HomeMy WebLinkAbout041801 PC Agendameeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6~.~.~. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
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
APRIL 18, 2001 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2001-009
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Chairman Guerriero
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.
Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 18, 2001.
R:~plANCOMM~agendas~200 I~A- 18-01.doc
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes from Joint PC/CC Workshop of January 16, 2001
2.2 Approve the minutes of February 7, 2001
2.3 Approve the minutes of February 21, 2001
COMMISSION BUSINESS.
3 Plannin A lication No. 00-0448 Develo ment Plan Davcon Develo merit Inc. to desi n
and construct two ad'oinin commercial buildin s on two se arate lots with the buildin on
Lot 3 totalin 29 186 s uare feet on 1.66 acres and the buildin on Lot 4 totalin 29 186
s uare feet on 1.71 acres located on the eastside of Madison Ave where Madison Ave "T"
~sle Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 To appoint a design subcommittee for revisions to the proposed freeway frontage
showroom/office building
4 _Director's Hearinq Update for March 2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and File
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 A lication 00-0427 Develo merit Plan Davcon Develo ment Inc. to desi n and
construct two ad'oinin industrial buildin s on two se arate lots with the buildin on lot 6
totalin 18 787 s uare feet on 1.08 acres and the buildin on lot 7 totalin 16 381 s uare
feet on 1.01 acres located on the south side of the Winchester Road west of Diaz Road
across from Rancho California Water District RCWD APN 909-310-006 Lot 6 & 909-310-
007 (Lot 7)1. - Thomas Thornsle¥, Associate Planner - Continued from April 4, 2001
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;
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
R;~plANCOMM~agendas~2001~4-18'01 .doc 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-
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 t6,381 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. 909-3t0-006 (LOT 6) & 909-3t0-
007 (LOT 7).
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next ReguLar Meeting:
May 2, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R:~plANCOMM\agendas~2001~4-18-01 .doc 3
ITEM #2
MINUTES FROM JANUARY t6, 2001
JOINT CC/PC WORKSHOP
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
JANUARY 16, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at
7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 16, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers:
Planning Commissioners:
Absent: Councilmember:
Planning Commissioner:
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Naggar.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Guerriero.
Comerchero
Webster
A. Councilman Stone advised that Mayor Pro Tern Roberts and he had participated in a
South County tour, sponsored by Lennar, to review architectural designs and
streetscapes, noting that the tour was educational, informative, and will ass.ist in the
evaluation of this particular and future projects. Mr. Stone encouraged each
Counciimember and Commissioner to partake in such a tour.
COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS
1 The Roripau,qh Ranch Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Consider the information provided by staff and provide direction to staff.
Briefly reviewing the staff report (of record), Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the
purpose of this workshop, noting that staff will present information to the City Council and
Planning Commission in an effort to obtain direction and input with regard to this project, noting
that the obtained information would then be incorporated into the Specific Plan and the design
of the project. At this time, Mr. Thornhill introduced Project Planner Naaseh, who proceeded
with a detailed overview of the project, clarifying the following:
R:~vlinutes\011601
1
That the applicant has worked with staff in an effort to revise the old Specific Plan in
order to achieve a higher quality development in the City;
· That previous City Council/Ad hoc Committee direction was to process the Specific
Plan based on the importance of the Butterfield Stage Road connection from
Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Rancho California Road; that it was determined that
the fiscal impacts of this project would be minor;
· That this project was originally submitted in the 1990s and since has undergone
numerous Land Use Plan changes; that original Land Use Plan was submitted at
over 2,000 dwelling units; that the Plan has been driven by a number of constraints
on the site:
Open space area requirements as per AD 161;
Fixed alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage
Road, which will dictate how the land use patterns will be developed
on this particular site;
· Other constraints include the fixed location of Nicolas Road, which
dictates the location of the loop road; another fixed location is Calle
Chapos s is the I'ong Valley Channel, and the open space areas;
· That the proposed density for this Specific Plan will be two dwelling units per acre
and that the General Plan permits up to three dwelling units per acre; that a total of
1,700 dwelling units are being proposed, including the 381 apartment units or multi-
family units;
· That the lot sizes will range between 5,000 square feet to 21/2 acres;
· That the area to the east (existing 21/2 acre lots) will be buffered by 1-acre, 10,000-
square foot and 6,000-square foot lots; that the area to the south (5-acre lots) will be
buffered with 20,000-square foot lot; that the elevation of the perimeter of the project
is significantly higher and, therefore, the proposed buffering would be viewed as
adequate. Mr. Naaseh requested City Council/Planning Commission input with
regard to the buffering issue;
· That the Village Center would be located next to the 21/2-acre lots; that after
reviewing the land use pattern and location, it was determined that the Village Center
should only be located at the major intersection at Butterfield Stage Road and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the commercial core.
