HomeMy WebLinkAbout032801 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 houm 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
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
MARCH 28, 200'1 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2001-008
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Chiniaeff
Roll Call:
Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary 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.
A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 28, 2001.
R:~LANCOMM~Agendas~2001~3-28-01 .doc
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 17 2001
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3 Director's Hearin,q Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and File
4 Plann n.q Application 00-0202 (Helium Balloon Ordinance Amendment) - Dave Ho.qan.
Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide direction on the items to be
included in any amendment to the Helium Balloon regulations.
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.
5 Plannin.q Application 00-0427 (Development Plan) Davcon Development Inc. to desi.qn and
construct two adioinin.q industrial bui d nqs on two separate lots with the buildin.q on lot
totalinR 18,787 square feet on 1.08 acres, and the buildinR on lot 7 totalinR 16,381 squa~'~,
feet on 1.01 acres located on the south side of the Winchester Road west of Diaz Roa, I
across from Rancho California Water District (RCWD) (APN 909-310-006 (Lot 6) & 909-310
007 (Lot 7)1. - Thomas Thornsle¥, Associate Planner - Continued from March 28,
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 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~2001~3-28-01 .doc 2
7
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. 00-0427 - 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 t6,38t 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).
Plannin.q Application No. 00-0417 (Development Plan) Margarita Medical Condo
Development, LLC, c/o Edward Anderson, to design, construct and operate two medical
office buildings, with three suites in each, totalin.q 13,257 square feet of floor space, (Bldg.
"A" with 5,987 square feet and Bldg. "B" with 7,270 square feet) on a 1.5 acre lot located on
the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road. - Thomas
Thornsle¥, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0417 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-04t7 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF TWO MEDICAL
OFFICE BUILDINGS ON t.5 ACRES WITH BUILDING "A"
HAVING 5,987 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" HAVING
7,270 SQUARE FEET, TOTALING 13,257 SQUARE FEET,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 92t-090-087.
Plannin,q Application No. 00-0448 (Development Plan) Davcon Development Inc., to design
and construct two adjoining commercial buildinqs on two separate lots with the buildin,q on
Lot 3 totaling 29,186 square feet on 1.66 acres, and the building on Lot 4 totalin,q 29,186
square feet on 1.71 acres located on the eastside of Madison Ave where Madison Ave "I'"
intersects with Sanborn Rd. - Thomas Thornsle¥, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0448 pursuant to Section
15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 ~3-28-01 .doc
3
7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-0448 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADJOINING COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING
ON LOT 3 TOTALING 29,186 SQUARE FEET ON 1.66 ACRES,
AND THE BUILDING ON LOT 4 TOTALING 29,186 SQUARE
FEET ON 1.7t ACRES, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
MADISON AVENUE WHERE MADISON AVENUE "T"
INTERSECTS WITH SANBORN ROAD, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 910-272-005 (LOT 3) & 910-272-
006 (LOT 4).
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next Regular Meeting:
No Items Scheduled for April 4, 2001
April 18, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R:\pLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 ~3-28-01 .doc 4
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY '17, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M.,
on Wednesday January 17, 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 Commissioner Chiniaeff.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster,
and Chairman Guerriero.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Redevelopment Director Meyer,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Development Services Administrator McCarthy,
Attorney Diaz,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Anders,
Assistant Planner Preisendanz,
Project Planner Naaseh, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ms. Margaret Whiston, 43166 Camino Casillos, noted the need for senior housing in the
City of Temecula, querying what she could do to help in the process of the City
developing housing for seniors.
In response to Ms. Whiston, Chairman Guerriero noted that staff could direct her to the
appropriate sources.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was noted that the Consent Calendar Items were considered separately.
1 A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 17, 2001.
R:\plANCOMM~nINUTES~2001 \ 1-17-01 .doc 1
Chairman Guerriero noted that it had been recommended that Agenda Item No. 4 be considered after
Item No. 5, and that Agenda Item No. 3 be considered after Item No. 4.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the Agenda, as modified. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of November 1,2000.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the minutes of November 1, 2000.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3 Harveston Workshop- Desi.qn Guidelines/Development Standards
This Item was heard out of order; see page 8.
4 Villa.qes of Old Town Workshop
This Item was heard out of order; see page 5.
At this time the Commission considered Item No. 5.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5
Planning Application 00-0257(Conditional Use Permit) to design, construct and
operate an unmanned Sprint wireless communication facility located at the Rancho
California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site located at 41520 Mar,qarita
Road - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN
UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA
WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR
SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002
R: P[anC<3~m~/minutes/011701 2
Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this Item.
Via overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the staff report (of record),
noting that the original approval for this project was in July of 1996 which was for a sixty
foot (60') monopole antenna which was not camouflaged, advising that that approval
expired in 1998; relayed that in light of the Antenna Ordinance now in effect, this item
was being presented to the Planning Commission; highlighted the specific location of the
proposed monopine, the surrounding properties, the camouflaged design, the existing
landscaping, noting that the applicant would replace any trees or shrubs that
necessitated removal dudng the development; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified
that the monopole was 57 feet (57') in height from the bottom of the tree to the top,
noting that from the ground level to the center of the antenna was a height of fifty feet
(50'); relayed that there was an alternative siting analysis conducted; provided additional
information regarding the camouflage design elements, noting the simulated bark
material; and for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that there would be an opportunity for a
future co-location at the mid-area of the monopine.
Mr. Heinz Lumtt, representing Sprint PCS, provided additional information regarding the
alternative siting analysis, noting the need for a taller monopine if the facility was located
at alternate sites; for Commissioner Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, relayed
that the Water District would not permit the antenna to be located on the water tank due
to maintenance issues; relayed that lowering the height of the antenna by ten feet would
significantly reduce the coverage objective, providing additional information regarding
the line of sight distance necessary to alternate sites; noted that to install the antenna on
the existing power pole, the power pole would have to be substantially increased in size
(i.e., larger in diameter), relaying that the utility company was not interested in utilizing
the existing utility pole for the purposes of the antenna; confirmed that for co-location
various branches would be removed from the monopine and where appropriate the
branches would be replaced; relayed that the rendering represented an actual monopole
tree; for Chairman Guerriero confirmed that Exhibit 3 C. (per agenda material) did not
represent the design of the monopole that would be constructed with this particular
proposal; for Commissioner Telesio, noted that in light of the height needed for this area
the applicant's preference would be to install the monopine verses installing the antenna
on the water tank or the utility pole; for Chairman Guerriero, confirmed that when the
antenna is placed on a utility pole, typically there is no camouflaging; and for
Commissioner Mathewson, noted that there were two types of stealth monopole trees,
listed as follows: 1) a pine tree, and 2) a palm tree, noting the applicant's preference for
the pine tree at this site due to the allowance for bulk in terms of the branches and since
this type of tree more appropriately blended with the surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Denise Bowe, 30891 Corte Arroya, noted her concern regarding radiation exposure
based on the vicinity of the cell tower with respect to her residence; and queried the
amount of exposure her residence would be impacted with.
For Ms. Bower, Mr. Lumtt noted the ambient study prepared in conjunction with this
project, relaying this project's compliance with the Federal Standards, noting that the
standard was approximately 1,000 times lower than would cause any type of impact to a
biological being, advising the Sprint PCS's standards were 1,000 times below the
Federal Standard; and cladfied that there would be no radiated impact with respect to
the antenna even if one was to stand directly below the monopine.
R:PlanCom~ttmir~utes~O11701 3
The Commission relayed closinR comments, as follows:
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he was not opposed to this type of project,
advising that the tree camouflaging was effective in the monopalm poles he has seen at
alternate sites.
Commissioner Mathewson acknowledged the need for cell towers, noting no
opposition to the particular site; relayed his ccncem regarding the camouflaging, noting
the facility off of Meadows Parkway; relayed that the renderings presented were not
consistent with the exhibits provided to the Planning Commission in the agenda material;
relayed additional concern regarding a co-location due to the removal of additional
branches; and noted a desire for assurance that the facility would be adequately
camouflaged.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that a reduction
of the rendering could replace the representation on Exhibit 3 C. in order to clarify the
type of pole the Commission was taking action on.
Echoing Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Chairman Guerriero noted that the
exhibit provided the Planning Commission was not representative of the facility the
Commission was being requested to approve.
Commissioner Telesio concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's and Chairman
Guerriero's comments; and noted that he was not opposed to the location or the purpose
of the facility.
Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that since this project was being conditionally
permitted, if the applicant's installation was not adequate the permit could be revoked;
and recommended that additional pine trees placed at the base of the monopine to aid in
the screening of the pole.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended that this facility would not be operational
until such time as staff approved of the screening and camouflaging on the pole; and
noted that he needed additional information regarding what the visual appearance of the
monopine would be with co-location.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Lumtt relayed that additional branches could be added to
the design, specifically between the trunk and the antenna.
For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Lumtt specified the area where the co-located antenna
would potentially be located.
Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the applicant bring back to the Planning
Commission additional information regarding the actual design which would be
implemented, and address adding additional bulk to the lower portion of the tree.
Chairman Guerriero requested additional information regarding the visual appearance
with a co-located antenna.
Mr. Lumtt relayed that the applicant could work with staff to address the Planning
Commission's recommendations if that was the desire of the Commission.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this Item to the January 31,
2001 meeting in order for the applicant to add additional pine trees at the base of the
monopole, provide additional bulk to the monopole, and to clarify the visual appearance
of the tree with a second antenna. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff
and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who
abstained.
At 6:45 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:08 P.M.
At this time the Commission considered Item No. 4.
4 Villages of Old Town Workshop
Mr. Richard Hannas, representing the applicant, noted that Mr. Matthew Fagan would
provide an overview of the policy framework followed to develop this project, and that
Mr. Kevin Everett would review the planning concepts.
Via a slide presentation, Mr. Fagan, representing the applicant, provided an overview of
the project, specifying the regional location which was currently within the Westside
Specific Plan; relayed the project objectives, as follows: 1) to preserve and enhance the
historic character of Old Town Temecula, 2) to encourage a mixture of land uses, 3) to
encourage pedestrian activity, 4) to encourage an efficient circulation system, and 5) to
encourage revitalization of Old Town through the implementation of the Old Town
Specific Plan; specified the goals of the Old Town Specific Plan; noted the tremendous
investment of public funds into Old Town (i.e., the Sam Hicks Memorial Park, the
Temecula Valley Museum, the Mary Phillips ~Center, the 1st Street Bridge and Road.
