. The Developer shall acquire an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along the west side
of Moraga Road between Rancho California Road and 200' north of the intersection
of Moraga Road and Rancho California Road along with required construction
easements. The additional right-of-way is necessary to accommodate a through
lane to access the site as part of required offsite improvements. If the Developer
cannot acquire the right-of-way, then the Developer shall petition the City to acquire
the needed right-of-way in accordance with the terms of Section 66462.5 of the
Subdivision Map Act and Condition 41 of these Conditions of Approval even though
this is not a final map.
g. The Developer shall connect Moraga Road to existing pavement section of Via Las
Colinas to the West of the development as approved by the Director of Public
Works.
"A" street shall be restricted to right in/right out vehicular movements.
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: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, ddve approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic
signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate
Storm drain facilities
Sewer and domestic water systems
Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
Traffic signal modification at the intersection of Moraga Road and Rancho California
Road
\\TEMEC_FS101%VOL1\Depts\pLANNING\D P\99,,0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
9
47.
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,
48.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works for Rancho California Road.
49.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside
Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works.
50.
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.
51. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property.
52.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
53. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
54. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
55.
All public improvements, including raised landscaped median on Rancho California Road
and modification to the signal at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road shall be
constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction
of the Director of the Department of Public Works,
56.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department
of Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
57.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
58. 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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge AptS\COA*DEVPLAN.dOC 10
59.
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.
60.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
61. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
62.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
63.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
64.
Provide house electricel meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
65.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
66.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
67.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
68. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
69.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
70.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
71. Show all building setbacks
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.
72.
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.
73.
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 2250 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING~D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
11
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
total fire flow of 2650 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic
fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as
given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-
A)
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) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and
adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersection
and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(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)
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Ord 460)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
Pdor to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
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)
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be:
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards,
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
12
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
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)
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)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The
numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for
suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the
suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display
monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home
parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which
indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire
hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall
be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau pdor to installation.
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 sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC
Article 10)
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by
the alarm system. (CFC 902.4)
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)
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The TCSD has reviewed the Development Plan for the aforementioned project and conditions the
project as follows:
General Conditions:
91. Prior to installation of artedal street lighting, the developer shall file an application with the
TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street lighting into
the respective TCSD maintenance program.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P~99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 13
92. All parkway landscaping and slope areas adjacent to the development shall be maintained
by the property owner.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits:
93.
The developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment
of in-lieu fees equivalent to 1.62 acres of parkland, based upon the City's then current land
evaluation. Said requirement includes a 50% credit for private recreational opportunities
provided on-site and shall be pro-rated at a per dwelling unit cost prior to the issuance of
each building permit requested.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
94.
Any damages caused to the existing Class II bike lane on Rancho California Road as a
result of construction shall be repaired or replaced, as determined by the Department of
Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
95.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's trensmittal dated August 26, 1999, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or
money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by
the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
96.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittals dated August 19, 1999 and March 22,
2000, copies of which are attached.
97..
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Districts transmittal dated August 18, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Ternecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.dOc
14
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Ptannin De artment
Post og g
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: .~--)"r,rlfg GR.I FFIr-I
1995 MARKET STKEET
RIVERSIDE, CA 9_2501
909'955-1200
909~78g-9965 FAN
· adiesandGentiemen: Re: ,P,q- D317
The Distnct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District 81so does not an check city land use cases. or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for suchP cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to tems of specfic nterest to the District including Distdct Master Draina · Plan facilities. other re ional flood
contro and draina e facilit es which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a master ~3gan s stem,
and Distdct Area grainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In additjon, information of 8 genera ns~usre s
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply Distdct approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
v// This prpject would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional Interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distnct stangPards. and District plan check and
inspection will be required for Disthct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
Th s project proposes channels storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
cons dered reg onal in nature and/or a Io ical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District wou ~ cons der accepting ownership of such tacffities on written request
of the C ty. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and DIstrict plan check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and adm n strat ve fees will be required.
