HomeMy WebLinkAbout030701 PC AgendaIn 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 [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
MARCH 7, 2001 - 6:00 P.M.
.Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2001-008
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Chairman Guerriero
Roll Call:
Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerdero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no~t on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
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.
Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 7, 2001.
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 ~3-7-01 .doc
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 3, 2001
3
P ann n.q Application No. 00-0452 (Third Extension of Time) for Vest n.q Tentative Tract Map
25004 located at the north of Nicolas Road, east of Seraphina Road and south of Murrieta
Hot Springs Road - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-0452 A THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT 25004.
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 00-0427 (Development Plan) Davcon Development Inc. to design and
construct two adjoining industrial buildings on two separate lots with the building on lot ~
totaling 18,787 square feet on 1.08 acres, and the building on lot 7 totaling 16,381 squaf~
feet on 1.01 acres located on the south side of the Winchester Road west of Diaz Road
across from Rancho California Water District (RCWD) [APN 909-310-006 (Lot 6) & 909-310-
007 (Lot 7)]. - Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0427 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 ~3-7-01 .doc
2
4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-0427 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADJOINING INDUSTRIAL
BUILDINGS ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING
ON LOT 6 TOTALING 18,787 SQUARE FEET ON 1.08 ACRES,
AND THE BUILDING ON LOT 7 TOTALING 16,381 SQUARE
FEET ON 1.01 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE WINCHESTER ROAD, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 909-310-006 (LOT 6) & 909-3t0-
007 (LOT 7).
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next Regular Meeting:
March 28, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~001 ~3-7-01 ,doc
3
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 3, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday January 3, 2001, 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 Chairman Guerriero.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster,
and Chairman Guerriero.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Project Planner DeGange,
Project Planner McCoy,
Project Planner Naaseh, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff had tentatively scheduled a workshop
item regarding the Villages of Old Town that was not placed on the agenda; advised that
since this matter was noticed there may be individuals desiring to speak on this issue;
and requested that the Commission hear a brief presentation from the applicant
regarding this matter, revising the Agenda.
A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 3, 2001.
2 Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of October 18, 2000
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-
2, revising the agenda as recommended in Director of Planning Ubnoske's comments.
Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained with regard to Item 2.1.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
The Villa,qes of Old Town presentation
Mr. Richard Hanass, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the proposed
residential project consisting of a variety of housing opportunities (i.e., apartments,
townhouses, and attached single-family dwellings) which would total approximately
1,631 dwellings on 153 acres; relayed that the proposal was inclusive of three planning
areas, as follows: 1) Planning Area 1 which would encompass a 3-acre Village Square
Park, 2) Planning Area 2 which would encompass the Village Center with clustered
residential development, and 3) Planning Area 3 which encompassed an attached
single-family residential development, noting that a portion of Planning Area 2, and
Planning Area 3 would offer ownership opportunities; and advised that the applicant
would elaborate on the project at a future Planning Commission meeting.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing the applicant, advised
that the Specific Plan would be amended, confirming that an EIR would be prepared in
conjunction with this amendment.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Plannin,q Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) to desiRn and construct four
(4) multi-tenant speculative buildings totalincl approximately 881083 square feet ol
office, manufacturin.q, distributin,q and warehouse uses on 6.09 vacant acres, located
at the southeast corner of Business Park Drive and Rancho Way, within the Rancho
California Business Park - Carole Donahoe
3.1 ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 00-0367
(Development Plan);
3.2 ADOPT the Mitigated Monitoring Program for .Planning Application No. 00-0367
(Development Plan);
3.3 ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO 2001-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0367 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
- THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4)
MULTI-TENANT SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 88,083 SQUARE FEET ON 6.09
VACANT ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND RANCHO
WAY, WITHIN THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PARK, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
92'1-020-061.
Via overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe provided an overview of the project (per
agenda material), highlighting the location, the surrounding properties, the zoning (Light
Industrial), and the General Plan designation (Business Park); relayed the site plan,
noting the enhanced articulation with respect to the buildings that front the street and in
the entry area; noted the extensive landscape plan, relaying that the applicant would be
replacing the trees that necessitated removal at the entry area and in the front portion of
the project; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, specified the location of the fault zone on the
site plan, noting that the nearest building was over 60 feet from the fault line; and for
Commissioner Mathewson, advised that staff did discuss relocating the existing drive
with the applicant, noting that the applicant could further address this issue.
Mr. Michael Mueller, representing the applicant, provided a history of alternate projects
that this applicant has developed in the Cities of Ontario, Irvine, and Rancho Santa
Margarita; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that the applicant has investigated
and received all of the remediation sign-offs from the associated agencies, noting that
this data was available.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if it was a concern of the Planning
Commission, a condition could be added requiring submittal of the remediation letters to
staff.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Mueller advised that it was the applicant's opinion
that the location of the existing drive along with this particular site plan would work with
the flow of traffic, providing additional information.
Commissioner Mathewson noted his concern with the view of the substantial length of
roll-up doors in the drive access area. In response, Mr. Mueller noted the screening
elements (i.e., the extensive landscape at this location).
In response to Commissioner Webster's queries with respect to the ddveway on Rancho
Way, Mr. Mueller provided additional information regarding the location of this access
area. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided further comments on the cost
impacts associated with relocating this driveway.
Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, representing himself, read into the record a letter he
had written dated January 3, 2001 (which was submitted to staff), outlining his concern
regarding unmitigated traffic in the City, requesting that a condition be added requiring
the applicant to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) of $1.00 per square foot which
could be utilized to aid in the funding of a public bus system, and a continued education
program; and advised that he was opposed to the project plan, as proposed, due to the
negative cumulative traffic impacts.
In response to Mr. Pratt, Commissioner Telesio relayed that industrial growth was an
avenue for providing employment, and reducing the number of citizens leaving the area
for employment; provided additional information regarding the businesses currently
existing in the City of Temecula addressing traffic impacts with staggered work hours;
and noted his support of the project.
For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that this was a
speculative building, and that no tenant had been identified.
For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Donahoe advised that the proposed floor
plans specified the amount of office space, warehousing, and manufac~turing, noting that
parking requirements were developed from this data; advised that if there were tenant
improvements, a new parking analysis would be required at which time negative impacts
would be addressed; and relayed that there were no compact parking spaces at this site,
noting that the parking provisions have exceeded the requirements.
Commissioner Webster relayed that this project was consistent with the General Plan;
commented on the circulation improvements which were currently included in the five-
year CIP which adequately mitigated future development on this site; relayed that it
would be his preference to relocate the driveway access, while noting that the negative
impact of the existing location would solely effect the tenant of this building.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that overall this was a good project; with respect to
Councilman Pratt's comments, relayed that to implement a new policy with respect to
DIFs which could have significant impacts City-wide on development would be within the
City Council's jurisdiction; with respect to the location of the driveway, relayed that he
would not oppose this plan, noting the applicant's clarification of the site plan, and the
installation of 24-inch boxed Purple Leaf Plum trees.
In response to Mr. Pratt's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this was an
in-fill project, noting that projects have been developed in this business park for years,
advising that to oppose this particular project at this time would be inappropriate;
clarified that since the City Council had not adopted a new DIF, he would not support
imposing such a fee on this applicant; and relayed his support of the project.
Chairman Guerriero further commented on the infrastructure improvements planned for
this area.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the pubic hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation with the following added condition:
Add-
· That the applicant be required to provide staff with the remediation clearance
letters.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
Plannin.q Application No. 00-0094 (Development Plan), to construct and operate a
12,215 square foot industrial building on 0.92 acres located on the south side of
Roick Drive approximately 200 feet west of Winchester Road - Michael McCoy
4.1 ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0094 (DEVELOPMENT
PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 12,615
SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 0.92
ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROICK
DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WEST OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 909-320-05t.
Senior Planner Hogan introduced Project Planner McCoy who aided in the preparation
of the staff report for this project.