Widening Project, the improvements to the 6'~ Street parking lot, the future Performing
Arts Theater, and the future Children's Museum); provided an overview of the Keyster
Marston Economic Assessment conducted for Old Town which relayed that housing was
a key to the success for older street retail districts, that up to 2,000 units could be
developed within the Westside Specific Plan, and that this type of development would
provide strong benefits to Old Town; referenced the General Plan (Table 2-9) which
addressed provision of complementary land uses to Old Town that would increase the
vitality of the area, increased range of housing, encouragement of sensitive site and
building design given the topography; relayed data regarding the site analysis, and the
potential alignments for the Western Bypass; and introduced Mr. Everett who would
provide additional details regarding the project.
Mr. Everett, representing the applicant, relayed the extensive efforts expended regarding
this project plan, noting the team of approximately 30 individuals working on this
proposal representing approximately 10-15 companies, relaying the desire for input from
the Planning Commission regarding recommended redesign aspects to the plan; via a
PowerPoint presentation, provided an overview of the three planning areas, highlighting
the 3-acre Town Center Park (which would be the focal point of the project), the Village
core which would be developed on both sides of the Western Bypass, and the view lot
duplex portion of the project; noted the pedestrian links, the proposed trolley system, the
amphitheater area, the apartment complex, the fitness centers, the quasi-commercial
area which would encompass less than 20,000 square feet and would be inclusive of
uses such as dry cleaners and video rentals, noting that there would be no uses
competing with the existing business in Old Town; specified the duplex housing area
which would be located halfway up the hillside, and the linear park system; noted the
transportation linkages included in the proposed plan, the creation of a walking district
with a trolley system and RTA reutes which culminated into the development of a true
Village Center; and relayed the consistency of this project with the General Plan, noting
the Village Center, the clustering, the circulation enhancements, and the open space
area.
Mr. Hannas concluded the presentation, noting that the Villages of Old Town was
primarily a residential property which would consist of 1631 dwellings, 1365 of which
would be apartments, 152 of which would be townhomes, and 114 of which would be
single-family attached housing; and reiterated the project's benefits to the City of
Temecula, noting the economic boost to Old Town, the traffic circulation enhancements,
as well as, offering a variety of housing opportunities.
At this time the Commission heard public comments, as follows'
The following individuals were proponents of the project:
Mr. Al Rattan
Mr. Thomas Stultz
Ms. Suzanne St. John
28751 Rancho California Road #207
32076 Corte Soledad, business owner in Old Town
30245 Miraloma Drive, business owner in Old Town
The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following
reasons:
Noted the successful improvements to the Old Town areas in the Cities of Brea and
Pasadena.
The benefits this project would bring to Old Town (Le., revitalization).
Noted the lack of apartment and townhouse housing in the City of Temecula that
this project would satisfy which would address housing needs for employees of Old
Town merchants and manufacturing businesses in the City of Temecula.
Relayed that this project would provide economic benefits to Old Town.
Mr. Hank Testasecca, 42050 Main Street, Unit B, an Old Town business owner and
resident, noted his opposition to the project for the following reasons: the overall
negative impact high density dwellings would have on Old Town, the impacts on the
historic heritage of Old Town, traffic impacts, and recommended implementing a senior
housing project and/or a civic center; and submitted a letter to staff outlining his
concerns.
The Commission noted the followin,q concludinR remarks:
Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the applicant's comments regarding efforts for
the commercial uses to not take business away from the Old Town businesses, but
instead complimenting the Old Town uses; noted that the high density housing
proximate to Old Town would stimulate business which could bring additional business
to Old Town during the evening hours; and relayed the opportunities this project could
provide, noting his interest in the further details of the plan as the proposal progresses.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that this appeared to be a great project; relayed the
need for the residential and quasi-commereial area to compliment Old Town; concurred
with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, noting concern regarding the necessity of a
link between this project and Old Town, advising that the amhitectural treatments would
be of vital importance, and that the commercial uses should be aimed at meeting the
needs of the residential area verses the uses which Old Town provides which serve
visitors/tourists; noted that due to the linear layout of the project, the southerly most
transit stop may not be located far enough south to serve the units on the southerly
portion of the project site, recommending a review of this matter; concurred with
comments regarding the Old Town in the City of Brea, attributing the success to the
residential area; and relayed that he looked forward to seeing the project progress.
For future presentations, Chairman Guerriero noted the desire for provision of a line-of-
sight visual of the project from the freeway, from Old Town, from Old Town Front Street,
and from Ynez Road, relaying his concern regarding the potential for five-story buildings;
recommended that there be efforts to blend this project with the hillside environment;
and recommended investigation as to whether a senior housing component would be
feasible at this site.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Everett relayed that the townhouse component was
located directly above the core area where the apartments would be located, noting that
in the southern area toward the Highway 79 Interchange the duplex component would
be located which would be for sale units; in response to queries regarding the immense
grading differential, provided additional information regarding the gradual slope which
would tie the east side of Planning Area 1 to Main Street, noting that additional details
would be presented at a future date; relayed that the commemial area would be
concentrated in one building at the front of the park which would be a maximum of
20,000 square feet, providing additional information regarding the goal to compliment
and enhance Old Town.
Commissioner Webster relayed that within the park area, he envisioned
commercial/office space on the first floor with residential on the second floor around the
perimeter of the Village Square area; noted the standards in the City's Design
Guidelines for multi-family housing regarding maintaining approximately eight units per
building to control massing, and to vary the number of units per building; with respect to
the potential underpass crossing the bypass corridor, advised that there be investigation
as to the feasibility of an overpass due to the safety aspects with respect to crime; with
respect to efforts to minimize the height of the cut slopes on the west side of the project,
recommended, additionally, having a re-vegetation specialist during the construction of
the project as well as conducting top soil salvage since when the rock is exposed, and
the top soil is removed re-vegetation is difficult.
In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Everett relayed that the cut slopes on this
project would be screened by structures; and relayed that the 1st Phase of the project
would be the Village Center, noting that the park would be the first feature developed.
Commissioner Webster recommended that the applicant pay particular attention to
historical architectural styles on this project; recommended the use of darker colore on
the buildings in order to blend with the existing milieu; with respect to the bridges
associated with the bypass corridor, queried whether when the development reaches the
south end of the project if the bridge crossing over the creek in this area would be
completed.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr, Everett relayed that the applicant was working with the
City with respect to the phasing of the project, providing additional information regarding
the public funds expended in this area; relayed additional information regarding the
future proposal north of the project; and noted hopes to have a cooperative program with
RTA, and potentially a public group for the maintenance of the trolley system.
In response to Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed
the importance of the bridge at the 1-15 South.
Commissioner Telesio reiterated the remarks expressed during the public comment
period; noted that at this time Old Town was geared towards week-end activity, relaying
that this project would necessitate a dramatic change, advising that there would be a
need for everyday services for the residents; and with respect to the potential school
site, noted that this would be vital to the area.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Everett relayed that Old Town would evolve, noting that
additional evening entertainment and restaurants would come; advised that this
applicant would invest in the housing project which would bring the economic boost to
Old Town as outlined in the Keyster Marston Report; and relayed that the applicant
could bring forward additional information regarding Smart Growth and the type of
housing appropriate for this area.
With respect to the trolley and bus system, and the clustering of housing, Deputy
Director of Public Works Parks relayed that in terms of the General Plan there were few
opportunities in the City to accomplish implementation of these components, providing
additional information regarding the potential to minimize the use of vehicles; and
advised that this project would be a great opportunity for mass transit.
Commissioner Telesio clarified that it was his desire that this housing mix did not
create a perceived blue-collared residential area.
Mr. Hannas advised that the applicant envisioned a high quality project with a well-
executed product.
Chairman Guerriero thanked the applicant's representatives for the informational
presentation.
At 8:22 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:34 P.M.
At this time the Commission considered Item No. 3.
3 Harveston Workshop- Desi.qn Guidelines/Development Standards
Mr. Bill Storm, representing the applicant, relayed that the Harveston Workshop for this
meeting would be inclusive of the Architectural Guidelines and standards, and
introduced Mr. David Viggiano, who would provide the presentation to the Planning
Commission; and clarified that while the past presentations included photographs in
order to introduce concepts, that the applicant's vision for the project developed in the
City of Temecula exceeded the depictions in the photographs.
Mr. David Viggiano, representing the applicant presented a PowerPoint presentation,
noting that the photographs represented Lennar Communities commitment to creating
neighborhoods with timeless qualities; itemized the goals of the project, noted the wide
range of housing types provided in the plan; relayed the four levels of density which
would create diversity, highlighting the Low Medium Density, the Medium 1 Density, the
Medium 2 Density, and the High Density proposals; noted the park-like landscaping at
the entries to the neighborhoods, the innovative architectural styles with individual color
palettes, the varied garage placements, the varied roof heights, the architectural forward
elements, the porch treatments, the pedestrian connections, the open end cul-de-sacs
leading to the greenbelt parkway, the curb separated sidewalks, the street tree program,
the shortened streets, and the variable lot sizes; specified the neighborhood design
criteria standards; relayed the architectural styles which included the American
Farmhouse, Cape Cod, Italianate, Monterey, Cottage, Prairie, Craftsman, and Colonial;
specified the architectural forward elements; presented numerous garage options; and
provided visual representations of streetscapes, highlighting alley design elements,
street sign designs, mailbox designs, lighting details, landscaping, and the loop road.
The Commission relayed the followin,q closinq input:
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the benefit of being one of the last large parcels
developed in the City of Temecula, allowing the community to progress far enough to
accept these innovative types of design concepts; and recommended an integrated
landscaping style within the individual architectural styles.
In response, Mr. Storm advised that the applicant was in the process of developing a
landscape palette consistent with the architectural style; and provided additional
information regarding the innovative design elements, which had been included in the
Woodbridge Project.
With respect to the cross section of housing planned, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed
that this project would provide a variety of opportunities for the community.
With respect to the streetscape design plans, Commissioner Mathewson noted that
the Postal Office was typically requiring cluster boxes.
In response, Mr. Storm relayed that the applicant has explored cluster boxes with
pleasing design elements; and with respect to the lighting designs, noted that these
elements were being reviewed with City staff.