At this time, Public Works Director Hughes addressed major components of the road system,
which would be the backbone of this project, noting the following:
· That the projected $20 million, financed through the Communities Facilities District
(CFD), will fund the infrastructure improvements for this project - the primary
improvements would include Murrieta Hot Springs Road (full width as an arterial
roadway for the project's connection with Butterfield Stage Road); Butterfield Stage
Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road down to the southerly project limits of
Roripaugh (full street improvements - 4-lane major collector); project boundaries of
the Roripaugh project to Rancho California Road to include the westerly half of
Butterfleld Stage Road; easterly half of Butterfield Stage Road along that route would
remain in the County of Riverside and no available funding is foreseen in order to
complete the easterly half of this improvement; discussions with the County have
included the County's participation in City improvements, especially in the grading
costs of the east side;
· That the City is actively pursuing available grant funding to as well complete the east
side; that if the County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) were
available, the easterly half would be a viable project to be funded by such source
funding;
R:\Minutes\011601
2
· That three east/west connections are being included in the CFD from Butterfield
Stage Road into the existing roadway system - Nicolas Road, Calle Chapos, and La
Serena Way; that once these connections are completed as well as Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and the connection to Rancho California Road, it will provide a major
connection for the City in providing an alternate north/south route; that the projected
average daily trips, at buildout, is estimated at 35,000;
· That another major component of the CFD is the drainage channel - the
undercrossing.
Providing additional information as it relates to density, Project Planner Naaseh noted that
Low/Medium Density includes 240 acres at a total of 886 dwelling units and that Low Density
(more rural) includes a total of 155 acres at a total of 265 dwelling units.
Mr. Wes Hyland, representing the applicant, project consultant, advised that at the last Planning
Commission workshop, this project was proposed at 2,058 dwelling units. Mr. Hyland
proceeded with providing background information with regard AD 161, noting that the initial
fiscal analysis proposed to fund a portion of the school fees by a CFD and a portion of
improvements by the CFD; that after further discussions with the City, a desire was expressed
to have the CFD fund as much of the road improvements as possible; that the applicant has
agreed to this and has committed the necessary funds ($20 million) to construct the facilities
and, in addition, has agreed to pay off the AD 161 debt used to build portions of Winchester
Road and improvements of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. In closing, Mr.
Hyland stated that the applicant has attempted to address issues raised by the City and has
provided the means to accomplish these issues.
By way of overheads, Mr. Kevin Evertt, representing the applicant, further described the
Roripaugh Specific Plan, commenting on the habitat hub and the various neighborhoods of the
Plan (Villas, Vineyards, Village Center, and habitat, which will include two 3.6 acre lots). Mr.
Everett advised that the residents of Nicolas Valley will not be able to see the Villas (property
located above the Nicolas Valley); that the Vineyard lots (east and south) are located higher
than the Nicolas Valley lots and that the closest home would be 10' to 15' above the existing
residences; that the Village Center (46.6 acres) will consist of a maximum of 15 acres of
commercial, a maximum of 381 apartment units, a fire station, a religious institution (5 acres),
along with other traditional uses of linkage. Further commenting on the project, Mr. Everett
noted the following:
· School Sites have been approved by the School District - 20-acre middle school site
and 12-acre elementary school site; that the applicant has met the park requirements
by providing three park sites - 10.4 acre, 10.1 acre, and 3.0 acre parks;
· Linkages include the following:
· Bike trail system
· Trail system (MWD easement) to link the Village Center and parks
· Pedestrian pathway system around Iccp road as well as 15' easement
for horse trail system
· East side of property will have a 15' easement for an equestrian riding
system to link with the UCR property and to Johnson Ranch and to
the outskirts of the habitat.
Mr. Evertt noted that the road system in the Villas area will be a loop road system - one which is
not growth inducing - and that no roads will enter into the surrounding perimeter.
R:~Vlinutes\011601
3
By way of diagrams, Mr. Pat Hersch, landscape architect, further elaborated on the three
proposed parks - a passive 10.1~acre park, an active 10.4 acre park, and a 3.0 neighborhood
park, commenting on location and correlation to the school and advising that the walkway
system through Murrieta Hot Springs Road through the Village Center will as well link the three
parks.
City Council Discussion
For Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that because of resident
concern with regard to growth inducing, Calle Contento will be eliminated from the Circulation
Element and that because of the number of trips carried through that area, staff had agreed with
the elimination. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts as well noted that Calle Contento has been a dirt road
which recently has been asphalt paved but not to City specifications; that the road runs through
the citrus/vineyard district; and that he would concur with eliminating Calle Contento from the
Circulation Element.
It was noted, for Councilman Naggar, that the proposed open space area has been designated
as habitat, which would be dedicated to the County and then maintained by a non-profit agency
for permanent habitat; and that the open space area will be fenced off; and that any issue
regarding the habitat area will have to be approved by the Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. Councilman Naggar noted his support of providing some Iow-impact uses for the
open space area.
