HomeMy WebLinkAbout081600 PC Agenda In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office 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 128 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
AUGUST 16, 2000—6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-030
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute: Commissioner Chiniaeff
Roll Call: 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 2rl0r to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual 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.
1 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 16, 2000.
F:1Depts\PtANNINGIP tANCOMM1Agendas\2000\8.16-OO.doc
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Review and approve the minutes of June 21, 2000.
2.2 Approve the minutes of July 5, 2000.
3 Directors Hearing Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and file
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time 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 public hearing.
4 Planning Application No. 00-0300 (Development Plan) Product review approval for
building elevations, floor plans, color and material boards and colored elevations for 38
lots (Tentative Tract Map 29286) ranging in size from 2,943 to 3,398 square feet, located
on the southeast corner of Date Street and Margarita Road, at the northern City limit —
Patty Anders
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-0300, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PRODUCT
REVIEW APPROVAL CONSISTING OF BUILDING
ELEVATIONS, FLOOR PLANS, COLOR AND MATERIAL
BOARDS AND COLORED ELEVATIONS FOR 38 LOTS
(TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29286) ON 9.75 ACRES LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DATE STREET AND
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO, 911-640-003;
4.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0300 pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3), as the project does not have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment.
FADepts\PLANN INGIPLANC0MM1Agendas1200018-16-OO.dw
2
5 Planning Application No. 99-0317 (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 —Carole Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0317;
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 99-0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TEMECULA
RIDGE APARTMENTS) - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND THREE STORY
APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE,
WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET 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, AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: September 6, 2000, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
F:1DeptstP LAN N I NG\P LAN CO MM\Agendas12000\8-16-00.doc
3
ITEM #2
MINUTES FROM NNE 21, 2000
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: Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and
Chairman Guerriero.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Senior Engineer Alegria,
Attorney Diaz,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Senior Planner Rockholt,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Associate Planner Thomas, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 21, 2000.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.2 Approve the minutes of May 3, 2000.
PlanComm/m inutes/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 Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Cost Plus Inc. at the 40456
Winchester Road located on the southwest corner of Winchester Road and
Margarita Road. Project Planner Thomas Thornsley
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 concluding 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 staffs
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 no.
2
Pla nCom m/minutes/062100
4 Director's Hearing 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 Hearing 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 HEARING ITEMS
5 Planning Application No 00-0072— Development Plan — Ridge Park Office
Center (located on the north side of Ridge Park Drive between Rancho California
Road and Vincent Moraga 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, BETWEEN 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,
3
PlanComm/minutes/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 of
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 closing 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.
4
PlanComm/m i nutes/062100
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 staffs recommendation with the
addition of Condition Nos. 15c (regarding a reduction of wall signage), and 88 (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)"
5
P IanComm/m in utes/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 ordinance 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 queries 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.
6
PlanCommlml nutesl0621 00
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
SouthlWinchester corridor and the 79 South Corridor. Trac 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.
7
P IanComm/min utas/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
Wildomar) 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 trips 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.
8
PlanComm/m i nutes1062100
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 impact
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.)
s
PlanComm/m 1 nutes/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: Commissioners: Mathewson, and Telesio.
NOES: Commissioners: Fahey, Guerriero, and Webster.
ABSENT: Commissioners: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: 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 applicant's 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 applicant's 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: Commissioners: Fahey, Guerriero, and Webster.
NOES: Commissioners: Mathewson, and Telesio.
ABSENT: Commissioners: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
A. Commissioner Fahey relayed that for future redesign projects, staff may want to
visit a Rancho Bernardo 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.
B. For Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that in August the
Commission appointments would be made for the expired terms.
C. 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 Guerriero provided additional information, noting the
applicant's 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.
D. Chairman Guerriero noted that the roadwork on Margarita Road, south of Moraga
Road had still not been completed, advising that the area was a traffic hazard.
E. With respect to the Promenade housing tract across from the mall site, Chairman
Guerriero noted the lack of landscaping on the berm.
PlanCommlm i nutes1062100
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.
F. 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, Julv
S. 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
12
MINUTES FROM JULY 5,2000
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 5, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday July 5, 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 Telesio.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and
Chairman Guerriero.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Senior Engineer Alegria,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Rockholt,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Associate Planner Thomas, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
At this time, City Clerk Jones duly swore
In the newly appointed Planning Commissioner,
Dennis Chiniaeff.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was noted that the Consent Calendar Items were considered separately.
1 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 5, 2000.
R:PIe Cwm/miwes/0705
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the Agenda of July 5, 2000. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of May 17, 2000.
With respect to page 2 of the minutes, under Agenda Item No. 3, Commissioner
Webster relayed that his recommendation that a traffic signal be added at Diaz and
Winchester Roads should be denoted in the recommendations to the City Council
regarding the CIP.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the minutes, as revised. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3 Appointment of New Chair and Co-Chair
Commissioner Chiniaeff nominated Commissioner Guerriero for reappointment to serve
as Chairman of the Commission.
Commissioner Webster nominated Commissioner Mathewson for the position of
Chairman of the Commission.
It was the general consensus of the Commission to reappoint Commissioner
Guerriero to serve as Chairman of the Commission.
Chairman Guerriero nominated Commissioner Mathewson for reappointment to serve as
Vice Chairman of the Commission.
It was the consensus of the Commission to reappoint Commissioner Mathewson
as Vice Chairman of the Commission.
4 Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Longs Drugs Stores on Retail
Pad "A at the Winchester Meadows shopping center, located at the northeast
corner of Winchester Road and Margarita Road Associate Planner Donahoe
Via overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record); noted
the location and zoning of the site; relayed that at the present time there were nine
licenses allowed in this census tract, advising that there were ten licenses in active use;
noted that there was a security system within the store and an extensive employee
training program with respect to the sale of alcohol; relayed that per supplemental
agenda material she had provided a copy of the letter from the Temecula Valley Unified
School District which was referenced in the staff report; for Chairman Guerriero, clarified
that the nine licenses allowed were for off-sale licenses within this particular census
tract, relaying that one of the licenses would soon be eliminated due to the relocation of
R:PWnCM.ftirwtey 70500 2
the Cosco use, noting, additionally, that there were two pending licenses in the City of
Murrieta (within this census tract); for Commission Telesio, relayed that the
Commission's recent action for the Finding of Convenience or Necessity for the Cost
Plus use was encompassed in an alternate census tract; confirmed that this was a
request for a Type 21 license which was an off-sale general license which would entail
the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits; clarified staffs interpretation of similar uses
denoted in the criteria questionnaire; advised that it was the State that determined that
the area be divided into census tracts for the determination of the number of permitted
licenses; and noted that in the staff report there was data pertaining to the general area,
as well as the census tract.
For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Enforce
Responsible Alcohol Consumption in Temecula (ERACIT) Program data would be
presented at the July 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
The applicant's representative relayed that liquor sales had become part of the Longs
Drugs Stores' product line which encompassed approximately five percent (5%) of the
total sales; provided an overview of the employee training program regarding the sale of
alcohol; relayed the consequences of selling alcohol to a minor; and for Commissioner
Telesio, confirmed that if a person appeared to be under the age of 21 that even if there
was identification denoting an age of 21 or older, the employee had the discretion to
question the age of the patron, relaying that the manager would intervene, advising that
the use did have the right to refuse sales.
Commissioner Chiniaeff commented on the census tract boundaries, concurring with
Commissioner Telesio's remarks regarding the number of commercial uses affecting the
number of permitted licenses since the ratios were based on population.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to make the Finding of Public Convenience
and Necessity for Longs Drugs Store on Retail Pad "A" at Winchester Meadows
shopping center, located at the northeast corner of Winchester Road and Margarita
Road. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (This motion
ultimately passed; see page 4.)
Chairman Guerriero relayed that per conversations with ABC, there was a plethora of
liquor licenses within the City; and noted the negative impacts associated with a
proliferation of licensed uses.
In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed the
new conditions that would be required for developments that included the sale of
alcohol; and advised that she may have a representative from the Police Department
provide a presentation to the Commission regarding this new data at a future date.
Chairman Guerriero relayed that approximately every month the Police Department
Sting operations revealed uses that sell to minors, noting that he would be opposed to
the Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for an additional license in this census
tract.
Commissioner Webster relayed that within this particular corridor that there was not a
proliferation of uses selling alcohol; noted that this particular type of use did not typically
R:PlanC=WmW ea1070500 3
cause negative impacts; and advised that there were geographical boundaries that
would reduce negative incidents.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Chairman
Guerriero who voted no.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5 Planning Application No. 99-0317—Development Plan —TEMECULA RIDGE
APARTMENTS (located on the south side of Rancho California Road between
Moraga Road and Humber Drive. Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske/Associate
Planner Carole Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Continue to August 16, 2000.
In response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed
that the joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop would most likely be held on
August 1, 2000.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue this matter to August 16, 2000.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
6 Planninq Application No 99-0510— Development Plan —AVOCA BUILDING
(located at 42486 Avenida Alvarado). Associate Planner Denice Thomas
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 99-0510
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines;
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-026
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0510, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 23,710
SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 1.22
VACANT ACRES LOCATED AT 42486 AVENIDA
ALVARADO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 909-290-058
Associate Planner Thomas presented the staff report (via agenda material); noted that
this item had been continued from the June 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting;
highlighted the access, site location, and landscaping; provided additional information
regarding the previously proposed "furred space" that had been separated by partitions
which the applicant had not intended for use, and the subsequent review of the area by
R:Pl C..Imin .t 70500 4
Chief Building Official Elmo; advised that due to the increase in the overall square
footage the "furred space" had created, that the applicant had resubmitted floor plans
wherein that particular area had been redesigned with no floor and would not be
calculated into the overall square footage; relayed that the applicant has proposed 50
vehicle parking spaces, noting the requirement via the Development Code for 52 vehicle
spaces (inclusive of two motorcycle spaces); with respect to the parking provisions,
advised that staff was suggesting that there be a Finding of Consistency due to the
availability of off-site parking, noting that this Finding could be done at a staff level;
provided an overview of the architectural features; and relayed that the applicant's
revised plan to obscure the roof-mounted equipment with integral parts of the building.
For the record, Commissioner Chiniaeff indicated that although this matter had been
continued from a previous Commission meeting wherein he was not seated on the
Commission, that he had thoroughly reviewed the file and felt comfortable to take action
on the project.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that there appeared to be a grade differential between
this site and the property towards Diaz Road, noting, additionally, that on the site plan
there appeared to be driveway accesses between the properties; and queried whether
that was a reciprocal parking agreement between the two properties. In response,
Associate Planner Thomas relayed that there was no reciprocal parking agreement,
providing additional information regarding the adjacent Plant Equipment use's existing
location.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeffs queries regarding Condition No. 42 (with
respect to the applicant waiving the right to object to the formation of an Assessment
District or a Community Facilities District), Attorney Curley provided additional
information regarding the City conditioning this project with respect to this matter.
Mr. Dean Davidson, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Telesio, provided an
overview of the revised floor plans; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that to reduce
the total square footage by .04 percent (.04%) the building would need to be reduced by
approximately four to five feet; for Commissioner Webster, relayed that since the
continuance of this matter, the color material board had been misplaced, providing
additional information regarding the proposed colors, noting that the false windows on
the west elevation would be black.
Mr. Timothy Fuller, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that
the eastern proximate property was the existing Plant Equipment parking lot; clarified the
location of the driveway access; with respect to the elevation differential, advised that
this particular area would be a paved ramped access; and for Commissioner
Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the employment opportunities this
use would provide, noting that the new positions created solely for this facility would be
approximately 30.
The Commission relayed the following closing comments:
Commissioner Telesio commended the architect for the design of the exterior
architectural features.
R:PlanComm/miWes1070500 5
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Fuller provided additional information regarding the
applicant's desire to not have a recorded reciprocal parking agreement; and for
Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the existing Plant Equipment facility had
between 15-20 parking spaces that were not utilized.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he could support the request for the minor
exception for the reduction of the two parking stalls, recommending that there be a
condition added requiring the applicant to construct a parking aisle between the two
properties for a future point in time when the property may be sold.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff s comments, Commissioner Webster relayed
that an alternate option would be to require the applicant to provide a parking synopsis,
noting that a future owner may have an alternate use for the building which could
generate alternate parking ratios.
For Commissioner Telesio, Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the
parking issues from a legal perspective.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Development Code allows for this minor
exception that the applicant was requesting for the parking reduction; recommended that
the Commission not condition the project to pave the previously mentioned parking aisle;
and noted that the requirement for a parking synopsis could be conditioned with respect
to this project.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the applicant could add two additional parking
spaces in lieu of the aisle. In response, the applicant relayed that one additional parking
space could be added.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; to grant the
request for the FAR increase based on the proposed jobs creation; and to approve
staffs recommendation with the following added conditions:
Add-
That the applicant be required to submit a parking synopsis.