By way of overheads, Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (per agenda
material), highlighting the FAR, the landscape plan, and the site plan; provided a sample
material board for the Planning Commission's review; and relayed that the applicant had
an identified tenant for approximately fifty percent (50%) of the building's use.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff' queries as to whether there had been
consideration for shared access at the rear of the building, Senior Planner Hogan noted
that due to the site being previously graded that there were restrictions associated with
the site plan; noted that at the rear of the site there was a ten-foot elevation drop
between this lot and the adjacent site; and advised that it was the Fire Department's
opinion that the lot provided an adequate turnaround space for Fire truck access.
For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the
Western Bypass Corridor would follow the alignment of Via Industria, at the end of Roick
Drive, noting that the Western Bypass Project would be reviewed in conjunction with the
General Plan Circulation element, advising that the traffic counts on this portion of the
bypass were Iow at this time since Diaz Road does not go through, noting the
consideration to reduce it to a seventy-eight-foot (78'), or an eighty-eight-foot (88') right-
of-way at this time.
Mr. Dave Madden, representing the applicant, clarified that the windows would be white-
framed rather than blue-framed, noting the revision to the plan, and that the window
glass would have a slight blue tint.
R:PlanComm/mir~ut es~ 10300 5
Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, representing himself, read into the record a letter he
had written dated January 3, 2001 (which was submitted to staff), outlining his concern
regarding unmitigated traffic in the City, requesting that a condition be added requiring
the applicant to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) of $1.00 per square foot which
could be utilized to aid in the funding of a public bus system, and a continued education
program; commented on the Western Bypass Project, noting that there could be a Share
the Ride Program implemented in this area; and advised that he was opposed to the
project plan, as proposed, due to the negative cumulative traffic impacts.
in response to Mr. Pratt's comments, Commissioner Webster relayed that the traffic
improvement needed in this area of the City was a signal at Winchester/Diaz Roads,
which the Scott's Manufacturing use was going to install; with respect to this project,
noted that he could support the proposal; and reiterated to staff his recommendation that
as the buildings in this area are developed further up the hill that darker paint
applications be utilized in order for the projects to blend in with the existing milieu.
Senior Planner Hogan queried whether the Planning Commission agreed with the
architect's color revision, specifically, to modify the color of the window frame from blue
to white, recommending that this revision be part of the motion:
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation with the following modification:
Modify-
That the window frame color be revised to indicate a white color, in lieu of
the blue color, which was indicated on the plan.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
At 6:50 P.M. the Commission recessed, reconvening at 7:01 P.M.
6 Plannin,q Application No. 00-0213 (Development Plan) for the des.qn and
construction of a 116,375 square foot retail center, on an 18 acre site located withi.
the ReRional Center Specific Plan on the west side of Mar.qadta Road, betwee.
North General Kearny Road and Ovedand Ddve - Saied Naaseh
5.1 ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0213
(Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project
for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative
Declarations.
5.2 ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 116,375
SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN t8 ACRE
SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER
SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE WEST SIDE OF MARGARITA
ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 921-090-63,71,72, AND 78, AND LOTS 7,
51, 52, 53, AND 54 OF PARCEL MAP NO 28530.
Project Planner Naaseh noted the minor changes to the Conditions of Approval, as
follows: with respect to Condition No. 55 (regarding a drainage and erosion study), noted
that staff was recommending that the phrase/f required by the Director of Public Works
be added; with respect to Condition Nos. 118, 119, and 120 (regarding Riverside County
Flood Control District, Rancho California Water District, and Environmental Department
letters), relayed that the associated letters were not included in the staff report, relaying
that this data would be added at this time; via overheads, provided an overview of the
site plan, highlighting the long and narrow configuration of the site; provided additional
information regarding the channel on this site which further constrained the site plan;
noted that the project encompassed four clusters of buildings, as follows; 1 ) a strip retail
center, 2) the buildings proposed in this area will be built around a 2500 square-foot
pedestrian plaza, 3) the buildings proposed in this area would be constructed around a
roundabout (i.e., a major entry into the site), providing additional information regarding
the pedestrian-oriented elements, and 4) this phase of development was in conceptual
form and would be designed as a conventional strip center; noted that the rear of the
buildings would be articulated due to the visibility; with respect to the loading areas at
the rear of the project, noted that there would be either a berm or a three-foot wall to
screen this area with shrubs on top of that element which would total six-to-seven feet
of screening; noted the applicant's efforts to create a pedestrian-oriented design (i.e., the
defined walkways, the connections to the loop read sidewalk, and to Margarita Road, the
walkway on the extension of North General Kearny Road, and connections to the
existing walkways), relaying the site constraints, advising that staff had recommended
that there be an additional building in the gap between the two buildings, noting the
current proposal for three rows of parking spaces; relayed that the existing entry
monumentation would be increased to a depth of 75 feet; provided an overview of the
conditions placed on the project regarding landscaping, as follows: that all the trees will
be 24-inch boxed trees, and that all the shrubs will be five-gallon size; and with respect
to the landscaping adjacent to the buildings, noted that staff has added a condition
requiring that the applicant amend the landscape plan to add additional trees in this
area.
For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the road
proximate to the Cosco use was a private road, noting that if this area was a fire lane it
could be painted red to prohibit on-street parking.
Chairman Guerriero recommended that there be added traffic control in the access area
onto the loop road; with respect to the screening of the loading docks, sited the lack of
screening at the Power Center (from Margarita Road) recommending that the screening
of this project's loading area be adequate.
For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that this project had solely one
loading dock (i.e., roll-up door), advising that the alternate areas were service stores;
and noted that a condition has been added to require additional landscaping in order to
screen this area adequately per the City's landscape architect's direction; clarified
Condition No. 19 (regarding the berming or the wall required to screen this area); and
provided additional information regarding the 75-foot monumentation area.
For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the
modifications to the development plan per staff's recommendation; confirmed that there
was a supplemental traffic analysis provided for this project, relaying that the City's traffic
engineer reviewed the report, advising that this project would have no significant
negative impacts, providing additional information.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that the applicant did provide a
supplemental traffic study with current traffic counts regarding the mall's traffic, advising
that all of the intersections would be Ol:~erating at a LOS D, or better, with this project.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional
information regarding the extension of the boxed culvert, noting that the Cosco use
provided mitigation; and specified San Diego Water Quality Control Board's concern
regarding the soft-bottomed channel, recharge of the groundwater basin in this area, and
provision of habitat corridors.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Attorney Curley relayed that the site was posted regarding
this headng, noting the requirement for the noticing to provide a general identification of
the project and site.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Project Planner Naaseh provided additional information
regarding the additional landscape required proximate to the buildings, noting that this
landscape would most likely be proximate to the curb in order to allow for more growth.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed
that if the private road (proximate to the Cosco use) were utilized for Fire access, the
City would have control over the red zones.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that landscaping would be
required around the Rancho California Water District's (RCWD) well, noting that
installation of a wall was not discussed with the applicant.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding this project's linkage to
Planning Area 1, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that there was no linkage at this
location, advising that the applicant relayed that provision of this link would be an
economic hardship, and that there were constraints due to the vacant pad elevation
being ten feet higher; noted that there would be two linkages to Margarita Road, advising
that additional links to Overland Drive and alternate areas were beyond the scope of this
project; and relayed that at this time the sole type of signage proposed for this project
was channel-lettered signage, noting that there were awnings proposed in the project
with no plan to include signage on the awnings.
Commissioner Mathewson queried whether there was consideration to place an
additional building between Buildings J and K, in order to create a truly main street
frontage on both sides of the interior circulation to the loop. In response, Project Planner
Naaseh relayed that the applicant was reluctant to remove parking spaces due to the
anticipation to have numerous restaurant uses, advising that the applicant had additional
concerns re~ardincj obtainin~l financin~ for this type of site plan.
