HomeMy WebLinkAbout080200 PC AgendaIn compliance with theZ'Am~i'j~ns with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contacfij'te'6ffiC~ of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make:reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title
AGEND,.' ~'~!~::
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
AUGUST 2, 2000 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-028
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Roll Call:
Commissioner Guerriero
Chiniaeff, 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 not on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICETOTHEPUBLIC
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.
Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 2, 2000.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\PLANCOMM~Ager~daS~000\8-2-00.dOC
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of June 21, 2000.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
i
Any person may Submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may a~pear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at e tim~ of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the publi~ hearing.
Planning3 ADl~lication No. 99-0335 - Development Plan - QUAID HARLEY DAVIDSON
(located on the east side of Old Town Front Street al~pmximatelv 1,500 feet south of the
SantiaQo Road/Front Street intersection). Associate Planner Denice Thomas
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 99-0335 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines;
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 99-0335, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 17,371 SQUARE
FOOT COMMERCIAL (SC) ZONE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET SOUTH OF THE SANTIAGO
ROAD/FRONT STREET INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO, 922-120-010.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
August 16, 2000, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve
Temecula, CA 92590
F:'/:)EPTS~PLANNING~plancomm%agendas~130~8*2-OO.doc
2
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 21, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M..
on Wednesday June 21, 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 Mathewson.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and
Chairman Guerriero.
None.
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Senior Engineer Alegria,
Attorney Diaz,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Senior Planner Rockholt,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Associate Planner Thomas, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 21, 2000.
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.2 Approve the minutes of May 3, 2000.
PlanComm/rninutes/062100
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1,
and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3
Findincl of Public Convenience or Necessity for Cost Plus, Inc. at the 40456
Winchester Road located on the southwest corner of Winchester Road and
Maraarita Road. Project Planner Thomas Thornslev
Senior Planner Rockholt presented the staff report (per agenda material); relayed that a
Finding of Convenience or Necessity was required for this request due to the number of
licenses previously issued in this particular census tract; provided an overview of the
criteria analysis, noting that this particular use would offer unique features not found at
other similar uses (i.e., imported home furnishing, wine, and beer).
Mr. Peter Impala, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the Cost Plus uses
located throughout the country, noting their good standing with the California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC); relayed the unique merchandise the
use offered, noting that the alcohol sold on site was not refrigerated; for Commissioner
Webster, advised that the alcohol sales encompassed approximately fifteen percent
(15%) of the total business sales; noted that the alternate Cost Plus uses were licensed
to sell beer and wine; for Chairman Guerriero, provided an overview of the type of
products the use sold; and for Commissioner Mathewson, reiterated that the applicant
would most likely not proceed with the project without the license to sell beer and wine.
The Commission relayed concludinq remarks, as follows:
Commissioner Telesio relayed that based on his experience in visiting alternate Cost
Plus uses, he concurred with staff that the store offered unique merchandise; and in light
of the support from the ABC, noted that he could support the Findings.
Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Fahey, concurred with staff's
position with respect to the Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity.
While supporting staffs conclusions, Commissioner Mathewson relayed his discomfort
with the fact that the applicant would not go forward with the project without the license
to sell beer and wine.
Chairman Guerriero reiterated that there was a proliferation of the off-sale and on-sale
of alcohol in this particular census tract; relayed that since in his opinion this use did not
offer unique merchandise that he would not support the Findings for Public Convenience
of Necessity.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve the Findings for Public Convenience
based on the unique merchandise the use offered. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman
Guerriero who voted n._9o.
2
planCommlminutes1062100
4 Director's Hearincl Update
RECOMMENDATION
4.1 Receive and File
With respect to the Temecula Beer & Wine Garden use, Chairman Guerriero relayed
that originally the use was proposed to be for the purpose of wine tasting, noting that it
had evolved into an outdoor bar; and advised that in light of the location being adjacent
to the transportation hub that this could be a hazard.
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske provided an overview of
the issues of discussion at the Director's Headng regarding the Beer & Wine Garden
use, advising that the use was operating under a Conditional Use Permit; and for
Commissioner Telesio, relayed that there was no specific definition of the term beer &
wine garden.
PUBLIC HEARINGITEMS
5
Plannine Application No. 00-0072 - Development Plan - RidGe Park Office
Center (located on the north side of Ridee Park Drive, between Rancho California
Road and Vincent Moraaa Drive. Associate Planner Carole Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt the Categorical Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0072
(Development Plan);
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0072, DEVELOPMENT PLAN -
THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
56,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE COMPLEX,
CONSISTING OF TEN (10) BUILDINGS ON FOUR (4)
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIDGE
PARK DRIVE, BETVVEEN RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
AND VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE, AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-310-028 AND 032
Associate Planner Donahoe provided an overview of the proposed development plan (of
record), highlighting the location, the zoning, and the adjacent businesses, noting that
most of the street trees located at this site would be maintained and various trees would
be relocated; via overheads, presented the site design, noting the clustering design, the
20-foot setback, and the proposed monument signs; provided a color sample and
material board for the Commission's review; and relayed the revisions to the Conditions
of Approval (per supplemental agenda material), noting the addition of Condition No. 88,
PlanCommlminutes/062100
regarding compliance with the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation
District, and the addition of Condition No. 15c, regarding a reduction of wall signage.