That there be one additional parking space added.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
R:PlanCommhninAes/070500 6
7 Planning Application No. 00-0159—Tentative Tract May No 24136 Amendment
No. 3 — PALOMA DEL SOL— PLANNING AREA 8 (located north of De Portola
Road, west of Meadows Parkway, east of Margarita Road and south of Pio Pico
Montelegro and Leena Way. Associate Planner Carole Associate Planner
Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Make a determination of Consistency with a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified, and find that
a subsequent EIR is not required;
7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-027
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0159 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 24136, AMENDMENT NO. 3), PALOMA DEL SOL —
PLANNING AREA 8, WHICH SUBDIVIDES 77.2 ACRES
INTO 234 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 9 OPEN SPACE
LOTS, IN THREE PHASES, LOCATED NORTH OF DE
PORTOLA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY,
EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF PIO
PICO, MONTELEGRO AND LEENA WAY, WITHIN
PLANNING AREA 8 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219
(PALOMA DEL SOL), AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 950-020-004, -027, AND —029.
Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Donahoe provided an overview of the proposal
(of record), highlighting the location, the access, the circulation, and the sloping ratios;
specified the proposed revisions to increase the lot sizes, decrease the number of
residential lots, and to increase the acreage in open space; noted the proposed phasing;
reviewed the previous proposal for this area; with respect to the Growth Management
Policy, noted that the City Attorney had ruled that the Developer did have certain rights,
per the Development Agreement, for the proposed density range; provided additional
information regarding the environmental data; and noted the supplemental agenda
material regarding the applicant's request for various modifications to the Conditions of
Approval, relaying the following:
With respect to Condition No. 10 (regarding the Environmental Constraints Sheet),
noted that staff concurred with the applicant that Item Nos. 3, and 4, under
Condition No. 10b. could be deleted.
With respect to Condition No. 13 (regarding screening components of the project),
provided clarification, specifying that the condition was for the screening of utilities
(which were in public view), entry monumentations that may, or may not, be
constructed with adequate landscaping, advising that staff concurred with the
applicant that Condition No. 13 should be amended to include additional specificity.
R:PlanComm/miweel070500 7
Senior Engineer Alegria relayed the following regarding the modifications to the Public
Works Department conditions:
With respect to Condition No. 26, noted that the following language could be added:
The Developer shall construct or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision
improvement agreements executed, and securities posted for the following Public
Improvements, to the standards of the City of Temecula General Plan, advising that
the remainder of the condition would remain the same.
With respect to Condition No. 26b., subsection 1, noted that the language should be
revised to replace the phrase Margarita Road with the phrase the Westerly Tract
Boundary.
With respect to Condition No. 55, noted that under Item 55c. the following language
should be added: As written in the July 50 letter, these signals shall be installed
based on traffic warrants, and timing should be determined by cumulative traffic
studies and approved by the Director of Public Works.
For Commissioner Webster, Associate Planner Donahoe specified the location of the
proposed paseos, and walkways; and provided additional information regarding the open
space lot proximate to the southeast corner of Joan Sparkman Elementary School.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments, the applicant confirmed that the
previously mentioned open space area had a proposed walkway.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the distance
between the westerly boundary of the tract and Margarita Road was approximately 260
feet, providing additional information regarding the median in this area.
With respect to Condition No. 55 (regarding the installation of traffic signals), for
Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley relayed that the language of the condition
was not atypical; and provided additional information regarding the intent of the
condition, clarifying the discretion of the Director of Public Works. Senior Engineer
Alegria provided additional information regarding the traffic studies and the associated
Director's discretion. Attorney Curley relayed that the Commission may want to include
language stating that if the Public Works Director determines the signals are necessary
that they will be installed at that time regardless of the Developer's disputes.
Chairman Guerriero commented that in light of the Growth Management Policy, and the
desire to address traffic impacts, it was his recommendation that the language of the
conditions be specific with respect to the need for, and the timing of the traffic
improvements.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the language of the Public Works Department
conditions.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the conditions' language provided the Director
of Public Works the flexibility to install the signals at an earlier date.
After additional discussion, Mr. Dean Meyer, representing the applicant, relayed that the
purpose for the request to modify Condition No. 55 was to insure that a signal would not
R:Pl C=Wmm es/070500 8
be installed unless it was warranted, noting the applicant's desire for the Director of
Public Works to have this flexibility to make the determination; provided additional
information regarding the specific associated signals; and for Commissioner Webster,
noted the applicant's desire to develop this site, specifying the area which would be
considered for additional amenities which would be market driven.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing at this time.
Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
The following Commission closing remarks were relaved:
Commissioner Mathewson commended the applicant for the proposed reduction in
densities; with respect to the revisions to the conditions, relayed that he could support
the proposed modifications, recommending that with respect to Condition No. 55, that all
traffic studies would be approved by the Director of Public Works, per staffs
recommendation with respect to the exact language to be added.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staffs recommendation, subject to
the conditions, as amended by staff (see pages 7, and 8, of the minutes under the
comments relayed by Associate Planner Donahoe, and Senior Engineer Alegria), and
inclusive of Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation to further amend Condition
No. 55 (as recommended in the above paragraph). The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
A. With respect to Ms. Linda Fahey's service on the Commission since 1990 with
one year's absence, Chairman Guerriero recommended that the City Council
declare a Linda Fahey Day or that an alternate act of recognition be provided for
the service that she gave to the City of Temecula.
B. Chairman Guerriero, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, welcomed Commissioner
Chiniaeff back to the Commission.
C. Chairman Guerriero reiterated the request for staff to address the landscaping at
the Promenade Housing Development.
D. With respect to the Lucky's site on Rancho California Road, for Commissioner
Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that maintenance of the
landscaping was not a typical County standard, advising that staff would contact
the property manager.
E. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed additional
information regarding the use of vacant land in the City of Temecula for
temporary parking areas, advising that she would investigate areas of concern.
F. With respect to the extension project of Meadows Parkway at La Serena,
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the trucks were not hosing down the dirt
loads.
R:PWCa .Wm eV070500 9
G. Commissioner Mathewson commended Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
for his diligent efforts with respect to the street-capping project in Chardonnay
Hills.
H. Chairman Guerriero noted that Planning Manager Ubnoske had attained the title
of Director of Planning, relaying congratulations.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the following applications had been
submitted to staff: an application for an Outback Steakhouse, and a pre-
application for a fast track project encompassing a 4,000 square foot building in
the Westside Business Park.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:40 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday,
July 19, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
R:NwCumMmw.A./ 70500 10
ITEM #3
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director
DATE: August 8, 2000
SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for June/July, 2000
Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action
June 1, 2000 PA99-0175 The subdivision and rough #50 Center City Continued to
grading of 53.41 acres into Associates, LLP June 15,
10 industrial lots and one 2000
open space lot.
June 15, 2000 PA99-0175 The subdivision and rough #50 Center City Continued off
grading of 53.41 acres into Associates, LLP calendar
10 industrial lots and one
open space lot.
June 22, 2000 PA00-0115 The fourth one year Homer Yen & Approved
Extension of Time for Architects, Inc.
Tentative Tract Map 26828
July 13, 2000 PA99-0457 The third one-year Extension Luiseno Indian Approved
of Time for Tentative Tract Band (Patrick
Map 25277 Murphy)
July 13, 2000 PA00-0155 The fourth one year Trans-Pacific Approved
Extension of Time for Consultants
Tentative Tract Map 23209 (Roger Free)
July 27, 2000 PA98-0437 Request to design, construct Bob Davis, 215` Approved
and operate a convenience Century Oil,
store, automatic car wash, LLC
and gasoline station on 1.08
vacant acres within the
Highway Tourist (HT)
Commercial Zone.
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
F:\Depen\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\MEMO\2000UuWuly2000.memo.doc
1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
\\TEMEC FS101\VOL1\Depa\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\MEMO\20001Junluly200o.memo.doc
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S DARING
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 1, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula,CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three(3)minutes each. If you desire
to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak"
form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak,please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before
that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No: Planning Application No.PA99-0175
Applicant: #50 Center City Associates, LLP
Location: Westerly of Diaz Road, between Dendy Parkway and Cherry Street
extended, at the extreme northwest comer of the City of Temecula
corporate boundaries (Assessor's Parcel No. 909-37-003)
Proposal: The subdivision and rough grading of 53.41 acres into 10 industrial lots and
one open space lot
Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Planner: Denice Thomas, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION CONTINUED TO JUNE 15, 2000
Case No: Planning Application No. PA00-0115 (Extension of Time)
Applicant: Homer Yen& Architects, Inc.
Location: At the north west corner of Rita Way and Seraphina Road north of the
intersection of Nicolas and Joseph Roads.
Proposal: The fourth one year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 25004
Environmental Action: Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative
Declaration was previously adopted(Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and
Negative Declarations).
Case Planner: Thomas Thornsley
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION CONTINUED TO JUNE 22, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
F:\USERPUBL\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\2000\6-1-00.AGENDA.doc
1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 15,2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three(3) minutes each. If you desire
to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak"
form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before
that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No: Planning Application No. PA99-0175 (Tentative Parcel Map No
29162)
Applicant: #50 Center City Associates, LLP
Location: Westerly of Diaz Road, between Dendy Parkway and Cherry Street
extended, at the extreme northwest comer of the City of Temecula
corporate boundaries (Assessor's Parcel No. 909-37-003)
Proposal: The subdivision and rough grading of 53.41 acres into 10 industrial lots and
one open space lot
Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Planner: Denice Thomas, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION: CONTINUED OFF CALENDAR
ADJOURNMENT
F:\USERPUBL\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\2000\6-15-OO.AGENDA.doc
1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 22, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three(3)minutes each. If you desire
to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak"
form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak,please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before
that item is heard. There is a three(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No: Planning Application No. PA00-0115 (Extension of Time)
Applicant: Homer Yen&Architects, Inc.
Location: At the north west corner of Rita Way and Seraphina Road north of the
intersection of Nicolas and Joseph Roads.
Proposal: The fourth one year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 26828
Environmental Action: Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative
Declaration was previously adopted(Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRS and
Negative Declarations).
Case Planner: Thomas Thornsley
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION: APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
P:\USERPUBL\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\2000\6-22-00.AGENDA.doc
1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 13, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske,Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three(3)minutes each. If you desire
to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak"
form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before
that item is heard. There is a three (3)minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No: Planning Application No. PA99-0457 (Extension of Time)
Applicant: Luiseno Indian Band(Patrick Murphy)
Location: Northwest of the intersection of Via Gilberto and Via Odessa.
Proposal: The third one-year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 25277
Environmental Action: Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration
was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations).
Case Planner: John De Gange
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION: APPROVED
Case No: Planning Application No.PA00-0155 (Extension of Time)
Applicant: Trans-Pacific Consultants (Roger Free)
Location: At east of the intersection of La Serena Way and Walcott Way along Butterfield
Stage Road.
Proposal: The fourth one-year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 23209
Environmental Action: Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration
was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations).
Case Planner: John De Gange
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION: APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
F:\US ERPUB L\PLAN NING\DIRHEA R\2000\7-13-00.AGENDA.doc
1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 27, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three(3)minutes each. If you desire
to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak"
form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak,please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before
that item is heard. There is a three(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No: PA98-0437 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan)
Case Name: Chevron Gas Station
Applicant: Bob Davis, 21"Century Oil, LLC
Location: 44987 Front Street
Proposal: Request to design, construct and operate a convenience store, automatic car
wash,and gasoline station on 1.08 vacant acres within the Highway Tourist
(HT) Commercial Zone.
Environmental Action: Planning Director to make finding of consistency with previously adopted
Environmental Initial Study for underlying Tentative Parcel Map No.
28627, which includes the parcel in question.
Case Planner: Denice Thomas
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
ACTION: APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
F:\USERPUBL\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\2000\7-27-OO.AGENDA.doe
l
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 16, 2000
Planning Application No. PA00-0300 (Development Plan)
Case Planner: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department— Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT Resolution No. 00- approving Planning
Application No. PA00-0300 based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein; and
2. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.
PA00-0300 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)
(3) as the project does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Lennar Homes
REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Beggarly
PROPOSAL: Product review approval for building elevations, floor plans, color and
material boards and colored elevations for 38 lots (Tentative Tract
Map 29286) ranging in size from 2,943 to 3,398 square feet.
LOCATION: Located on the southeast comer of Date Street and Margarita Road,
at the northern City limit (Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003).
GENERAL PLAN: LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
ZONING: LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
LAND USE: Subject: Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Winchester Creek Park
East: Single Family Residential
West: Vacant
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approval of the proposed residential housing product for three different elevations (six options
total), floor plans, color and material boards and colored elevations for 38 lots (Tentative Tract Map
29286) ranging in size from 2,943 to 3,398 square feet.
F:Zepls\PtAN N I N G\.STAFFR PT1300PAOOPCrpt.doc
t
BACKGROUND
On December 8, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 29286. As a
conditional of approval, the Planning Commission required the applicant to bring the residential
product back to the Commission for their review because this parcel was being excluded from the
Harveston Specific Plan, and therefore, would not be subject to the specific architectural design
standards.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing three different floor plans for the 38-lot tentative tract map. Plan 1 offers
three elevations with approximately 2,943 square feet; Plan 2 offers one elevation with approximately
3,398 square feet; and Plan 3 offers two elevations with approximately 3,398 square feet. All the
homes are two stories and range in height from approximately 24' to 25'-6". Each home site is
predetermined with a specific plan and elevation.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure a high level of architectural quality and detail to make
the homes interesting and articulated on all four sides. There are twenty (20) lots that back up to
or are highly visible from Margarita Road, Date Street and Winchester Creek Park. The applicant
will enhance these highly visible elevations with a higher level of detail and additional roof elements.