With respect to the alleyway treatments, for Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Storm
relayed that while there would be landscaping treatments, the enhance design
architectural elements would be focused on the front of the houses, or where there
would be public view.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Storm relayed that larger parcels would be located
outside the loop road, noting that internal to the loop road would be smaller lots and
clustered product; with respect to the individual neighborhoods, relayed the variations in
one neighborhood would potentially be from 4500-5500 square feet; noted the plan to
R:PlanC~m/minutes/o11701 9
have typically 35 units in a neighborhood, relaying that varied lot sizes and product
styles would be represented in the variant neighborhoods; and advised that specificity
with respect to the varied lot sizes would be developed at a future point.
Commissioner Mathewson commended the architect for the varied roof treatments,
and setbacks; and with respect to the nature of the smaller lot sizes, noted concern
regarding the propensity to develop solely two-story units.
In response, Mr. Storm noted the potential for inclusion of single-story units in the Low
Medium, and Medium 1 Density ranges, clarifying that this was the applicant's desire,
relaying the market factors associated with this issue; advised that design elements
could be implemented that provided a single-story appearance with a two-story unit; with
respect to sideyard setbacks, noted that typically, there would be a minimum of 10 feet
between buildings, relaying that due to the curvature of the streets, few homes would be
located side by side; noted that with the smaller cottage project, there would be
approximately 6 feet between houses; reiterated that there would be enhanced
architectural treatments where architecture was exposed to the public view; and with
respect to the grass strip in the ddveway treatment (denoted in the PowerPoint
presentation), noted that this design element would be encouraged.
With respect to Mr. Storm's previous comments, Commissioner Telesio relayed the
relief of his concern with respect to the product type proposed in the City of Temecula
being similar to the quality of the photograph depictions, noting that his past concern
was regarding the expectation level developed from the photographs not being met in
the actual proposed plan for Temecula; and noted that he was in favor of the innovative
design concepts presented.
Commissioner Webster relayed that the product presented was groat; noted that in the
County's Southwest Aroa Plan this area was designated as an urban core aroa, advising
that this proposal satisfies that vision with the smaller lots and the denser development;
relayed that he would be opposed to reducing the standard regarding four-sided
architectural detail, clarifying that thero should be some detailing on the sides of the
units; with respect to the architectural style represented in the Design Guidelines,
advised that he was pleased with the elements presented; and noted his opposition to
the side access front door entries represented in the Medium 2 Density rendering per the
PowerPoint presentation.
In response, Mr. Storm cladfied that this rendering was not drawn to the proper scale,
clarifying that this was not a proposed product.
With respect to the swing in garage option, where a two-car garage was split into one-
car garages, Commissioner Webster recommended focusing on the placement of the
front door; with respect to the sideyard setbacks, recommended avoiding the canyon
effect; and with respect to the tandem garages, queried whether two garage openers
would be needed.
Commissioner Chiniaeff queried whether the applicant would be willing to be subject
to a condition requiring a certain percentage of single-story units. In response, Mr. Storm
noted that he would not desire to have the project conditioned regarding this element,
while relaying the potential for the applicant to condition the builders to include one-story
units after additional market analysis; advised that from an aesthetic standpoint, design
elements could be added to provide the visual appearance of a single-story unit on the
two-story units; and noted that the applicant would take the matter under consideration.
For information purposes, Associate Planner Anders relayed that there was a condition
requiring a certain percentage of amhitectural forward units.
Chairman Guerriero noted that he had previously submitted recommendations to the
applicant, one of which was the recommendation to offer a shuttle van for a certain
period of time in order to evaluate the ridership usage, and an alternate recommendation
had been to add solar elements.
Mr. Storm advised that the Commission's comments were important to the applicant,
thanking the Planning Commission for their input.
With respect to the Margarita Village Project, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that
since the Planning Commission appointed Commissioner Chiniaeff to meet with the
developer and staff, that a meeting had been held and at this time information would be
provided to the Planning Commission in order to gain input.
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the revised plan to create more of a pedestrian-oriented
area; relayed that Buildings A and C would be restaurants, and Building B would be
shops, advising that these areas would be linked with pedestrian courts which also
provided for access from the street (Margarita Road); noted that in between Building F
and G, the pedestrian area was opened up going out to Margarita Road; provided
additional information regarding the pedestrian pathways from surrounding sites; and
noted that proximate to Building A there would be an outdoor patio.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended widening the access staimase in order to
invite additional pedestrian use.
Commissioner Webster relayed that along the ring road and North General Kearny
Road, there would need to be a certain width of landscaping to screen the parking lot
form the top of the slope; with respect to the main drive aisle to the parking lot, at the
southern end where the islands are located, noted that the vehicles existing these
parking spaces would be pulling onto the road, relaying that this plan should be
modified; and recommended that the parking spaces at the front of the buildings should
be relocated to the center area, Chairman Guerriero advising that the front parking
would be a safety hazard.
Chairman Guerriero noted that his concern was based on the landscaping along
Margarita Road, recommending that there be an adequate buffer of the expansive
building.
Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding the elevation from
Margarita Road, noting the three-foot mound to be installed above the pad elevation;
and advised that he had relayed to the applicant that the rear elevation should be
consistent with the front elevation, noting that 2nd story windows may need to be added.
R:PlanComm/minut es/Ol 1701 11
For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would have the
Public Works Department address the monument signage with respect to sight distance
impacts.
Commissioner Mathewson requested that the following issues be addressed: access
points to draw people from the future hotel site, and the signage on the rear of the
building. In response, Project Planner Nasseh relayed that there would be halo signage
on the rear of the building. Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated the recommendation to
limit the colors of the signage.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
No comments.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, Commissioner Chiniaeff,
Commissioner Webster, Chairman Commissioner Telesio, and Chairman
Guerriero relayed an interest in attending the Planner's Institute in March.
Director of Planning Ubnoske requested the Commission to leave their
notebooks on the dais in order for staff to file the subsequent agenda packets for
the next meeting.
For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the City
would provide shirts for the Planning Commissioners.
For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there would
be a video presentation at the January 31~t meeting, noting that if the Planning
Commission desired to arrive eady to view the video while having dinner to let
her know.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that APA would be holding a Planning
Commissioners forum on February 24, 2000 form 9:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.; and
invited the Planning Commissioners to attend.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:06 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next re.qular
adiourned meetin.¢l to be held on Wednesday~ January 3'1~ 200'1 at 6:00 P.M., in the
City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
ITEM #3
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
March 28, 2001
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for February, 2001
Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action
February 8, 2001 PA00-0497 Product review for three Continental Approved
models for construction on 77 Homes
lots within Tract 24187-2
February 15, 2001 PA01-0013 Product review application for Trimark Pacific Approved
87 detached single family Homes
homes of three model types
within Tract 24187-1
February 15, 2001 PA00-0271 Third one year extension of Crowne Approved
time for Tract Map 26941 Meadows
February 15, 2001 PA00-0272 Fifth one year extension of Crowne Approved
time for Tract Map 23143 Meadows
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO\2001 \Feb2001 .memo.doc
1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO\200 l\Feb2001 .memo.doc
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 2001 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning
Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item no__~t listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
Case Number:
Case Name:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Location:
Intended
Environmental Action:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Case Planner:
Status:
Action:
Planning Application No. PA00-0497 (Development Plan for
product review)
TM 24187-2 Product Review (Continental Homes)
Continental Homes, c/o Reed Ames
Product Review for three models for construction on 77 lots within
Tract 24187-2.
Between Meadows Parkway and Sunny Meadows Drive
(Paloma/Paseo del sol Specific Plan).
Exempt
Michael McCoy
X New Pr~ect
Re-submittal: Previous DRC Date:
Approved
P:\PLANNING\DIRHEAR~001 \02-08-01 AGENDA_doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2001 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item no~t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before
that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
AOTION:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental
Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA01-0013 (Development Plans for Product
Review)
Trimark Pacific Homes, L.P. c/o Bill Pennington
East of Meadows Parkway and north of De Portola Road
within the Paloma/Paseo del Sol Specific Plan, Planning Area No. 23
Product Review application for 87 detached single-family homes of three
model types; ranging in size from 2,643 to 3,270 square feet within Tract
24187-1.
This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA due to the
certification of the EIR for the Paloma/Paseo del Sol Specific Plan.
Michael McCoy
Approval
APPROVED
Planning Application No. 00-00271 (V'l-r26941) & PA00-0272 (V-l-r23143),
Extensions of Time
Crowne Meadows L.P., c/o Mary Rauschenburg, 181 Old Springs Rd.,
Anaheim, CA 92808
East of Butterfleld Stage Road south of Pauba Road and north of Crowne Hill
Drive.
PA00-0271 the third one year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map
26941
PA00-0272 the fifth and final one year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract
Map 23143
Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration
was
previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations).
Thomas Thornsley
Approval
APPROVED
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 28, 2001
Planning Application No. 00-0202 (Helium Balloon Ordinance Amendment)
Prepared By: David Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide direction on
the items to be included in any amendment to the Helium Balloon
regulations.
BACKGROUND
This matter was initially placed on the City Council agenda at the request of Mayor Stone. A
local business owner was concerned that the City's requirements were too strict and that the
quantity of their business could increase if the City of Temecula changed its standards. As a
resutt, the City Council at its March 21, 2000 meeting, directed staff to prepare information for
the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the portion of the Sign Ordinance that
regulates helium balloons.
The City of Temecula has had regulations controlling the use and display of ambient air and small
helium balloons since 1991. These rules were integrated into the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance
in 1997. Last month, the owners of a local business, Balloons Galore, met with Mayor Stone to
see if the current regulations could be changed. As a result of that meeting, the Mayor felt that the
following changes might be appropriate:
Allowing helium balloons to be higher in the air; and
· Allowing more helium balloons to be placed for longer periods of time.
ANALYSIS
The current helium balloon regulations were adopted by the City in the early 1990's and have
continued in their current form since then. The original intent of minimizing the size, height and
duration of these balloons was to minimize the visual blight associated with excessive advertising
displays, and to prevent potential problems with various public utilities. At the present time, no
permit is required for helium balloons that comply with the following standards:
1. No balloon shall be larger than three feet in diameter.
2. They shall not be higher than 10 feet from the ground.
They shall not be displayed for more than three days for each calendar month and
in no case for more than three consecutive days at a time.
All balloons shall be anchored, and shall not block vehicular or pedestrian
movement.
Helium balloons that do not comply with these standards are not permitted.