V/ This project is located within the limits of the District's I/A~/(.~r,q~,.E."- 7'E i'4(.C.JJ f..P~ ~Jf~.c~ Area
DrainageP,an,orwh,ch drai.a .,eeshavebee. edo ;abe pa.d by h'e .
check or money order only to ge Flood Control District pdor goF issuance of building or gradin permits
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of~he a~ctuai
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project ma re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water
Resources Control ~oard. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
f th s pro'ect involves a Federal EmergenCy Management Agency (FEIV'~) mapped flood plain, then the City should
requ re tge applicant to provide all stud es ca cu ations, plans and other ~nformation required to meet FEMA
occupancy.
if a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the CaPi¢omia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wntten correspondence from these a encies
indicating the project s exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Cert~cation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of ge Corps 404
permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: August 19. 1999
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANrNING DEPARTMENT
AT'IN: Steve Griffin ....
FRO REGOR DELLENBACH. Enviroranental Health Specialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO, PA99-0317
2
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0317 and
has no objections. SanitaD' sewer and water sen'ices are available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOII'TNG ITEbIS IITLL BE
REQUIRED:
a) "~Till-serve" letters from the watering and sewerin,, a~,encies
b)
Three complete sets of plans tbr the swimming pool/spa will be submitted. in order to
ensure compliance with the California Administrative Code. Calitbmia Health and
Sai~ty Code and the Uniform Building Code,
GD:dr
(909) 955-8980
stand3a.~loc
ZTuesday April/,, 1900 8:36ale -- Pege 21 .,~*' ·
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ElqVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: March 22., 2000
TO:
FROM: ~GRF-~aOR DELLEI'CBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA99.-0317
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATI'N: Steve Griffin: Project Planne~
Department of Environmental Health has received and reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-
0317 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK ,STJBbIITTAL, tkochted '~ill-serve' let~r~ :from the seweri~
agency. will be required.
OD:dr
(909) 955-8980
Water
August18,1999
Steve Griffin, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
2
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS
PORTION OF LOT NO. 23 OF TRACT NO. 3334
APN 944-290-011
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0317
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 at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
~teve Brannon, P.E,
Development Engineering Manager
99%SB:rnr144~012-T6~FCF
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
9
City of Temecula
P,O, Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Revised 4-12-00
Project Title
, Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
Zoning
' Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula
Ridge Apartments
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Camle Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
(909) 694-6400
South side of Rancho California Road (RCR), at the southeast
quadrant of RCR and Moraga Road extended (APN:944-290-011 )
AGK Group, LLS
35411 Paseo Viento
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
"M" Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre)
"M" Medium Density Residential (12 dwelling units per acre)
The design, construction and operation of 246 apartment units in two
and three story structures, along with one-story garage structures
and common recreation facilities including a clubhouse, pool, spa,
work-out room and tot lot, all on 20.88 acres.
The property is an east-west trending ridge that fronts upon Rancho
California Road. Existing apartments are located directly to the south
and southwest, and on the opposite side of Rancho California Road
to the north. Vacant land slated for office development is located to
the east and west, and a single-family neighborhood abuts the
southeast corner of the property.
County Department of Environmental Health, County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, Regional Water quality Control
Board, Eastern Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts,
Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison
Company, General Telephone Company, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
F:\Dep',S\PLAN NING\Griffins\317PA99 .Tem. Ridge EA .doc
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geology and Soils
Water
Air Quality
Transpodation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Signature
1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing furlher is required,
Date
Printed name
',',TEMEC_FS101',VOL1',DEPTS',pLANNING~GriffinS',317pA99.Tern. Ridge EA.doc
2
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting InfOrmation Sources
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
PotenPaJl¥
S,gnificant
Imoact
Potentially
Unless Mit~gaPon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
,/
,/
Comments:
1
The property is an in-fill site on a major thoroughfare and surrounded by existing and proposed urban
development. The property is adjoining an existing single family neighborhood to the southeast, and is
abutting areas developed with or slated for multiple family or office development to the east, west and
south. The development of this site with apartments, along with other apartments, office development
and associated uses along the Rancho California Road corridor, has no potential to physically divide an
established community.
1 .b:
The project site is designated in the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code for Medium
Density Residential development (7-12 dwelling units per acre). The project is proposed at 11.78
dwelling units per acre and is therefore within the use and maximum density parameters established by
the underlying planning and zoning for the property. The project is subject to review by City Staff and
approval by the City of Temecula Planning Commission to determine its consistency with other
applicable policies, guidelines and standards of the General Plan, Development Code and Design
Guidelines. Review by Staff and approval of the project by the Planning Commission will ensure
consistency with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations.