The eighteen (18) interior lots which are predominantly visible to the interior neighbors will have
slightly less articulation. The architectural detail for the units will meet the City's Design Guideline
standards for single family residential homes.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0300 will be made pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) as the project does
not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation and zoning for the site is LM (Low Medium Density
Residential). The proposed Development Plan is consistent with the findings of Section 17.05.020.F
of the Development Code. The project as proposed, meets all minimum standards of and is
consistent with the General Plan, Development Code and the Design Guidelines.
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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\300PAOOPCrpt.doc
2
FINDINGS
1. The proposed development is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected
for(LM) Low Medium Density Residential development in the City of Temecula General Plan,
as well as the development standards for(LM) Low Medium Density Residential development
standards 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 residential
development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinance, the Citywide Design Guidelines, and fire and
building codes.
2. The proposed development plan is compatible with the nature, condition, and development
of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Pursuant to the General Plan and zoning map, the
subject site is zoned residential which allows single family residences as a permitted use.
The proposed residences are consistent with the surrounding buildings in terms of design,
colors and materials; therefore the proposed development will not have an adverse affect on
the existing residences or surrounding development.
3. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the project.
The site has been subdivided for single family residences. Staff has reviewed the project
and has determined that the project is consistent with the standards of the LM (Low Medium
Density Residential) development standards of the Development Code and General Plan.
4. The nature of the proposed plan is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of the community. The project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the
General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code. These
documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are not detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents
will assure this is achieved.
Attachments
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
2. Exhibits- Blue Page 13
A. Precise Grading Plan (Tentative Tract Map 29286)
B. Elevations (Under separate cover)
C. Floor Plans (Under separate cover)
D. Color and Material Boards (Under separate cover)
E. Colored Elevations (Under separate cover)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\300PAOOPCrpt.doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
F:\Depts\PLAN N I NG\STAFF R PT�3WPAOOPCrpt.doc
4
i
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-
0300, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PRODUCT REVIEW
APPROVAL CONSISTING OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS, FLOOR
PLANS, COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS AND COLORED
ELEVATIONS FOR 38 LOTS(TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29286) ON
9.75 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DATE
STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 911-640-003.
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes filed Planning Application No. PA00-0300 (Development Plan)
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
August 16, 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 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;
WHEREAS, the Lennar Homes, filed Planning Application No. PA00-0300, in accordance
with
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA00-0300 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section
17.05.020.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed development is consistent with the land use designation and policies
required for (LM) Low Medium Density Residential development in the City of Temecula General
Plan, as well as the development standards for(LM) Low Medium Density Residential development
standards contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore property planned and
zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of residential development
proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinance, the Citywide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
F:Depts\P to N N I N G ZTA F F R PT\9 W PA00 P C rpt.dw
5
B. The proposed development plan is compatible with the nature, condition, and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Pursuant to the General Plan and zoning map,
the subject site is zoned residential which allows single family residences as a permitted use. The
proposed residences are consistent with the surrounding buildings in terms of design, colors and
materials; therefore the proposed development will not have an adverse affect on the existing
residences or surrounding development.
C. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
project. The site has been subdivided for single family residences. Staff has reviewed the project
and has determined that the project is consistent with the standards of the LM (Low Medium Density
Residential) development standards of the Development Code and General Plan
D. The nature of the proposed plan is not detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the
General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code. These
documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is
achieved.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. PA00-0300 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061
(b) (3) as the project does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA00-0300 (Development Plan)for the approval of
product review consisting of building elevations, floor plans, color and material boards and colored
elevations for 38 lots (Tentative Tract Map 29286) on 9.75 acres located on the southeast comer
of Date Street and Margarita Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-640-003 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 16th day of August, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
F:\Depts\PLANNINGkSTAFFRPT\300PAOOPCrpt.doc
6
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 16th day of August,
2000, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\300PAOOPCrpt.dm
7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:\DeptsIPLANNINGVSTAFFRPT\300PAOOPCrpt.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: PA00-0300 (Development Plan)
Project Description: Planning Application No. PA00-0300 (Development Plan) is
a request for product review approval for building elevations,
floor plans, color and material boards and colored elevations
for 38 lots (Tentative Tract Map 29286) on 9.75 acres.
DIF Category: Single Family, Detached
Assessor's Parcel No: 911-640-003
Approval Date: August 16, 2000
Expiration Date: August 16, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. 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 applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City s own selection,
the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards,
judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary
damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval
of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or
legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim,
action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in
the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City
deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
F:Oepts\P LANN I NG\STAF F R PT\900PAOOPCrpt.do
9
3. 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.
4. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit"A"(Site
Plan), Exhibit "B"(Building Elevations), Exhibit"C" Floor Plan, Exhibit"d' (Color and Material
Board), and Exhibits "E" (Colored Elevations) contained on file with the Community
Development Department (Planning Division), approved with Planning Application No. PA00-
0300, or as amended by these conditions.
5. This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other regulatory
or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions consistent with
applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary
permits and approvals for the project.
6. A noise assessment shall be conducted to determine the width, location and design of the
perimeter wall to ensure compliance with the residential noise standards pursuant to the
General Plan Noise Element.
7. Landscape plans for front yards, slopes and common lots, to include a plan for perimeter or
"community" walls/fences, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. The applicant shall obtain
the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment Permit from the Public
Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and Building Permit from the
Building and Safety Department.
8. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California
Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
9. Fire hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site.
10. The applicant shall meet all applicable Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 29286.
11. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
on Exhibit "D" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development
Department- Planning Division.
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 "A, B, C, D and E (Site Plan, Building Elevations, Floor
Plan, Color and Material Board and colored elevation) 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, and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy
photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "D" (Color and Materials Board) and of the
colored version of approved Exhibit "E", 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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTl3WPAOOPCrpt.dw
10
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
14. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and
Mechanical Codes; 1996 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24
Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
18. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be R-3/U.
19. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
20. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
21. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
22. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
23. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
24. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
25. The applicant shall submit precise grading plans in conformance with current grading
requirements.
26. The applicant shall submit an up-dated soils report prior to the issuance of a building permit.
27. The applicant shall submit an up-dated pad certification report prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
28. Please note that prior to the issuance of occupancy, the existing improvements shall be
reviewed. Any damaged or broken curb, gutter, and sidewalk, shall be repaired or removed
and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. All streets within the
referenced tracts shall be repaired at locations determined by the City of Temecula inspector
and finish.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTZWPAOOPCrpt.doe
11
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 1 may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
F:DeptstPLANN I NG\STAF FR PT\300PAOOPCrpt.doc
12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
F:tDeptstPLAN N iNG1STAFF R PT=PAOOPCrpt.doc
13
EXHIBIT A
PRECISE GRADING PLAN
F:\DeptsV'LANNI NGI.STAFFR PT1300PA00PCrpt.dw
14
CL
a
job
AN
ry
U I I J '1'1'1 ReSY � �9Yep•itl f�j g �4��
J C ggqN ii3f p¢¢ gg L9
Y
9�Y yC y '�EByi - • O
V i R 3
MVE
Y dd 66 i
z I 4 I
TV
U I [ / _ A
Q �I u ziL ali
M _J O . '1 'f[I e. cPF$ .IIS
W H
00 ! � � m
w .i p P
< d
Z00
z tn <
N a
U 3
Z CD
O4.0 LLJ
-j LLI
''U I m
� '
cn ;I I tAi
cd U
L. wN �1 ! ! • G
Ll_
a-
r @H s
F—
q
U
Z
in
Psi YY•i
! 9n
rim is9 Jill
Se
M e i sd9 a
} i d3 EY�gO 9 E� C Y ii E hip � @.
' k .14 big p ,Hs H e2. i Y§4AapY� ��� j is �2@6 ° '�Y !'+Fj a tl @� e � ' 8 fig
a H b�e K9E Y Y • Ri_P six
. p'pC a P {{Y Y_t @ 3H a. 3o fig
[
a j $k !@H °Av . 1 3 fiplYYl R;i N4JFbbEI Hl :11 E 91.3 Hg g�, RR� ��A 98. c �pi11 •z
a as en-aQ s € j @6 a 3� i;HH HEH6H. BF YS 6g3 HE @ @ aPYY c
, ['P. RH 134 Y pY iC a f ii k •a
§ dip 99 B 9 S :� a a 6 aH-eH lAY R a
[_ pyyiyp HEA �8 p y Y C¢ p¢ Evil a iQa to F y a �$a�ee4 'rill ill, 161 �b A
^Yp C5�(tl` 0 - -4 gg H H [ d gi 9 . q .�a K Y
In HH iar « a . �+ e r ae alEY -30 E"i3 Y�& $'QQc iaEa�Iya�i ��6 ag !'
d E H�a i '} HP 5.3e k pP $ iY !p z.. -A A• Q-g Y HEA ° i pv a
® Eee a s== ! EkYEEpR aA 9 H8_ y aHpap "€ i i_p A a
4 H @ [ i- g� �g'�e _-d[ E®® 5 6
Z 9 YEb 9 .`§ ply i; -�� H Y@p @tl § eaiM 7 ilm yH e. � yyE Ec SIR.
i66Y appa iE 2 i e6=E 'J ¢
Y Y`k i Y H3 Q lY f ¢ s Y� a t 11 Y°p iB H-�F eA� 'ice 1 b9 n gE E'7 g
p Y Y p @ �HB ¢ _iee 'r Y
o HPS H1H 3 e g� �. H#i°6H6Ha ! sCY p 'aak 1 9H�$dtl Ell��� ®87Q� jig
¢
< ie 7 Y3 E ® Y !� E EE MY" 6 i9 9 ill °5�1.0 fill 3Y p 9Yy @eAl °S•va31 E 8Y 3[AapaY t ° g
ij els 1? gt -111 @k 1H imgeH5 HSI°811WINe YYY Wd 9 5p ie �Rls .$ €< 12921=Hs .g ma iR •HI?YR y 3
N
Qa
W! I
E2
WSm1
7. M NON
....... ...
. ..
....... ...
...... ...........
.... ........
W .........- ...... ......
b:
V)
uj
LLJ
Ln 49
ire
... ..........
........... .......
.......... L
L.1
cr
CalIS
iA
Ll 11
......
13j8h .4dj:
W,
Wo
CCS
2
W
N
I:Laaw
.... ......-
.... ......... ... . ......�Gvoa yr,
g � b
F
�l2m��pp
... .. T
mLLLL
rvF.. .. .... .. ... ... T
A _ ...
A
... ..... .. ..
x A A �• � lJ GGF�
r
°1
O g
N qE
qr ail I tl F p
S1 sg
V)
W I}
• ' A A FW IC
!: ..
E�
i
......._
� _tee¢ .-.-..I'..::.:.- ...�
LY
�e
] A
rk a
k „ _
I I
SS�
.._....
1332115 3tl3��Fi —` ' �s�a
t
t
~ F
Wk xa .. 9d W p
WZ
A W Y
W t G 2 W i
77
1 t a •
.. • i_
.ter -... r....
0
.F
\ q
\l
°i. a A •° t
u
...... ... ...av11a y1'c'av'savrl
a a
a
IJ
r--
ry
1, 03W0
u I e g<Vry
I
, tk xt � FU
L.
I �
I
1 ^
LJ
Is .... .....i.........:...... tk
H ! ............. .._..._ ....._......... ._. ...
LU, B 3
i I f- • a i
w s I ..I IF� Meg
to
- rt
fn
I �PP a
'W -
t
I xx Q
- r
�}.8j. 133alS fin
9
NNS
POO
r S ¢
I t o e e W
W
Ti b
1
4
a
SW
•w
_ .._
ll a
i
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 16, 2000
Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan)
TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission
1. ADOPT a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0317;
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-
0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TEMECULA RIDGE
APARTMENTS) - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND THREE STORY
APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT
BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET 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, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION RELATED THERETO.
STATUS
PA 99-0317 was heard by the Planning Commission on May 3, 2000 at which time the Commission
continued the matter and asked staff to address their concerns with respect to the Growth
Management Program Action Plan.
While Commissioners favored the project's design, they were concerned that the project might not
be consistent with the Growth Management Program Action Plan adopted by the City Council 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. The project's density of 11.7
dwelling units per acre is clearly not at the lowest allowable density range. However, the Growth
Management Action Plan states that the Commission may consider approving a project above the
lowest density if the project provides onsite or community amenities. Commissioners requested
clarification as to exactly what was meant by"onsite or community amenities."
FADepts\PLANNING0 PW4317 Temecula Ridge Apts1.STAFFRPT.PC 8-18-OO.dw
1
In an effort to provide further direction to the Commission, staff held meetings with the CiJ Attorney
and the Council General Plan Update Subcommittee members. At the end of their May 30' meeting,
the Subcommittee requested that the Commission continue the matter to July 5, 2000. On June 27,
2000, the full Council discussed the matter further and scheduled a joint meeting with the Planning
Commission. This meeting was held on August 1, 2000, at which time the Council directed the
Commission to consider each project on a case-by-case basis and to determine what factors make
the project a valuable asset to the community. The Council noted that there were no hard-and-fast
rules regarding these factors, and understood that the Commission would employ creativity, flexibility
and subjectivity in their decision-making.