R:\Ordinances\Balloons~02PA00 PC Direction.doc
1
In Temecula, as in many other communities, helium balJoons regulated are temporary business
signage. As a result, they are often prohibited or highly restricted in their usage. Some
communities also differentiate between balloons for auto dealers and balloons for other
businesses. The following is a discussion of areas those changes are being requested of the City
and how other municipalities deal with this issue.
Permittinq Requirements
Temecula The City currently does not require a permit if the size and height of the balloons
meets certain standards.
Cerdtos Balloons smaller that 12 inches in diameter require no permits. Balloons larger
than 12 inches in diameter require a Temporary Use Permit.
Long Beach
Norco
Poway
REQUEST:
No permit requirement.
Allows balloons for activities that require Special Event Permits.
No permit is required, but usage is limited to auto dealers only on Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday only.
The City is being requested to consider that the exemption from active permitting
be continued or if some minimal regulation is necessary, that an applicant be
required to notify the City of their plans to use helium balloons.
Height above the Ground
Temecula The current Ordinance limits the above ground height of helium balloons to 10 feet.
Cerritos The approved height is determined on a case-by-case basis as long as the
approved height does not interfere with powerlines or the use of the public right-of-
way.
Long Beach Limits the height of the balloons to the height of the building.
Norco Has no standards, relies on a process of case-by-case review to determine the
appropriate height.
Poway Are allowed for auto dealers only. The balloons can only be attached to car
antennas and can be no more that 3 feet from the top of the aerial.
REQUEST: The City is being requested to consider allowing these balloons up to 40 or 50 feet
in the air to allow the creation of"skytowers" and arches. The advertising needs of
the auto dealers have also been used to support this request.
Permitted Duration
Temecula
Cerritos
Long Beach
Limited to three days per calendar month.
The approved duration is determined on a case-by-case basis.
The approved duration is determined on a case-by-case basis.
R:\Ordinances\Baltoons~202PA00 PC Direction.doc
Norco
Poway
REQUEST:
Four times a year for 1S-days each (as part of the Special Event Permit).
Are allowed for auto dealers only and are limited to only Friday, Saturday, and
Sunday.
The City is being requested to consider allowing these balloons for longer periods.
One of their initial thoughts was to allow these balloons on Friday, Saturday and
Sunday with a provision for additional time for special events.
Finally, Southern California Edison is also concerned about the problems that free-flying balloons
may create to electrical distribution lines. This concern was shared by an Edison representative at
the March 21, 2000 City Council meeting. As a result, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission also consider that increasing the height and duration of helium balloons could cause
potential hazards to electrical distribution lines and to vehicular and pedestrian movement.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the direction from the Planning Commission, staff will prepare an Ordinance to make
whatever changes the Commission feels are appropriate
Attachments:
1. Current Requirements - Blue Page
R:\Ordinances~Bailoons~202PA00 PC Direction.doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS
R:\Ordinances\Balloons~O2PAO0 PC Direction,doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
"17.28.050 EXEMPT SIGNS
The following signs are exempt from the requirement to obtain a sign permit pursuant to this
Chapter if they meet these specified requirements; however, they may require Building Permits:"
Helium Balloons
1. No balloon shall be larger than three feet in diameter.
2. They shall not be higher than 10 feet from the ground.
3. They shall not be displayed for more than three days for each calendar month and
in no case for more than three consecutive days at a time.
4. All balloons shall be anchored, and shall not block vehicular or pedestrian
movement."
R:\Ordinances\Balloons~02PA00 PC Direction.doc
5
ITEM #5
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
DATE:
March 28, 2001
SUBJECT:
Continuation of the Planning Commission's March 7, 2001, Public Hearing on
PA00-00427, 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.
Prepared by:
Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
Consideration of the applicant's site design as originally proposed.
At the Planning Commission hearing of March 7, 2001, concerns
were raised by members of the Commission regarding the visibility
of the loading docks and roll-up doors from Winchester Road on
each side of the building. After a discussion with the applicant
about possible alternatives, the Commission voted to continue this
item to the March 28, 2001 meeting so that alternative site
designs could be considered. Over the past three weeks the
applicant has considered alternatives and has chosen to stay with
their original proposal.
Attachment:
1. Original Staff Report - Blue Page 2
R:~d P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gcntck~PC covet mcmo. doc
1
ATTACHMENT NO. '1
ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 7, 2001
Planning Application No. 00-0427
(Development Plan)
Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, 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 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).
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 Califomia 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 California 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 spaceo
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 space~
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:~D P~000~00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
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 Design 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 entdes on opposite sides. With the buildings in the center of the site, there will be two access
points off of Winchester Road and circulation 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 prior 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 approximately 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 corddor 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 entries in the form of a projected fascia around both comers
supported with three columns. The face of the building will be pdmadly 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 I:A2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gen~k\Staff reportdoc
3
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 Acedfolia)
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 CEOA 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, ram, 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 vadety 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.
SUMMARYICONCLUSIONS
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 propedy 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 P~.000~00-O427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report, doc
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:
E.
F.
Exhibits
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
Site Plan
Elevation
Landscape Plan
Statements of Operation - Blue Page 27
R:~O P~2000\00-0427 Accel-Gentek\Staff report.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:~D P~2000~00-0427 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, and continued the matter to Mamh 28, 2001, at duly noticed public hearings as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did
testify either in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved 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. Findinqs. 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
· · ental Com liance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No, 00-
Sectmn 3. En. wronm_ .-. ,.._._P~_ ~..,,;... ental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill
0427 was maae per me t..allluH.a ~_,,~,.~nm
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 8. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 28t~ day of March 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
City of Temecula )
Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
I, Debbie Ubnoske, , , . ~ ._4 ,._ the Plannin" Comm ss on of the City
· - was auly aha regularly aaop~eu uy
PC Resolu!~on. No. 01 e 28th day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
of Temecula at a regu ar meebng thereof held on th
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
pLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
pLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
pLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~d p~2000~00-0427 acce~gentek~Staff report.doc 8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:~D P~000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
The design and construction of two adjoining industrial
building on bNo 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 28, 2001
March 28, 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 pedod 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 P~000~00-0427 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; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year 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 cdteda 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 pdor to final agreement with the utility companies.
c. The site plan shall be modified to bdng 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 property or public rights-of-way. Details of these lights shall be submitted to
the Planning Department during plan check for review pdor to installation.
All parking lot lights and other exterior 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 sur[aces 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 ~;onform 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 cdtefia 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 Material Board contained on file with
the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the
approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning,
R:'~D P~000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff repo~doc
Matedal
Windows, doors
Extedor walls:
Wall face
Columns
Accent Band
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
10.
Finish & Color
Silver anodized frames with blue-green glazing
White Shadow 181 (warm white)
Sandblasted concrete
Light Gray-green
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
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 Matedal 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 photographic color prints of the approved Color
and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored
amhitectural 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 bythese conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
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.
16.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
17, All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
R;~O P~000\00~0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
12
18.
19.
20.
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.
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.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in are and shall be cantered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
cantered 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, deafly 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.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing
and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
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 right-of-way.
22. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
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 property.
R:~D P',2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
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 private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The studyshall 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 District by either cashier's check or
money order, pdor 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
properly, 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 F~2000\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 cdteda shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with 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 centedine 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 wdtten offer to participate in, and waive all dghts to object to
the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bddge and
Major Thoroughfare Fee Distdct for the construction of the proposed Westem 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
wdtten clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water Distdct
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:',D p',2.000x00-O427 Accel-Gentek\Staff report.doc
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
44. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
45. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior 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
49. All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998,
50. Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the
main entries in accordance with Califomia building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan
as requested above which indicates compliance with this.
51. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and
structural calculations submitted for plan review.
52. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
53. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire
alarm systems and exterior lighting.
54. 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.
55. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review.
56. 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
57. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
R:~D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report, doc
16
58.
59.
Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions 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
California 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 procoss to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
proteotion measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 905.2, 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 roads and adjacent public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located
no more than :210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department acoess 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 90:3.2, 90:3.4.2,
and Appendix Ill-B)
6:3. As required by the California 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
exterior 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 90:3.2)
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 roads 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 exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department a¢cass roads shall be an all
weather surfaca designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC; thickness of .25 feet. (
CFC sec 902)
R:'~D P~2.000\00-0427 Accel-Gentek~Staff report.do~
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. Pdor to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
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 pdor to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency 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. 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)
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. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
75. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10)
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 1:~2.000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
18
79. Pdor to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81)
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)
S ecial Conditions
81. Prior 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 matedal not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
85. Prior 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 P~2000~00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff repo~Ldoc
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
Date
Name pdnted
R:~D P~000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
20
November 3, 2000
Thomas Thornsley, Case Planner
City. of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
3y~
SUBJECT:
WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY
PARCELS NO. 6 AND NO. 7 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 Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
00~SB:at218~F012-T6~FCF
~,~,A Pc~I ,NTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
November 7, 2000
Ci~' of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Plot Plan No. PA00-0427
NOV 1 ~ 7000
By
Dear Thomas Thornsley:
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 at'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 from 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,
~~nvironmental
SM:dr
(909) 955-8980
NOTE:
Health Specialist
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, ltazardous Materials
Sla ndard 3b {city). doc
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
Project Site
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R:~D P~2.000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI (Light Industrial)
~*;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::. ............. ~...-.::. i~ x ] ~ ~ ~a~~~l~~,~,~,~,,,! ~ ...... ::,::::: ::;..-.:. ~:~..'..'~..'..'~ .;:......=::::..~::::. ,~,oo~,*,~, o~,~,~'~'~'~ TM
:.::: ................... .:~,,,,..,:,,,,,.~:--.~.::::::~:~?:: ................ ~,~..,. ........... .~,.:,, ~...,...~ .:::~.::....::::: .?.:..,?.....:.:.::,.: ,... ooooooo,
~.-.,~:!~}i~'?:"~*:"~ ""::" ........... ':*:'"'~' :':':':':':':*"~':':*:"'"'~'*:'~':'??'~':'?* ~':'"~'~'"== :'::'~:':::~*:¥'*"¥";'~:":':': "'~"':' ~X~*:':"
,~.:..-~:,,~.'"-' ....................... ........... ~-'.'{" ................................ .......... · - '". ........................................................................... :" :::::: ........... ~'~'.~:.:.z,:.:< ~.:.:.:..,.,~?'"~
::.~::.t-'::'=~% ~..,,,,. ,~:.,.~:~'~'::::::.::'.'~ ................. , ................ '
......................................... ...,..,::::::::::.~ ..................................... ::::.;,; .............. ,= ................................... ~.-7.,.:::: ....................