1 .C;
The project site is located in the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Long-Term Habitat
Conservation Plan and will be required to pay applicable SKR mitigation fees prior to grading. The site
is not identified as part of any other habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan,
The payment of the standard SKR mitigation fee results in a less than significant impact.
F:%Depts%PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99,Tem, Ridge EA.doc
3
12.
POPULATION AND HOUSING, Would the project:
issues and Supporting information Sources
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
S~gnihcant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
S~gnihcant
Impact
No
Comments:
2.a:
The City General Plan designates the property for Medium Density Residential development. Since the
project is consistent with this designation it will not induce population growth beyond that envisioned in
the General Plan, and since it is an in-fill project with all major roads, utilities and other infrastructure in
place, a less than significant impact is anticipated from the population growth resulting from the project.
2.b.c: The project site is presently vacant and unoccupied. Thus the project has no potential to impact or
displace any housing or residents or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins%317PA99.Tem, Ridge EA.doc
4
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
issues and Suppo~ilng Information Sources
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of less, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) i Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
, risks to life or property?
e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
COIT~IflentS:
3.a.i-iii:
According to the General Plan EIR, the City of Temecula is in Groundshaking Zone II which will
experience moderate to intense groundshaking in the event of a major regional earthquake. The site,
however, does not lie within or immediately adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor
within or immediately adjacent to an identified Liquefaction Hazard Area. According to a Geetechnical
Investigation completed for the project by CHJ (June 1999) no active faults are shown on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site on the published geologic maps, and no evidence of active faulting on or
immediately adjacent to the site was observed during the geologic field reconnaissance or on the aerial
photographs reviewed. Further, the potential for liquefaction is expected to be negligible provided the
site is graded in accordance with the recommendations in the CHJ report. The potentiat for an adverse
impact from groundshaking and liquefaction is therefore considered less than significant.
3.a.iv.b.c.d:
According to the CHJ investigation, both cut and fill slopes on the property should be stable from
landslides, although a small possibility exists that remedial measures such as buttress or stabilization
fills may be recommended during grading if unfavorable geologic conditions are exposed in cut slopes.
However, on-site soils are susceptible to erosion, subsidence and "medium" expansion. Loose to
medium dense young alluvial soils within the drainages and colluvial soils on the hillsides will have to
F:\Depts\PLANNING%Griffins\317PA99.Tern. Ridge EA.doc
5
3.e-
be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Also, on-site drainage will need to be designed and
maintained so as to prevent water from running across site and slope faces and causing erosion, and
unpaved surfaces should be planted immediately to stabilize the soils. With the incorporation into the
project of these and the other recommendations in the CHJ report, including the requirement that
grading operations be monitored by an Engineering Geologist, any potentially significant impacts will be
reduced to a level of less than significant.
The project site will be served by a sewer collection system so there is no potential for the site to have
adverse impacts related to use of subsurface wastewater disposal systems.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tem. Ridge EA.doc
6
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Unless Mitigatton Significant
Incorporated ~mpact
Comments;
4.a.f:
The project will be required to obtain clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board and comply with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the
NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance.
4. b: The project site is located on a ridge which does not serve as a recharge location for surface runoff, nor
does the project include the extraction of groundwater. Therefore, the project has no potential to
adversely interfere with groundwater or groundwater recharge. The General Plan EIR addresses water
demand from development in the City of Temecula. The GPEIR concludes that cumulative water
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99,Tern. Ridge EA.doc
7
demand within the City can be met by the City's two purveyors without having a significant adverse
impact on the environment, including depletion of the areas groundwater supplies. Therefore, the
proposed project will not contribute to a significant cumulative, indirect adverse impact on the area
groundwater aquifers.
4.c.d.e:
The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or result
in the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. However, previous drainage patterns will be altered by
grading and drainage structures, and previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by the
construction of buildings and paved surfaces. While drainage patterns and absorption rates and surface
runoff will be modified, potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
through the implementation of measures and/or improvements recommended by a Drainage Study
which will be required as a condition of project approval. Potentially significant erosion and siltation
issues will be addressed and mitigated through the implementation of the recommendations of the
Drainage Study and the Geotechnical Report discussed under Geology and Soils directly above.
4.g.h.i:
The project site is located on a ridge and is not located in the vicinity of any identified 100-year flood
hazard area nor dam inundation area. No potential for exposure to significant flood hazards will occur
from developing the project site as proposed.