For Councilman Naggar, Project Planner Naaseh advised that the multi-family component (381
apartment units) is being proposed on the south side of the Village Center and that, at this point
in time, no other details have been presented.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Public Works Director Hughes advised that Murrieta Hot
Springs Road would ultimately be improved to a four-lane arterial road; further elaborated on the
Buttedield Stage Road improvements, advising that it is estimated that Butterfield Stage Road
will carry 34,000 trips per day which would be equivalent to Margarita Road, south of
Winchester Road; that if the County were not to proceed with its improvements, a two-lane
facility (which would accommodate 16,000 to 18,000 trips per day as long as restricted access
be maintained along that route), south of Roripaugh Ranch project would be sufficient; that the
34,000 trips per day is a forecasted figure for buildout which will not be reached for many years.
Further addressing Councilman Naggar's questions, Mr. Hughes advised that the completion of
Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road projects would provide another alternate
route for the residents and, therefore, SR 79 South, Rancho California Road, Margarita Road,
and Winchester Road would actually experience a reduction in traffic trips. In the long-term
range, Mr. Hughes advised that it would be expected that Butterfield Stage Road would
continue north from Murrieta Hot Springs Road and eventually connect at SR 79 North (outside
of City limits), dependent on how that road will be established, it could function as an Eastern
Bypass and in that case, added trips would be expected on SR 79 North.
As this project proceeds, Councilman Naggar requested that a comprehensive trail diagram be
provided in order to determine how it would incorporate with the City's Trails Master Plan and
encouraged the applicant to meet with the City's Trails Master Plan consultant.
In response to Councilman Naggar's concern with regard to future school funding, Deputy City
Manager Thornhill and City Attorney Thorson advised that City's are limited in the imposition of
additional school impact mitigation measures and, therefore, the State had adopted a large
R:Vv~inutes~011601
4
bond issue to fund school construction. Mr. Thorson noted that a more detailed explanation of
alternative with regard to that issue would be provided at a later time.
Mr. Hyland reiterated that the applicant has been negotiating two school sites with the School
District, particularly the construction of the Elementary School.
Councilman Naggar requested that a timeline of this project be provided.
Councilman Pratt commented on the autoculture and the need for public transportation as well
as public education. For Mr. Pratt, Mr. Hyland advised that buildout of the project is estimated
at 5 to 7 years for most sections of the project with some being completed within the 7 to 9 year
range.
Commenting on the City's partnership with the Temecula Valley Unified School District in
maximizing the use of sports fields, Councilman Stone suggested that the proposed active park
be located adjacent to the school fields; questioned whether consideration had been given to
reversing the location of the park with the school in an effort to provide buffering for the
residents in Planning Area 22; questioned whether the sales tax revenue generated by the
proposed 15-acre commercial area could support City services for the estimated dwelling units
and whether the proposed 15 acres would be sufficient to accommodate the needs of the
residents; noted that the multi-family units would buffer the 7,200 square foot lots in Planning
Area 13 if some of the density in Planning Area 12 were reduced to create a larger commercial
core; expressed concern with locating two parks across the street from each other, viewing it as
poor utilization of open space; stated that he would prefer a passive park closer or adjacent to
the school in Planning Area 6 or somewhere within the Plan around Planning Area 21; and
suggested the utilization of paseos to link parks to the open space area.
For Councilman Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that AD 161 will not be funding the
internal street; that the General Plan incorporated traffic studies of this project at a density of
three dwelling units per acre which would equate to a total of 2,400 dwelling units, noting that
the proposed dwelling units will be 20% less; and that all assumed improvements, as per the
General Plan, are being completed, noting that a minor change with the alignment of Murrieta
Hot Springs Road. Community Services Director Parker stated that the project meets the
Quimby requirements.
Project Planner Naaseh advised that Nicolas Road has been downgraded to a 78' right-of-way
and that Johnson Ranch (approximately 5,000 units) has been deleted.
For Councilman Stone, Project Planner Naaseh noted that a new traffic study is being
completed and that the proposed development will be phased as necessary to aid the traffic
study and the Development Agreement. Deputy City Manager Thornhill stated that similar
conditions, as those imposed on Wolf Creek, would be imposed on the proposed project,
specifically as it relates to permitting development based on Level of Service as to the pulling of
building permits and that AD 161 will have to be in place prior to pulling a building permit.
Plannin.q Commission Discussion
For Councilman Naggar, Chairman Guerriero advised that a fire gate will be installed at Calle
Contento.
R:~linutes\011601
5
For Mr. Guerriero, Public Works Director Hughes noted that the Circulation Element does not
reflect the installation of landscaped medians for the arterial roads. Mr. Guerriero relayed his
desire to have landscaped medians installed.
Project Planner Naaseh clarified that the applicant is in the process of completing a trails map
which would be intended to provide connections through sidewalks, trails, design of the
subdivision, adequate pedestrian access to all schools, parks, and open space areas.
Further addressing the project, Chairman Guerriero requested the option for senior housing;
commented on the need for an additional high school; expressed concern with splitting the two
larger parks, noting that Wolf Creek is providing a 40-acre park; and stated that the proposed
buffedng of ½ acre parcels for lots 17 and 19 would be inadequate.
In response to Chairman Guerriero's suggestion, Deputy City Manager Thornhill suggested that
a senior housing component with increased density be considered at the Butterfield Stage
Road/Nicolas Road intersection in exchange for reducing densities at the lower-end of the
project. Mr. Thornhill also noted that another Police Substation is not being proposed.