Density Analysis
The General Plan designation for the site is M-Medium Density Residential, which has a density
range of 7-12 dwelling units per acre. With a net acreage of 20.88, the site can support 146 units
at the lowest range of 7 dwelling units per acre, and 251 units at the highest range of 12 dwelling
units per acre. With 246 units proposed, the density for the project is 11.7 units per acre. While the
proposed density is within the range of the Medium Density designation, it exceeds the target density
for the designation. If the project were to meet the target density of 9.5 dwelling units per acre, it
would have to propose 198 units, a decrease of 48 units. However, the General Plan states that the
target density does not apply to the Medium and High designations, in order for the City to ensure
consistency with the Housing Element.
Project Assets
1. 269 Fully enclosed garages for all units (no carports)
2. 43.2% of the site is landscaped
3. 7,880 square foot Clubhouse
4. 2,162 square foot Workout facility
5. Olympic-sized swimming pool, spa, sundeck and arbor
6. Outdoor fireplace and barbecue
7. Tot lot with play equipment, seating and passive open space
8. Car wash area
9. Corner monumentations
10. Enhanced ledger stone entries with decorative pavement and arbors
11. Enhanced slope and berm screening and security fencing adjacent to single family
residences
12. Widening of Moraga Road off-site to accommodate turning lanes
13. Provision for a bus turnout on Rancho California Road in front of the project
14. 115-foot Greenbelt along Rancho California Road
15. Swim facility available to the local Swim Club for practices and workouts.
Rear Yard Perimeter Fencing
During the public testimony on May 3rd, the applicant indicated that he and the adjacent property
owner to the south had agreed upon increasing the wrought iron fence height from 6 feet to 8 feet
in order to reduce the amount of trespassing and vandalism in the area. Due to the location of the
proposed fence line at the bottom of the project slope, staff concurs with the additional height and
has added a condition of approval that the applicant provide a revised Exhibit H-3 reflecting this
change.
FADepts\PLANNINGMD P19M317 Temecula Ridge ApWSTAFFRPT.PC&16-OO.doc
2
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was prepared for the project, which determined that the
proposal could potentially affect land use and planning, geology and soils, water, biological
resources, noise, and cultural resources. However, these effects are not considered to be significant
due to the mitigation measures previously agreed to and incorporated into the project. On the basis
of such inclusion, any potentially significant impacts are mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels.
Accordingly it is recommended the Planning Commission adopt a mitigated negative declaration for
the project.
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. As a result, the IES has been revised to include a minor revision regarding jurisdictional
wetlands and a detailed discussion of alternatives for the impact to the California Gnatcatcher and
coastal sage scrub habitat.
Subsequent to the close of the review period for the IES, staff received correspondence from the
Pechanga Cultural Resources supervisor, John A. Gomez, Jr., dated May 3, 2000. He requested that
a complete walkover of the project site be required as mitigation to identify any cultural or
archaeological resources that may have been exposed during the twelve years of weather and
erosion since the Archaeological Assessment was completed in 1988. Staff finds that this request
is both reasonable and appropriate due to the ridge location of the property. When apprised of the
request, the applicant's representative had no objections. Staff has amended both the IES and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program to include this measure.
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.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff recommends approval of the project because it is consistent with the City's General Plan,
Development Code and Design Guidelines. Analysis of the project with regards to access and
circulation, interface with adjacent properties, architectural design, signage, traffic and grading are
described in Staffs Report to the Planning Commission dated May 3, 2000 (see Attachment 4). The
design of the project, the amenities offered, the architecture and materials, and the landscaping
proposed are equal to or superior to the previously approved 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 revised mitigation monitoring program attached to the project as a result of the
revised Initial Environmental Study.
F:\Depts\PtANNING\D P\9M317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-00.doc
3
FINDINGS
1. 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.
2. 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,
Growth Management Program Action 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:
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 6
2. Revised Initial Environmental Study- Blue Page 7
3. Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 8
4. Staff Report dated May 3, 2000— Blue Page 9
5. Excerpts from the Planning Commission Minutes of May 3, 2000 — Blue Page 10
FADepts\PLANNING\D PW-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-0O.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
F:\Depts\PLANNINGT PU9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC 8-16OO.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-
0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TEMECULA RIDGE
APARTMENTS) - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND THREE STORY
APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT
BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET 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, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, AGK Group LLC filed Planning Application No. 99-0317 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 regular meetings, considered the Application, on
May 3, June 7, July 5, and August 16, 2000, at duly noticed public hearings 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 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. Findings. 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.
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\RES-DP.PC 8-16-OO.dw
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, Growth Management
Program Action 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.
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 cultural resources. However, these affects are not
considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures previously agreed to and incorporated
into the project. On the basis of such inclusion, any potentially significant impacts are mitigated and
reduced to insignificant levels. Accordingly it has been recommended the Planning Commission
adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the project.
This Planning Commission hereby find that, on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and further that
the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgement and
analysis. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
this project and further adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program related thereto. The records and
materials relied upon are within the possession of the Planning Manager of the City of Temecula.
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.
Subsequent to the close of the review period for the IES, staff received correspondence from the
Pechanga Cultural Resources supervisor, John A. Gomez, Jr., dated May 3, 2000. He requested that
a complete walkover of the project site be required as mitigation to identify any cultural or
archaeological resources that may have been exposed during the twelve years of weather and
erosion since the Archaeological Assessment was completed in 1988. Staff finds that this request
is both reasonable and appropriate due to the ridge location of the property. When apprised of the
request, the applicant's representative had no objections. Staff has amended both the IES and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program to include this measure.
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.
This Planning Commission further finds that the amended mitigation measures as set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program are the equivalent of, or more effective than, the originally prepared
mitigation measures and conditions of approval I the mitigation of potentially significant effects on
FADepu\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apta1RES-DP.PC 8-16-00.duc
2
the environment and further finds that the substitute measures will not have a significant effect on
the environment.
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 Assessors Parcel No. 944290-011, 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 sixteenth day of August, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
1 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 sixteenth day of
August, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
FADepta\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apta\RES-DP.PC 8-16-00.dcc
3
EXHIBIT A
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:1DeptstPLANNINGID PU9-0317 Temecula Ridge AptsZTAFFRPT.PC 8-16-00.clm
6
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Revised August 16, 2000
Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan)—Temecula Ridge Apartments
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: Residential Attached, $2,167.83 per unit
Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011
Approval Date: August 16, 2000
Expiration Date: August 16, 2002
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashiers 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
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
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\9M317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.dw
1
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.
3. 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.
4. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
5. 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.
6. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E1"
thN through"E4" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department
- Planning Division.
a. The Site Plan shall show a bus turnout on Rancho California Road, at a location
approved by the City Engineer and the Riverside Transit Agency.
b. The design of the swim facility shall be modified to include an Olympic-sized
swimming pool.
(Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000).
7. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "H1" 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.
a. Ligustrum or other large evergreen shrubs approved 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.
b. All parking areas shall be fully screened using evergreen shrubs that can be
maintained at a minimum height of 3'.
C. All plantings shall be compatible with adjacent existing plantings as approved by
the City.
d. 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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
2
e. Queen Palms, Canary Island Date Palms or other City approved palm shall be
used in place of Washingtonia robusta.
f. Final shrub species selection and placement is subject to the review and approval
of the City.
g. City approved substitutes shall be provided for Lantana species and Myoporum
pacificum. These species are subject to freeze in the Temecula area.
h. 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.
i. All 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.
j. Code requirements for slope plantings and irrigation shall be met. Code requires
slope banks 5' or greater in vertical 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 1 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.
k. All requirements of the City water efficient ordinance, Chapter 17.32, shall be met.
8. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit"F1"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.
9. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
approved 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 Sinclair#CM8550
-Color Two Sinclair#CM8510
Garage Doors -Color Three Sinclair#CM8509
Trim -Color Four "Kabuki" Sinclair#S-3-33T
Trim -Color Five "Burgundy' Sinclair#966
Roof -Premium Slate Tile Monier Life $5733
Ledger Stone "Eldorado"
10. The project swim facility shall be made available to the local Swim Club for practices and
workouts. The apartment management shall coordinate and schedule regular access and
make arrangements with the Swim Club.
(Added by Planning Commission, August 16, 2000).
F:\Depts\PtANNING\D P%M317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
3
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. 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.
13. The applicant shall arrange for a qualified Native American Resource expert to conduct a
complete walkover of the project site, and to prepare and submit a report with findings and
recommendations to the Planning Manager, prior to the issuance of grading permits for any
ground-disturbing activities. If any cultural resources or human remains are identified, 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.
(Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000).
14. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist 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 paleontologist/archaeologist, 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.
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 "E," "F," "G,""H,""I" and "J" (Site Plan, Elevations, Floor
Plans, Landscape Plan, Grading Plan, 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 "J" (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.
a. Exhibit "H-3"shall be revised to reflect an 8-foot decorative wrought iron perimeter
fence along the south property line.
(Added by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D PW4317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
4
a.rdhmteeturaw Plevations. All labels on the Color an-nd Mate0als Board and ElevatiOAS shall be
(Deleted by the Planning Commission, August 16, 2000)
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
18. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
19. 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.
a. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
C. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
22. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage
not included on Exhibits "D" and "I"', or as amended by these conditions.
a. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved
Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
b. An Administrative Development Plan application for a comprehensive sign program
shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Manager.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\9"317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.dm
5
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed
reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the
International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches
in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at
a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk.
A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking
facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles 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.
26. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
27. 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
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Lot "A" shall be restricted to right in/right out vehicular movements.
F:1DeptsIPLANNINGO P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts1COA-DEVPLAN.doc
6
i
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
7
41. 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
42. 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.
43. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and
the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
44. 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.
45. 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
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.
46. 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
47. 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. 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. 401 and 402.
e. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries.
f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temeculaos 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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
8
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 comer 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.
48. 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:
a. Improve Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) 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.
b. Improve Moraga Road (Collector Road Standards-66' R/W) 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. 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.
d. 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.
e. 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 18 of these Conditions of Approval even though
this is not a final map.
f. 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.
49. 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.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic
signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc,
9
C. Sewer and domestic water systems
d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
e. Traffic signal modification at the intersection of Moraga Road and Rancho California
Road
50. The Developer shall improve Lot "A", private road and shared vehicular access easement,
to include 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). The horizontal alignment shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
a. Lot "A" driveway opening from Rancho California Road shall be constructed per
City Standard No. 207A.
b. No parking shall be allowed along Lot"A". "No Parking" signs shall be posted.
51. The Developer shall obtain an easement on Lot "A" over the adjacent property for ingress
and egress and emergency vehicles.
52. The Developer shall grant an easement to the adjacent property for ingress and egress and
emergency vehicles on Lot "A".
53. The Developer is responsible for constructing a minimum 24-foot wide driveway, completely
within his property, in case he is unable to get permission from the adjacent property owner
to construct the east half of Lot "A". The driveway shall be designed to meet Fire
Department and City Standards.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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
59. 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
F:1DeptsTLANNING0 P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
10
60. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
61. 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.
62. 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
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
67. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
68. 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)
69. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
70. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
71. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
72. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
73. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
74. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
11
75. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
76. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-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
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 111-A)
80. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-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 III-B).
81. 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)
82. 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)
83. 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)
84. 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 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
12
85. 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 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec
902)
86. 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)
87. 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)
88. 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)
89. 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)
90. 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)
91. 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)
92. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument
sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each
complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the
name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant
locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be
submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation.
93. 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)
94. 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)
FADepts\PLANNING\D P199-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
13
95. 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)
96. 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:
97. Prior to installation of arterial street lighting, the developer shall file an application with the
TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street lighting into
the respective TCSD maintenance program.
98. All parkway landscaping and slope areas adjacent to the development shall be maintained
by the property owner.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits:
99. 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:
100. 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
101. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's transmittal 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.
102. 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.
103. 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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\COA•DEVPLAN.doc
14
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 P19M317 Temecula Ridge Apls\COA-DEVPLAN.doc
15
DAVID P.ZAPPE co°HT1Rpp 1995 MARKET STREET
General Manager-Chief Engineer a°� °�A RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
LI_ 909/955-1200
909/788-9955 FAX
f'rON`£AVATIO' 51180.1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Planningg Department -
Post Offee Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: STEM= GRIFFIN p"n n
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: f q9 - 03 / 7
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system,
and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
Y," This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request 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 administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted.
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership o suc aG i ies on wn en reques
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 administrative fees will be required.
JZ This project is located within the limits of the District's f 1U$&6TA af�,KI IGM&C ULA VALL6 y Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adoptees, app i�le feels should Dee pair>t y cashier's
check or money order only to a Flood Control District poor o issuance of building or grading permits,
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. 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.
If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) mapped food plain, thea the City should
require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
prior to grading, recordation 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 impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404
permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
S : Date: Z(0 -
a
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: August 19, 1999
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.ATTN: Steve Griffin
FRONT/;�GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist Id
RF,: PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0317
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0317 and
has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE
REQUIRED:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the watering- and sewering agencies.
b) "Three complete sets of plans for the swimming pool/spa will be submitted, in order to
ensure compliance with the California Administrative Code, California Health and
Safety Code and the Uniform Building Code.