Commissioner Webster queried the interpretation of the Development Code with respect
to the schedule of permitted uses within the Light Industrial (LI) zone, noting that offices
were permitted at 50,00 square feet, specifically querying whether the square footage
allowed applied to a single building or to the total square footage of the proposed
buildings. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe advised that staff had had
discussions with respect to this portion of the Development Code, relaying that staff was
of the opinion that the project should not be penalized due to the proposed campus-type
setting.
Commissioner Webster noted that with the General Plan designation as Business Park
(BP) and the zoning being Light Industrial (LI) that there was a distinction with respect to
the permitted uses under 50,000 square feet which were not allowed in LI but were
allowed in BP, and queried whether if this project had been proposed 'at less than 50,000
square feet staff would have supported the project. In response, Associate Planner
Donahoe clarified that in the LI zone the intent was for large-scale uses; with respect to
the General Plan's description of Business Park which underlines this project,
referenced language stating the intent for business and employment centers that offer
attractive and distinctive architectural design, innovative site planning, and substantial
landscaped individual quality, clarifying that this particular project would qualify.
For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske reiterated that the previously
made comments had been discussed with staff, noting that there was concurrence
regarding the intent of the LI zoning standards, relaying the plan to avoid small buildings;
noted that this project was over 50,000 square feet, and that it clearly met the intent or'
the guidelines; and concurring with Commissioner Webster's comments, relayed that
when the General Plan was updated, that staff would also be reviewing areas of the
Development Code.
Ms. Cynthia Davis, representing the applicant, noted what a pleasure it had been
working with Associate Planner Donahoe; relayed the applicant's desire to work with the
Planning Department to create an environment for local businesses to expand and to
have the opportunity to own their own building; for Commissioner Mathewson, advised
that there was a potential for phased development if it was a condition of the lender; and
for Commissioner Webster, provided the rationale for locating the project at this
particular site.
Ms. Albia Miller, P.O. Box 1377, Elsinore, relayed her opposition to additional building
development, noting her preference for open space areas; and queried the
environmental review for this project.
The Commission relayed closincl remarks, as follows:
Commissioner Telesio noted that this site was suitable for the proposed development,
commending the architectural design of the project; and relayed his support of the
proposal.
PlanCommlminutes1062100
For Ms. Miller, Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Mathewson
clarified the environmental issues associated with this particular site which had been
previously graded.
Commissioner Webster noted that with respect to the General Plan and the
Development Code, he concurred with staffs interpretation; and recommended that this
project go forward.
Commissioner Fahey commented that this was an impressive project and could be
utilized as an example, noting the variety of buildings; and relayed that she would
strongly support this particular development.
Commissioner Mathewson concurred with the previous Commission comments, noting
that with respect to the architectural treatments it would be his desire for additional
development in the City of Temecula to incorporate similar features; and relayed his
support of the project.
Chairman Guerriero noted his support of the project.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve staff's recommendation with the
addition of Condition Nos. 15c (regarding a reduction of wall signage), and 68 (regarding
compliance with the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District), as
outlined in the supplemental agenda material. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
It was noted that at 6:44 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 6:50 P.M.
6
Planning Application No. 99-0261 - Planned Development Overlay -TEMECULA
CREEK VILLAGE (located on the south side of State Route 79 (south) east of
Jedediah Smith Road. Associate Planner Denice Thomas
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-024
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE
ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-010-
006, AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.130 THROUGH
17.22.138 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 4
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0261)"
PlanComm/minutes/062100
Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Thomas provided an overview of the project (per
agenda material), highlighting the location of the site, and the impacts of the land-use
changes; specified the zoning encompassed in the Planned Development Overlay
(PDO); with respect to the circulation, noted that the applicant was proposing to delete
the proposed Via Rio Temecula road that would traverse the site; relayed that the
General Plan amendment had not been approved at this time, advising that the Planning
Application No. was PA99-0371 and was submitted on September 5, 1999, noting that
the applicant had been in communication with the Public Works department; relayed that
the applicant was proposing an Grdinance which would include Design Guidelines which
would ultimately be adopted into the Development Code; relayed that the initial study
reviewed solely the land use changes; and noted that when specific projects were
proposed, that specific environmental impacts would be reviewed.