4.j:
Since the project is not near any water body and is located on a ridge, no potential exists for the site to
be adversely impacted by inundation from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Grlffins~317PA99.Tem. Ridge EA.doc
8
,5.
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
issues and Supporting information Sources
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quatity standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumutatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Iml~act Incorporated Impact Impact
,f
,/
Comments:
5.a:
The land use designation is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan which has been
integrated into the Southern Califomia Association of Governments (SCAG's) Regional Comprehensive
Plan and Guide (RCPG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). Development of the project site with mitigation measures as outlined in the
SCAQMD "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" will not conflict with any applicable air quality plan.
5.b:
Air quality within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is improving, and development of the proposed
medium density project in conformance with the RCPG and AQMP will ensure that the long-term air
quality will not be violated.
5.C:
The CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains a screening table for operations and construction impacts.
The project falls below the threshold for potential cumulative significant air emissions and therefore
does not have a potential to cause a significant impact within the basin. The project will be required to
comply with standard City regulations to prevent nuisance impacts from grading and construction
activities.
5.d.e:
None of the activities at the project site will have a potential to generate significant volumes of
pollutants or odors or create substantial pollutant or odor concentrations that could harm sensitive
receptors or affect a substantial number of people.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tem. Ridge EA.doc
9
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ,/'
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ,/
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ,/'
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ,/
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mit~gadon S~gnificant No
ImpacE Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
6.a.b: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (Revised February 2000) for
a project with a total of 454 multiple-family units (including the units constituent to the Temecula Ridge
proposal) and a mixed-use retail and commercial village center on the project site and an adjacent 23+_
acre parcel to the east. The TIA concluded the following regarding the area circulation system impacts:
"Under both year 2001 With and Without Project traffic conditions, the intersections of Rancho
California Road at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps, at 1-15 Northbound Ramps and at Ynez Road are
projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., worse than LOS D) during the PM peak
hour. With roadway improvements planned at these intersections, and with the opening of Overland
Drive overpass ,.. the three intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, for both the Year
2001 Without Project and With Project traffic conditions."
All of the intersection improvements noted above, as well as Overland Drive, have been completed.
Consequently, project impacts are considered less than significant as they are within applicable
General Plan LOS Standards, and therefore the TIA does not propose any specific measures to
mitigate project traffic impacts.
The developer will be responsible for extending Moraga Road south between Rancho California Road
and Via Las Colinas, and for payment of development impact (DIF) fees in accordance with the fee
schedule established by the City in order to pay their fair share of area-wide traffic improvements.
Based on the data and analysis contained in the TIA, with these measures the proposed project can be
implemented without causing significant adverse impacts to the circulation system.
F:\Oepts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99,Tem. Ridge EA.doc
6oC:
6.d.e:
6.f:
6.g:
The project site is not located near any airport and has no potential to adversely impact any air traffic
patterns.
Emergency access to the project site and areas directly to the west will be facilitated with the proposed
extension of Moraga Road between Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas. Moraga Road will be
designed to City standards and thus will not present a hazard resulting from a design feature. Internal
circulation has been designed to meet emergency access requirements.
The applicant has provided adequate parking spaces to meet the City's Development Code
requirements. The Development Code requires 504 parking spaces, and 505 have been provided.
The project will be conditioned to provide any necessary alternative transportation facilities consistent
with the road improvements serving the project site. No conflict or adverse impact to adopted
alternative transportation policies, plans or programs is forecast to occur from implementing the
proposed project.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tem, Ridge EA.doc
Revised 4-12-00
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Issues and Sul)porting Information Sources
' Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Potentially
S~gnificant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
S~gnihcant
Impact
No
Impact
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
7.a:
According to a Biological Constraints Report (BCR) prepared by Merkel & Associates (June 1999) the
project site contains approximately 8.5 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) and a pair of California
Gnatcatchers were identified during field surveys. Therefore, prior to grading the developer will need to
obtain an incidental take permit from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and in accordance with their
correspondence dated September 22, 1999. Consultation with the Service has already been conducted
by the applicant, and a determination was made that the applicant could provide mitigation under a
project specific incidental take permit (Section 10a consultation) at a 3:1 ratio, including appropriate
endowment. If either the AD161 Habitat Conservation Plan or the Riverside County Multi-Species
Habitat Conservation Plan is in place, the applicant can provide mitigation in accordance with these
plans. Compliance with the incidental take permit will reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) Survey 45-Day Letter Report prepared by Merkel & Associates
(June 1999) noted that three patches of potential QCB habitat but no Quino Checkerspot Butterflies
were observed within the project area. No impact is therefore anticipated from the project.