For Commissioner Mathewson, staff noted the following:
· That the project buildout would be at approximately 1,700 units and 5,100
individuals;
· That the CFD would adequately fund the major backbone infrastructure as planned
but that it would not include the east half of Butterfield Stage Road which is located
in the County;
· That the proposed open space drainage (east of Butterfield Stage Road) will not be a
grass channel;
· That a 5-acre religious institution in the Village Center will be a permitted use,
commenting on built-in time limits.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Public Works Director Hughes advised that the
Circulation Element reflects Butterfield Stage Road as a restricted access corridor. Mr. Hyland,
representing the applicant, noted that the grading of the roads would have to be completed in
conjunction with the land adjacent to it, advising that the dirt for the roads, particularly Butterfield
Stage Road, will come from the adjacent land. It was noted that the first phase of the
panhandle would include Murdeta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield Stage Road to Nicolas, and
Nicolas.
Project Planner Naaseh, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, advised that staff would further explore
the County's Land Use Plan and would provide information at a later date.
With sufficient elevation change, Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the proposed buffering of
½ acre lots to the existing 21/2-acre to 5-acre lots would be sufficient. For Mr. Chiniaeff, it was
noted that the originally Johnson Ranch was to function as the Village Center.
For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh advised that Planning Areas 8, 9, 10, and
11 have been designated as permanent habitat areas; that currently no other uses are permitted
for these Areas; and that any changes from the current use would have to be approved by the
Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Public Works Director Hughes informed Commissioner Telesio that approximately 90% of the
necessary easements for both east and west halves of Butterfield Stage Road have already
R:Vvlinutes\011601
6
been obtained and that some slope encroachments along with some right-of-ways still need to
be acquired.
Public Comments
Mr. Bob Larson, 39673 Granja Court (resident to the east of the project), representing the
Neighborhood Watch Group, advised that the Group has neither taken a position in support or
opposition of this project; advised that over the past years, the Group has met several times
with the project representatives; stated that the project representatives have been
accommodating, informative, and responsive; and commended the applicant on his efforts to
reduce the originally proposed density. With regard to the project, Mr. Larson relayed the
following desires of the residents:
· No through street to Calle Contento
· Uniform bordering on the east end versus a chainlink fencing
· No street lights in bordering areas -transition street lights into the higher-density
areas
· Increased buffer for the south end
Commending the developer on the planning of the equestrian trails, Mr. Kenneth Ray, P.O. Box
891333, Temecula (property owner of a 5-acre parcel at the far southwest corner, adjacent to
the panhandle), informed the Council/Commission that he does not oppose the project and
stated that diligent planning efforts have been put forth with regard to it. Mr. Ray requested
grading and layout modifications to avoid severe erosion problems on his parcel and to the two
21/2-acre parcels to the east of him. In closing, Mr. Ray expressed concern with regard to
school funding and requested that no street lights be installed on the panhandle.
Mr. Bill Vazzana, 39605 Avenida Lynell (located on the easterly side of the proposed project),
requested that 21/2-acre parcels be placed along the southerly and easterly border and relayed
his opposition to extending Calla Contento.
Mr. Ed Picozzi, 31480 Nicolas Road, questioned the Council/Commission as to what
considerations have been given to the existing residents on Nicolas Road as it relates to their
change in lifestyles as a result of this project.
Although Dr. John Mize was not present, City Clerk Jones informed the Council/Commission of
a video Dr. Mize had presented to staff in hopes that it would be shown this evening.
At 8:47 P.M., Mayor Pro Tam Roberts called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 P.M.
Council Discussion
In response to Councilman Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented on the difficulty
with reversing the location of the park and school, commenting on staff's efforts to work with the
Temecula Valley Unified School District to achieve better school access, noting that placing the
school site along the highway would restrict the ability to provide more than one or two access
points and that placing the school site at a more internal location would create better and more
access points. Mr. Thornhill as well commented on staffs desire to provide internal linkages
such as a pedestrian bridge across Planning Area 24 from the lower Planning Areas.
R:~vlinutes\011601
7
Respecting the School District's decision as to location of the school, Councilman Stone
requested that the athletic fields be located to the west side in order for the City and the District
to work out a partnership with lighting.
With regard to the proposed project, Councilman Stone noted the following:
· Would not favor the chainlink fencing along the open space corridor
· Desirous of quality streetscape as well as paseos to line open space areas to public
parks
· Commercial area in Planning Area 12 to be expanded from 15 acres to a minimum of
20 acres
· Could support Planning Area 27 to a multi-family senior living facility
· Park in Planning Area 27 to be adjacent to the school site and connected to Murrieta
Hot Springs Road and adjacent to the school fields in Planning Area 6 if possible
· 20,000 square foot lots completely extended around the perimeter from the east to
the south and transition 20,000 to 10,000 square foot lots without minimizing the
density
· Development to be phased with finished infrastructure
· Overlays on the Specific Plan indicating what would be impacted along the periphery
of this Plan
· Supports light transitioning from denser residential to the more rural areas
· Supports a fire wall at Calle Contento
· Incorporate traffic calming architectural standards
· Construct homes with front accessibility and garages in the rear
In response to Councilman Stone, Public Works Director Hughes advised that AD 161 would be
paying for the infrastructure improvements to Nicolas Road but that those improvements would
not include full street improvements such as curbs, cutters, etc; and that Nicolas Road was
intended to be a 110' right-of-way but that it is being proposed to lower it in classification to a 78'
right-of-way.