~:':'-':':~::'~;::.'::; :':~':':':~':'~:'-"-":~':",~-:"" ' ............ *:':'".:':':':'::.~-.~'.'::i
~¢~,,.~.::.~:'..~::::::.:.~:.,v.z .::.~::;';:,,::.:.:::';¥/,'" . .............. ~".:.:~:~. .... .::::::.. ,:-:-?m..'. - ~...',:-;.:-? - ;': :. ~iii ' ";:~:::::::'"'~ ~ ':':' ' :'"<'"~ ' ·" ??;':'" ~:':' ' ~':'"';';';';' ~...:.....;::x~;;:""":
EXHIBIT C GENERAL PlAN
DESIGNATION - LI (I.i[Iht Industrial}
~LANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-042? {D®¥elopment Clan)
~I..~NNING COMMISSION DATE - March ?, 2001
R:",D P',2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff repoff, doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
'A/IN CHESTER r~OAD
PROPOSED E)JILP, ING 7
~R,QPCSLD BUILDING 6
/t
'' I
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
SITE PLAN
R:~D P~2000\00-0427 Accel-GentekkStaff reportdoc
CITY OF TEMECULA
EAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST £LIrVATION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
ELEVATIONS
R~D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-C-entek~Staff mporLdoc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PAD = 25.75 PAD = 25.75
F.F. = 24.50 F.F. = 24.50
PHASE II PHASE I
PAR. 7 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 reporLdoc
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STATEMENTS OF OPERATION
P,:~D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
27
U~/ZO/O0 ~ 15:33 FAZ g.o_.g 5~'~'_.0.Z"'$ GENTI~LECTRONICS ~001
GENTEK ELECTRONICS
27941 DIAZ RD. STE. A'
TE~[ECU'LA, 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,
The 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 s~ze, 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 i~ required please contact:
· Phil Lcwls, owner of Gent~k ~lectronics Dst,~09-20-00
· Ph: 909~87-0220
ACCEL CONNECTORS INC
September 26, 2000
Statement of Operations
Accel Connectors, Inc., hours of operation are Monday through Fdday, 8 A.M. to
5 P.M. We currently have eight employees. We require at least 10 parking
places. The number of daily tdps 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,
OCt - 2 ~000
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
pLANNING COMMISSION
March 28, 2001
Planning Application No. 00-0417
(Development Plan)
Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-
0417 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0417 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF TWO MEDICAL OFFICE
BUILDINGS ON 1.5 ACRES WITH BUILDING "A" HAVING 5,987
SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" HAVING 7,270 SQUARE
FEET, TOTALING 13,257 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH
GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. APN 921-090-087.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Margarita Medical Condo Development, LLC, c/o Edward
Anderson, 42752 Mountain Shadow Dr., Murrieta, CA 92562
To design, construct, and operate two medical office
buildings, with three suites in each, totaling 13,257square
feet of floor space (Bldg. "A" with 5,987 square feet and Bldg.
"B" with 7,270 square feet) on a 1.5 acre lot.
On the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North
General Kearny Road (APN 921-090-087)
PO (Professional Office)
SP-6 (Specific Plan-6 Campos Verdes)
R:~D P~000~00-0417 Margarita Medical~Staff report PC.doc
1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: SP-6 (Specific Plan-6 Campos Verdes)
South: SP-6 (Specific Plan-6 Campos Verdes)
East: SP-6 (Specific Plan-6 Campos Verdes)
West: SP-6 (Specific Plan-7 Temecula Regional Center)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDINGLAND USES:
North: Single Family Homes
South: Flood Control Basin
East: Vacant (Approve for a Church)
West: Promenade Mall
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Building Area:
Building "A":
Building "B":
65,341 square feet
13,257 square feet
5,987 square feet
7,270 square feet
1.5 acres
0.20 FAR
9.2%
11.7%
Total Building Footprints:
Hardscape:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
13,257 square feet
2,958 square feet
19,779 square feet
29,367 square feet
Office 13,257 square feet/(1:250)
20.3%
4.5%
30.3%
44.9%
54 spaces
Parking Provided:
71 spaces
BACKGROUND
The applicant submitted a formal application to the Planning Department on October 27, 2000.
Supplemental material was required and a Development Review Committee meeting was held on
December 7, 2000, with follow up reviews completed in February and March. The project was
deemed complete on March 12, 2001. The owner of the property has also requested that the site be
divided into two lots and that application is scheduled for the Director's Hearing on April 5, 2001.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to design, construct, and operate two medical office
buildings, with three suites in each, totaling 13,257square feet of floor space (Bldg. "A" with 5,987
square feet and Bldg. "B" with 7,270 square feet) on a 1.5 acre lot. The plan also shows a
conceptual layout for the remainder of the lot, but it is not a part of this application.
ANALYSIS
Site Design and Circulation
The site at the southwest corner of Margarita and North General Kearny Roads will have its primary
access from North General Kearny Road. A second driveway will access the site from Margarita
Road across the southerly portion of the parcel, which is intended to ultimately be developed with
medical offices on a separate lot. Both points of access entering the site connect to internal drive
R:~D P~2000\00q3417 Margarita Medical~Staff report PC.doc
aisles that will allow circulation to pass in front of the buildings and provide access to four rows of
parking.
A conceptual site design is provided on the parcel to the south so that it can be demonstrated that
the future development of this site can be integrated in a functional manner. Future development of
this southern parcel will require a separate review and approval.
The two buildings are detached and laid out in an "L" configuration with building "A," the smaller of
the two, backing to Margarita Road and Building "B" backing up to North General Kearny Road. A
courtyard is provided between the two buildings with trellises and seating. In front of building "A" is a
loading zone for deliveries and visitor drop-off. A common walkway links all the suites in each
building to the sidewalk on North General Kearny Road.
Architecture & Colors
The exterior finishes of the proposed office buildings will incorporate stone, cast concrete, and
stucco. On the base of the building (lower 2 feet) will be limestone tile in a light tan capped with pre-
cast concrete moulding. Windows around the building will have smoke gray tinted glass with dark
bronze anodized aluminum frames. Between the windows will be sectioned stucco panels finished
in Desert Fawn (beige), which will appear as columns supporting the upper fascia of the building.
The upper portions of the building above the windows will be hand troweled smooth stucco with
some irregularities, finished again in Desert Fawn. Accenting on this upper wall facade will be a
narrow stucco finished relief moulding that will connect keystone elements over each window.
Capping the building is a pitched roof, using "S" tile described as Buff Blend color. Small gable
accents over the off-set portions of both buildings provide relief to roof.
LandscapinR
As required by the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, at least 15% of the site must be landscaped and
this project is providing 30.3%, with the bulk of the landscaping being provided along the two street
frontages. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan specifies a 32 foot landscape zone (include the 12
foot parkway) along both roadways with a gradual 4:1 slope lined with random placement of trees
with turf. Along North General Kearny is a meandering sidewalk with the same streetscape theme.
The primary trees along Margarita Road will be London Plane (24" box) and California Pepper (15
gal.) trees. Along North General Kearny will be the same tree plantings with Holly Oaks (24" box)
framing the entry drive aisle. Around the building will be Fern Pines (24" box), Chinese Flame Tree
(15 gal.), and Queen Palms (6' clear trunk). The parking area and the eastern perimeter will include
the Chinese Flame Tree (24" box) and Fern Pines (24" box). Shrubs will provide accent color and
screening around the base of the building and will include Fortnight Iris, Escallonia, Daylily,
Variegated Tobira, Purple Flax, and Indian Hawthorn.
When Tentative Parcel Map 30012 was recently approved creating the parcel being developed for
this project and the future site to the south, it was conditioned to have all street frontage landscaping
installed upon the completion of the rough grading and/or in conjunction with the future development
of either site. The intent of this condition was to have a completed streetscape along a prominent
arterial, as opposed to an unfinished area that would not be installed until such time that a
development was approved. With the development of this site, the applicant is aware of the need
to complete the streetscape landscaping per the map approval.
ParkinR Analysis
Based on the Campos Verdes Spec tic Plan s park~ g standard of one space per 250 square feet of
floor area, a minimum of 54 parking spaces must be provided. As designed, the applicant is
proposing 71 vehicle parking spaces to meet what they believe will be their realistic parking needs.
R:\D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
3
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 site is 1.5 acres, which is less than the maximum 5 acres permitted.
· 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 are 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 Professional Office (po). Existing zoning for
the site is SP-6 (Specific Plan-6 Campos Verdes). A variety of office and conditional uses are
permitted within this zone, with the approval of a Development Plan or Conditional Use Permit
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, the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, the
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
and compliant the types of uses and quality of surrounding development, and will represent an
aesthetic addition to the City's Professional Office areas.
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposal, two office buildings, is consistent with the land use policies of the Professional
Office (PO) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General Plan, as well
as the development standards for Professional Office contained in the Campos Verdes
Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The site is properly planned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of office 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.
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:
1, PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
R:~D P~000~00-0417 Margarita Medical~Staff report PC.doc
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Exhibits - Blue Page 20
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Site Plan
E. Elevation
F. Landscape Plan
R:\D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:~D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical~Staff repod PC.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0417 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF TWO MEDICAL OFFICE
BUILDINGS ON 1.5 ACRES WITH BUILDING "A" HAVING 5,587
SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" HAVING 7,270 SQUARE
FEET, TOTALING 13,257 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH
GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. APN 921-090-087.
WHEREAS, Margarita Medical Condo Development, LLC, flied Planning Application No. 00-
0417, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0417 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. 00-0417 on
March 28, 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 hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0417;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-
0417 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
A. The proposal, two office buildings, is consistent with the land use policies of the
Professional Office (PO) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General Plan, as
well as the development standards for Professional Office contained in the Campos Verdes Specific
Plan and the City's Development Code. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned,
is physically suitable for the type and density of office 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
R:\D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
7
intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.