For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh presented the colored renderings for
this project; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted the access points to the buildings,
relaying that it was his understanding that there would not be much truck delivery traffic
at these uses.
Ms. Vandana Kelkar, representing the applicant, relayed alternate developments that the
applicant has designed in the City of Temecula (i.e., Winchester Marketplace,
Winchester Meadows); noted that the applicant has been working with staff on this
project for approximately eight months, advising that the applicant worked with varying
staff members; relayed that the applicant has worked on alternate pedestrian-oriented
projects (i.e., the Irvine Spectrum, Fashion Island); noted the site constraints of this
project; relayed that the landscaping far exceeded the requirements of the Specific Plan;
provided additional information regarding the architectural design (i.e., Mediterranean
style), noting the use of slate and stone, and the enhanced detailing which add the
Italian influence to the design elements; with respect to Condition No. 20 h. (regarding
the requirement for two five-foot planters to separate the walkway from the loop road),
noted the applicant's desire to have the sidewalk adjacent to the curb which would be
consistent with the remainder of the mall site, advising the same desire with respect to
Condition No. 25 p.; relayed that with respect to the EMWD well site, that the applicant
would prefer to screen this area with landscaping; with respect to queries regarding
Building F, noted that to add an additional building in this area would increase the traffic
counts and would additionally have a negative impact with respect to leasing.
The applicant's representative provided an overview of the potential type of tenants
which would occupy this project (i.e., specialty health food uses, home furnishing uses,
specialty restaurant uses); and for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that most of the
uses would occupy a 5,000-8,000 square-foot area, specifying that Building K was
approximately 20,000 square feet.
Mr. Mike Levin, representing the applicant, addressed the queries regarding the grade
adjacent to Margarita Road, noting that this site was located above the Margarita Road
grade, relaying that the applicant's intent was to place the berm or the three-foot wall
above the pad grade, noting that in some areas it would not be practical to create a berm
due to the elevated grade level; with respect to access to the buildings along Margarita
Road (i.e., Buildings F, G, H, and I), noted that these buildings would not have loading
docks, relaying that the accent road did have a full turn out, advising that it was not
anticipated that this area would have significant traffic flow; for Chairman Guerriero,
noted that there would be a fire lane in this location, confirming that parking would be
restricted; with respect to the channel on site, relayed the tremendous efforts with
respect to Cosco's provisions for mitigation associated with the channel; noted that there
would be a 20-foot vertical grade variance between this site and the opposite side of the
channel, noting the associated constraints with achieving pedestrian access with the
variance of height; relayed that the access points on the opposite side of the channel
R:PlanComm/minutes/010300 9
dictated the pad elevation above, noting that there were solely two allowable access
points to that parcel, advising that to make the access feasible, the elevation of those
access points needed to be maintained; noted that there is a pedestrian access along
the sidewalk along Margarita Road, and that there would be a sidewalk up the link road
between the Cosco use and this site; with respect to the ownership of the access read
between this project and Cosco, clarified that the ownership was split, and that this site
owned the area to the center line; with respect to landscaping along the well site,
specified the access points in this area, advising that RCWD desires to maintain those
access points; relayed that the screening at this location would be similar to the
screening at the Mimi's Restaurant use, noting the use of a chain-linked fence with
extensive landscaping, advising that the grade was approximately 2-3 feet higher than
the well site, noting the applicant's efforts to screen the Iow structures; and relayed that
RCWD's future plan was to revamp the entire well site, inclusive of re-landscaping the
area.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed his concern with people parking at the potential hotel-
type use and desiring to access the mall without walking out to Overland Drive, noting
that it would be feasible to place a ramped grade down the slope with a pedestrian
crossing over the rear of the project, noting that it was the original intent to have these
parcels linked. In response, Mr. Levin noted that there was an access drive that was cut
up the bank to the back of the potential hotel site which brought access to the common
road between the Cosco site and this site.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Levin relayed that the variance in the grade between
this site and the one across the channel varied from 10-20 feet.
Commissioner Telesio noted his concern with the lack of access for commercial delivery.
In response, Ms. Kelkar specified the access area, confirming that it did not continue;
and reiterated that the architectural style would be Mediterranean with Italian elements.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Bob Davis, traffic engineer for the applicant, noted that
the traffic analysis for this site was extensive regarding the manner in which this project
would fit within the overall Regional Mall Center Specific Plan; relayed that the total
traffic trip generation was compared on an EIR-wide basis (inclusive of ail the existing
and future development), noting the efforts of the applicant to ensure that the project
plan would be within the allotted trip generations for this site; provided additional
information regarding the potential Park and Ride facility within the Regional Mall
Specific Plan, noting that the transit provider did not desire to locate on site, relaying that
there was provision of bus turnouts around the perimeter; for Commissioner Chiniaeff,
confirmed that the traffic analysis was inclusive of the anticipated traffic generation from
the potential hotel use; for Chairman Guerriero, noted that he was unsure of the
rationale for RTD not desiring to locate on this site, noting that it would be feasible to
have the busses access from the external roadway into a special facility rather than
actually coming on site; in response to Commissioner Webster's queries, notbd that
based on ali the traffic analysis conducted in this area, that there would be a benefit to
constructing North General Kearny Road all the way to Nicolas Road, relaying that
volumes on a section of Winchester Road would decrease by 5,000-7,000 trips per day.
For Commissioner Webster, Ms. Kelkar specified that the percentage of the main street
concept provided on this site per the Specific Plan requirements which would equate to
three-four acres; in response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the
R;PlanComm/minut es/010300 10
requirement to have the blocks defined by a public grid system, specified the main street
elements; relayed that the uses for Planning Area 1 would be based on economic
viability; and noted that the applicant had not considered solar 'energy, or passive
heating elements, relaying that different types of glass could be utilized.
Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, representing himself, read into the record a letter he
had written dated January 3, 2001 (which was submitted to staff), outlining his concern
regarding unmitigated traffic in the City, requesting that a condition be added requiring
the applicant to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) of $1.00 per square foot which
could be utilized to aid in the funding of a public bus system, and a continued education
program; advised that he was opposed to the project plan, as proposed, due to the
negative cumulative traffic impacts; and relayed the additional traffic that would be
added to the City of Temecula with the development that has been approved at this
hearing previous to this Agenda Item.
For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero relayed that two years ago CEQA
added a subsection dealing with cumulative impacts.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Pratt relayed that there were appreximately 54,000
DMV licenses in the City of Temecula at this time; and in response to Commissioner
Chiniaeffs comments regarding the potential for residents to not utilize a mass bus
trensit system, recommended that solutions be sought.
In response to Mr. Pratt's comments, Commissioner Webster relayed the benefit to the
traffic circulation in the City if North General Kearny Road was connected, which was
recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council, but continued to fall on
deaf ears; recommended that this connection be placed on the 5-year CIP; with respect
to the Regional Mall Specific Plan's Mitigation Measures required to address the traffic
impacts, relayed that certain requirements have been ignored; noted that one of
Councilman Prett's campaign pledges was to sue the County if the impacts on the City
of Temecula were not addressed; recommended that Mr. Pratt sue the City in order to
enforce these specific Mitigation Measures designed to mitigate traffic impacts, noting
the violation of the law with respect to the disregard to these issues; and relayed that he
was looking to the City Council for aid in ensuring that these Mitigation Measures were
satisfied.
In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Pratt acknowledged that the North General
Kearny Road connection was a political issue; and relayed that he would not oppose any
ClP improvements for the east site of the 1-15, noting his opposition to improvements
designed to improve the industrial development on the opposite site of the freeway.
Commissioner Webster clarified that traffic issues have been addressed by the Planning
Commission, noting the need for the City Council to actively pursue these
recommendations, relaying that the Planning Commission's authority was limited.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, the applicant's representative provided
additional information regarding signage, noting that blade signage concepts could be
added; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that this site was under the maximum use
allowable for signage; and noted that the colors would be limited to five or six options per
the Specific Plan guidelines.