For Councilman Pratt, Mr. Pat Hersch further described the location of the open space areas as
well as the view fence. Mr. Pratt relayed his opposition to the chainlink fencing and requested
the developer to participate in public transportation efforts.
Mayor Pro Tem Roberts relayed his support of pedestrian linkages from Planning Areas 19 and
20 to the school site and requested that such linkages should be discussed and possibly
included in the trail system; noted that in order for the equestrian trails to be functional, they
must be properly designed; requested a Homeowners Association horse arena and facilities;
and expressed support for not extending Calle Contento.
Relaying his support of transitioning the street lighting, Councilman Naggar concurred with
minimizing street lighting for the larger parcels as well as the smaller parcels in an effort to
retain the rural atmosphere. Mr. Naggar encouraged staff and the developer to address the
multi-family component in the early stages of the project and requested that staff discuss with
the appropriate agencies the possibility of a passive use for the open space areas.
Commission Discussion
In an effort to better accommodate the children and to achieve better accessibility,
Commissioner Telesio suggested that the school sites as well as the park sites be located more
internally of the project, removing those sites from the main streets; encouraged the use of
R:~Vlinutes\011601
8
parkways to narrow streets to create traffic calming as well as enhancement to the
neighborhoods; and relayed his support of a multi-family component with senior facilities in
order to address that need in this community.
Providing input with regard to the proposed project, Commissioner Chiniaeff stated the
following:
· Placement of future land use signs in an effort to avoid problems with individuals not
knowing what will be constructed on future sites such as multi-family housing, etc.
· Designation of Village Center should be removed and should be redesignated as
Neighborhood Commercial
· Supported either 15,000 or 20,000 square foot lots as buffering for the east and
south sides
Because of the substantial amount of elevation change, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that he
would not view Planning Area 15 as a high-density area.
With regard to this project, Commissioner Mathewson stated that if the dwelling units in
Planning Areas 17 and 18 were reduced in an effort to obtain larger lots in placement for a
second multi-family component in Planning Area 13, the following concerns would be raised:
· Land use transition to the adjacent 7,200 square foot lots to the east
· Increased number of dwelling units by 15% of overall project
Mr. Matthewson echoed concerns as to the size (smallness) of the Village Center; relayed
concerns with future school funding such as at the time of buildout; desirous of additional active
ball fields; recommended that street lighting be addressed in the lower-density parcels;
encouraged pedestrian linkages (paseos, parkways, smaller streets) throughout residential
neighborhoods for traffic calming effects; and expressed concern with the County not
completing the eastern portion of Butterfield Stage Road and its impacts on Rancho California
Road.
In closing, Chairman Guerriero made the following comments with regard to the proposed
project:
· Would favor a senior housing element in Planning Area 13
· Increase the commercial area from 15 acres to 20 to 25 acres
· Concerned about the lack of usable open space - no regional park in the area
· Encouraged the School District to explore property for a future high school site
· Landscaped medians on Butterfield Stage Road
· Address street lighting
· Would favor Overlays for the area off Nicolas Road
· Would favor pedestrian linkage connection to the school site from Planning Area 19
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that staff would
address Mr. Ray's drainage concerns to ensure the grading plan satisfies his concerns.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Looking forward to proceeding with this project, City Manager Nelson expressed appreciation to
the City Council and the Planning Commission for the valuable comments and input.
R:~vlinutes\011601
9
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:34 P.M., Mayor Pro Tern Roberts formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning
Commission Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on Tuesda~
200t~ 7:00 P.M., and to the next Planning Commission regular meeting on Wednesday~
January 17, 200'1, 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Ron Guerriero,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R:~/linutes\011601
10
MINUTES FROM
FEBRUARY 7, 200t
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 7, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:16 P.M.,
on Wednesday February 7, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Due to the adjournment of the meeting due to a lack of a quorum, the Flag salute was
not held.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, and Vice Chairman Mathewson.
Commissioners Telesio, Webster, and Chairman
Guerriero~
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Senior Engineer Alegria,
Attorney Baeza,
Assistant Planner Preisendanz,
Project Planner Rush, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
Due to the lack of a quorum, at 6:18 P.M. Vice Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned
this meeting to the next regular adiourned meeting to be held on Wednesda¥~
February 21, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R: PlanComrNminut est020701
MINUTES FROM
FEBRUARY 21, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 2t, 2001
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday February 21, 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 Webster.
ROLLCALL
Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Webster, and
Chairman Guerriero.
Absent:
Also Present:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 ARenda
RECOMMENDATION:
Commissioner Telesio.