00-0417 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 site is 1.5 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. 00-0417 for a Development Plan to design,
construct, and operate two medical office buildings, with three suites in each, totaling 13,257square
feet of floor space (Bldg. "A" with 5,987 square feet and Bldg. "B" with 7,270 square feet) on a 1.5
acre lot on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road, and known as
Assessor Parcel No. 921-090-087. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 28=h day of March 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
City of Temecula )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 01-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES;
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'~D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical~Staff report PC.doc
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:\D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Project Description:
Planning Application No. 00-0417 (Development Plan)
The design, construction, and operation of two medical
office buildings on t.6 acres with building "A" having
5,987 square feet and building "B" having 7,270 square
feet, totaling t3,257 square feet, located on the southeast
corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny
Road.
DIF Category: Office
Assessor Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
921-090-087
March 28, 2001
March 28, 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 timitations 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 P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical~Staff report PC.doc
10
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; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D"
(Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division. Additionally, the following cdteria must be met prior 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.
Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Details of these lights shall be submitted to
the Planning Department dudng plan check for review pdor to installation. The installation of
wall pack style light shall not be used along the street side elevation.
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. The maximum height of parking lot
lights is 32 feet per Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building
Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division as amended by these changes;
a. 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.
All building and monuments signs shall comply with Campos Verdes Specific Plan Sections
III.C.2.c. and IV.B.4.a. as they relate to Commercial/office signs.
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
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest. Additionally, the following cdteda must be met prior to development of
the project:
a. The applicant will be responsible for the installation of the all landscaping along
Margarita Road, on Parcel 2, and shown on the approved landscape plan pdor to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
b. The landscaping at the entries to the sites shall be consistent with Figure IV-19 in the
Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
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\00-0417 Ma~jarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
Material
Windows, doors
Wal~ base
Wall face
Accent Band (lower)
Accent keystones (upper)
Finish & Color
Dark Bronze anodized frames with smoke-grey tined glazing
Limestone veneer (light tan)
Desert Fawn, Frazee 8222W (beige)
Pre-cast concrete
Misty Mica, Frazee 871 lW
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
11. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and retum one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
12. Two copies of a Phase 1 amhaeological report shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Department. Any recommendations contained in that report shall be
implemented.
13. 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.
14. If necessary 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.
15. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color
and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored
architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for
their flies. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on
the photographic prints.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
16. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
17. 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 grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits
18. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
R:~D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
12
19.
20.
21.
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.
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 area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-
street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating
the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
in addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3
square feet in size.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
22. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints
and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for
further review and revision.
General Requirements
23. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site 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 right-of-way.
24. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
25. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistencywith adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
26. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and pdvate property.
R:'~D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
27. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
28. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
29. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address
special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
30. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or 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.
31. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
32. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water CQnservation Distdct
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
33. 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.
34. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
35. 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.
36. 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,
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
37. Improvement plans and/or' precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0,5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No, 207A.
R:\D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
14
c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402.
d. All street and driveway centedine intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
e. 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.
f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
38. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
39. 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.
40. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
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. Eastern Municipal Water Distdct
c. Department of Public Works
42. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
43. 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.
44. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
45. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
46. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior 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.
47. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
R:\D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
48. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector pdor to commencement of
any construction or inspections.
49. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings 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.
50. Clearly show on precise grading plan that the directional slope of the accessible path
from the city right of way does not exceed 5% or clearly show that handrails on both
sides are provided,
51. All buildings shall complywith 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 entdes in accordance with California
building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan as requested above which indicates
compliance with this.
52. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and
structural calculations submitted for plan review.
53. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
54. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire
alarm systems and exterior lighting.
55. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original sigr~ed
by an appropriate registered professional.
56. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review.
57. 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 occup!ed 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
58. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
59. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1996 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29.
60. 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.
61. 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
R:\D P\2000\00o0417 Margarita MedicartStaff report PC.doc
16
Califomia Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which ara in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
62. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the ramodel 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 400 GPM for a
total fire flow of 1900 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fira
protection measures as approved by the Fira Pravention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
63. The Fira Pravention Buraau is raquired to set minimum fira hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fira hydrants (6"x
4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public
straets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located
no mora than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fira Department access road(s)
frontage to a hydrant. The raquired fira flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s)
in the system. The upgrade of existing fira hydrants may be raquirad. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2,
and Appendix Ill-B)
64. As raquired by the California Fira Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measurad by an approved route around the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the raquired fira
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are raquirad. (CFC 903.2)
65. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020)
66. 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)
67. Pdor to building construction, all locations whera 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)
68. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fira
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)
69. 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)
70. The gradient for a fira apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
71. Pdor to building construction, dead end road ways and straets 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)
72. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Pravention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
R:\D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
17
73. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system p~ans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approva~ signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
74. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
sha~l be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
75. Prior 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)
76. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
77. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Qccupancy 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 su bmitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10)
78. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4)
79. Prior 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.
Special Conditions
80. Prior 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.
81. Prior to building final inspection 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.
82. 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)
83. 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 Matefia~
R:\D P~.000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.dcc
18
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
84.
Prior 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
85.
86.
87.
88.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated October 25, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastem Information
Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, transmittal dated March 19,
2001, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the r, ecommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health s transmittal dated October 30, 2000, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood
Control, transmittal dated November 16, 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
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
Date
Name printed
R:\D P~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
October 25, 2000
Thomas Thomsley, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PORTION OF LOT NO. 40 OF TRACT NO. 3334
APN 921-090-076
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0417
Dear Mr. Thomsley:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
~,.,....~,=~'~ Water availability would be contingent upon the property oxvner signing an
,.. :,,,...~.., ~.,,,.,.. Agency Agreement that assigns xvater 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 Brannon, P.E.
Dex3elopment Engineering Manager
00XSB:a~213~012-T6\FCF
J
VIRI~-~.9-2001 15~0cj
~HFORN~A
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
GYSTEM
P, RU/E I C/P, NTI-IRI] UCR
909 7B7 $4~9 P, 02/02
Eastern Information Career
Department of A~hropology
University of California
Riverside. CA 92521-0416
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
March 19, 2001
TO: Thomas Thornsley
City of Temecula Planning Department
RE: Cultural Resource Review-Revised
Case: PA 00-0417
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information
System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric
or historic cultural resources:
__ The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to
known cultural resource(e). A Phase I study is recommended.
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources.
A Phase I study is recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #
) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area cor~tains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources, However, due ;o the
nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not
anticipated. Further study is not recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #2824/991 [part of larger projects]) identified no cultural resources
within the project boundaries.
There is a Iow probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the
immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored
by a professional archaeologist.
The submission of a cultural resource mansgemenT report is recommended following guidelines for
Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation,
Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(al, December 1989.
~ Phase I Records search and field survey
_ Phase II Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant' sites.]
-- Phase III Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.]
~ Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS: The project area was examined in a non-systematic manner. It is recommended
that th project area be surveyed systematically.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
EIC~FRMS~TRANSMIT
CObNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTm SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALT!
October 30. 2000
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Plot Plan No. PA00-0417
Dear Thomas Thornsley:
1. The Department of Environmemal Heahh bas re¥iewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0417 and has m) objections.
SaaitaD~ sewer and water services i-na.~ be available in this area.
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 letler fi'om file Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be
required indicating that the project bas been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, ()rdinal~ce #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/LEA
Sincerely,
(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
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
City of Temecula
Planning Deoartment
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention:
Ladles and Gentlemen:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STRE
RIVERS/DE, CA 925{
909/955-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
51180.1
Re: P,q Oa - 0 ql 7
The Distdct does not norma y recommend cond tions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
ciries· The District also does not plan check c~ty land use cases, or provide State Division of R
9ther flood hazard reports for such cases Dis ct. t".nmrn~anf~,-A--- - - . eal Estate letters or
to items of specific interest to the DistriCt i~Scltfiu~ir~"[~i;;~;i~aL,-m'~-[~me--nd.ati°ns f_o.r su. cn ...co. ses are normally limited
~ ~kH~.k w~a~[er Uralnage I-'lan racihties, other r ional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component'or extension of a master pe~n s stem,
~rnodvi~ieSdMct Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). Iii addition, information of a general nS~'uSre is
The Distdct has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imp y District approval or e. ndorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood haTnrd, ubhc
health and safety or any other such issue' P '
~ Thi.s pr.oject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regJona~ interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The DisLdct will accept ownershi of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Fac ties must be constructed to District standards, and ~°istnct I
inspection wi be required for Distdct a,','o,,~ .... e, ................ ' p an check and
required. .-~.p,,~,,,~. ,-,a. ~uc~, Inspec~on and aomlnlstrarive fees will be
This project proposes channe s, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a Iogica extension of the adopted
oMfa~teerc, iD.~.in~ggl~lea~l.muT~s~bDeiSc~MnCts~gt~dC~on~j.de, r' a. cc.e. pri.ng .o~e~h_ip ot suc. rl taco ties on written request
· ~smct stanoares, ano u~strict p~an check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrariv& fees will be required.
This project is located with n the limits of the District's
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adoptecl; applicable tees sl~oula be T~mc~ by cashier's
check or money order only to tile Flood Control Distdct pdor t6 issuance of building or gradin perm ts.
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of ~he actuaJ
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
~RT~..e. iS project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES ermit
so. urce.s Control Board C earance for aradina record~i,,,, ~- ^,,--- ,: .... ;) pJ from the State Water
· · · . .~ o ..... , ~,, uu,=~ m~m approval snoulo not be given until the
~sy nas oetermmed that the proJect has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a Fedora Emergen_cy Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain, then the Ci should
require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and o~er ~nformafion .r~l_ u red to meiet¥ FEMA
requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
pdor to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision LOMR(~ dor to
occupancy. ( p
If.a..natum_l w. atercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the a ticant to
oota~n a ~ection 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~[ter ACt
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these a encies
indicating the pm. ject is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water ACt Section 401 Water Quali Ce~gf]cetion
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of ~e Corps 404
permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: -.~'~- -
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
20
CiTY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT
~ID
SITE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0417 (Development Plan) VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001
R:\D P\2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
OOC
O0000C
~0000000
O0
O0
PROJECT
SITE
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - SP-6 (Campos Verdes Specific Plan)
ZONING MAP
oo,°
PROJECT
SITE
GENERAL PLAN
R:\D P~000\00-0417 Margarita MediceBStaff report PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0417 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001
SITE PLAN
R:\D p~2000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
SOUTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0417 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001
ELEVATIONS
R:~O P~000~00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
I
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-04t7 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001
R:\D P~000\00-0417 Margarita Medical\Staff report PC.doc
LANDSCAPE
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 28, 2001
Planning Application No. 00-0448
(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-
0448 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-
0448 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADJOINING · COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING ON
LOT 3 TOTALING 29,186 SQUARE FEET ON 1.66 ACRES, AND
THE BUILDING ON LOT 4 TOTALING 29,186 SQUARE FEET ON
1.71 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MADISON
AVENUE WHERE MADISON AVENUE "T" INTERSECTS WITH
SANBORN ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 910-
272-005 (LOT 3) & 910-272-006 (LOT 4).