A
F:/Depts%PL NNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tern, Ridge EA,doc
7.b.c:
7.d:
7,e;
7.f:
According to the BCR, the project site does not contain any identifiable stream channels or streambeds.
Therefore, development site does not contain any California Department of Fish and Game
jurisdictional wetlands subject to 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreements. The project will not
impact riparian or wetland resources.
The project site is surrounded by urban/suburban development and thus provides no regional or
local habitat links or wildlife corridors, Its development therefore has no potential to adversely
impact wildlife movement, according to the BCR.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated biological resources since there are no
locally designated resources other than within Old Town Temecula.
The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Habitat Fee Area. The project is
required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat
Conservation) which requires the payment of the SKR fee. Payment of the fee results in impacts which
are considered less than significant.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tern. Ridge EA.doc
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
PotentiaIl¥
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Signihcant
Impact Incorporated Impact
NO
Impact
Comments:
8.a.b: According to the General Plan, there are no mineral resources within the City that are identified by the
State Department of Mines and Geology as being of regional or statewide significance, nor does the
General Plan identify any local mineral resource recovery sites of significant economic value. No
impacts are therefore anticipated as a result of the project.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tern, Ridge EA.doc
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Crate a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Significant
Potentially
S~gnificant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Then
Signihcant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
9.a]
The proposed project will consist of residential uses that do not involve any potential for routine
transport or use of hazardous materials or routine generation of hazardous wastes. Therefore, the
project has no potential to create a hazard to the public or the environment through its implementation.
9.b:
Since no significant quantities of hazardous materials will be used or hazardous wastes generated on
the site, no potential exists for significant impacts to the environment from upset or accidental release
conditions.
9.c:
Since no substantial quantities of hazardous materials or wastes will be handled on the project site,
there is no potential to emit hazardous emissions in quantities that could cause a significant public
health impact.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\GriffinS\317PA99.Tem. Ridge EA.doc
15
9.d:
9.e.f:
9.g:
9.h:
The project site is not identified as a contaminated site under Government Code Section 65962.5, and
a Phase I Environmental Assessment conducted by DBM Environmental {August 1998) found no
evidence of contaminated soil or hazardous materials on the site.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private
airstrip and has no potential to adversely impact airport operations,
Rancho California Road is identified in the General Plan as a major east-west emergency and
evacuation route. Although the project fronts Rancho California Road, it will not take direct access from
that roadway. The project proposes to extend Moraga Road to the project entrance and to modify the
existing traffic signal at Moraga and Rancho California Road from a three-way to a four-way signal to
accommodate the project. Additionally, a secondary access roadway onto Rancho California Road will
be constructed at the east end of the project, with limited right in-right out vehicular movements. As
designed, the development of the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the ability
of Rancho California Road to function as an emergency and evacuation route.
The project site does contain a minimal wildland fire hazard based on the presence of coastal sage
scrub, but due to the surrounding urban development this fire hazard is not considered Significant. The
development of the project would eliminate what potential wildland fire hazard exists on the property.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99,Tem. Ridge EA.doc
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues and Supportinfi Information Sources
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
,f
NO
Impact
Comments:
10.a.b.c:
According to a Preliminary Noise Analysis (PNA) prepared by Mestre Greve Associates (February
2000), the project would be exposed to worst case noise levels from Rancho California Road of 60.7
CNEL at the first floor units, and 64.9 CNEL at the second and third floor units. Both of these levels are
below the adopted General Plan exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL. The PNA recommends that a
noise review letter be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to confirm that noise barriers
will not be required.
The units closest to Rancho California Road will require that some of the windows remain closed in
order to meet the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL as specified in Title 24, Part 2 of the California
Code of Regulations. As a result, these units will require mechanical ventilation per the
recommendations of the PNA. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, and the confirming
noise review letter noted above, potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant
level.
10.d:
Construction noise levels will be above background noise levels, but the City requires construction
noise mitigation by prohibiting construction activities between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
Monday through Friday, and 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays. No construction can occur on
Sundays or holidays. With implementation of this measure the short-term noise impacts are not
forecast to be significant to the surrounding land uses.
lO.e.f: The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and has no
potential to be exposed to significant airport operation noise impacts.