The Commission relayed closing comments, as follows:
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the architectural style was pleasing; noted his
concern regarding the visual aesthetics of the signage on the rear of the buildings; with
respect to the RCWD well site, concurred with the applicant that since this area was to
be revamped at a future point, it was not necessary to place a wall in this area; with
respect to the future buildings at the corner of North General Kearny Road/Overland
Drive, recommended that the review be processed at the Planning Commission level;
recommended that there be additional landscaping (i.e., trees) along the interior road of
the stores; recommended that the Fire zone curbs be painted red; with respect to the
crossing to the parcel at Overland Drive/Margarita Road, recommended that installation
of a pedestrian link be further considered at this time; with respect to the original intent of
the Specific Plan, noted the plan to include residential dwellings in Planning Area 1,
acknowledging the traffic impacts at this time which would restrict this element; and with
respect to Condition Nos. 20h., and 25p. (regarding the requirement for two five-foot
planters to separate the walkway from the loop road), relayed that he was not opposed
to the applicant's desire to place the sidewalk adjacent to the curb if staff was not
opposed to this revision.
Commissioner Mathewson concurred that in terms of architectural treatment, the
design of the project was commendable; noted that his concerns were based on how
this project relates to the Specific Plan, and the inadequate linkages to the surrounding
parcels, querying whether this project met the intent of the main street concept, as
described in the Specific Plan; noted that it would be his recommendation to place retail
on both sides of the internal circulation; relayed the lack of adequate pedestrian access
to Margarita Road; noted that the building mass, as well as, the proposed signage along
Margarita Road would not be visually pleasing, acknowledging that one of the four signs
design options would be more aesthetically appealing; and advised that he would be
reluctant to move forward with this project, noting the desire for the previously mentioned
recommendations to be further investigated.
Commissioner Webster concurred with continuing this project in order for the applicant
to investigate revisions, and to obtain additional information regarding the plans; relayed
that his concerns were regarding the following elements: the building layout, the parking
lot layout, the landscaping plan, and architecture; recommended that there be additional
efforts to incorporate the main street concept into this plan; noted his opposition to the
parking plan in Planning Area 3; relayed that this site was over-parked and that it would
be his recommendation that the applicant add a greater intensity of development on this
site in order to enhance the main street concept, as well as, linking this project with the
mall and the residential area across Margarita Road; with respect to the landscape plan,
recommended additional landscaping along the project border, noting that the landscape
plan was vague; with respect to the main street element, relayed that the parking in front
of the buildings was not consistent with this element, advising that there be either angled
parking on both sides or no parking at all; recommended that there be solely one
driveway access point from the mall link road, in lieu of three; with respect to
architecture, recommended that there be full architectural articulation, specifically at the
rear of the buildings on Margarita Road; and with respect to the Mitigation Measures
from the EIR, recommended that these issues be addressed, as well as, objectives
which were defined within the Specific Plan.
R:PlanComm/minutes/010300 12
Commissioner Telesio relayed that the architecture would provide an appearance of
sound quality; acknowledged the constraints regarding this particular parcel; concurred
with the applicant being requested to further investigate avenues to implement the main
street concept, reiterating the restrictions of the parcel; recommended that the applicant
consider implementing a back road to in order to provide for delivery functions; noted
concern with respect to the view of the project from Margarita Road, concurring with the
need for additional architectural treatment in this area; and concurred that this item
should be continued in order for the applicant to further investigate the
recommendations.
Recapitulating the comments of the Commission, Chairman Guerriero noted the
following concerns; the signage, the architectural elevations along the rear of the
buildings, the general layout, circulation, red curb paining, connection links between the
parcels, and the recommendation for the future parcel's approval process to be
conducted via the Planning Commission; and concurred with continuing this matter.
With respect to Condition No. 20a. and 25p. (regarding the requirement for two five-foot
planters to separate the walkway from the loop road), Chairman Guerriero, echoed by
Commissioner Telesio, noted his opposition to these conditions being revised.
Commissioner Chiniaeff raiayed that it would not be equitable to impose on the last
parcel to be developed, a more stringent, detailed review; noted the lack of linkages
provided by the alternate mail development; concurred that this project plan should be
improved, while acknowledging that this project could not mitigate for all the alternate
development's failings; with respect to Commissioner Webster's recommendation to link
this project to the residential area, acknowledged that this element was discussed early
in the mall development, relaying that to require this last development to provide this link
might be onerous; and noted that pedestrians were accessing the mall at this time.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments regarding pedestrians access the
mall, Commissioner Webster noted the dangers associated with walking through the
mall's interior loop road; clarified that he was not recommending an additional walkway
to link the project to the residential area, but solely provision of access at the existing
traffic lights; commented on the constraints of this parcel; relayed the issues that have
previously been mentioned but have not been addressed at the mall site with alternate
development plans (i.e., the fifty percent shade tree requirement in the parking lot behind
the Edwards Cinema use); and clarified that it was his desire to have the areas of
concern addressed prior to approval due to the lack of adherence to the requirements
with alternate projects in the mall area.
Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred that the applicant should address the pedestrian
issues recommended by Commissioner Mathewson by further clustering the buildings,
noting that this site plan could be reconfigured without adding additional traffic
generation, advising that this element would need to be balanced with the marketing
issues associated with the project, noting that the Planning Commission would not
desire to have negative leasing impacts imposed on the site; and concurred with the
recommendation for a continuance.
Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that in all the Village Centers in the City of
Temecula, not one truly met the exact intent of the General Plan, relaying the constraints
at various project sites; concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff that it would not be
R:PlanComm/minut®s/010300 13
equitable to burden the last parcel with the full intent of the Specific Plan; acknowledged
that this was a difficult site to develop, advising that to expect a grid pattern development
on this parcel would be unrealistic; regarding the unmet Mitigation Measures at the mall
site, specified that with respect to the Park and Ride facility, that the Specific Plan EIR
did not specify the timing, or the size of the facility, clarifying that staff was working with
Forest City regarding this matter; and requested the Planning Commission to review this
project with the balance of the economic and physical constraints that the applicant
needed to address with this site.
Commissioner Mathewson acknowledged that the elements of the Specific Plan would
not be met one hundred 'percent (i.e., a grid pattern), acknowledging the site
constraints; and recommended that the applicant improve the clustering aspects of the
configuration of the buildings.
Mr. Schultz, representing the applicant, noted the applicant's diligent efforts to work with
staffl and specifically, Deputy City Manager Thornhill in order to attempt to implement
· the Village concept as much as was feasible at this site; provided information regarding
the financial restrictions with respect to implementing an office element above the retail,
· S
and implementation of residential dwellings; noted the appl cant quality project at the
Winchester Marketplace which was still owned by the applicant; provided additional
information regarding alternate projects that the applicant has developed; advised that
this particular project was designed as a high quality development; and noted concern
with the feasibility of further retrofitting this site plan.
For Chairman Guerriero, Ms. Kelkar noted the articulation at the rear of the buildings,
relaying that this project would be consistent with alternate mall projects.
Mr. Schultz relayed that the two-story look element was designed to create a Village
Center ambience, as well as, the walkways, and alternate hardscape elements (i.e.,
fountains).
Commissioner Mathewson queried the financing restrictions associatedwith
implementing the Village Center concept, relaying that there were numerous examples
of this element in current planning magazines. In response, Mr. Schultz relayed that at
this site the concept was not feasible, noting that if the two buildings faced each other
the access to the front of the alternate building would be blocked which would lower the
rent capacity at this location, subsequently affecting the financing.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding a U-shaped configuration,
Mr. Schultz relayed that the large pavilion area was a focal point in attempting to
implement the Village Concept.
Ms. Kelkar clarified that if the parcel was deeper, it would have been feasible to place
the parking at the rear of the site.