In response to Commissioner Webster's quedes regarding the deletion of Via Rio
Temecula, Senior Algeria relayed that staff had reviewed the alignment of this road and
the parcel map to the south of this project. providing additional information. Senior
Planner Hogan noted that when the General Plan was originally prepared the circulation
map this particular road was not precisely located, relaying that it was a conceptual road
intended to link with the existing roadway south of the homes located to the east and
ultimately to link with Jedediah Smith Road; advised that the preliminary traffic analysis
revealed that this road would have limited trips and hence the Planning and Public Work
Departments would be recommending approval of this amendment when it was
presented before the Planning Commission; and for Commissioner Webster, advised
that staff had no knowledge with respect to a proposed timeframe for creek
improvements. or if the creek would be improved in this area.
For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan clarified the conceptual location of Via
Rio Temecula, confirming that there was no project between this proposal and the creek.
In response to Commissioner Webster. Senior Planner Hogan relayed that during the
circulation update process there had been an additional creek crossing added from the
vicinity of this area across Temecula Creek, noting that the exact location had not been
identified and was not a part of the current circulation element.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that if there were
concerns regarding Design Guidelines that those comments should be expressed at this
time, advising that the proposal, if approved, would become the zoning and the
standards for the property unless the Commission opted to not proceed as proposed,
and to add language that allows for future changes or flexibility.
With respect to the parking requirements (referencing page 3, paragraph C),
Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern regarding the adequacy of the parking
requirements, noting the potential for restaurant uses of this site; and requested that this
language be stricken from the Design Guidelines and be developed at the time specific
developments are presented,
Additional discussion ensued regarding the anticipated trip generation (ATG).
Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that the initial study was solely based on the
zoning, noting that when the development plans were presented there would be a
detailed traffic and biological analysis.
PlanCommlminutes/062100
Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the ATG's would be corrected prior to this data going
forward to the City Council.
For the record, Chairman Guerriero, and Commissioner Webster relayed that they had
met with the applicant and the applicant's representatives.
Mr. Chris Smith. representing the applicant, provided a history of their development in
the Temecula area; presented a project history since the late 1980's inclusive of past
proposals and litigation, noting that for the past year-and-a-half the applicant had been
working with the City with respect to a site plan which culminated into this particular
proposed project; and for Commissioner Mathewson, reiterated that the project would
generate more than 2,000 trips a day.
Mr. Timothy Jay Miller, attorney representing the applicant, provided additional
information regarding the proposal, referencing the General Plan; and relayed further
specification regarding the Z3 zoning designation.
Mr. Daniel Gehman, representing the applicant, addressed the Design Guidelines
developed for this specific proposal; relayed that access to the uses which would most
likely be frequented often would not require a vehicular trip away from the site; specified
the proposed village area, the retail/support services area, and a series of
pedestrian/bicycle paths which would link the various functions of the site together; and
for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that with respect to the pedestrian path along the
creek, various concepts for access from this area to the residential area, noting that the
specific route had not been identified.
With respect to the area along the creek, Associate Planner Thomas advised that staff
would recommend that the path be accessible to the public. In response, Mr. Gehman
relayed the applicant's agreement with the recommendation.
Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, relayed for the record that this proposal was not
consistent with the City's approved Growth Management Plan; referencing the policy,
noted that General Plan amendments and changes of zones should be denied within the
City that result in increased traffic levels during the Riverside County Integrated Plan
(RCIP) Planning process; and relayed the following additional language: analyze the
circulation system impacts as they relate to proposed land-use changes along the 79
South/Winchester corridor and the 79 South Corridor. Traffic modeling shall be
performed for any changes as part of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP)
process. The cities shall verify the results of the modeling; and advised that this project
had not been adequately modeled or verified.
For Mr. Lynn, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that this proposal did not currently
have a density range attached to the residential area, noting that staff was of the opinion
that with the proposed mixed uses, this project would be effective 'in keeping vehicles off
the streets and providing areas where people could live and walk to services, advising
that the proposal was consistent with the General Plan, clarifying staffs support of the
project; and noted that Mr. Lynn raised a good point with respect to the Growth
Management Action Plan.
PlanComm/minutes/062100
In response, Mr. Lynn reiterated that the proposed project encompassed a change of
zone; and queried whether the City's General Plan would be changed to be consistent
with the Growth Management Plan. In response, Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed
that the General Plan would be amended, noting that elements of the Growth
Management Action Plan would be taken into account.
Ms. Albia Miller (relaying at this point in the meeting that she was a resident of
Wiidomar) noted her concern with additional development, specifically with respect to
traffic impacts; and noted her recommendation for the City to focus on environmental
issues,
Mr. Smith urged the Commission to consider an equitable decision with respect to the
landowner, noting the current tax cost of $200,000-250,000 per year that the applicant
had paid for the infrastructure in this area; and advised that the village concept would be
successful at this particular location.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, for clarification, Senior Planner
Rockholt relayed that based on the General Plan's analysis, there would be 480 ADT's
per acre, noting that there were 32 acres which would encompass approximately 13,000
ADT's, relaying that the traffic analysis data for this specific proposal had denoted
11,400 tdps per day.