F :\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tem, Ridge EA .doc
17
11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered Government services in any of the following areas:
Issues and Supporting Informa%ion Sources
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provision or need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
b. Fire protection?
c. Police protection?
d. Schools?
e. Parks?
f. ~ Other public facilities?
Potentially
Potentially S~gnificant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation S~gn~ficant No
Impact Incorporated impact Impact
Comments:
The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered government
facilities and services, including fire, police, schools, parks and recreation, or other public facilities.
Although the project will incrementally increase the need for these services, the development will be
required to contribute its fair share for services and facilities through the City's Development Impact
Fee (DIF), and the payment of school fees for the provision of school facilities. Accordingly, a less than
significant impact is anticipated.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tern. Ridge EA.doc
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
S~gn~ficant
IrnDact
Less Than
S,gnificant
Impact
No
Comments:
12.a.b.e:
The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new
treatment facilities, nor significantly affect the capacity of treatment providers. Although the project will
have an incremental affect upon existing systems, the General Plan EIR found that the implementation
of the General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services. Since the project is consistent
with the General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated from the project.
12.c:
The project is not expected to require the construction or expansion of any facilities that would have a
significant environmental effect. As a condition of project approval and prior to grading, the developer
will be required to submit a drainage study for review and approval. The study shall identify all existing
or proposed on- or off-site public or private drainage facilities, and include a capacity analysis verifying
the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading of drainage facilities necessary to convey storm water
runoff, along with any other mitigation measures necessary to ameliorate associated impacts shall be
provided as part of the project.
12.d:
The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements.
The project will have an incremental effect upon existing water systems, but the Genrat Plan EIR states
that the EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their
service areas. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of the project.
F:\Depts/PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tenn. Ridge EA.doc
12.f.g: The project will not result in the need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste
created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling
programs that are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the
project.
F:\Depts%PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tern. Ridge EA.doc
20
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Potentially
PotentialW Signehcant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a.
b.
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building
within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ,/'
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ,/'
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
13,a.b:The proposed project will in-fill an undeveloped area along the Rancho California Road corridor. The
site is not considered to be within a scenic vista, nor is it located on a state scenic highway. Further,
there are no major tree resources, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the project site.
13.c:
The project site is a prominent ridge located adjacent to existing single- and multi-family dwellings. It is
also located on Rancho California Road, which is a major gateway and corridor into and through the
City. The project has been designed to increase the setback along Rancho California Road, and the
closest unit is 115 feet from the right-of-way line. The project design also places two story units (rather
than three story) 112 feet from the property line adjacent to single family dwellings to the southeast.
Design policies, guidelines, and standards have been applied to the project to achieve a less than
significant impact on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
13,d:
The subdivision and grading of the property will have no effect on light and glare in the area. However,
the development and operation of the project could have potentially significant impact on light and
glare. The project is conditioned to comply with the City's Light Pollution regulations (Ordinance No.
655). With this standard mitigation in place, impacts are considered less than significant.
F:\D epts\PLANNING~Griffins\317PA99 .Tom, Ridge EA.doc
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
issues and Supporting information Sources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
S~gnlficant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless M~t~gatlon
incorporated
Less Than
Signihcant
Impact
No
trnpact
Comments:
14.a.b.d:
According to a Phase I Archaeological Assessment conducted by Jean Keller (December 1988) cultural
resources were not observed within the boundaries of the project site and further research was not
recommended. Nevertheless, the General Plan EIR identifies the project site as being within an area of
sensitivity for archaeological resources. Due to the extensive amount of grading and excavation
proposed and the potential far such resources to occur in the subsurface of the property, any grading
will be conditioned upon the requirement that if any cultural resources or human remains are exposed
during grading, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall be terminated
immediately and the City shall be contacted, and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to
evaluate the resources. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall
be provided to collect, curate and report these resources in accordance with standard archaeological
management requirements. With these measures in place, effects upon cultural resources are
anticipated to be less than significant.