Mr. Schultz noted that to make major revisions, the ambience of the center would be
lost, clarifying that if the lot had additional depth the U-shaped configuration would have
been feasible.
Ms. Kelkar relayed that the larger uses would desire to have parking in front of these
buildings. In response, Commissioner Mathewson recommended having smaller uses
with parking in the rear. in response, Mr. Schultz relayed that reducing the size of the
larger uses would restrict the type of specialty uses that could potentially occupy this
center.
Chairman Guerriero, echoed by Commissioner Mathewson, noted that this was a
good project, which would be greatly improved with the mentioned revisions.
Director of Planning Ubnoske recommended that the Commission appoint a Planning
Commissioner to work with staff regarding this project. Commissioner Chiniaeff offered
to serve in this manner.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this matter to the January 31,
2001 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Guerriem seconded the motion and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that
staff was still addressing issues at the mall, noting that she would obtain
additional information regarding the lack of trees behind the Edwards Cinema
use and provide an update at a future point in time.
Chairman Guerriero noted that the concrete bolsters at the Cosco use have been
sitting on the loading dock at this use, and still have not been installed.
For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided an overview
of the difficulty staff has in enforcing adherence to the conditions on a project
after the opening of the use; and relayed certain scenarios regarding the
pressure to have these uses open on their scheduled date.
Commissioner Mathewson suggested that a Planning Commissioner visit these
uses (i.e., the Cosco site) to address the unmet requirements.
Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding effective avenues to
address these unmet conditions, recommending that the applicant be required to
complete a task by a date certain; and clarified that unless these issues are
related to safety, the courts would not be inclined to shut down a business to
have conditions met.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske specified the sites still
to be developed at the mall. Commissioner Chiniaeff commented on Forest City
addressing the previously mentioned Mitigation Measures. Director of Planning
Ubnoske relayed the discussions staff has had with the applicant regarding the
Park and Ride facility.
For Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the
Roripaugh Project would be presented at the Joint City Council/Planning
Commission Workshop on January 16, 2001. Commissioner Webster reminded
staff that he would be absent on that date, advising that he would be abstaining
with respect to the Rodpaugh matter.
R:Plan Corn m/minutes~ 10300 1 5
For Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that when
additional information was obtained regarding the Planner's Institute Conference,
the Commission would be notified; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted that
she would address the AP^ Conference with Deputy City Manager Thornhill and
report back.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT,
A. Director of Planning Ubnoske introduced Mr. Don Hazen, the Planning
Department's newly hired Senior Planner.
Senior Planner Hazen provided an overview of his planning background, work
history, and diversified experience.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:34 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the Joint City
Council/Planning Commission Workshop which would be held on~
16, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers; the next reflular meeting to be
held on Wednesday, January t7, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R:PlanCom m/rnin~tes/010300 16
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 7, 2001
Planning Application No. 00-0452 (Third Extension of Time)
Prepared by: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-._
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0452 A THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT 25004
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Yogesh Goradia
REPRESENTATIVE:
Yogesh Goradia
PROPOSAL:
Third Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25004.
LOCATION:
North of Nicolas Road, east of Seraphina Road and south of
Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
(LM) Low Medium Density
SURROUNDING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
North: (LM) Low Medium
South: (VL) Very Low
East: (VL) Very Low
West: (LM) Low Medium
(LM) Low Medium
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Vacant
South: Residential
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
R:\E O T~00-0452 VTTM 25004\Staff Report.doc
1
BACKGROUND
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25004 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on
November 13, 1990 and had an expiration date of November 13, 1992. At that time the applicant
requested a 3-year extension due to the fact that the applicant had expended more than
$125,000.00 in off site improvements and the Subdivision Map Act provided for such extension.
This time extension extended the approval of the tentative map to November 13, 1995. During this
time frame, Assembly Bill GC66452.11 provided an additional two year extension, which gave the
map an automatic extension until November 13,1997. Additionally, Assembly Bill GC 66452.13
provided another 12 month extension until November 13,1998. On October 26,1998 the first
extension was submitted, approving the map until November 13, 1999. A second extension of time
was then filed, giving the map another 12 months until November 13, 2000.
A formal application was submitted to the Planning Department on November 2, 2000 for the third
extension of time. The Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting for this current request
was held on January 4, 2001 and resulted in no additional conditions from the Fire Department or
Planning Department. The PublicWorks Department reviewed the previous conditions of approval
and determined that the previous studies and conditions for the map were still valid. The
application was deemed complete on February 14, 2001.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal for a third extension of time for the second and third phase of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 25004. The first phase of this tract has been developed as single family
homes, leaving the remaining phases, with 33 undeveloped lots, totaling 11.5 acres. The project is
located nodh of Nicolas Road and east of Seraphina Road. Primary access for the site will be
taken from Nicolas Road with a condition for a secondary access to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Negative Declaration was adopted for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25004. According to the
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162, a subsequent Negative Declaration is not required if the
following conditions do not exist:
Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the
previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect.
The applicant is only proposing an extension of time for an approved vesting tentative
tract map. During the preparation of the negative declaration, the potential impacts of
this use were reviewed. The applicant is not proposing to change the use and therefore
no significant adverse impacts are anticipated which would warrant a revised negative
declaration.
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declarations due to
involvement of new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant impacts.
The circumstances that existed at the time of the negative declaration preparation have
not changed significantly. The development that has occurred in the vicinity of the
project is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan.
R:\E 0 T~00-0452 VTTM 25004\Staff Report.doc
New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted, is
present.
The project has no significant effects that weren't discussed in the previous negative
declaration. No new mitigation measures are proposed for the project.
Based on the previous discussion, it has been found that the project will require no further
environmental review pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Low Medium. Existing zoning for the site is
also Low Medium. A variety of residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within this
zone as per Table 17.06.030 the City of Temecula's Development Code. The project as proposed,
meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with the General Plan and the Development
Code.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all applicable City Ordinances,
standards, guidelines, and policies. It is sta~s opinion that the project is compatible with
surrounding developments in terms of design and quality.
R:\E O T'~00-0452 v'r'rM 25004\Staff Report.doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
APPROVING PA00-0452
EXTENSION OF TIME
R:\E O ~00-0452 VTTM 25004~Staff Report.doc
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0452, A THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 25004
WHEREAS, Yogesh Goradia, filed Planning Application No. 00-0452, in a manner in accord
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0452 was processed including, but not limited to a
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. 00-0452 on March 7, 2001 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 testif7 either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0452 subject to the
conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 00-0452 conformed to
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
00-0452 (Extension of Time) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16,09,180
of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed extension of time is consistent with the General Plan and the
applicable sections of the Development Code.
B. The nature of the proposed extension of time is not detrimental to the health, safety,
and general welfare of the community.
C. The decision to conditionally approve the application for an extension of time is
based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or
City Council on appeal.
D. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for
(LM) Low Medium development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The site is therefore
properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of the
residential development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes.
R:\E O T~00-0452 V'CI'M 25004\Staff Report.doc
5
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A negative declaration has previously been
prepared and approved by the Planning Commission. Whereas the conditions under which the
negative declaration were prepared have not changed substantially, pursuant to Article 11, Section
15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, no further environmental review is
required for the proposed project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0452, for an extension of time request for a
vesting tentative tract map located north of Nicolas Road and east of Seraphina Road, Assessor's
Parcel No. 914-260-015, 016, 020, and 021 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 7th day of March 2001.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of March,
2001, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\E O T~00-0452 VTTM 25004\Staff Report.doc
6
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA00-0452 EXTENSION OF TIME
R:\E O "~00-0452 VTTM 25004\Staff Report.doc
7
CITY OF TEMECULA
Planning Application No.
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA00-0452 (Third Extension of Time)
A One Year Extension of Time Request for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 25004 a 79 lot residential subdivision located
northerly of Nicholas Road and east of Seraphina Road.