The Commission relayed its conclusions, as follows:
Commissioner Fahey relayed concern with respect to clarification in the staff report
regarding the traffic impacts, recommending that the Commission not move forward with
this project until the matter had been clarified, and until there was additional specificity
with respect to how this project corresponds with the Growth Management Plan adopted
by the City Council; advised that if the traffic thresholds were lower than what was
originally planned for this area, then the Growth Management Plan Guidelines would be
met; and recommended continuing the matter.
In concurrence with Commissioner Fahey, Commission Mathewson recommended
continuing the matter; relayed his concern with respect to the Design Guidelines, the
consistency with the Growth Management Plan, and the proposed zone change to allow
for high density residential; in light of the fact of the pending housing element update
which would be presented to the Commission at a future date, noted that he was not in a
position to approve an additional multi-family area without a good basis of what the
updated housing element would reveal in terms of policies and guidelines; relayed that
at this point he would be uncomfortable approving any project that encompassed a multi-
family residential area; and noted that while he was a strong supporter of the village
concept, it would be his desire to have the housing element data prior to moving forward
with this proposal.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that he shared a level of discomfort with the unknown
factors, noting that he would like to see a draft copy of the housing element in order to
review the density issues; advised that he favored the village concept; and relayed that
he would be reluctant to approve the project until the previously-mentioned issues were
addressed.
PlanCommlminutes1062100
Commissioner Webster relayed that this project was completely in conformance with
the General Plan, noted that the proposed mixture of uses would be appropriate for this
location; with respect to the Growth Management Policy, which was prepared by the City
Council without input form the Planning Commission or any of the City's Commissions,
noted that it was in direct conflict with the City's goals and elements in the General Plan;
advised that there was an existing Growth Management Element within the General Plan
that had specified standards, noting that the City had not followed through with the
guidelines; reiterated that this project was in conformance with the General Plan,
reiterating that the Growth Management Policy was not; advised that with respect to
future development approvals within this project site the crucial issues would be the
schedule of permitted uses and the Design Guidelines; relayed that the Design
Guidelines should be more specific, recommending minor enhancements to the Design
Guidelines, specifically with respect to the multi-family residential area; noted the
extreme shortage of high density affordable housing; advised that to ensure an effective
village center, there would need to be a higher core of residential surrounding the village
center; with respect to the layout of the multi-family residential area, recommended
modifications with respect to the perimeter parking, recommending more of a garden-
style apartment complex; with respect to the far west end of the property in the
retail/support commercial area, recommended that this area comply with the
Neighborhood Center Guidelines within the City's Design Guidelines; and recommended
moving forward with this project with the modified Design Guidelines.
Chairman Guerriero relayed that he, too, was in favor of the village concept; advised
that due to the lack of employment in this area, ultimately the residents residing at this
location would be driving in order to commute to work; relayed that he had discussed
with the applicant his concern regarding the multi-family density area while
acknowledging the lack of affordable housing in Temecula; noted that his primary
concerns were the traffic flows on Highway 79, and the high density areas and its imp~;t
upon the schools; relayed that in his opinion the Growth Management Plan was
designed for large-scale developments (i.e., Wolf Creek); and noted that he concurred
with Commissioner Webster in moving forward with the project with modifications with
respect to the density range and with respect to the traffic impacts.
For clarification, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the traffic study did show a
reduction in the generation of traffic trips based on the zoning change by approximately
1500 trips a day; with respect to the housing element update, advised that she did not
foresee any negative impacts with the State regarding adding additional multi-family
areas; and advised that it would be 30-60 days before the draft form of the element
would be presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Fahey relayed that while this project was an appropriate development
for this area, that it was vital that the staff report was accurate; recommended that the
Growth Management Plan be addressed; concurred with revising the Design Guidelines;
and recommended continuing this matter to address these issues.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue this item to the July 19, 2000
meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (Ultimately this
motion was amended.)
PlanComm/minutes/062100
Mr. Smith respectfully requested the Commission to vote for or against the proposal,
noting his opposition with respect to the continuance; and relayed that the applicant's
traffic engineer was available for questions.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to deny the project, as proposed. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and roll call vote reflected denial of the
motion, as follows: 2/3/0/0
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Mathewson, and Telesio.
Fahey, Guerriero, and Webster.
None.
None.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve the project and that the Commission
provide specific guidelines with respect to the Design Guidelines being modified, that
specific data be relayed to the City Council with respect to the traffic study, and that
there be clarification with respect to the Growth Management Plan. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Webster. (Ultimately this motion was withdrawn.)
Planning Manager Ubnoske suggested that the Commission's comments could be e-
mailed to staff in order to ensure that all concerns were relayed in the staff report prior to
the item being presented to the City Council.
Commissioner Webster recommended that the revisions be specified at this time in
order for the applicant to comment.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that his concern was respect to the high density, the
traffic impacts, and the relationship between the proposal and the Growth Management
Plan.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Smith reiterated staffs comments that the
project would decrease the trip generation by 1500 trips a day.
Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that the proposal was for a PDO which staff would
be reluctant to move forward on with the project without the establishment of Design
Guidelines.