14.c:
The General Plan EIR sensitivity map for paleontological resources identifies the project site as being
within a sensitive area for paleontological resources. Due to the potential for such resources to occur
on the property, a paleontological assessment will be required prior to grading operations. and during
grading and excavation activities a qualified paleontological monitor will be required to be present on
site and shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities to evaluate the significance of
any exposed paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered, adequate
funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report on these resources to ensure the values inherent
in the resources are adequately characterized and preserved. With these measures, potentially
significant impacts will be reduced to a tess than significant level.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tem, Ridge EA.doc
22
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
Issues and SupDotting Information Sources
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Sign~hcant Unless Mitigat,on Significant No
Irnpac~ Incorporated Impact Impac~
Comments:
15.a.b:The proposed project includes on-site recreation areas as part of the project, including a clubhouse
swimming pool, spa, workout room and tot lot. All of these facilities are either centralized in the project,
or in the case of the tot lot, buffered from surrounding uses in order to avoid any adverse impacts on
surrounding uses. In addition, the developer will be required to satisfy the City's parkland dedication
requirements by the payment of an in-lieu fee with a credit for the provision of the private recreation
facilities on-site. Any impacts associated with the provision or expansion of park and recreation facilities
provided off-site to meet the needs of the residents associated with this project will be evaluated in
conjunction with those off-site facilities. With these measures, less than significant impacts to
recreational facilities is anticipated.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Grifflns\317PA99.Tem. Ridge EA.doc
23
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
PoteRt~ally
S~gnifican~ Less Than
Unless Mitigation Significant
Incorporated tmpac~
No
Impact
Comments:
16.a:
For the majority (ten of sixteen) of environmental issues discussed in this Initial Study Environmental
Checklist Form (Population and Housing, Air Quality, Transportation/Circulation, Mineral Resources,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics, and
Recreation) no potential for significant adverse impact has been identified and no project specific
mitigation other than standard conditions utilized by the City will be required.
For the remaining seven issues, project specific mitigation will be required to ensure that
implementation of the proposed project does not cause significant adverse physical changes in the
environment. Specifically, mitigation is identified for Land Use Planning, Geology and Soils, Hydrology
and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise and Cultural Resources. The specific mitigation
measures are identified in the body of the checklist and restated in the attached Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
16.b:
The cumulative impacts from the project are considered less than significant because the site is
proposed to be developed in a manner consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. All
cumulative impacts from the land use and development scheme envisioned in the General Plan have
been analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the project's consistency with
the City's General Plan and General Plan EIR, cumulative impacts must be considered as less than
significant.
16.c:
No environmental impacts have been identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, directly or indirectly. Mitigation has been identified to reduce all environmental impacts to a
level of less than significant.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99.Tem. Ridge EA.doc
24
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EiR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review,
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Comments:
17.a: The City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report, a copy of which is available at the
City of Temecula Planning Department.
17.b: Cumulative impacts from all of the issues discussed above were addressed and mitigated to one
degree or another in the General Plan EIR.
17.c: Mitigation measures associated with the present project and analysis am addressed in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program attached hereto.
2.
3.
4.
4.
5.
6.
8.
9.
10.
11.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Temecula Development Code
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
1999 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey, Merkel & Associates, June 10, 1999
Biological Constraints Report, Merkel & Associates, June 4, 1999
Correspondence from Jim A. Barrel, Assistant Field Supervisor for the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, dated September 22, 1999
Phase I Environmental Assessment, DBM Environmental, August 17, 1998
Preliminary Noise Analysis, Mestre Greve Associates, February 14, 2000
Geotechnical Investigation, CHJ, June 8, 1999
Archaeological Assessment, Jean Keller, December 1998
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, Wilbur Smith Associates, February 18, 2000
F:\Depts\PLANNING\Griffins\317PA99,Tern. Ridge EA.doc
25
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING STUDY
F:~DEPTS',PLANNING~D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT. PC.doc
9
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA99-0317
Temecula Ridge Apartments Development Plan
LAND USE PLANNING
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Conflict with habitat conservation plans
Compliance with the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long-
Term Habitat Conservation Plan
Payment of $500.00 per acre SKR mitigation fee
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion
Ameliorate hazards from unstable soils
Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
report
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\G~ffinSX317PA99.Tem. Ridge MMP.doc
Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion
Identify adverse soil conditions and implement measures to
ameliorate impacts
Submit a Soils Report for review and approval
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Exposure to soil erosion
Stabilize slopes and unstable soils
Submit an Erosion Control Plan for review and approval