914-260-015, 016, 020, and O21
March 7, 2001
November 13, 2000
November 13, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
General Requirements
1. Tentative Tract Map 25004 has been extended for one year. This map will expire on November
13,2001, unless extended under the provisions established in Ordinance 460. An Extension of
Time may be requested in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written
request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
2. The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 25004 previously applied including but not limited to the original Conditions of
Approval dated November 13, 1990, the Conditions of Approval for the first extension of time,
approved February 4, 1999, and/or others unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
3. 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, judgments, 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.
4. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to
all the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance unless modified by the conditions listed
below.
5. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
6. Subdivision phasing shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing
shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
R:\E O T~00-0452 VTTM 25004\Staff Report.doc
8
7. The final map shall conform substantially to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25004 last revised
December 1998 and received by the City on November 12, 1999.
Department of Public Works
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
Unless stated otherwise, the Developer at no cost to any Govemment Agency shall complete all
conditions.
8. Conditions of Approval No. 37 from the first extension of time, approved on February 4, 1999,
shall be modified to read as follows:
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
9. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews
building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code
(CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes that are in force at the time of building
plan submittal.
10. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division
per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water
system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour
duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted dudng the approval process to reflect changes
in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as
provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
11. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located
on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500
feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire
Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from
any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
12. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-
sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. 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)
16. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-
R:\E O T~00-0452 VTTM 25004\Staff Report.doc
9
four (24) feet and an unobstructed vedical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)
inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
17. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
18. 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)
19. 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 local
water company signs the plans, 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)
20. 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)
21. Firefighting personnel shall provide all manual and electronic gates on required Fire
Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access with the Knox
Rapid entry system for emergency access. (CFC 902.4)
Special Conditions
22. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wild land-
vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A)
23. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review 'and approval. The measures shall
include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block
walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix IF-A)
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
24. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall file an application with the TCSD to
initiate property owner election proceedings for the dedication and annexation of perimeter
slopes and residential street lighting into the respective TCSD maintenance programs.
I have read, understand, and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant's Signature
Print Name
Date
R:\E O 'R00-0452 VTTM 25004\Staff Report.doc
10
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:\E O T~00-0452 VTTM 25004\Staff Report.doc
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NOS. - PA00-0452
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- March 7, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R:\E O '1~00-0452 VTTM 25004\Staff Report.doc
12
CiTY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LOW MEDIUM (LM)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION -LOW MEDIUM (LM)
CASE NOS. - PA00-0452
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
R:\E O T~00-0452 V'rTM 25004\Staff Report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA00-0452
EXHIBIT-B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
R:\E O T~00-0452 VTq'M 25004\Staff Report.doc
13
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 7, 2001
Planning Application No. 00-0427
(Development Plan)
Prepared By: Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-
0427 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0427 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF TVVO ADJOINING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING ON LOT 6
TOTALING 18,787 SQUARE FEET ON 1.08 ACRES, AND THE
BUILDING ON LOT 7 TOTALING 16,381 SQUARE FEET ON 1.01
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WINCHESTER
ROAD, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO'S. 909-310-006 (LOT 6) & 909-310-007 (LOT 7).
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Davcon Development Inc., c/o David Wakefield, 42389
Winchester Rd., Ste. B, Temecula, CA 92590
The design and construction of two adjoining industrial
buildings on two separate lots with the building on lot 6
totaling 18,787 square feet on 1.08 acres, and the building on
lot 7 totaling 16,381 square feet on 1.01 acres.
On the south side of the Winchester Road west of Diaz Road
across from Rancho California Water Distdct (RCWD) [APN
909-310-006 (Lot 6) & 909-310-007 (Lot 7)].
BP (Business Park)
R:~D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
1
EXISTING ZONING:
LI (Light Industrial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS
Lot 6:
Total Area:
Total Building Area:
Total Building Footprints:
Hardscape:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Lot 7:
Parking Provided:
Total Area:
Total Building Area:
Total Building Footprints:
Hardscape:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
North:
South:
East:
West:
PI (Public Institutional)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
Vacant
North: Rancho Califomia Water Distdct Offices
South: Industrial Building
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
47,045 square feet 1.08 acres
18,787 square feet 0.399 FAR
16,430 square feet 34.9%
487 square feet 1.0%
9,785 square feet 20.8%
20,343 square feet 43.3%
Office 4,714 square feet (1:300) 16 spaces
Manufacturing 1,200 square feet (1:400) 3 spaces
Warehouse 12,783 square feet (1:1000) 13 spaces
32 spaces
32 spaces
43,996 square feet 1.01acres
16,381 square feet 0.374 FAR
16,381 square feet 45.5%
650 square feet 1.5%
8,931 square feet 20.3%
18,034 square feet 41.0%
Office 4,218 square feet (1:300) 15 spaces
Manufacturing 2,400 square feet (1:400) 6 spaces
Warehouse 9,763 square feet (1:1000) 10 spaces
31 spaces
32 spaces
BACKGROUND
The applicant began working with the City late last year when they submitted a formal application to
the Planning Department on October 19, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was
held on November 30, 2000, with follow up reviews completed in February. The project was
deemed complete on February 20, 2001.
R:XD 1:~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to design and construct two adjoining industrial
buildings on two separate lots with the building on lot 6 totaling 18,787 square feet on 1.08 acres
and the building on lot 7 totaling 16,381 square feet on 1.01 acres. Accel Connectors Inc., and
Gentek Electronics, electronic component distributors, intend to occupy these buildings. Neither
business involves any manufacturing.
ANALYSIS
Site Desi.qn and Circulation
The site encompasses two lots totaling 2.09 acres located on the south side of Winchester Road.
Both buildings abut the interior common property line and as designed, appear more as one building
with entries on opposite sides. With the buildings in the center of the site, there will be two access
points off of Winchester Road and cimulation will be around the perimeter of the buildings. At the
sides of the building near the rear, there will be a depressed truck well for each building facing
Winchester Road. Deliveries to each building will be dependent upon access across each other's
property. To assure that this is maintained, staff has added a condition of approval requiring that a
reciprocal access agreement be recorded pdor to issuance of a building permit. Parking is provided
along the street frontage, the side property lines, and along the rear of the property.
Staff had requested that the loading docks be relocated to the rear of the building, but the applicant
believes that they can be screened adequately and will not be a nuisance. The location of the
docks, on the side elevations near the back end of the building, is the preferred location under the
Development Code and the City's Design Guidelines if they can be screened and kept away from
public view. The docks are appreximately 140 feet back from the front of the buildings and 200 feet
from the street. With depressed loading docks, shorter, eight foot, rollup doors can be utilized. The
dock are also be screened by the perimeter and parking lot landscaping, as will the planter provided
alongside the truck wells. Based on the placement of the docks and the landscape screening the
docks should only be visible through a narrow view corridor from the driveways into the site.
Parkinq Analysis
Based on the City's parking standards for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, there will be a
minimum of 32 parking spaces for lot 6 and 31 parking spaces for lot 7. As designed, the applicant
is proposing 32 vehicle parking spaces on each lot.
Architecture & Colors
The proposed buildings will be constructed of tilt-up concrete with minor relief accents. Architectural
accenting will be provided at both entdes in the form of a projected fascia around both comers
supported with three columns. The face of the building will be primarily finished in a warm white with
light gray-green accenting in varying locations to highlight the windows and concrete patterns.
Some sandblast finish will be provided on the columns and the front entry projections. The windows
on the front and side elevations will have blue-green glazing and silver anodized aluminum frames.
Vaded parapet heights have been provided to break up some of the linear length of the building.
Some additional relief has been added to the east elevation in the form of contoured relief mimicking
the side windows. Staff has added a condition requiring that this element be added to additional
locations on the west and south elevation to further enhance the building beyond the paint colors.