GD:dr
(9091955-8980
stand3a.doc
Tues 4, 1900 8:36= -- Page 2
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: March 22,2000
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AT'IN: Steve Griffin,Project Planner
FROM: �VGRBGOR DELLENBACH,Environmental Health Specialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0317
I. Department of Enviromnmtal 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.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBAIITTAL, updated "will-serve" letters frOln the severing
agency will be required.
GD:dr -- —�_
(909)955-8980
August 18, 1999
Rancho
w1brI Steve Griffin, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
N°ard of D—et...: 43200 Business Park Drive
Ralph H.Dail, Post Office Box 9033
Peeed°at Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Doug Kulberg
Sr.\'ire Pre=idem
Lica D.Kerma„ SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
Cash.F.Ko TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS
Scott McIntyre PORTION OF LOT NO. 23 OF TRACT NO. 3334
Jerrre,.L.m;nuer APN 944-290-011
George Al.Woods PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0317
Officer, Dear Mr. Griffin:
John F.Elennigar
General Mariann—r
Phillip L. Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
Arert°r°f FYnanre- boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
T`eaaefe` therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
oretorofE pmo�g between RCWD and the property owner.
Kenneth C.Dealy
"econatne °`
S If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
Director
of Operations
Pemex.Louek fees and requirements.
Contralto
Linda M.Fregoso
+,nn Scrretar,lAdmanistrati— Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Senees lf:mager
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
C.michael Co.eett
Nest Best&Krieger LLP RCWD.
General Gvmwl
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
i
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
99\SB:mr144XF012-T6\FCF
Rancho California Nater District
i
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
REVISED INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-00.doc
7
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Revised 7-5-00
Project Title Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula
Ridge Apartments
Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Number Carole Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
909 694-6400
Project Location South side of Rancho California Road (RCR), at the southeast
quadrant of RCR and Mora a Road extended APN:944-290-011
Project Sponsor's Name and Address AGK Group, LLS
35411 Paseo Viento
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
General Plan Designation "M" Medium Density Residential 7-12 dwelling units per acre
Zoning "M" Medium Density Residential 12 dwelling units per acre
Description of Project 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.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting 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.
Other, public agencies whose approval County Department of Environmental Health, County Flood Control
is required 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.
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
1
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 Hazards
Population and Housing Noise
Geology and Soils Public Services
Water Utilities and Service Systems
Air Quality Aesthetics
Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources
Biological Resources Recreation
Energy and Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Si nificance
X None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will 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 further is required.
3 - F -yo
Signature: ` Date
Revisions dated July 5, 2000:
A_ , July 5, 2000
Signature: Carole K. IDonahoe, AICP
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
2
I
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
Potentially
O,{p..6?II\r GCni�rljgl l,�nlP55 _}pcc Then
a. Physically divide an established community? ✓
b. 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?
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Comments:
1.a: 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\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
3
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a. 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)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
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\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
4
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
-•::;:r• .Iv
t"O .. I .mless less Phan
... V ,n '$Igncant No
it- . .;?... ..r; ;.M .n .ho-�l: i i'. -led ".{m act -:':'linpoct
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, 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.
iii) Strong seismic round shaking?
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?
Comments:
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 Geotechnical
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 potential 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:\Dept3\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
5
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.
3.e: 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.
FADepts\PLANNINMD PM-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
6
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially significant Unless less Than
Significant Mitigation _Signficant No
;issues and Supporting Information sources. Impact Incorporated Impact :.Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b. 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)?
C. 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?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site lif
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?
e. 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?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. 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?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. 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?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
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
FADept:;\PLANNING\D P09-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.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\PLANNINMD P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.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:
I Potentially
..: , i Significant Unless: Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Irn>act Impact 1
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
C. Result in a cumulatively 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 ozoneprecursors?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Comments:
5.a: The land use designation is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan which has been
integrated into the Southern California 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:\Dept::\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
9
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Potentially '_..
Potentially Significant Unless less Than
Significant Mitigation Signficant _ No
Issues and Supporting.Information SourcesImpact Incor orated 1 I act 9.Impact
a. 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?
C. 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?
d. 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?
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:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
10
6.c: The project site is not located near any airport and has no potential to adversely impact any air traffic
patterns.
6.d.e: 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.
61: 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.
6.g: 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:1Depts\PLANNINGO P199-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts1EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
11
Revised 4-12-00
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Potentially,
n• h1:.
.r
a. 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?
b. 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?
C. 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?
d. 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?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation Ian?
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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
12
7.b.c: 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.
7.d: 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.
7.e: 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.
7.f: 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.
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
13
F8_ MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
i•.• .fill: il:trr,: 11� Ire •i'II'':• •..
P•
a. 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?
b. 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 Ian?
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\D POM317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-00.doc
14
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Potentially
ant No
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. 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?
C. 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?
d. 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?
e. 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?
f. 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?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation Ian?
h. 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?
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\D P09-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
15
9.d: 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.
9.e.f: 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.
9.g: 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.
9.h: 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\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
16
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
-.> Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless -Less Than
Significant Mitigation >Significant No
'Issues and Supportinn Information Soumes. Im act.- Incorp orated II: 3 act '� Impact
a. 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?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
roundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels?
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without theproject.?
e. 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?
f. 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?
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.
10.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.
FADepts\PLANNINGO P199-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts1EA-Revised 7-5-OO.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:
=Potentially
Potentially Signirlcant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
.'.Issues and SUPorting nformation Sources) Impact Incorporated [ Im ct is lm act.'.
a. 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. Fireprotection?
C. Policeprotection?
d. Schools?
e. Parks?
f. Other public facilities?
Comments:
11.a.b.c.d.e.f:
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.
FADeptadPLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
18
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Potentially.
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
significant Mitigation Significant No -
Issues and Suppotting Information sources: Impact Incorporated :L Impact. Im act
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. 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?
C. 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?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. 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?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
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 Genral 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.
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
19
12.f.q: 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.
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
20
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Potentially.
Potentially. Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Miitigatiog .Signficant _ No
Issues and Su nln mfotriiahon Soeree5 nl IM act: Incof orated Impact '7mact 'i
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. 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.lb: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:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
21
Revised 7-5-00
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
.:• .....
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ✓
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
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. Correspondence from the author dated November 1, 1999, states that these findings
"remain relevant and applicable to the currently proposed project." 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 for 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.
On May 3, 2000, subsequent to the close of the public review and comment period and prior to the start
of the public hearing on the project, staff was handed a transmittal from John Gomez, Jr. Supervisor for
Pechanga Cultural Resources. Mr. Gomez reviewed the Archaeological Assessment on file in the
Planning Department and acknowledged the findings therein. However, due to the length of time since
the Assessment, and the amount of erosion that has occurred at the site due to wind, rain and other
factors, Mr. Gomez has requested that a field walkover be conducted before the issuance of grading
permits for the project, in order to ensure that cultural and archaeological resources are not uncovered.
Mr. Gomez requests, further, that a treatment plan and preconstruction agreement between the
applicant and the tribe be required of the project, including the presence of Native American monitors
during ground-disturbing activities. Staff has reviewed these requests and finds that the walkover prior
to grading is both appropriate and reasonable. Staff has conferred with the applicant regarding this
request and with their concurrence has added the walkover and compliance with the findings as a result
of the walkover, as a mitigation measure for the project. With regards to the remaining requests by Mr.
Gomez, staff believes that mitigation measures already placed upon the project (see above) are
adequate given the results of the Assessment.
F:\Depte\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
22
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 less than significant level.
F:\Deptr\PLANNING\D PM-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
23
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
i :p
a. 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?
Comments:
15.a.Ib: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:\Dept:5\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
24
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unlrn. Loss Than
Signifwnt MitigSlion Significarn Nu
"- Tissues and.Supporting Information Sources'. impact Inco orated =:{ act Impact,
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number 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?
b. 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 futureprojects?
C. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
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.
16.11b: 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\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-00.doc
25
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.
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b. 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.
C. 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 are addressed in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program attached hereto.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
3. City of Temecula Development Code
4. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. 1999 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey, Merkel &Associates, June 10, 1999
5. Biological Constraints Report, Merkel &Associates, June 4, 1999
6. Correspondence from Jim A. Bartel, Assistant Field Supervisor for the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, dated September 22, 1999
7. Phase I Environmental Assessment, DBM Environmental, August 17, 1998
8. Preliminary Noise Analysis, Mestre Greve Associates, February 14, 2000
9. Geotechnical Investigation, CHJ, June 8, 1999
10. Archaeological Assessment, Jean Keller, December 1998
11. Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, Wilbur Smith Associates, February 18, 2000
F:\DeptaAPLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\EA-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
26
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
REVISED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
F:0eptsTLANNINGT P19941317 Temecula Ridge Apts\.STAFFRPT.PC 8-16-00.da
8
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA99-0317
Temecula Ridge Apartments Development Plan
Revised 7-5-00
LAND USE PLANNING
General Impact: Conflict with habitat conservation plans
Mitigation Measure: Compliance with the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long-
Term Habitat Conservation Plan
Specific Process: Payment of$500.00 per acre SKR mitigation fee
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works and Planning Department
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
General Impact: Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion
Mitigation Measure: Ameliorate hazards from unstable soils
Specific Process: Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
report
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works
General Impact: Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion
Mitigation Measure: Identify adverse soil conditions and implement measures to
ameliorate impacts
Specific Process: Submit a Soils Report for review and approval
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MMP-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works
General Impact: Exposure to soil erosion
Mitigation Measure: Stabilize slopes and unstable soils
Specific Process: Submit an Erosion Control Plan for review and approval
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works
General Impact: Exposure to soil erosion
Mitigation Measure: Stabilize slopes and unstable soils
Specific Process: Submit a Slope Planting Plan for review and approval
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Responsible Monitor: Planning Department
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
General Impact: The degradation of water and/or waste discharge quality
Mitigation Measure: Compliance with water quality and waste discharge
requirements
Specific Process: 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,
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permit
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works
General Impact: Create excessive runoff exceeding the capacity of existing
facilities
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MMP-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
2
Mitigation Measure: Identify drainage impacts and implement measures to mitigate
impacts
Specific Process: Submit a Drainage Study for review and approval
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
General Impact: A increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic and the
capacity of the existing street system
Mitigation Measure: Payment of fees to contribute to City-wide traffic
improvements
Specific Process: Payment of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) for residential
development
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit
Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
General Impact: 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
Mitigation Measure: Compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Specific Process: Obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Responsible Monitor: Planning Department
FADepts\PLANNING\D P99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MMP-Revised 7-5-00.doc
3
NOISE
General Impact: Exposure to significant noise levels
Mitigation Measure: Compliance with the recommendations of the Preliminary
Noise Analysis
Specific Process: Provide mechanical ventilation for the units closest to Rancho
California Road and submit a noise review letter
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits
Responsible Monitor: Department of Building and Safety
CULTURAL RESOURCES
General Impact: Adverse change in the significance of a historical or
archaeological resource
Mitigation Measure: The developer shall arrange for a complete walk-over of the
project site by qualified Native American Resource expert, to
identify, recover, preserve and document resources of historical
and archaeological significance
Specific Process: Condition the project to require a complete walkover be
conducted and reported to the Planning Manager, as to findings
and recommendations. If any cultural resources or human
remains are identified, 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 for any ground-
disturbing activities at the site.
Responsible Monitor: Planning Department and Department of Public Works
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
FA\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MMP-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
4
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: Destruction of a unique paleontological resources
Mitigation Measure: Identify potential locations of and attempt to recover fossils
Specific Process: Submit a paleontological assessment for review and approval
and provide a qualified paleontologist to monitor grading
operations with the authority to suspend work and undertake
recovery operations.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during grading
operations
Responsible Monitor: Planning Department and Public Works Department
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\MMP-Revised 7-5-OO.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
STAFF REPORT DATED MAY 3, 2000
F:1DeptstPLANNINGID PM-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC 8-76-00.doe
9
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
lot.
LOCATION: South side of Rancho California 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
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99.0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
1
PROPOSED ZONING: N/A
GENERALPLAN
DESIGNATION: M Medium Density Residential (7 — 12 dwelling units per acre)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Woodcreek and Portofino Apartments
South: Mira Loma and Rancho Apartments, and single family dwellings on Levande Place
East: Vacant
West: Vacant & Summer Breeze Apartments; Rancho California Medical Plaza beyond
PROJECT STATISTICS
Building Footprint: 39 structures 181,156 square feet 20.0%
Landscaping 393,586 square feet 43.2%
Parking, Streets 248,280 square feet 27.3%
Hardscape 86,230 square feet 9.5%
Total Area: 20.88 acres 909,533 square feet 100.0%
Density: 11.7 units per acre
Max. Building Height: 40 feet
Parking Required: 268 covered 236 uncovered 8 motorcycle
7 accessible 7 accessible
Parking Provided: 269 covered 236 provided 8 motorcycle
32 accessible 8 accessible
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 Governor's 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 January 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
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 Design
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 varied along the perimeter of the project, and the meandering spine drive
also varies the streetscape within the project. Building designs have varied heights and rooflines,
strong vertical and horizontal articulation, and varied and broken facades. Windows and entrances
were extended or recessed. Enclosed stairwells were added.