Commissioner Webster recommended that the City's Design Guidelines be adopted
with this project, with the understanding that as specific projects proceed through the
development process, additional detail would be investigated.
Commissioner Fahey commented regarding development projects coming before the
Planning Commission, relaying that there would be an opportunity to apply the Growth
Management Policy standards at that time.
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed her concern with respect to the PDO being adopted
with the City's Design Guidelines, requesting that height and setback standards be
established.
At this time, Commissioner Fahey withdrew her previous motion.
10
PlanComm/minutes/062100
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve the project with the following
modifications: to adopt the Village Guidelines setforth in the applicanrs proposal and to
reference the City's Design Guidelines for the multi-family residential, retail, and
commercial areas. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster. (Ultimately
this motion passed; see below.)
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that due to the issues that have not been
addressed, he could not support.the project at this time.
Commissioner Telesio noted that he could support the continuance; and relayed that it
was the applicanrs desire that the Commission vote to either approve or deny this
project, opting not to have the item continued.
For Commissioner Fahey, Attorney Diaz confirmed that the Commission could move to
continue the matter, if that was the desire.
At this time roll call vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion, as follows: 3/2/0/0
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Fahey, Guerriero, and Webster.
Mathewson, and Telesio.
None.
None.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Fahey relayed that for future redesign projects, staff may want to
visit a Rancho Bemardo site that had been recently redesigned, commending the
strip mall's new appearance; and specified that the site was located on the
corner of Pomerado Road and Rancho Bernardo.
For Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that in August the
Commission appointments would be made for the expired terms.
With respect to the memorandum summarizing the mall site issues, Commission
Mathewson queried whether the landscaping berm at Margarita Road behind the
Power Center had been fully addressed.
In response, Chairman Guerriem provided additional information, noting the
applicanrs willingness to place additional landscaping in the area.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he was concerned with the visual
appearance of the plastic barrier proximate to the middle loading dock that was
torn.
Chairman Guerriero noted that the readwork on Margarita Road, south of Morega
Road had still not been completed, advising that the area was a traffic hazard.
With respect to the Promenade housing tract across from the mall site, Chairman
Guerriero noted the lack of landscaping on the berm.
11
PlanCommlminutes/062100
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that there had been irrigation problems, and
noted that she would follow-up with this issue and provide Chairman Guerriero
an update.
Chairman Guerriero commended the McMillin Development for their landscape
efforts, which greatly enhance Rancho California Road.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Planning Manager Ubnoske commended Associate Planner Donahoe for her
efforts in the development of the memorandum regarding the mall site concerns.
B. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the City's operating budget and the CIP
would be presented to the City Council next week.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:32 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, July
5, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
12
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 2, 2000
Planning Application No. 99-0335 (Development Plan)
QUAID HARLEY DAVIDSON
Prepared by: Denice Thomas, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 99-0335
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0335, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A 17,371 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON
1.38 VACANT ACRES WITHIN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC) ZONE,
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT
STREET APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET SOUTH OF THE SANTIAGO
ROAD/FRONT STREET INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 922-120-010.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Rich Quaid, Harley Davidson
To design, construct and operate a 17,371 square foot commercial
building for the purposes of conducting a motorcycle dealership.
Approximately 1,500 feet south of the Santiago Road/Front Street
intersection.
Service Commercial (SC)
North: Service Commercial (SC)
South: Service Commercial (SC)
East: Interstate 15
West: Service Commercial (SC)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC,doC
1
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Service Commercial (SC)
Vacant
North: Commercial Center
South: Ramada Hotel
East: Interstate 15
West: Medical Offices
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Total Area (Gross):
Building Area (footprint):
Building Area (Total):
Building Height:
Landscaped Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Lot Coverage:
Floor Area Ratio:
BACKGROUND
60,112 square feet (1.38 acres)
13,824 square feet
17,371 square feet
33 feet
12,076 square feet (20%)
52 vehicular, 3 handicapped, 3 bicycle, 3 motorcycle
54 vehicular, 3 handicapped, 10 bicycle, 7 motorcycle
23%
0.29
The project was submitted to the Planning Department for review on August 25, 1999. The
Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the project on September 23, 1999. The project
was deemed complete on May 18, 2000.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Development Plan is a proposal to design, construct and operate a Harley-Davidson
dealership which will consist of a 5,049 square foot general merchandise area, a 1,500 square foot
retail display area, 2,386 square feet of storage, 3,320 square feet of office area and 5 service
bays. The building is proposed to be 17,371 square feet and will be constructed on approximately
1.38 vacant acres within the Service Commercial (SC) Zone.
ANALYSIS
Site Desian
The project is generally located on the east side of Old Town Front Street approximately 1,500 feet
south of the Santiago Road/Front Street Intersection. Access to the site is provided from one
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99-PC.doc
2
driveway located at the southwest corner of the site from Old Town Front Street. Parking for the
project is provided on the. westerly portion of the property between Old Town Front Street and the
building's main entrance.