R:~D P~.000\00-0427 AcceI-C-entek\Staff report, doc
3
Landscapin.q
As required by code, at least twenty percent of each parcel (20.8% and 20.3%), excluding the right-
of-way, will be landscaped. The largest percentage of landscaping will be along the street frontage.
Along Winchester Road the street tree will be 24 inch box London Plane Tree (Platanus Acerifolia)
with 15 gallon Chinese Pistache (Pistacia Chinensis) accenting the parking lot. Along the front
elevation will be a mix of Purple leaf Plums and Canary Island Pines. Around the perimeter of the
property are a mix of trees and shrubs that will provide accent color and screening of the parking
areas. Along the rear of the site is a 12 foot landscape buffer. Staff believes that this landscaping
will go unnoticed and would be better incorporated along the Winchester Road frontage. To achieve
this staff has included a condition of approval to move seven feet of the rear landscaping to the front
of the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based
upon staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section
15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons:
· The sites are 2.09 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
· The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area.
· The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
· The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
· The buildings building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations
for the site.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Business Park (BP). Existing zoning for the
site is LI (Light Industrial). A variety of industrial uses are permitted within this zone, with the
approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project
as proposed, meets all minimum standards of, and is consistent with, the General Plan,
Development Code and the Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards
and guidelines. We believe, given the additional conditions placed on the project, it is compatible
with the types of uses and quality of surrounding development, and will represent an aesthetic
addition to the City's industrial area.
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposal, two industrial buildings, is consistent with the land use policies of the
Business Park (BP) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General Plan,
as well as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the City's
Development Code. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is
physically suitable for the type and density of industrial development proposed. The project,
as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local
ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide
Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water
Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes.
R:~D FA2000\00,.0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
4
The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other
associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and
safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as
conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines,
standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and
function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Exhibits - Blue Page 21
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Site Plan
E. Elevation
F. Landscape Plan
Exhibits Statements of Operation - Blue Page 27
R:~) P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:~D P~000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0427 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADJOINING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING ON LOT 6
TOTALING 18,787 SQUARE FEET ON 1.08 ACRES, AND THE
BUILDING ON LOT 7 TOTALING 16,381 SQUARE FEET ON 1.01
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WINCHESTER
ROAD, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR°S
PARCEL NO'S. 909-310-006 (LOT 6) & 909-310-007 (LOT 7).
WHEREAS, Davcon Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. 00-0427, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0427 was processed including, but not limited to
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 00-0427 on
March 7, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0427;
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. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-
0427 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
A. The proposal, two industrial buildings, is consistent with the land use policies of the
Business Park (BP) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General Plan, as well
as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the City's Development Code.
The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and
density of industrial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting
Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes.
B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and
other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety
of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has
been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations
intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare.
R:~D P~2000~00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
7
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-
0427 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following
criteria:
· The sites are 2.09 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
· The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area.
· The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
· The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
· The buildings building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan
designations for the site.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0427 for a Development Plan to build two
adjoining industrial building on two separate lots with the building on lot 6 totaling 18,787 square feet
on 1.08 acres, and the building on lot 7 totaling 16,381 square feet on 1.01 acres on the south side
of the Winchester Road, west of Diaz Road, and known as Assessor Parcel No's. 909-310-006 (Lot
6) & 909-310-007 (Lot 7). The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 7th day of March 2001.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
City of Temecula
)
) ss
)
i, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted bythe Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a reguiar meeting thereof held on the 7 day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMiSSiONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:'~D P~2000\00..0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CITYOF TEMECULA -
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
The design and construction of t~vo adjoining industrial
building on two separate lots with the building on lot 6
totaling 18,787 square feet on 1.08 acres, and the
building on lot 7 totaling 16,381 square feet on 1.01
acres, located on the south side of the Winchester Road,
west of Diaz Road.
DIF Category:
Business Park/Industrial
Assessor Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
909-310-006 (Lot 6) & 909-310-007 (Lot 7)
March 7, 2001
March 7, 2003
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 permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all
claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary
damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters
of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167).
The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the
action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional
deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions
of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly
notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify,
defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
R:~D F52000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
10
officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit,
the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; othe~vise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year pedod which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D"
(Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division. Additionally, the following cdteria must be met pdor to development of the project:
a, All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they are
not placed in prominent locations visible to the public.
b. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and
electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the
double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies.
c. The site plan shall be modified to bring seven feet of the rear landscape buffer to the
front of the site along Winchester Road.
Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining preperty or public rights-of-way. Details of these lights shall be submitted to
the Planning Department dudng plan check for review pdor to installation.
All parking lot lights and other extedor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted
to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the
requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building
Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division.
a. Additional accenting relief shall be added to the upper portions of the side
elevations. This accenting shall break up the long blank surfaces of each building.
b. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements
that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When
determined to be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to
provide for this screening.
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Landscape Plan).
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bdng 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, Additionally, the following cdteda must be met prior to development of
the project:
a. Replace the three Pyrus Calleryana and the Prunus Cerasifera along the south
property line parking row with broad canopy trees.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
approved colors and materials and with the Color and Matedal Board contained on file with
the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the
approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning.
R:~D P'~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
11
Matedal
Windows, doors
Exterior walls:
Wall face
Columns
Accent Band
Finish & Color
Silver anodized frames with blue-green glazing
White Shadow 181 (warm white)
Sandblasted concrete
Light Grey-green
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
10. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
bythe Community Development Department- Planning Division staff, and retum one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
11. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
12. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E & F", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, Color
and Material Board) to reflect the final Conditions of Approval and submit five (5) full size
copies.
13. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photogrephic color pdnts of the approved Color
and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored
architecturel 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 pdnts.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
15. 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"F", 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 greding 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).
16. A reciprocal access agreement between lots 6 and 7 shall be recorded upon the deeds of
both properties and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Director of
Planning.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
17. Ail required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
R:~D P~2.000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report, doc
12
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be propedy constructed and in good working order.
18. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, 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
Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant.
19. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectodzed 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 are 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, cleady 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.
20. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with pdor to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing
and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
21. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works pdor to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street fight-of-way.
22. Afl Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works pdor to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
23. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
24. 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 preperbj.
R:~D P~.000\00-0427 Accet-Gent~k\Staff report.doc
13
25. The Developer shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or pdvate
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
29. 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.
30. 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
c. Southern California Edison
31. 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.
32. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
33. 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.
34. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct 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.
35. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may
include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit
shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
R:~D FA2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
14
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
36. 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 ^.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207^.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Drawings Nos. 800,801,802, and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402.
e. All street and ddveway centeriine intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. 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.
g. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
37. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
38. The Developer shall obtain an easement for reciprocal ingress and egress over the adjacent
property.
39. 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.
40. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to
the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass
Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
41. 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. Department of Public Works
42. All public improvements, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
43. 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.
R:~) P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
15
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
44. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
Califomia Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
Califomia Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
45. Submit at time of plan review, a complete extedor site lighting plan showing compliance with
Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights 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.
46. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals pdor to commencement of any construction
work.
47. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of
any construction or inspections.
48. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building(s) 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). Provide precise grading plan for plan check
submittal to check for handicap accessibility
All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998.
Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the
main entries in accordance with California building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan
as requested above which indicates compliance with this.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and
structural calculations submitted for plan review.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire
alarm systems and exterior lighting.
Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed
by an appropriate registered professional.
Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
R:~) P~2000~00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
16
58.
59.
Rest~-oom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the previsions of the
1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29.
Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site
disabled accessibility.
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.