Monument Signs
The project proposes comer 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-tum eastbound lanes and
singular right-turn westbound lane.
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
4
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 Colinas.
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 cul-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 Portofino Apartments to the north. As designed, the project interface with these existing
apartments is acceptable.
F1Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.K.doc
3
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.
Gradin
Because the project site is a prominent ridge 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 conditions 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 Solana 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 Management Program Action Plan
Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the Growth Management Program Action Plan
adopted by the City Council 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
originally 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 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
5
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
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 cultural resources. However, these affects are not considered to be significant due to
the mitigation measures contained in the project design arid 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 approved 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,
1. 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 PM-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
6
2. 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:
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page
Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval - Blue Page
2. Initial Environmental Study- Blue Page
3. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page
4. Exhibits - Blue Page
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Surrounding Land Uses
E. Site Plan
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plans
H. Landscape Plan
I. Grading Plans
J. Color and Materials Board (under separate cover)
K. Color Elevations (under separate cover)
L. Color Landscape Plan (under separate cover)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
FADeptst131-ANNING0 P09-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.dw
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJY ECTSITE
i
LC
ASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
HIBIT—A VICINITY MAP
ANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FADEP'fSVPLANNINGID PM-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
SPP
^L 1
'° - '-^• ^' ..� .. .,,�, �
i a
<➢�P
VL., - '
PRWFCT
21
` P ti SITE
....-_''... VAl
^ y jaP� �
h'� y .c,,• ®® •+ �+ we z�tr +4�: �u+��t`•o3^�-W8
;, 't2 Sy ` y+✓$P�1®PPP i
' �® + ®®
^ SPs
J.
Ink
EXHIBIT B -ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - Medium Density Residential
a � . . ®PPP P� :.. . . . . . . . .
' �'�PPPP •�iEs' . .
.. :..
. '......,..,. s`a�ili'iii ;, ;vL .
t is .6.n .Nii4ii
UPPP e :2
Q..
i3
w
P� -
'�OO��:�X:�PP$;'';--:'�: :'_':'p .�-� aiiii�aiEiiii�iifY �"'�:'s::� �''Se?s:�::v:>::•r. A000::::'::
M �-
,;fir ►r,p' ` a •arM.'.:: PROJECT '@des...... :i 0.:.st::::::z[:::>
^' �,E��-\• A SITE
v' r M00;. M
';004':" PPPPP
iJiti`
P
iiiii
Jam.;..
. O .
M`
0 .: iJ
7 C• ::::::::`QS ::::s:x::::: Y
M EjQi[FEdi:Eiy v0 00
,6C.. EIA:`ra5ti a�00069000�Fa[Si.
pfr: ...... ........::.� O G, ..
:.d
. ..........
EXHIBIT C-GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - Medium Density Residential — 12 dwelling units per acre maximum)
CASE NO. -Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FADEP TS\PLANNING\D P199-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.da
12
CITY OF TEMECULA
Woodcreek Portofino
/ Apartments Apartments
\ 11n Center
nch� ar s �
P 'Ila t .
51 T Vacantr Va
ri
PI ummer `
hl Breeze Va
�> Offi" Idg artme art
Loma
Vail ,
lementa <
de
VI ge w
rtm
CASE NO. -Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D SURROUNDING LAND USES
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -May 3, 2000
FADEPMPLANNING0 PM-0317 Temecula Ridge"\STAFFRPT.PC.d0e
13
CCITY OF TEMECULA
-LM-ZONE ;
...�.�..�....,� "H"ZONE
II N ZONE
II\ I
-P.O.'ZONE
MART
�h !(i a� ..T. '\ \ ..(1 i I � ( • - 1�I lr�Ir.♦ it -P.O.-ZONE
• -M-ZONE
.107
i
ALM LRlll ll'I 1 l
\ -N-ZONE sPl I __wninv
EE
4SE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)(HIBIT - ESITE-ANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
15
CCITY OF TEMECULA
c
II n A 1°
Ir I II �', w11!F : III'i i�h�
secnoN
r. q
a�
4
t. Ill' F J
\'. ) (l7iV 11 I`1
..� SECTION
11 -1t1 t,I
e l ' ami -0,
I� II �.,.�rl i\ —, I , 1 GSL. tIQ'.'� `
......�, SECTIONS
- ---� -- ;
..--. S1TE.PSAN
SITE_S€C71ON C -- SITE SECTION D
SITE SECTION Sim
.............
-•_ -.. - SITE SECTION A
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EKHIBIT - E SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
. F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
15
CCITY OF TEMECULA
I
EU64INGi TYeF 9NE-LEFT ELEYAtm- IUUING TYPF ON{_912HI FLEVAilQN INNLPIRGMEL9N11--61 1QftA
®®
®0 E ® B
WILDING TYPE ONE-FRONT I VAJI 11 ' .... - .-..
IIAl1 U11,\
RURA
QUNDUlSE.YYeE9L1L•REAHILEYATI4N-
- Acncxournc
9 ..• 11111111ING 1%M I
EPLSE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) ELEVATIONS
HIBIT - F
4NNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99.0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CCITY OF TEMECULA
BBILQENQ.TTPE TWO•REAR ELEVATIQEi BUILDING TYPE TWO•RIGNT ELEVATION BBll21NG T'PE 7WQ�(COON B
a FE
tWUHN6 TIPS TWO.FRONT ELFVAnoN BUILDING TYPE TWO.LER ElEVA710N
_ BYILpINQ iYPElYiQ-CORNER Fl[vAnON
:r
Ift.E(IIIA
BilllQ1N2TYPE TWO_ROOF PLAN _
AbK LNl1lIP ll C
-5 PIIIIIIING 111-12
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
F:\DEP,rS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CCITY OF TEMECULA
1 s
14 LE
� y L Y. � �.• t
a s.. ® ®
'.
aw
BUIlDINO TYPE iNREE-TFONT ELEVATION
Y �
@@ILQNIS TYPI THREE-949E PIAN
® -® Ell
? -
tog 0
I '
BUILDING TYPE THRIE-LER ELEVATIO @@ILDING TYPE THREE-RIGHT ELEVATNTN
@VBDINIEIFLOOR PLAN 1 I I 1
�L BUILDING TYPE THREE-REAR ELEVATION '
BDILDIN*TYPE THREE-SECTION C
.., ,. RIIIGL
@IlIlplNSE IYEE ZN111E.•fl@5L-E144FPLAN . . .... .
AGA CROUP 11 C
PUIIMM;I1Yl1
EEXJSE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
AIBIT - F ELEVATIONS
4NNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FADEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
C
L
WN!
RVILPINLF TYPEIQUR-FRONT ELEVATION RIIIIDINp T'PE FQyq ROOFPLAN
29 L
__ -,
uIUMOMM F-QUR.--LER SIDf MVATIQTL
♦I
=12HWUM�
SEOOND FIOOR PLAN,.i• Y
r
BVIWINQ.TYPEIDUR-REAR ELEYAnoN 1 ... .-•
YYIY' r' MIY
aim, � •..�. �... I
.- I 1(AIH IIIA
RIUGE
-� M:A GROUT'I I C
BVILPINQ TYPEIQLIR_RtQtlT$101 ELEYAIIQR RVILRINQ TYKfQURFIRST.FLQQe_PLAN =-•
7 YIIIIMNI.IM 4
CJkSE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
F:\DEPTS\PLANNINGID P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CCITY OF TEMECULA
WALKWAY ELEVATION 5191- EYATIGH E114111.E1,EYATION FRONT ELEVATION
Pill
AMILEYATION
" Fy,•I_ I
EROtlT ELEVATION TRASH INeLOSRRE UQQRPLAtl UQQR PLAN
I V
1
FLOOR PLAN 3
1 R44T.PLAN ROOF PLAN
_
10-CAR GARACsE_ .- .
_...
ROO PLAN
MMING TYPE _,__. ....-.......... . RIIN:I
k9AR GAR 911, ..,...., e.�__.....
ALK GRUIII'lll
8 VIII IIINF.I\%SStu
EP
ILSE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
XHIBIT - F ELEVATLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CCITY OF TEMECULA
Ad
_. . . _.
AC
1
� L � _•y, IEMEC11lA
= NIIN:E
ALN GROW I IC
C,4SE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F ELEVATIONS
PI-ANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
. F:\Depls\PLANNING\D P\99.0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CCITY OF TEMECULA
• LEASING QfFlCES AND CLUBHOUSE-NOYTN
4v,4
���•-• LEASING OFFICES AND CLUINOUSE-SOUTN , ••
-- - I` - I�"'
LEARRO-OfficESAND CIUSNOUSE-WEST SECTION -"
few i=-.ti'_Y' ,sD u -3 � �.F,. =-r■� ..�■yP
�I�..�-__ - — -- ---.� II . S II �• 'f ; �w,.,,. i i FI A,I I'lll,, ;
w.... .... .,.. NII N:1
I
LEASING_OfFICE£Atl2CLUBHOUSE-EAST SEfILONA ALA GRO111.1 I[
.14
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FADEPI'S\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
16
CCITY OF TEMECULA
eu
LF
.. Inoue I You euLj I i I ,YiL rro>rl I 1 j �p 1.
v r I G •i. - 3 � Fi J
l W,"G TYPE ONE•SECOND FLOOR RAN
n..Y
V
161 ru
s I ❑
J
P
lJLQIN4 TYiE ON[-FIR[T FIOOR PVN �— .. I li IFNIMI(A
I xux:F
I L7
. ._._....W.....W.
... •.•.._..A•._. .-.. - AGK GROUP LLC
. ....._.............. I tl1111111NL IYPI I
EI
4SE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
XHIBIT—G FLOOR PLAN
-INNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
F:1DEFTWI-ANNING0 P199-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.K.doc
17
CCITY OF TEMECULA
I � f <' L '
BUILDING TYPE ONE-ROOF PLAN
�_ -- - ,C
,^
CUIA
ueu ..uN I .Fu mu
rI�
BUILDING TYPE ONF-THIRD FLOOR PLAN 7LRIRIDGE
GL
AGKGROUPIIC
`- $ BUIIDIHG P% 1
LEXISE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
-IIBIT— G FLOOR PLAN
NNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FADEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
17
CCITY OF TEMECULA
it 1 �
�P — IFS -77
_ n
BUILDING TYPE EWO-ENIRD FLOOR PLAN
Mon 7 d
-
-�
lana �a
iI
Irm
BUILDING TYPE TWO•SECOND FLOOR PLAN
uav
RR I
' n
vin
ma aaa I�
�y � ..
Rom
TEMECULA
1 �a L .,.. _........ ..... . ... RIDGE
D I I
BUILDING TYPE TVO-NBSE iIOOR PLAMnPE Ty0-Nest iIOOR PLAN AGK GROUP ILC
ry ...q.. s1111111NG IYIY2
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT—G FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FADEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99.0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
17
CCITY OF TEMECULA
a.N..
-tomo
..m. I
'lam• I _ m..m
UJOT 1 A-FLOOR PIAN UNIT 1 R-FLOOR PIAN UNII 1S---EL4.4R-PLA
tl
ui w°"Y°uuvMOOcw.�i• c�W�.w:
wwca+uun a �e.:wie�a.wn
TfMfCUTA
KIDGE
ALK GROUP UI
O` ' UNIT UO[A S
ECASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EXIiIBIT— G FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FADEPT&\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
17
CCITY OF TEMECULA
NGGp
�Nq
I '{n{YY1•.
nlml l
I'
YM
I �i
PW .n IS5IPII
NCi Mw' iNn
.�I UNIT L-iL000 MN[motlHbrfl — +
I�l Ii t Nun
p I t Qi w�N Bill, ji
INNKiI ' I
LLL
:!1 NM � I(• SSYNYY R
Y
' lW �' prypry Illlli f�N JI � I i i �I:
UNIf2&-f=k?LAN UNIT 3R-FLOOR PLAN Uylf1&-fW fLOOR PLAN UNIT 3A SI99NDMOR P"
j IIMECLIIA
KIDLE
AGK GROUP IIC
` Ip•• IINII IIIMU MINS
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
EKHIBIT— G FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FADepts\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
17
C CITY OF TEMECULA
i
i
:. /
` l y
If c
IWILDING @3 � � I
, .-..... .�,,..._, •� ..., I I Inti �.�.I`
r
BUILDING
....Sill
IIMECIILA
' -\ RIDGE
a/1 AGK GROUP tic
...12... ClUlIIWSI%AN
EPLSE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
HIBIT— G FLOOR PLAN
ANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FADEPTSNPLANNINGMD P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts1STAFFRPT.PC.doc
17
2 ei.�:7llut °°+'`j Si',el`n' l�..:_�_.V ^a D •:o paaLa• ° e e °
•e. 1 IlIjrmi: I .1�► l,a�.13 �
o^ r e
�• ` r.� n.ail 1 �r
�i�7 i _A, .vim��IGi/ � > � . '0 1 e• ,� �i.. ' ill°
�3e a yell. E,r .g , >/ •:/ mol
mol
D � X41
3wV�r _ n ✓I":/ yr���i 60�� VAiD e
• ` T,MOW
e �• �Q'►/��.��u '09•E
• �oS �_° ✓ _ � �"/ ea is s zs••ss
it
ei� `f;ro `a 'ou✓i�r°w, /�e`� /et fJl°�° r+olo�9��+.r�/ � dl
.�. , ,aJ `� • • ` •�f `e� i. 9e �fd Q, O O
iyi\���� �� / °1e°�e d�.Pail\ �• i7� '7r ° a_`\yyeoQ° e0 :u�
�j`r��•��� �� J yr� i 1��. �yoo oi111� � _ �` • �.