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Assistant Planner Preisendanz,
Project Planner Rush, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 21, 2001.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of December 6, 2000.
2.2 Approve the minutes of December 20, 2000.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and
2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent, Commissioner
Chiniaeff who abstained with regard to Item No. 2.1, and Commissioner Webster who
abstained with regard to Item No. 2.2.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3 Director's Hearin.q Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and File
It was noted that due to this Item being a receive and file matter that the Planning
Commission took no formal action with respect to this item.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4
Plannin.q Application 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) - Sprint PCS Unmanned
Cellular Facility to desi,qn, 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 - Rotfe Preisendanz,
Assistant Planner - continued from February 7, 2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-004
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0257, 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
Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the
revisions to the plan since this matter was continued from the January 31, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting; relayed that the applicant has modified the rendering to be
consistent with the design which will actually be constructed, that additional branches
have been added to the monopine, that the size of the antenna has been reduced which
would now be tighter to the tree trunk; and confirmed that the antenna will be the same
color as the foliage.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding Condition No. 18
(regarding compliance with the conditions prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this
permit), Assistant Planner Preisendanz confirmed that compliance with the conditions
would be inclusive of adequate camouflaging of the antenna.
Mr. Steve Stackhouse, representing the applicant, relayed that the monopine would be
dense, adequately camouflaging the antenna; noted that at a future point there could be
a second carrier located on this monopine; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that
the materials utilized in the construction of the monopine are UV treated in order for the
materials to retain their color, advising that the expected life of the manufactured
needles was approximately 15-20 years, and that the simulated bark had a life
expectation of approximately 30 years with basic maintenance (i.e., painting every 10-15
years).
Commissioner Mathewson relayed appreciation to the applicant and staff for addressing
the concerns of the Planning Commission (i.e., creating a monopine that appeared more
similar to an actual tree).
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was
absent, and Commissioner Webster who abstained.
5
Planning Application 00-0416 (Development Plan) - Scott Electric Building, to design
and construct a 13,550 square foot office/warehouse building on a 1.06 acre lot
located at the north side of Roick [third pad (APN 909-282-013)] - Rick Rush,
Planner I - continued from February 7, 2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0416 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200~1-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0418 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,550
SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING
(SCO'I-I"S ELECTRIC BUILDING), ON A t.06 ACRE LOT
LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ROICK (THIRD
PAD), KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-
047.
Project Planner Rush provided an overview of the project plan (per agenda material),
highlighting the location, the General Plan designation (Business Park), the zoning (Light
Industrial), the dimensions of the site, the building area, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the
building height, the access, the parking area, the trash enclosure, the loading zone, the
employee lunch area, the landscape plan (which far exceeds the requirements), and the
proposed retaining wall; presented the elevation plans, relaying the materials which
would be utilized, the entry statement design elements, the gray roll-up doors, the
parapet which would screen the roof-mounted equipment; and noted that staff was
recommending that there be a slight color variation utilized in addition to the texture
variation, requesting the Planning Commission's input regarding this recommendation.
For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Rush relayed that there was no proposed 6-
foot chain-linked fencing on the north side of the project; and for Commissioner Webster,
confirmed that staff was recommending that there be a color variation on the single band
block, relaying that staff was not recommending a specific color be utilized for this
variation.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. David Wakefield, representing the applicant, relayed
that the applicant was willing to add the color variation recommended by staff, noting no
preference with respect to the specific color added.
Commissioner Webster concurred with staff's recommendation to add a slight color
variation in addition to the proposed texture variation, recommending that staff work with
the applicant regarding the details of the modification.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation inclusive of staff working with the applicant regarding adding
color variation above the first floor windows. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Telesio who was absent.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the applicant for Agenda Item No. 6 would be
delayed due to traffic, requesting the Planning Commission to consider Agenda Item No.
7 next.
It was noted that the meeting recessed at 6:45 P.M., reconvening at 6:53 P.M.
6
Plannin.q Application 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) -Scoffs
Manufacturin.q Facility- Kearny Real Estate Lot Split, to subdivide 31 + net acres of
industrially zoned property into two (2) lots. Proposed Parcel 1 is the Scotts
Manufacturin.q Facility site, currently under construction. Proposed Parcel 2 is the
area ori.qinally desi,qnated for the expansion of the Scoffs facility located at the
southeast comer of the extension of Dendy Parkway and the extension of
Winchester Road - Carole Donahoe, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Reaffirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted;
6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CiTY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0513 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 30044), THE SUBDIVISION OF 3t+_ NET ACRES
INTO TWO (2) INDUSTRIAL LOTS, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXTENSION OF
DENDY PARKWAY AND THE EXTENSION OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 909-370-022, -025, -026 AND -027
This Agenda Item was considered out of order, subsequent to consideration of
Agenda Item No. 7; see pages 8-10.
It was noted that the Planning Commission now considered Agenda Item No. 7 out
of order.