60. 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
Califomia Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
61. 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 1500 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a
total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 3 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
62. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-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) shall be located on Fire Department access reads and adjacent public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located
no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s)
frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s)
in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2,
and Appendix Ill-B)
63. ^s required by the Califomia Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the
extedor of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2)
64. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
65. 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 reads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
66. 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 extedor 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)
R:~D FA2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
17
67. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6)inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
68. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
69. 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 tumareund capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
70. Pdor 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)
71. Pdor 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 pdor 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)
72. Pdor 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)
73. Pdor to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a
contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
74. Pdor to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
75. Pdor to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10)
76. Pdor 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. (CFC 902.4)
77. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
78. Pdor to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
R:~D FA2000\00-0427 Accet-Gentek\Staff report.doc
18
79. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Aiticle 81)
80. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both
the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
Special Conditions
81. Pdor to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and
to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life
safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA- 13, 24, 72 and 231-C.
82. Pdor to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention
for approval.
83. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
84. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Matedal
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
85.
Pdor to issuance of building permits or installation of street lights, whichever comes first,
the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees
related to the transfer of said street lights into the TCSD maintenance program.
OTHER AGENCIES
86. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated November 3, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
87. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated November 7, 2000, a copy of which
is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
R:~D F~2.000\00-0427 Accet-Gentek\Staff repo~doc
19
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Planning Commission approval.
Applicant's Signature
Name pdnted
Date
R:~D P',2000~00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
20
~ November3,2000 I]!! NtlV 0 a 2000
Thomas Thomsley, Case Planner
City. of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY
PARCELS NO. 6 AND NO. ? OF PARCEL MAP NO. 21383
APN 909-310-006 AND APN 909-310-007
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0427
Dear Mr. Thomsley:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements (including
all in-tract facilities) between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Bram~on, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
00~SB:at218~F012-T6\FCF
CObNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTI-
November 7, 2000
Ci.ty of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Pict Plan No. PA00-0427
Dear Thomas Thornsley:
NOV 1 ~ 2OOO
By.
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0427 and has no objections.
Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this m-ea.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) A clearance letter fi-om the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance//615.3.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2.
· Waste Reduction Management
3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection).
Sincerely,
' Specialist
Sam Mani..~,.,o~v~.,~..s~nvironmental Health
SM:dr
(909) 955-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
Cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
Standard 3b {cily~. doc
~cal Enforcement Agency * PO. Box i280. Riverside. CA 92502-1280 * {909) 955-8982 * FAX {909) 781-9653 * 4080 Lemoh Street, 9th Floor, Riverside. CA 92501
md Use and Water Engineering * PO. Box 1206, Riverside. CA 92502-1206 * (909} 955-8980 * FAX {909) 955-8903 * aOSO l.emnn Sero~t ~nd F3t~r Riwo~ido ~'A qgrn~~,
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~D P~2000\00-0427 AcceloGentek\Staff report.doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
Project Site
~V-EE~N D E
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R:\D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff reporLdoc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
'
EXHIBIT B ZONING MAP
:)ESIGNATION - LI (Light Industrial)
~::::::::~::~,...~i~:.::! .......... ~~oooooo~oooo~'~.~ .............................. . ...
..=...,. ...... ooooooooooooooooo
. ~.:... :¢.:.:....-.... - ...:.:.:.:.:.:... - ~..'.'..:.~ ~.:::.':~.~.:.: .............. -.........-....
?:c,;:.,'-, .,~,...~'.::,::?: ::::::Sx~',. :~::..:~";~'":':,:;~:',~}'",:'::'-':~'. '::;:'.~,~.,~. ,~':"':~'~:~.:"~!~:[,',,:~ii '::':~'''' :".'.'?:'::':'::'.: :" ~.:.:.:.:.:-:..':";::'"'~':~;5 ' · ~::::::::::;..:~:~;":::":'.':-> ~':'::. :,'::':
~':'?:','~:::::-~: ..... ;~:~:~'..'" :::':::.;"~,'"-'~i=- ...... :"..!,':,'r;r.', ~,v,'.'z,'r:rr.',v~,r:r: .............. ....;;;;;::::.~;v,;',:'.:;;'.' ~...-.v,;;;;';
?:..:.:~.:.:..-.:.:..'.:.~ .... -.:,.:::.-.-.-:.w:~:~:~:-. :. ~.:.';::~.~"~.'.~:~=:,;:;;-.::::: :~..'.:c:..'.:c ~. ~.......-.:-.:..:..:....-:..::..::... ='.:'..~i:.:~:i:::..:.:.':~-.?:;~
.................... .:~.,. _~ .._..:.~..;:,:~: ................. ...,,.:::::: .,::..:::~:::., ............. ..,,,,,,:.... , ..................................
._.,., .......................... ,._ ..................... ..........,,..,,::,, ............... ~, .............. ,,:,,. ...........................~~ ....... .
..:..:5:::::.~: ................... :~:..: .................. :.::..: ..::~:.-:~:~:~;; ..................... ~:..~:.-:.-.-~ ..:~.::,.. . ............. .::=.= ~.:...:... .~::. ~:::: .:. ........................
~!~:::~:.'..:..::,.~~::?.::::- ........ :`~::.~.~:.~.`:~:`~(f::`~``~i::~``~::`.:~:`:~:..~.;`````.`.:.:~;~;"~..(~m;.``.~::~:`.~<.:<.::~<~' ..;.:~:::....~..:.':'-' '.:;:.?.:.'...'.?' .:'.;:.':~ ~....~....-..-;.-f. .'.'.~'.-.':~.:.:~.....'::.....'
EXHIBIT C GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - LI (Li[tht Industrial)
PLANNING A~PLICATION NO. 00-0427 {D~¥~lopment ~lan}
~LANNING ~O~ISSION DATE - March ?, ~001
R:~ FA2000\00-0427 Ac~eI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
Lo
I
VVINCH~.~ i cR ROAD
PROPOSED 5JILDING 7
PROPOSED BUILDING 6
(1t1')
I
tc
40'
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
SiTE PLAN
R:~D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report, doc
24
CITY OFTEMECULA
EAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -March 7, 2001
ELEVATIONS
R:~D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PAD = 23.75
F.F. = 24.50
PHASE II
PAR. 7
PAD = 23.75
F.F. = 24.50
PHASE I
PAR. 6
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
LANDSCAPE
R:\D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
26
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STATEMENTS OF OPERATION
-- R:~D P~.000\00~0427 A'cceI-Gen~k\Staff report.doc
27
09/20/00 WF, I) 15:33 FA~ 9_0_9. 5~'"._0.225 GI~*I'~U. EL~CTRONICS ~001
GENTEK ELECTRONICS
27941 DIAZ RD. STE. A'
TEMECULA, CA. 92590
PH: 909-587-0220
Attention: Temecula City Planning Department
Davcon Development Inc.
"STATEMENT of OPERATIONS"
Gentek Electronics:
Is an Independent Electronic Component Distributor
Currently we have five employees and project to have up
to fifteen people in our employ.
Our primary sales are telephone generated. We sell to national
and international accounts.
Thc shipping orders are comprised of: 90% via UPS & Fedex
approximately 10% of our orders are will call.
The volume of traffic at our site will be relatively low
compared to other facilities of our size, due to the nature
of our wholesale business and the amount of employees.
Gentek Electronics is not a manufacturing plant and we do
not handle or process hazardous waste.
Our business hours are: 7:00 am-5:00 pm Mort-Friday.
If further information Js required please contact:
· Phil Lcwb, owner of Gentak Electreuics
* Pl~: 909587..0220
Data:09-20-00
ACCEL CONNECTOr, S INC
September 26, 2000
Statement of Operations
Accel Connectors, Inc., hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8 A.M. to
5 P.M. We currently have eight employees. We require at least 10 parking
places. The number of daily trips is standard. Our use is the warehousing of
electronic components, primarily industrial connectors, for aerospace and the
military. A forklift is used in our warehouse operations. No hazardous materials
are used.
Ed King,
77~0 Mm~erm~ ,qtreet. .quite 108. Torrance, CA 90503 (310) 78ACCEL (310) 782-2235 FAX: (310) 782-2245