I)° het.-, = i / ,�'3.1 0 �\e•t115��/ , 1 _. IC.Y 10.1 0 o J:
1 °�o," . r. .711�_�,�°)o�L l .: : _ 1 1st • • • •
",t \ •'i =�10:: .• ` I�i a •° a •° a ',
ti o 1 e •
��?°°ri- ° sl tsl' • ° • • ° s L
1 • t� • ° •° � LLL �
•
1 ,
•
• • • 111
• ■ ' 1
CCITY OF TEMECULA
w
L---- — o o o
zz RR CTENERYELEVArlON
INEME CORNER EIEVAOQS + I Y
N _. 1
-j
MNUE CORNER 4K)NA,EN! PROJE, 'EN,N,
EEXISE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
•ilBIT - H LANDSCAPE PLAN4NNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
FADEPTS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
18
CCITY OF TEMECULA
i is II 'I
C.
C.,
-
li ,
• �� �.�uln"suW�, (.=c •�'I I II 111 I l•
O _
FENCE ••— ••
RECREAIbWC�N1ER NT y� _ �_- - �. G —�
1 1
1'i� I A' GIE�EASI ENIRYgPN£ _•� -
fM IEdRECCEWER
CAA
T
� A 'I i�. _�.. Ill:i Llill 'I�I�TI C•
V _ _
- a
a _
" ...__ •••••• ._ � � .I,m' v WIEg'WFSI ENIRI'P`!rvE _....�_.._
i/Rx/NG IOISCREE=1Nhti£MU TIENT
rOttQtEMARG MENI
[EXHIBIT
\SE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
- H LANDSCAPEPLAN
ANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
F:\DEP rS\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
18
C � y1t J
ASju
it
•vst ..._ n• u v E
I` ,� >f•�ai If��4�ti�..r�r.- pT��Qy -> �r\i.
MMM ',i���► (il - -
we
ll
�;�' Aim ®,Nnn/e�pLt'�i ^}��! ►!® �v
m�n�nma
n ,,CZ. fi \ uY�nuY�l nwr _T��-sem -
'rte '����-' �i m:ei a ii �Gii��� S�si�►��:�3��i�
I ' hv_v
>t • r 41.!61.-.air
-- � �• �� ���n per! � (�6 .'�.l ��•
-
• • . • 111
CCITY OF TEMECULA
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
PUNNING VPUCATION P9 99-0317 •'t��
mu.�_WS-bm w ac
e ..
.47
N am arnn aac.uP�aa.NNmn uc - — � —
e� _ m
0
-----------
------ Z-7
---------
------ -1--_ r-
E
SE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan)
HIBIT - I GRADING PLANS
ANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 3, 2000
.FADEPI'S\PLANNING\D P\99-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\STAFFRPT.K.doc
19
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXCERPTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2000
POeptsTLANNINGMD P199-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts\,STAFFRPT.PC 8-16OO.dw
10
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that overall he would support the project, while noting that
the three-quarter inch deep recessed accent feature at the top of the building would not provide
an adequate treatment for this area, relaying that it would be his desire that the applicant work
with staff to address this issue.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that this building was consistent with the surrounding uses,
while noting that the design had a stark appearance; and concurred with Commissioner
Mathewson's comments that the applicant provide additional articulation at the top of the
building.
Commissioner Webster advised that the Commission focus more on the intent of the Design
Guidelines than on the consistency with the surrounding development, since numerous projects
were approved by the County; specified that the two main points of the Design Guidelines were
requirements for entry statements (as referenced by Commissioner Fahey) and for the building
to have a top, a base, and a middle; concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's
recommendation, noting that the top element needed to be further addressed; and relayed that
both these issues could be addressed by staff.
Mr. Mike Linkletter, the applicant, relayed that the window treatments were added for enhanced
articulation; noted that the renderings did not accurately reflect the entryway statements, and
provided additional information with respect to the design of the entranceways; and via
overheads, provided an overview of the design element at the top of the building. In response
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his desire that the applicant provide definition in
this area, and not a variant paint color application, noting the large wall expanse that had not
been treated.
Commissioner Telesio relayed concurrence with the need for additional textural treatment at
the top of the building.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve the
project adding that the applicant be required to work with staff to address the treatment at the
top portion of the building and the entry statements.. Commissioner Webster seconded the
motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
4 Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) to design construct and operate
a 246-unit two and three-story apartment complex with pool clubhouse workout building
and tot lot.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application No. PA99-0137.
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PIanMinutes050300
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0317, 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 AND MORAGA ROAD,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011
Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue, and
therefore left the meeting at this time.
By way of overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record),
highlighting the project's location, amenities, and the adjacent uses; specified the zoning as
Medium Density, noting that per the General Plan, 7-12 units per acre would be permitted,
noting the target density with respect to the General Plan was 9.5 dwellings per acre; presented
the site plan, highlighting the proposed 22 separate residential buildings, the garage buildings,
and the recreational facilities, advising that the buildings had been clustered to avoid a large
visual expanse of apartment complex; specified the access points, and the meandering main
entranceway; noted that the dwelling units were one, two, and three stories, relaying that the
three-story units encompassed a two-story unit located above an enclosed garage area,
advising that enclosed garage parking provisions would be provided for all the units; noted that
the dwelling units ranged in size from 775-1,380 square feet; further specified the amenities
located in the center of the project area, as follows: a swimming pool/spa, a workout room, and
a recreation clubhouse inclusive of meeting rooms, recreation areas, and a kitchen; advised that
in light of staffs concern regarding the interface with the adjacent property, specifically on the
south side, the buffer in this area was particularly scrutinized; with regard to the property
adjacent to the single-family units, specified that there would be a distance of 112 feet to the
building; via a diagram denoting the berming and landscaping, specified the slope in this
particular area; noted that the parking areas would be buffered with a four-foot screen wall, and
berming; reiterated that staff focused efforts to de-emphasize a large mass visual impact with
the implementation of a clustering affect, created variety and visual interest with the elevation
and building orientation variations, and in order to obtain a differentiated streetscape, the
setbacks were varied; relayed that the project proposed a variety of roof lines while achieving
strong vertical and horizontal articulation, and broken facades; noted that stairwells had been
enclosed and that the windows and entrances had been extended in order to provide additional
articulation; specified the location of the monument signage; reviewed the mitigation proposed
with respect to the traffic analysis (per agenda material); advised that in light of community
concern regarding the amount of accidents in this area, a Traffic History Collision Report had
been prepared revealing that there had been 25 collisions during a 9-year period which
calculated to .555 collisions per million vehicle miles, noting the average rate for this type of
road was 2.4; with respect to grading, relayed that staff worked with the applicant in an attempt
to blend the topography with the proposed units, noting that since the applicant opted to provide
enclosed garages and to upscale the project this feature was not achieved.
In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries, Associate Planner Donahoe confirmed that there
were corrections by the Public Works Department (per agenda material) regarding Condition
Nos. 44, and 51, and the addition of Condition No. 52; referenced the letter from the Pechanga
Cultural Resources received on May 3, 2000 (per supplemental agenda material) which outlined
RRIanMinutes050300
5
their request with respect to having a walk over; and noted that the applicant would be
agreeable to the request, advising that this request be incorporated into Condition No. 12.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill addressed the Commission regarding the Growth Management
Program Action Plan which was adopted by the Council at the March 21, 2000 City Council
meeting, reading into the record the Council directive as stated on page 5, 3`O paragraph of the
staff report, stating that project approval should be at the lowest allowable density with the
exception of a project providing onsite or community amenities; relayed the Council's intent to
develop projects at the lowest end of the density range unless there were significant benefits to
the project; for Commission Telesio, confirmed that staffs recommendation with respect to this
project was approval, noting that staff and the applicant had spent approximately one-and-a-half
years working on this particular proposal; and advised that if the Commission approved the
project, there would need to be consideration given to the amenities provided by the project.
Noting the lack of clarity with respect to the Council directive, Chairman Guerriero commented
on the vagueness of the term amenities; and queried what specific amenities warranted the
exception in densities.
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill recommended that those
queries be directed to Council with this project, advising that in the Commission's findings or
deliberations those comments be denoted in order to be forwarded to Council.
For Commissioner Telesio, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that staffs recommendation
for approval was based on the fact that the project was consistent with the General Plan and
zoning, advising that the Council directive regarding growth management was to be determined
by the Planning Commission, noting that perhaps having staff address this issue with respect to _
the Growth Management Plan should be addressed at a future date.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments that if this project had been proposed without
the amenities, staff would not have recommended approval, Deputy City Manager Thornhill
provided confirmation; acknowledged that it was a subjective judgement to make a
recommendation with respect to qualifying amenities, confirming that this project proposed
numerous amenities, specifically in light of the small size of the development; and relayed that
whether the amount of amenities justified the increase of approximately 100 units, was the
decision before the Commission.
Commissioner Fahey commented that the amenities factor seemed to apply to extraordinary
provisions; and queried whether staff had compared this project to other similar uses, evaluating
whether the amenities provided were above and beyond the norm. In response, Deputy City
Manager Thornhill relayed that the amenities exceeded provisions of alternate similar uses,
noting the provision of enclosed garages, improved landscaping, improved circulation, and
numerous onsite amenities; and clarified that it was within the Commission's purview to request
that the project be re-designed or that additional amenities be provided.
Referencing the Growth Management Plan with respect to Policy No. 2, regarding Redirect
Urban Development to Urban Areas, Commissioner Mathewson relayed the inconsistency with
that portion of the plan when applied to approving projects at the lowest level of density. In
response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that at the General Plan Advisory Committee
meeting that this issue was brought up regarding portions of the plan that appeared to be
contradictory; and advised that the Commission direct those questions to the Council; and
relayed various benefits regarding the placement of higher density housing proximate to
commercial areas (i.e., which could increase the feasibility for future transit).
R:PIanMinutes050300
6
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the
General Plan would be updated, noting that it had been placed on the budget for this fiscal year.
For the record, Commissioners Fahey, Telesio, and Guerriero relayed that they had individually
had previous conversations with the applicant's representatives regarding this project.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, provided a brief history of the property, noting
that in 1989 the County had approved an application for 335 apartments on this site, relaying
that after an appeal process it was ultimately approved as a 260-unit project in December of
1990 by the City Council, advising that that particular owner did not proceed with the project;
noted that this particular proposal was submitted approximately one-and-a-half years ago;
referenced the allowable densities per the Development Code; specified the zoning of the
adjacent properties; advised that this complex was designed as a luxury apartment complex;
and relayed the arduous efforts of the applicant to address staffs concerns, noting, additionally,
the community meetings which were held.
Mr. Jim Keisker, representing the applicant, via overheads, provided an overview of the
proposal, specifying the project location, adjacent streets, circulation aspects, differentials in
elevations, slopes, and amenities; noted the location of the berm placed to mitigate sound
adjacent to the single family units; relayed that the closest project building to an existing offsite
family residence was 160 feet; presented the view of the project from various vantage points,
noting the articulation, the grade changes, and the winding road; provided a line of sight view
from two adjacent residential homes; highlighted the site plan, specifying the location of the
amenities, the floor plans, inclusive of plans with two patio areas; noted the goal of the applicant
to provide a good living environment, to create a serene residential scale, and to develop a
project that was sensitive to the neighboring built environment.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Keisker relayed that the height of the three-story building
was approximately 36 feet; clarified that the berm on the southerly property line was eight feet in
height, specifying the location of the four-foot walls; and noted that the greenbelt along Rancho
California Road was approximately 150 feet.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Keisker confirmed that the Moraga Road entrance
would be gated, as well as the alternate entry; with respect to public access to the pool,
confirmed that this would be via a pre-arranged schedule; and provided additional information
regarding the line of site view of the project.
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Markham relayed that per discussions with the Swim
Club, the pool has been modified to be lengthened by five feet, and has been widened to
accommodate an additional lane; elaborated on the various improvements that the project has
been conditioned to complete with respect to Moraga Road; with respect to the eastern end of
the project, noted that the applicant would share a driveway connection with the adjacent
property owner, relaying that this entry would be primarily a tenant only entranceway; provided
additional information regarding a bus turnout, in response to Mr. Thornhill's previous
comments, relaying that the applicant would have no objection to installing a turnout, noting that
typically the turnouts were placed per RTA's recommendation; and provided additional
information regarding the applicant's efforts to work with the Oder family who owned the
apartments to the south of the project, addressing drainage issues, existing cut-through
pedestrian traffic, and landscaping matters,
RRIanMinutes050300
7
With respect to Commissioner Telesio's queries regarding the connection of Moraga Road to
Via Las Colinas, Mr. Markham provided additional information. Deputy Director of Public Works
Parks relayed that the project had also been conditioned to construct the intersection at Rancho
California Road/Moraga Road; and for Chairman Guerriero, confirmed that there would be no
additional widening of Rancho California Road.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Markham relayed that the quantity of grading would be
200,000 cubic yards; provided additional information regarding the view of the project from
Rancho California Road; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the
differential in the elevation from Rancho California Road to the southerly property line, noted
that the road drops down 38 feet in that area, relaying the constraints of the project with respect
to tying into the existing pavement at Via Las Colinas. Mr. Keisker relayed that the average
grading over the entire site would be approximately 12 feet; provided additional information
regarding the quantities of grading if the site had been relatively flat.
Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant was in agreement to the Conditions of Approval, as
modified, and with the request of the Pechanga Cultural Resources as denoted in the letter of
May 3, 2000 (per supplemental agenda material).
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding staffs estimations of the average
number of persons per dwelling unit, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that 3.3 was an
average for a single family dwelling unit, noting that for multiple family dwelling units the
average would most likely be under 3, approximately 2.8 or 2.9; and with respect Quimby
requirements, relayed that for this project there would be a fee payment.
For Commissioner Fahey, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the average daily trip
generation per unit would be approximately nine, or ten trips, advising that with respect to this
project the number could be lower due to the proximity to services.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the traffic analysis indicated that the Level of Service
(LOS)would be Level "D" or better at project build-out, querying whether there was a specific
degradation of service with this particular project.
Mr. Bob Davis, traffic engineer representing the applicant, relayed that with respect to the multi-
family residential units, the average daily trip generation was just over five trips; in response to
Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding degradation of the LOS, noted that without the
project Rancho California Road/Moraga Road would degrade one LOS, going from Level "C" to
"D" in the morning, and from "B" to "C" in the evening; at Lyndie Lane the LOS would go from
Level "A"to "B" in the morning and would remain unchanged in the afternoon, at Via Las
Colinas there would be no affect, at Rancho California RoadNnez Road the LOS would not
change with or without the project; clarified that the analysis included the impacts of the
commercial development; relayed that this portion of the project would generate 1,380 trips on a
daily basis, noting that during AM Peak hours there would be 98 trips generated, and during the
PM Peak, the project would generate 128 trips per day; in response to Commissioner Fahey's
queries as to whether there were any measures as far as traffic management that could be
implemented to reduce the trip generation by approximately 500 trips a day, advised that some
traffic could be reduced by allowing an interconnection between this project and the adjacent
project, particularly the commercial center, relaying that the applicant was making efforts to
implement this access, clarifying that there was no concept that would reduce the trip
generation by 500 trips a day.
It was noted that at 7:55 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:10 P.M.
kPIanMinutes050300
8
Attorney Curley relayed that in light of the letter from the Pechanga Cultural Resources, staff
was requesting that whatever action the Commission ultimately decided to take with respect to
this issue that the Commission allow staff to bring back at a subsequent meeting a revised
resolution that adequately addresses the environmental findings regarding the issues the letter
raised, noting that the letter was received by staff today which did not allow time for addressing
the matter; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that the recommendation was for the
Commission to take no final action tonight in order for staff to develop a resolution addressing
the Commission's comments, and the environmental findings.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:
❑ Mr. Burlie Cole 42567 Remora Street
❑ Mr. David Michael 30300 Churchill Court
❑ Mr. Stan Wright 42415 Carino Place
❑ Mr. David Boucher 42797 Twilight Court
❑ Mr. Scott Bruce 41395 Rue Jadot
The above-mentioned individuals opposed the project for the following reasons:
✓ Concern regarding the potential for vandalism.
✓ Relayed that a covered garage area would not compensate for higher densities.
✓ Increased traffic.
✓ Disappointed with the community meetings held regarding this project, expressing a desire
to have a representative representing their concerns.
✓ The impact with respect to overcrowding the schools.
✓ Recommended a 100-unit complex development at this site.
✓ Opposed to additional density.
✓ Relayed that this project was not in accordance with the Growth Management Plan.
✓ The negative impact with respect to the view of the project due to the proposed height of the
buildings.
✓ Lowered value of surrounding properties.
✓ Offered to get a signed petition with neighboring residents' signatures expressing opposition
to the project.
✓ Overabundance of apartments in this particular area.
For Mr. Michael, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that this project's traffic study
was reviewed by Senior Engineer Moghadam, noting that the information had been verified; and
clarified that his previous comment was regarding the fact that he personally did not review it.
RRIanMinute5050300
9
The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:
❑ Ms. Helen M. Oder 29911 Mira Loma Drive
❑ Mr. Robert L. Oder 29911 Mira Loma Drive
❑ Ms. Evelyn H. Hughes 27727 Jefferson Avenue
The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following reasons:
✓ The project would be an asset to the community and the adjacent uses.
✓ The applicant had adequately addressed the concerns of the community.
✓ Advised that this is the best project that could be proposed at this site, providing a historic
overview of past proposals.
✓ Specified the fencing that the applicant would provide between the project and the adjacent
properties.
✓ With respect to landscaping, relayed that Sequoia trees would be utilized which would
provide fuller screening.
✓ With respect to drainage issues, noted that the applicant has an adequate drainage plan
and has addressed the concerns of the adjacent property owners with respect to this matter.
✓ Commenting on Condition No. 33, regarding the sewer lines, relayed that while not desiring
to burden the applicant with the cost, expressed a desire for the completion of the
referenced drainage study.
✓ With respect to density, relayed that prior proposed projects on this site had higher
densities.
✓ Concern with respect to an alternate proposal at this site if this project was denied.
✓ Commended the design of this project, noting the need for this quality type of apartments
with enclosed garages.
✓ Ideal location for this type of project.
✓ Relayed that there is a shortage of homes and apartments for the present need in this area.
In response to community concerns and comments, Mr. Markham relayed the following:
• Via overheads, presented an inventory of the apartment projects in the surrounding area,
specifying densities ,rent amounts, and the need for this type of project in the City of
Temecula.
+ With respect to the interface, noted the heavy landscaping plan along the interface
boundary, specifying the location of the walls and fencing.
+ With respect to slope maintenance, relayed that the project's slopes would be maintained
within the project boundaries.
R:PIanMinutes050300
10
♦ With respect to vandalism issues, noted that the provision of fencing would address the
concern of trespassers.
♦ With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's questions, relayed that Condition No. 93
addressed the Quimby issues.
+ With respect to the traffic issues, relayed that staff had reviewed the analysis that the
applicant provided; and provided the background information regarding the reputation of the
firm the applicant utilized for the traffic study.
+ With respect to school issues, noted that the project was required to pay school mitigation
fees pursuant to State Law.
+ With respect to the Growth Management Plan, relayed that this project was consistent, as
follows: 1) with respect to concentrating urbanization along transportation corridors, and 2)
with respect to the amenities proposed, noting the applicant's efforts to provide community
access to the pool; and specified that this project would be an upscale development.
• With respect to the recommendation to develop a 100-unit complex, noted that typically a
project of that scale would not provide amenities due to a lack of justification.
+ Noted that the applicant had receipt of a letter from an Olympic swimmer applauding the
applicant's efforts with respect to the pool's shared use.
• Concurred with Attorney Curley's recommendation to address the concerns of the Pechanga
Cultural Resources letter.
• For Commissioner Telesio, relayed that currently there was an approximate one- percent (1-
%) vacancy rate in apartments in the City of Temecula.
During Commission discussion. the Commissioners relayed the following comments:
Commissioner Fahey relayed that this project was well-designed, noting that an apartment
complex was appropriate at this location; advised, however, that the Planning Commission had
an obligation to implement the policies that have been passed by the City Council, noting that
while the amenities issue was not clearly defined, the policy did state lowest density allowed;
relayed that the lowest density allowed would be seven to eight dwelling units per acre; with
respect to amenities, it was her interpretation that the amenities should be provisions that
addressed the additional volumes or densities; since the primary concern was traffic impacts
with respect to the impact of the densities, recommended that there be a mitigating factor to
address the additional approximate 300-500 trips a day the higher density would generate,
recommending that investigation be conducted to implement a plan to reduce the additional trip
generation impacts (i.e., van transport).
Commissioner Mathewson relayed a desire to defer action on this issue until the City had
addressed the housing, circulation, and land use element updates; noted that if the project was
to be considered at this time he had concern regarding the following; with respect to the pool
issue, noted that this was not an amenity provision above the norm, acknowledging the shared
use with the Swim Club; noted concern with respect to the amount of grading proposed on the
site which would remove the ridgeline which was a visually pleasing aesthetic along Rancho
California Road; relayed concern with respect to the view of the three-story structures, noting
that the benefit of the enclosed garage area was nullified by the view impact; with respect to
R:PIanMinutes050300
11
transportation improvements around the site, noted that in his opinion, this did not add value to
the community but solely addressed the project impacts; and advised that the project, as
proposed, did not meet the City Council policy in terms of providing amenities that would
warrant higher densities.
Commissioner Telesio advised that this was a high quality project; relayed confusion with
respect to an amenity that would warrant the higher densities, noting the lack of clarification per
the City Council policy; noted that this project was initiated long before this new policy, advising
that with respect to equity and fairness there needed to be consideration regarding this matter;
commented on the nexus between the densities and the amenities provided with a project;
advised that prior to taking action, it would be his desire to obtain additional clarification with
respect to the Council's definition of an amenity which justified a higher density; relayed that the
traffic improvements that this project would implement would benefit the community as a whole;
with respect to the recommendation to add an amenity such as a van pool, advised that most
likely the residents would still utilize their own vehicles; and relayed that in his opinion the new
policy should solely impact new development applications.
With respect to economic development, Chairman Guerriero noted the need to offer affordable
housing for employees in order to attract business to the City of Temecula; relayed that in his
opinion, this project meets all the requirements, including the Growth Management Plan's
policies; reiterated the lack of clarity regarding the term amenities; referencing the policy, stated
that the Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest density if the project
provided project or community amenities, noting that this proposal offered both in some aspects;
relayed that this was one of the best projects he had seen in twenty years; relayed concern
regarding alternate projects at this site if this project was not approved; recommended that there
be City Council/Planning Commission Workshop in order to address the Growth Management _
Plan; and noted that in his opinion the shared use of the pool was a qualifying amenity, relaying
the alternate view of his fellow Commissioners, reiterating the need to clarify the term
amenities, as it pertains to warranting approval of a higher density.
In response to Commissioner Fahey's queries with respect to conditioning the project regarding
a transportation management plan, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that additional
investigation would need to be conducted with respect to traffic analysis, relaying that it could be
feasible. Commissioner Fahey relayed that if this amenity could be addressed, she could
support the project; and recommended that this issue be addressed when the item was brought
back to the Commission.
In response to Commissioner Fahey's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
relayed the possibility of the applicant mitigating traffic in alternate portions of the City in order to
compensate for the higher densities. Commissioner Fahey concurred with Deputy Director of
Public Works Parks' suggestion; and relayed that the applicant could contract with employers to
provide mass transit or develop an alternate plan to address the additional trips generated
between the minimum and the maximum densities. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
relayed that perhaps there could be transportation provided at the Senior Center or the Boys
and Girls Club or for an alternate nonprofit organization.
With respect to the above-mentioned recommendation, Commissioner Mathewson relayed
that he would concur if the transportation provision would actually be utilized.
For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that staff had
reviewed the applicant's traffic data, concurring with the analysis; and relayed that if it was the
R:13IanMinutes050300
12
ZK
Commission's desire, staff could provide data reflecting the additional number of trips generated
by this project.
Regarding transportation provisions with respect to this project's requirements, Commissioner
Telesio noted the lack of utilization of the RTA busses.
Commissioner Fahey clarified that if the transportation issue could not be mitigated, she could
not support the project.
Relaying concurrence with pursuing the feasibility of an amenity addressing traffic,
Commissioner Mathewson recommended additionally pursuing investigation regarding the
enhancement of Quimby fees as a source of a qualifying amenity.
Chairman Guerriero reiterated staffs recommendation to continue the matter in order for the
legal staff to address CEQA and sovereignty issues.
Requesting additional direction from the Commission, Planning Manager Ubnoske queried
whether it was the Commission's desire to postpone the matter until there could be a scheduled
joint workshop with the City Council, noting that then the matter would need to be continued off
calendar.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue this issue to the June 7, 2000 Planning
Commission meeting. Chairman Guerriero seconded the motion. (This motion ultimately
passed; see below.)
In response to the Commission, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff would bring back
several different options for the Commission's consideration.
Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the findings associated with the
Development Plan.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding whether the issue would come
back without additional guidance from Council, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff
would attempt to obtain additional information, noting that potentially staff could solely bring
back a recommendation from staff.
For Commissioner Fahey, Attorney Curley recommended that the Commission keep the public
hearing open.
At this time voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who
abstained.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
A. With respect to the corner treatment at the mall, Chairman Guerriero relayed that the
fountain element did not appear to be consistent with the approved design, requesting
staff to investigate.
B. Regarding the interior fountain area in the proximate area of the theater(at the mall site),
Chairman Guerriero relayed that there was now a plant placed on the fountain area with
no active water treatment, requesting that staff address this issue; and additionally noted
that the interior landscaping in the mall should be upgraded.
RRIanMinutes050300
13