The required parking for this project is as follows: 52 vehicle spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces and 3
bicycle spaces. The applicant is providing 54 vehicle spaces, 7 motorcycle spaces and 10 bicycle
spaces. Parking was calculated as follows:
Use Square Footage Parking Spaces Parking Spaces
Required Provided
Service & Repair 5 Service Bays 20 spaces (4/bay)
General Retail 5,049 16 spaces (1/300sq ~)
Display Retail 1,500 3 spaces (1/500)
Office 3,320 11 spaces (l/300sq fi)
Storage 2,386 2 spaces (1/1,000sq ~)
Total Spaces 52 spaces 54 spaces
The Development Code identifies a target floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.30 for the Service Commercial
(SC) zone. The applicant is proposing a FAR of 0.29, which is below what the Code will permit.
Access, Traffic and Circulation
Access for the site wilt be taken from Old Town Front Street. The Public Works Department has
reviewed this project and has indicated that the traffic impacts will not be significant. Emergency
vehicles have access to all parts of each building from the parking areas along the front, side and
rear of the building.
Architecture, Color and Materials
Through the use of varying materials and paint, the applicant is attempting to achieve a
"aleconstructed" architecture style which will add interest and uniqueness to the project. The
applicant is proposing black and white stucco on the northern, southern, and eastern elevations
of the building. The western elevation also features "deconstructed" architecture with the use of
brick, as well as black and white stucco. The entry to the building is defined through the use of
black awnings over the tinted windows and doors.
Existina Uses
That applicant is proposing a motorcycle dealership for the property. This use is consistent with
other uses in the vicinity. South of the proposed site are automobile related businesses, north of
the site is a RV rental business and a used car dealership.
Signage
Signage is not a part of this application. The review of signage will be conducted under a separate
application at a later date.
~\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC.dOC
3
Landscapinq
The preliminary planting plan indicates that the applicant is providing 12,076 square feet of
landscaping onsite. which is consistent with the 20% minimum landscaping requirement in the SC
(Service Commercial) zone. Additionally, the applicant is providing 1,369 square feet of decorative
bardscape, which enhances the appearance of the project. The applicant is also adding a firepit
to the front of the store that includes built-in bench seating.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIbN
A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 99-0335 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 1.38 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 building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the
site.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is SC (Service Commercial). Existing zoning
for the site is SC (Service Commercial). A variety of high intensity commercial 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 is consistent with the General Plan, with the
Development Code, and with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with the General Plan, the Development
Code, and the Citywide Design Guidelines. Additionally, it is staff's opinion that the project is
compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality.
FINDINGS
Development Plan
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (SC)
Service Commercial development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards for (SC) Service Commercial 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 consistent with applicable requirements of State law and local
ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CityWide Design
Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLl\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC,doC
4
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 wcjrking 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 infill 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.
The decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a development plan
based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission
or City Council on appeal.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit A - Blue Page 9
Exhibits - Blue Page 20
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Maps
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plans
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
APPROVING PA99-0335
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC,doC
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-
0335, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 17,371 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON 1.38 VACANT ACRES WITHIN THE
SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC) ZONE, GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE EAST ~IDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET SOUTH OF THE SANTIAGO
ROAD/FRONT STREET INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-120-010.
WHEREAS, Rich Quaid filed Planning Application No. PA99-0335 (Development Plan) in
a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Development Plan were 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 Development
Plan, on August 2, 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 hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved the Development Plan subject to the conditions after finding
that the project proposed in the Development Plan 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. Development Plan Findines. The Planning Commission, in approving the
Development Plan hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the
Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecuta and with
all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare.
C. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish witdlife or
habitat off-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.
\\TEM EC_FS 101 \VOL1 \Depts\P LANNI NG\STAFFRPT~335PA99. PC .doc
7
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.
PA99-0335 was made p~r the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332. This
Section allows exemptions for infill development 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 the Develop.ment Plan for the design, construction, and operation of a
17,371 square foot building on 1.38 acres (to permit the operation of a motorcycle dealership) and
known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-120-010, and subject to the project specific conditions set
forth on Exhibit A (Development Plan) attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2"d day of August, 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 2"= day of August,
2000, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\~TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC.dOC
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA99-0335 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC-dOC
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: PA99-0335 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
Design, construct and operate a 17,371 square foot
commercial building on a 1.38 acre parcel
DIF Category:
Service Commercial
Assessor's Parcel No:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
922-120-010
August 2, 2000
August 2, 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, defend with counsel of City's own election, 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.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC.doC
10
10.
11.
12.
13.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shaft
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 (Landscape Plan), F (Elevations), and G (Floor Plans), 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 Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Director of Planning 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.
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 'T' (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
Primary Wall:
Secondary Wall:
Tertiary Wall:
Window and Door Frames:
White Stucco- Vista Paint Color 300
Black Stucco- Vista Paint Color 05
Used Brick Veneer 2 W' x 8" Rustic Used Brick
Anodized Aluminum
The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
The applicant shall group and screen all utilities per code requirements to insure that all
utilities are coordinated and grouped together.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining
property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown
on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check
approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance N. 655.