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Exposure to soil erosion
Stabilize slopes and unstable soils
Submit a Slope Planting Plan for review and approval
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Plarming Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The degradation of water and/or waste discharge quality
Compliance with water quality and waste discharge
requirements
Obtain clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board and comply with the requirements of the
NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Board.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Create excessive runoff exceeding the capacity of existing
facilities
F:\DeptS\PLANNINGXGnffinSB 17PA99.Tem, Ridge MMP.doc
2
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Identify drainage impacts and implement measures to mitigate
impacts
Submit a Drainage Study for review and approval
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Depa~hnent of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
A increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic and the
capacity of the existing street system
Payment of fees to contribute to City-wide traffic
improvements
Payment of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) for residential
development
Prior to the issuance of a building permit
Department of Public Works
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
An adverse effect on endangered or threatened species or
sensitive habitats identified by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Planning Department
F:\Depts\PLANNINGXG~ffinsB17pA99.Tem, Ridge MMP.doc
3
NOISE
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
Exposure to significant noise levels
Compliance with the recommendations of the Preliminary
Noise Analysis
Provide mechanical ventilation for the units closest to Rancho
California Road and submit a noise review letter
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Department of Building and Safety
CULTURALRESOURCES
General Impact:
Adverse change in the significance of a historical or
archaeological resource
Mitigation Measure:
Identify, recover, preserve and document resources of
historical and archaeological significance
Specific Process:
Condition the project upon the requirement that if any cultural
resources or human remains are exposed during grading,
ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery
shall be terminated immediately and the City shall be contacted
and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to
evaluate the resource. If discovered resources merit long-term
consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect,
curate and report these resources.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during grading
operations
Responsible Monitor: Planning Department and Department of Public Works
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Destruction of a unique paleontological resources
Identify potential locations of and attempt to recover fossils
Submit a paleontological assessment for review and approval
and provide a qualified paleontologist to monitor grading
F;\DeptS\PLANNING\Grtffins~317PA99.Tem. Padge MMP.doc
4
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitor:
operations with the authority to suspend work and undertake
recovery operations.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during grading
operations
Planning Department and Public Works Department
F:\DeptSXPLANNING\GriffinSB 17PA99.Tem, Ridge MMP,dOC
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
VICINITY MAP
F:~DEPTS~PLANNING~D P~9-O317 Temecula Rk~ge Apt~STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
I." ~..~F ......~ ;.~
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - Medium Density Residential
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre maximum)
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
F:~)EPTS~PLANNING~D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS~STAFFt~pT.pC.doc
12
CITY OF TEMECULA
Woodcreek
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-03t7 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
SURROUNDING LAND USES
F:%DEPTS~PLANNING~) P%99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS~STAFFRPT.PC.doc
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
SITE PLAN
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
15
CITY OFTEMECULA
IECTION F
SITE PJ,~H
CASE NO, - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
SITE PLAN
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
I
BUILDING TYPE ONE - FRONT IEL/Y~IQN_
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
16
CITY OFTEMECULA
!91LPJNG TyP~JWO - REAR ELEVATIOJJ_
BUILDING TYPE tWO - RI~]~T_ELEVATION
d
BUILDINQ T~e~-ROOf~LAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT,PC.dOC
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
BUILDING TYPE THREE - REAR ELEVATION
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D PX99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
TRASH F~I~LOSURE
BUILDING
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
SECTION B
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:~DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
16
CITY OFTEMECULA
IVJJ~IN~ TYPt ON.~;.FIRST FLOOR PLAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
BUILDING TYPE ONE - THIRD FLOOR PLAN
[ r
Rll)GE
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
lUlLDINe TYPE TWO - IliCOND FLOOR PLAN
BUlLDINe TYPE TWO - FI.S/FLOOR PtAN
CASE NO, - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\9~-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
UNiT 1A - FLOOR PLAN
UNIT 18 - FLOOR PLAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DeDtS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
~LILDING, e39 I
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE o May 3, 2000
FLOOR PLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.CiOC
17
CITY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
LANDSCAPEPLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
LANDSCAPEPLAN
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING%D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC,dOC
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
LANDSCAPE PLAN
F'\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
, ,rF
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
GRADING PLANS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC.CiOC
19
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONCEPTI/AL GRADING PLAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE o May 3, 2000
GRADING PLANS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge AptS\STAFFRPT.PC,doc
19