7 Plannin,q Application 00-0110 (Development Plan) -Tres D. LLC to desiqn and
construct a industrial stora.qe facility comprised of eiqht buildin,qs with a total of
64,073 square feet on 1.82 acres - Thomas Thomsle¥, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0110 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0110 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN
INDUSTRIAL STORAGE FACILITY (WESTSlDE
STORAGE) COMPRISED OF EIGHT BUILDINGS WITH
A TOTAL OF 64,073 SQUARE FEET, ON 1.82 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE
WINCHESTER ROAD WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 909-310-056, 909-310-
063, & 909-310-065.
Via overheads, Senior Planner Hazen presented the staff report (or record), noting that
the proposed plan was for the development of eight (8) storage buildings on a 1.82-acre
site, specifying the location, the zoning (Light Industrial), the access point, the location of
the office, the parking provisions, and the landscaping plan; relayed the materials which
would be utilized; and presented a rendering of the front setback from Winchester Road.
For Commissioner Webster, Senior Planner Hazen specified that this project would have
a forty-five-and-a-half percent (45.5%) lot coverage, relaying that this data was reflected
in the table on page 2 of the staff report; clarified that with the upper level floor this
proposal exceeded the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), relaying that the finding justifying this
increase would be based on to the architectural quality of the project; and noted that the
FAR increase was governed by the Light Industrial Standards which was a maximum
increase of 1.0, advising the requirement for a finding to justify the increase.
Commissioner Webster relayed that typically there was additional data in the staff report
regarding a request for a FAR increase.
For informational purposes, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the bougainvillea
denoted on the landscape plan typically did not grow well in this area.
Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the London plane trees along the frontage
be increased in size.
Mr. Ron Wylie, representing the applicant, noted the efforts expended on the plan to
create the aesthetic qualities this project proposes.
The Commission relayed the followin.q closin.q comments:
With respect to the FAR increase, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that for the findings
for the FAR increase this particular use was appropriate for this site due to the fact that
this area had a fault line traversing through it; and reiterated his recommendations
regarding the landscaping.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he was pleased with the architectural
treatment proposed on this particular project.
With respect to the FAR findings, Commissioner Webster relayed that he did not
concur with staff regarding this project proposing excellent architecture, advising that in
his opinion, this project did not qualify for the FAR increase, recommending that there
either be additional landscaping or that the FAR be reduced; and recommended
replacing the eucalyptus trees with an alternate evergreen tree.
Concurring with Commissioner Webster, Chain~an Guerriero relayed a desire for
additional landscaping and that the eucalyptus trees be replaced with an alternate
evergreen tree; and noted that in his opinion the architecture was great, and that this use
would satisfy a need in the area.
With respect to the eucalyptus trees, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this type of
tree provided height against the building, noting the need for balance with taller trees. In
response, Commissioner Webster relayed that the negative issues associated with
eucalyptus trees was regarding the maintenance of trees (i.e., the trees being drastically
cut back) which restricted the tree from serving aesthetic purposes, advising that an
alternate fast-growing evergreen would be better-suited in this area.
Senior Planner Hazen queried whether the Planning Commission had specific
recommendations regarding adding additional landscaping; queried whether the
Planning Commission would concur with adding additional landscaping at the rear of the
project. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the back of the property was
adjacent to no other development.
MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion failed.) Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to
close the public headng; and to approve staffs recommendation subject to the following:
Add-
That the London plane trees be increased in both size (to a 24-inched box
minimum), and number (to be worked out with staff), and that there be
investigation as to whether the number of the podocarpus trees should be
increased in number.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected denial
of the motion due to Commissioner Telesio being absent, and Chairman Guerriero and
Commissioner Webster voting no.
Chaim~an Guerriero relayed that he would prefer to have additional information
regarding Senior Planner Hazen's comments associated with wrapping additional
landscaping around the back of the site.
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that his rationale for not requiring additional
landscaping at the rear of the site was due to there being no development adjacent to
the property. In response, Chairman Guerriero relayed that he would recommend
installation of additional landscaping on the corner area since it was not known when the
adjacent site would be developed.
Mr. Wylie relayed that the applicant would be willing to reduce the size of the front
building in order to wrap landscaping around the corner. In response, Chairman
Guerriero advised that he would not require the applicant to reduce the building size
due to the need for storage use space in the community.
Commissioner Mathewaon noted that an alternative concept would be to set the
building on Winchester Road further back, to eliminate the two parking spaces (noting
that the project was over-parked), and to provide additional landscaping up front. The
applicant relayed agreement with this recommendation.
MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion was amended.) Commissioner Chiniaeff
moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staffs recommendation subject to the
following:
Add-
That the London plane trees be increased in both size (to a 24-inched box
minimum), and number (to be worked out with staff), and that there be
investigation as to whether the number of the podocarpus trees should be
increased in number.
That ~he single small building on Winchester Road be moved farther back,
the two parking spaces be eliminated, and that the same landscape palette
be installed in this area.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson.
Commissioner Webster queried whether this motion included the replacing of the
eucalyptus trees with an alternate evergreen tree.
Chairman Guerriero advised that staff could investigate as to whether there was a
feasible alternate tree that would provide an equitable height.