The applicant shall comply with the Statement of Operations that is on file with the
Community Development Department- Planning Division, unless superceded by these
conditions of approval.
Regular hours of operation shall be Tuesday through Saturday 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and
Sunday 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The service department hours shall be Tuesday through
Saturday 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99,PC-dOc
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
14.
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.
15.
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.
16.
The applicant 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.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
18.
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:
B.
C.
D.
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 planrings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
19. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for signage.
20.
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 propedy constructed and in good working order.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC.doc
12
21.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, To
guarantee the maintenance of the landscape planrings, 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 Director of Planning, the bond shall be released.
22.
Each parking space reserv,e.d for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the
off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles 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."
23.
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.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
25. 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
1. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
2. 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.
3. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-
way.
All improvement plans and 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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC-~oc
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
5. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shah 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.
6. The Developer sharl 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 speciat study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
9. 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.
10. The Developer must compiy with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Direct
discharge of runoff from the site is prohibited. Runoff shall be collected onsite and urban
poltutants shall be mitigated prior to discharge into the public right-of-way.
11. 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
12. 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.
13. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
14. 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.
15. 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_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC.doc
14
16.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone AE. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may
include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit
shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
17. 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:
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. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
d. 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.
e. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
18. 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.
19. The Developer shaft obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property.
20. 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.
21. 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 median on Front
Street 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
22. 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
23. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
24. 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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRP*R335PA99,PC-doc
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
25. 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.
26. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. AH 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.
27. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District sha~l be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
28. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
29. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
30. 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)
31. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
32. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
33. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
34. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Obtain the Division of the State
Architect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the
Building Official, to implement in the building design.
35. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
36. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
37. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
38. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
39. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
40. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC,cloc
16
41.
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.
Construction hours are as follows:
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
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approvat for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are
in force at the time of building plan submittal.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix Ill.A, TableA-Ill-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a
total fire flow of 850 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)
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 500 feet apart 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 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)
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 temporan/Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporan/Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%335PA99-PC.doc
48. 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. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
49. 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)
50. Prior to building construction, dead end mad ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
51. 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 )
52. 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)
53. 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)
54. Pdor 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)
55. Pdor 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)
56. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the dght side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by
the alarm system. (CFC 902.4)
57. 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_FS101\VOLl\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPq~335PA99.PC.doc
18
58.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be respon,sible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from
both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
Special Conditions
59.
Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report shall be submitted to and approved
by the Fire Prevention Bureau addressing all items on the hazardous materials list. This
report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC,
1998 CBC, NFPA- 13, 24, 72 and 231-C.
OTHER AGENCIES
60. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's transmittal dated September 29, 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.
61. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated September 17, 1999, a copy of
which is attached.
62. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Districts transmittal dated September 7, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
63. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of
Transportation dated, September 30, 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\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC,doc
19
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
C it} of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula. CA 92589-9033
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
September 29. 1999
;:_---.-:.--7'--:_:j' .....
__
g OC' Q 4 1, 99
Io05 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA t~250l
00o.055.1200
900.788.0005 FAX
Anention: Patty Anders
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: PA 99-0335
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate leners or
other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recg'nimendations for such cases are normall>' limited to
items as specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities other regional flood control
and drainage facilities which could be considered a ogical component or extension o? a mastgr plan system. and
District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In additign information of a generdl nature is
prov tied. The DistrOt has not reviewed the proposed pro'cot in detail and th~ following comme~ts do not in an~
wav constitute or imply District approval or endorsement o~the proposed project with respect m flood haurd, publi~
health and safeW. or any other such issues.
PA 99-0345 is a proposal to desi n. construct and operate a 17371 s uare foo~ Harley Davidson motorcycle
dealership on the east side of Front ~;reet, approximately 2 200 feet south o~First Street. ' '
Approx mate v t~ree ua~ers of the parcel is withia the 100-year Zone AE flood lain limits for Mu~ieta Creek as
dehneated on'Panel ~g. 060742-0010B of the Flood InsuranEe Rate Maps issue~in con'unction with the National
Food Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency management A~encv (~EMA). The water surface
elevation for the FEMA flow rate of 28.500 cg is 996.99 at t~e upstream edge of t~e pfope~v. A District flood study
determined the base flood elevation for the master plan flow rale of 38.300 cg to be 1000.4g at d~e upstream edge of
the rope~. The hioh-water mark during the flood of Janua~, '1993 was 997.28 All tl~e elevations are based on ~929
NG~D. '
Becanse of extreme hazard posed by Murrieta Creek. the City should consider not allowin2 development to proceed
u ~t t ~e u t hate flood control im rovement can be constructed. If the Cih, chooses ~o allow development to
proceed, we recommend that the ~ require the applicant to participate in 'a financing mechanism such as an
assessment d str ct to e ~sure necessa~' improvements are constructed. In addition. the Citv should also condition the
~p ca ~t to provide all studies. calculations, plans or other information needed to meet ~EMA requirements. The
is 1001.48.