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
Davcon Development Inc., cio David Wakefield, 42389
Winchester Rd., Ste. B, Temecula, CA 92590
The design and construction of two adjoining commercial
buildings on two separate lots with the building on Lot 3
totaling 29,186 square feet on 1.66 acres, and the building on
Lot 4 totaling 29,186 square feet on 1.71 acres.
On the east side of Madison Avenue where Madison Avenue
"T' intersects with Sanbom Road [APN 910-272-005 (Lot 3) &
910-272-006 (Lot 4)].
R:~D P~000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report, doc
1
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commemial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Commercial Businesses
South: Commercial Building under construction
East: Interstate 15
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Lot 3:
Total Area:
Total Building Area:
First Floor/Building Footprints:
Second Floor:
Hardscape:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Lot 4:
Parking Provided:
Total Area:
Total Building Area:
First Floor/Building Footprints:
Second Floor:
Hardscape:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
BACKGROUND
72,310 square feet
29,186 square feet
21,686 square feet
7,500 square feet
4,605 square feet
16,639 square feet
29,380 square feet
Service Commercial (1:500)
Office (1:300)
74,488 square feet
29,186 square feet
21,686 square feet
7,500 square feet
4,618 square feet
20,678 square feet
27,506 square feet
Service Commercial (1:500)
Office (1:300)
1.66 acres
0.40 FAR
30.0%
6.4%
23.0%
40.6%
43 spaces
21 spaces
64spaces
70 spaces
1.71acres
0.39 FAR
29.1%
6.2%
27.8%
36.9%
43 spaces
21 spaces
64 spaces
71 spaces
A Pre-Application review was held in March 2000, and a formal application was submitted to the
Planning Department on October 31, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was held
on November 30, 2000; with follow up reviews completed in late January and early March. The
project was deemed complete on March 14, 2001.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
R:~d P~2000~00-0448 Etco~Staff report.doc
2
The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to design and construct two adjoining commercial
buildings on two lots with each building having 29,186 square feet of floor area. One building will be
on Lot 3, which isl.66 acres and the other will be on Lot 4 which is 1.71 acres. Both buildings are
intended for "big box users" such as appliance, carpet, and furniture showrooms with the option for
second floor office space. The site has 600 feet of freeway frontage with a 25 foot landscape buffer.
ANALYSIS
Site Desiqn and Circulation
As viewed from the freeway and Madison Avenue, the site and the two buildings will appear as one
integrated project, but with minimal separation from the common interior property line. Access to the
site is from Madison Avenue, with a driveway located on each end of the parcel. The building is in
the center of the site which allows circulation around the building with parking on all four sides. Only
a single row of parking is along the freeway frontage and this parking is buffered with a 25 foot wide
landscape planter.
Architecture & Colors
The proposed buildings will be constructed of tilt-up concrete with some second layer relief accents.
To provide a focal point to the buildings, the center of the building will be the tallest element. Then,
moving from the center out, the walls step down and then rise again at the comers. At the center of
the building elevation will be three large projecting archway accents. The entry points will be
recessed from the exterior plane of the building adding further depth to the elevation. Along the
freeway elevation, the corners are recessed, as well as the center where both buildings abut. These
recesses then create areas for three outdoor plazas.
The building will be finished in three shades of tan with two shades of terra cotta accenting. A
vertical band on the face of the building will be finished in the lightest shade of tan while the header
bands over the windows will be a light tan. Within the headers are an accent relief that will be
finished in tan. Of the three arches in the center of the building, the middle arch will be painted in a
light terra cotta. The outer arches will use terra cotta on their outer columns and the header while
the inner column is finished in light terra cotta. The windows will be a very light green with silver,
gold, or copper anodized aluminum framing.
While the applicant has requested that this application be scheduled for hearing, staff remains
concerned about the building design, particularly the elevation facing the freeway. With over 400
feet of lineal building frontage along the freeway, staff believes it is important to provide projecting
wall elements to help break up the vertical and horizontal wall planes. As a last minute attempt, staff
had recommended revising the plans to provide a minimum four-foot projection of several wall
elements. However, after reviewing the plans just pdor to this report deadline, staff is not satisfied
that the desired effect will be achieved. The projected elements are not detached from the building
face, but serve mainly as a solid concrete extension of the walls with little shadowing effects.
Staff would like the Planning Commission to review the elevations and consider staffs comments in
deciding whether substantial plan revisions are required.
Landscapin¢:l
As required by Code, at least 20 percent of each parcel, excluding the right-of-way, must be
landscaped and the applicant is providing 23 percent on Lot 3 and 27.8 percent on Lot 5. The
largest percentage of landscaping will be along the street and freeway frontages. The streetscape
R:\D P~000\00-0448 Etco\Staff repoA.doc
3
along Madison Avenue was installed a number of years ago in conjunction with the development of
the business park. The dominant street trees here are a tightly placed row of palm trees with
Chinese Pistache in groupings at each end of the palm row. There is an existing mw of shrubs
running parallel to Madison Avenue, behind the trees, which will provide immediate screening of the
parking lot for this project. Throughout the parking lot, 15 gallon Fern Pines and 24 inch boxed red
Crepe Myrtle will accent the building elevation facing Madison Avenue. On the east side, facing the
freeway, the building will be accented again with the red Crepe Myrtles and Queen Palms proposed
in the three plazas. Around the perimeter of the building are mixes of shrubs and flowering plants
that will provide further screening of the parking areas and accenting around the building. Along
the freeway frontage is an existing row of eucalyptus trees that will be complimented with Escallonia
to screen the parking spaces, yet maintain some freeway visibility.
Parkinq Analysis
Based on the City's parking standards for service commercial (one space per 500 square feet) and
office uses (one space per 300 square feet), a minimum of 64 parking spaces must be provided for
each lot according to the floor area. Building 1 will have 70 spaces and Building 2 will have 71
parking spaces on their respective lots. With the modest increase over the required number of
parking stalls, staff is confident that the site is adequately parked for the intended uses.
Minor Exceptions and FAR
The total square footage of this building, based on the outside dimensions, results in a gross floor
area ratio (FAR) of approximately .40 for both buildings, while the Development Code specifies a
target ratio of .30 FAR.
As provided by Section 17.08.050, the FAR can be as high 1.5 if certain incentives for increasing the
FAR are offered. To be eligible for an increase in FAR, the applicant must meet at least one of the
following criteria:
1. The project includes use(s) which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city
with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community.
2. The project provides exceptional amhitectural and landscape design amenities which reflect
an attractive image and character for the city.
3. The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those
required mitigation impact measures.
Attached is a letter from the applicant outlining how they believe they are qualifying for the FAR
increase related to the first two criteria. Staff cannot address the merits of that letter until our
architectural concerns have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission.
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 site is 3.37 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.
R:~D P~000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
The buildings are 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 Service Commercial (SC). Existing zoning
for the site is SC (Service Commercial). A wide variety of commercial uses are permitted within this
zone, with the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development
Code. The project as proposed, 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 generally consistent with applicable City policies,
standards and guidelines. We believe, given additional architectural conditions placed on the
project, that it can be compatible with the types of uses and quality of surrounding development, and
will represent an aesthetic addition to the City's service commercial area.
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. The proposal, two commercial buildings, is consistent with the land use policies of the
Service Commercial (SC) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General
Plan, as well as the development standards for Service Commercial (SC) 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 commercial 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.
2. 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:
1.
2.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 21
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Site Plan
E, Elevation
F. Landscape Plan
Exhibits Floor Area Ratio Justification Letter - Blue Page 27
R:\D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:~D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0448 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADJOINING COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING ON
LOT 3 TOTALING 29,186 SQUARE FEET ON 1.66 ACRES, AND
THE BUILDING ON LOT 4 TOTALING 29,186 SQUARE FEET ON
1.71 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MADISON
AVENUE WHERE MADISON AVENUE "T" INTERSECTS WITH
SANBORN ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 910-
272-005 (LOT 3) & 910-272-006 (LOT 4).
WHEREAS, Davcon Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. 00-0448, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0448 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. 00-0448 on
Mamh 28, 2001, at a duly noticed public headng as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0448;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-
0448 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula
Municipal' Code:
A. The proposal, two commercial buildings, is consistent with the land use policies of the
Service Commercial (SC) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General Plan, as
well as the development standards for Service Commercial (SC) contained in the City's
Development Code. The site is propedy planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically
suitable for the type and density of commemial 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
R:\D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
7
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.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-
0448 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, ram, or threatened species.
· The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
· The buildings are 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. 00-0448 for a Development Plan to build two
adjoining commercial building on two separate lots with the building on Lot 3 totaling 29,186 square
feet on 1.66 acres, and the building on Lot 4 totaling 29,186 square feet on 1.71 acres on the east
side of Madison Avenue where Madison Avenue "T" intersects with Sanborn Road, and known as
Assessor Parcel No's. 910-272-005 (Lot 3) & 910-272-006 (Lot 4). The Conditions of Approval are
contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 28~h day of March 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
City of Temecula )
R:~D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff repo~doc
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28t~ 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\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:\D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Project Description:
Planning Application No. 00-0448 (Development Plan)
The design and construction of two adjoining
commercial building on two separate lots with the
building on Lot 3 totaling 29,186 square feet on 1.66
acres, and the building on Lot 4 totaling 29,186 square
feet on 1.71 acres, located on the east side of Madison
Avenue where Madison Avenue "T" intersects with
Sanborn Road.
DIF Category:
Service Commercial
Assessor Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
910-272-005 (Lot 3) & 910-272-006 (Lot 4)
March 28, 2001
March 28, 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
cashiers 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. Ifwithin 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,
R:\D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
11
defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit,
the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D"
(Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division. Additionally, the following cdteria must be met prior 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 pdor to final agreement with the utility companies.
Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Details of these lights shall be submitted to
the Planning Department dudng plan check for review pdor to installation. The installation of
wall pack style light shall not be used along the street side elevation.
All parking lot lights and other exterior 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. 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 pdor to development of
the project:
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
approved colors and materials and with the Color and Material Board contained on file with
the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the
approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning.
Material Finish & Color
Windows, doors silver, gold, or copper anodized frames w/very light green glazing
Wall face vertical elements Windrift, Frazee 8240W (very light tan)
Wall face window headers Traditional Tan, Frazee 8261W (light tan)
R:'~D P~2000~00-0448 Etco\Staff repo~doc
Wall face header accents
Columns
Spice Cognac, Frazee 8273M (tan)
Parched Earth, Frazee 8354M (Light Terra Cotta)
Burnt Copper, Frazee 8355D (Light Terra Cotta)
Prior to
10.
the Issuance of Grading Permits
The Developer shall submit a Lot Line Adjustment application to move the lot line between
Lots 3 and 4 as shown on the approved site plan.
11. Two copies of a Phase 1 archaeological report shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Pianning Department. Any recommendations contained in that report shall be
implemented.
12. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
13. The applicant shall 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.
14. If modified the applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E 8, F", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape
Plan, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final Conditions of Approval and submit five (5)
full size copies.
15. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
· 8"X
for permanent fihng two (2) 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color
and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored
architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on
the photographic pdnts.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
16. The Developer shall record a Lot Line Adjustment between Lots 3 and 4.
17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "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 grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
19. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
R:\D P~000\00-0448 Etco~Staff reporLdoc
13
20.
22.
21.
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
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.
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 area and shall be centered at the intedor end of the parking space at a minimum
height of 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.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
General Requirements
23. 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
24. .A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and
~mprovements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
25. An 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.
26. 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.
R:~D P~000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
14
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
27. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
28. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
32. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
33. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
34. 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.
35. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shail be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
36. 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.
37. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
38. 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:
R:\D P~000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
15
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400.401and 402.
d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
e. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through under sidewalk drains.
39. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
40. 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.
41. 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 Temeoula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
42. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water Distdct
b. Eastern Municipal Water Distdct
c. Department of Public Works
43. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
44. 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.
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.
45.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
46. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California 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.
47. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior 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.
48. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
R:\D P~000\00-0448 Etco~Staff report.doc
16
49. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector pdor to commencement of
any construction or inspections.
50. Disabled access from the public Way to the main entrance of the buildings 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
51. All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998,
52. 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.
53. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and
structural calculations submitted for plan review.
54. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
55. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire
alarm systems and exterior lighting.
56. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and odginal signed
by an appropriate registered professional.
57. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review.
58. 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
59. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
60. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29.
61. 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.
62.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
R:~D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report, doc
17
63. 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 850 GPM for a
total fire flow of 2350 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
64. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distance~s 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 roads and adjacent public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 300 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located
no more than 180 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access read(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 Iii-B)
65. As 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
exterior 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 are required. (CFC 903.2)
66. 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)
67. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access reads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an ail weather surface for
80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
68. 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)
69. 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)
70. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
71. 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)
72. 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)
73. 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
R:\D P~000\00-0448 Etco\Staff reporbdoc
18
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 )
74. 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)
75. Prior 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 properly. 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 have 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)
76. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
77. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. (CFC Article 10)
78. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the dght side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4)
79. 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)
80. Prior 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.
81. 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. This building having a stated planned use
of mercantile is conditioned for a sprinkler system consistent with mercantile, and
accordingly high piled storage will always be prohibited, (CFC Article 81)
Special Conditions
82. Prior 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.
R:\D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
19
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 Material
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.
Prior 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.
87.
88.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated November 8, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information
Center, Department of Anthropology, University of Califomia, transmittal dated November 8,
2000, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated November 15, 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
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
Date
Name printed
R:~D P~000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
November 8, 2000
Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCELS NO. 3 AND NO. 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23561-I
APN 910-272-005 AND APN 910-272-006
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0448
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
theretbre, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
00~S B:aI225U:012-T3\FCF
I~ALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
~YSTEM
Eastern Irdormafion Center
Department of Anthropology
Un~versity of California
Riverside. CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
November $, 2000
TO: Carole Donahoe
City of Temecula Planning Department
RE: Cultural Resource Review
Case: PA 00-0448
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information
System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric
or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to
known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended.
J~. Based upon existing data the proposed project ares has the potential for containing cultural resources,
A Phase I study is recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study {MF #
) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the
nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not
anticipated. Further study is not recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #
recommended.
) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not
There is a Iow probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the
immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area. earthmoving during construction should be monitored
by a professional archaeologist.
The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for
Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation,
Preservar/on P/ann/ng 8u//etin 4fa), December 1989.
V' Phase I Records search and field survey
_ Phasell Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.!
_ Phaselll M~tigati~n[Datarec~verybyexcavati~n~preserva~i~ninp~ace`~rac~mbjnati~n~fthetw~~]
~ Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
EICtFRM SI, TRANSMIT
C bNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTI-I SERVICES AGENCY'
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALT]
November 15.2000
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Plot Plan No. PA00-0448
Dear Carole Donahoe:
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0448 and has n° °bjecti°ns'
Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLA_N CItECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) A clearance letter from 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
Sincerely,
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
:,cai Enforcement Agency · lEO. Box 1280. Riversiae. CA 92502-1280 * !909) 955-8982 * FAX (909) 751-9653 ' 4080 Lemon Sweet. 9th Floor. Riverside CA 92.~:
A'i-rACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\D p~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
=ROJ ECT SITE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0448 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001
VIClNITY MAP
R:\D P~000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
~,~-;\~.~, 'x---;.--;-.-.*-~tJ.¥... .... I' -' -'.' -'-'."-' .' .' .' *~.' .~_...z.- .. ., ., ., ., .~. ..~ ., ,a~' ..~
:\\\~: -:.:.:. :.
· ."\~, ~'_'"'.'.,'..,,'_,,,,. .... ".',','.',',',','.~,',','e.',',',','/~ ... ,'s .ak,,....
-- ~,;~ · i'~ '~'~ x:.:.: .:.:. i ''" "'"/"',,,,, ~'~'~'~>'~'~1~3'<
b, ~.42~_. _..~..,,,i-~-.- ~\\\;.:--.:-..:...:-..= ~, -,, · - -,/,,,,,,, -~,.A.A.,,'~
EXHIBIT B ZONINO MAP
DESIGNATION - $C (Service Commercial)
C.~~_ '.".':'~""'""":'"!'":'":'":~ ~..-~.~~"': ":'":'":'" '~'
· :..-:-..:...' ..... :.. · i.i '~
· :....=.~ ~.~.:.:.
EXHIBIT C Oi=NERAL pLAN
DE$1ONATION - SC ($ervice Commercial)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0448 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMI$SlON DATE - March 28, 2001
R:\D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0448 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001
SITE PLAN
R:\D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0448 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001
R:\D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0448 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT F LANDSCAPE
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 28, 2001
R:~D P~000~00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
26
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
FLOOR AREA RATIO JUSTIFICATION LETTER
R:\D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Staff report.doc
27
KONRAD RIEGER & ASSOCIATES
40440 Carl'llelJt~ Circle, Temecula, Ca
architecture, engineering
(909) 876-3759
Fel:mm~ 1, 2001
City of Temecula
Planning Deparlment
~ are my a~guments for appmvel of an incmaeed flo(x ratio:
(1) The established use of fha Center is 'Freeway Showrooms." "Service Commercial' is too broad
a term for this use, Typically, large floor ames ancl little parking define showrooms, Other cities
uae 1:750 parking ratio for showrooms; however, Etco Plaza has a parking ratio of 1:500.
Pafldng lots tend to look empty arid deserted, avert Iix)ugh business is thdving with showrooms.
(2) The buildings are provided wilh arc~iteotural enhancements especially along b~e fr~-~---ay, where
visllom get their 'first impressions of Temecula.'
4 open air patio courts recessed into the building at the freeway elevations
6 foot enby ~ all along ~ first floor freeway and Madison avenue elevations
3 large architectural ,:.~,~-,,.,.~e archways projecting from the building 2'-6' or 4'-0' placed
ce.b.~lly into the building fia~ede attached to the building, but placed into a wide planter
1Z wide planters along ~ building elevations on Madison and along the freeway.
2 square and 2 round planters within the hardscapa in the patio courts, allowing for
plants to er~ance the setting for empioyees or customers to rest and enjoy.
(3)
Tha oflTce use enhances the use and the fasl of the area as see~ from the fTeewey. There will be
cam and action during normally 'deacr times: before and after store hours of the showrooms.
Also dudng hex'mai business houm the pa~ing lot is used I:)y more cam, creating the impre~ion
of a busy and ~**elcomJng 8~)t. A p~g~<Jng lot that does not al~xmr 'empty', (aa happens oran
with Big Box Showrooms } offem enhanced business and ascurity.
(4)
The "tv,~.sto¥ look gives tt~ building a *lively' exterior and allows for mom architectural
enhancements. When driving by on the freeway, the uRoer pe~t of the buildings only ~ the
eye, as lye buildings sit somewhat lower than the freeway. Two-stoP/consb'tJction allows for a
taller and mom visible building. All the architectural features become two-sto~, and mom
atlmotive..
(5)
The economic bener~s to the City of Teme~ula of the addition of these two buildings a~e quite
dem'. Show-rooms bdng revenue no( only from local residents. Neighbouring this pojeot are two
existing showroom buildings, and one, which is under consthJCtion. This pfojeot fills the gap
between these three existing buildings and completes the "Show-mom Corridor ' along the west
· Page2 Mamh 22, 2001
side of the fl'eewey. This aggregate of show-rooms will be be very beneficial to all st.wounding
existing businesses and even ~ adjoining uses, lhe motel and ~ restaurants on Jefferson Ave,
(6) 'The o~tice u~e is necessary to make the enhanced architecture financially possible. In 1989, five
buildings w~'e onginally planned along ~ freeway and only two built. The recession saw the
fomcto~ura oflhe two buildings. The re-establishment of Ihase buildings on a diff~ent eoonomic
base w.as slow. Only affe~ Iwelve years doe~ it seem economically feasible to add to the Center.
Tne added office use will enhance the economic b~ of ~he Cent~, so it will flourish and avoid
similar pmbldms in the future,