Th s project is located within the mts of the Distriet's Murrieta Creegemecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for
w~ ch draina e fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier's check or money order to the
Flood ControlDistrict prior to issuance of building or grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in e~:ct
at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
Questions regarding this maner may be retrred to me at 909.955.1214.
Very truly yours.
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
SKM:slj
County of Riversi&
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: September 17. i 999
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
FROM jS'5~REGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Speeialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0335
1. The Depm'tment of Environmental Health has revie~ed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0335 and has no
objections. SanitaD' sewer and water services may be available in this are4.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL tbr health clearance. the following items are
reqvired:
a) "Will-ser,,e" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establistunent (to include rending machines) will be
subn~itted. including a fixture schedule. a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to
ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facililies Law. For specific
retbrence. please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022).
c) A clearance letter fi'om the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-5055
will be required indicating that the project has been cleared tbr:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinauce#617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Emergency Response Plans Disclosure fin accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Waste reduction management.
d) A letter from the Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collectiou/LEA).
GD:gd
(909) 955-8980
NOTE:
Any cun'ent additional requirements not covered, can be ,.2tpplicable at time of Building
Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health Clearance.
Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
st~d3bl.doc
l ancho
Wmr
September 7, 1999
Patty Anders, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 21390
APN 922-120-010
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0335
Dear Ms. Anders:
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
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
99~SB:mc223~012-T1 ~FCF
STATE OF CALiFORNiA--BUSINESS, TRANSPOF~ ~ ATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8
464 w Fourth Street, 6'* Floor MS 726
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
PHONE (909) 383-6327
FAX (909) 383-6890
GRAY DAVIS. Governor
September 30, 1999
08-Riv*l 5-3.808
Ms. Patty Anders
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Ms. Anders:
Case Number PA99-0335, Quaid Temecula Harlev-Davidson,
Rich Quaid. Applicant
We have received the site plan for the above noted project recently discussed at the
Development Review Committee meeting held September 23, 1999. Although the date of
this meeting has passed, we ask that the following comments be included among those
considered as final conditions of approval for this proposed motorcycle dealership.
Our chief concern with this proposal centers on construction of the 10' retaining wall at the
rear of the property along the existing Interstate 15 right of way. This concern is based on
our desire to protect the integrity of the existing chain link fence and ensure that existing
drainage patterns are not adversely affected with construction of this new wall.
When available, please submit detailed site grading and drainage plans so that full impact
to our right of way may be determined. This information should include existing and
proposed grade elevations, any slope construction or backfill areas proposed behind the
wall and modifications to the existing drainage patterns for adjacent properties.
Information regarding applicable State construction standards and encroachment permit
procedures will be provided at the time of future review if determined necessary.
Ms. Patty Anders
September 30, 1999
Page 2
We apologize for our delayed response and for any inconvenience this may have caused.
If you have questions regarding this letter or require other information, please contact Ms.
Rosa F. Clark at (909) 383-6908 for assistance.
Sincerely,
LINDA GRIMES, Chief
Office of Forecasting/IGR-CEQA Review
Transportation Planning Division
CC:
Frank Lehr, Freeway Operations
Naidu Athuluru, Encroachment Permits/Riv. Co.
Melvin Mendez, Encroachment Permits/Riv. Co.
RFC/DP/15TEM_PA99-0335.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99,PC,doc
20
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NOS. - PA99-0335
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 2, 2000
VICINITY MAP
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC.doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE
: i !, i! PROJECT SITE ~" i, i !: !' i i-. i i' i
:~2}~.,..: .. ~. {..':TT:-. i:' :": :-:
*>~,:::. i. !!' !_!:: "~: :i ~ !-'E i... !.. :: :-'
!.._ ...... :..~::::::::!.-::::
~: :'Eii'i'iE'-i'!'i': 'E :'i'iEii i!.
... -~ .:::- .: .....
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BUSINESS PARK (BP)
CASE NO. - PA99-0335
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 2, 2000
F:\Depts\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC.doc
23
CITY OF TEMECULA
i
CASE NO. - PA99-0335
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 2, 2000
SITE PLAN
F:\DeptS\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC,dOC
24
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO, - PA99-0335
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 2, 2000
LANDSCAPEPLAN
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99.PC,doC
25
CITY OF TEMECULA
EAST ELEVAtiON
WLST ELEVATION
IIORTH ELEVAtiON
SOUTHELEVA~ON
CASE NO. - PA99-0335
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 2, 2000
ELEVATIONS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%335PA99.PC,doc
26
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0335
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 2, 2000
FLOOR PLANS
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%335PA99,PC.doc
27
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0335
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 2, 2000
FLOOR PLANS
F:\Depts\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~335PA99,PC.Ooc
27