FINAL MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to
approve staff's recommendation subject to the following:
Add-
That the London plane trees be increased in both size (to a 24-inched box
minimum), and number (to be worked out with staff), and that there be
investigation as to whether the number of the podocarpus trees should be
increased in number.
That the single small building on Winchester Road be moved farther back,
the two parking spaces be eliminated, and that the same landscape palette
be installed in this area.
That the applicant work with staff to investigate whether there was a
suitable replacement tree for the eucalyptus trees which would provide an
equitable height.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote approval with
the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent.
At this time the Planning Commission considered Agenda Item No. 6.
6 Planninq Application 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) - Scoffs
Manufacturin.q Facility- Kearny Real F.tef_e Lot Split, to subdivide 31 + net acres of
industrially zoned property into two (2) lots. Proposed Parcel 1 is the Sco.~
Manufactudn.q Facility site, currently under construction. Proposed Parcel 2 is thc
area od,qinally desi,qnated for the expansion of the Scotts facility located at thn
southeast corner of the extension of Dendy Parkway and the extension of
Winchester Road - Carole Donahoe, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Reaffirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted;
6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0513 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 30044), THE SUBDIVISION OF 31_+ NET ACRES
INTO TWO (2) INDUSTRIAL LOTS, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXTENSION OF
DENDY PARKWAY AND THE EXTENSION OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 909-370-022, -025, -026 AND -027
Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (per agenda material), noting that
the Planning Commission approved PA No. 00-0335 on November 15, 2000 which was
a Fast Track Development Plan for Scoffs Manufacturing Facility, specifying the location
of the site, advising that since that approval the property owner informed staff that the
Scoffs Manufacturing Facility would not be leasing the entire 31 acres and that the
property owner planned on subdividing the property in order to utilize the remaining
acreage; noted that due to the lot split, the Scotts Manufacturing Facility would now
exceed the target FAR, ergo the matter was being brought before the Planning
Commission for consideration; relayed that the FAR would now be .42 while the zoning
requires .40, relaying that staff supported the applicant's request for a FAR increase
based on the following items: 1) the increase would not exceed the maximum density
range, 2) the City Engineer has determined that the impacts resulting from the increase
have been mitigated (per the Conditions of Approval for PA Nos. 00-0335, and 00-0296),
3) the facility will provide exceptional employment opportunities, 4) this particular project
was designed with exceptional architecture and landscape amenities, and 5) the Scotts
Manufacturing Facility is providing enhanced public facilities (which exceed those
required as part of the mitigation measures for the project); and advised that staff was
recommending adding Condition No. 61 (per supplemental agenda material) which
addresses compliance with the recommendations setforth in the Riverside County Flood
Control & Conservation District's transmittal, dated February 16, 2001.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley advised that although Commissioner
Mathewson was not present at the original hearing when this issue was approved, that
he could participate in taking action on this item due to the data being new.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that initially Parcel
No. 2 was identified as a future expansion area and was required to be hydroseeded
and landscaped; and noted that this map has been conditioned to provide perimeter
landscaping along both Dendy Parkway and Remington Avenue, advising that the Scotts
Manufacturing Facility would be adding landscaping, as required, along the perimeter of
their site.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Donahoe specified where the
landscaping would be located, confirming that the landscaping would be installed around
the perimeter of the new parcel if the parcel map records, noting that if the map did not
record the Development Plan for Scoffs Manufacturing Facility would require the
applicant to comply with that associated landscape plan; and confirmed that this matter
was before the Planning Commission due to the request for a FAR increase.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that staff opted to
bring this issue before the Planning Commission, acknowledging that the modification
was insignificant, due to the project being initially approved by the Planning Commission;
and noted that in the future, if it was the Planning Commission's desire, this type of
matter could be addressed at a Director's Hearing rather than at the Planning
Commission level.
Commissioner Mathewson noted appreciation for staff bringing the matter to the
Planning Commission, advising that the circumstances warranted consideration by the
Commission.
Mr. John Bragg, representing the applicant, relayed that the Scoffs Manufacturing
Facility had opted not to utilize the entire site; provided additional information regarding
the existing surrounding buildings' FAR; noted that the remaining lot was a significant
parcel at 8.5 acres, advising that large parcels were rare in the City of Temecula; relayed
that the applicant was in concurrence with the Conditions of Approval; for Commissioner
Chiniaeff, noted that the Scoffs Manufacturing Facility has not determined whether at a
future point the additional acres would be utilized by this use; confirmed that there were
no proposed revisions in the number of employees Scoffs Manufacturing Facility would
employ at this site; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that if the FAR was not
increased, the adjacent site would need to be reduced by 1.2 acres, providing additional
information regarding the circulation issues associated with this reduction; and noted
that the Scoffs Manufacturin,gthFacility informed the property owner of the desire to not
utilize the 8.5 acres at the 11 hour of negotiations, advising that the decision was based
on financial issues.
Commissioner Webster relayed that his sole concern with respect to the original
approval (on November 15, 2000) was regarding adequate parking provisions; and
noted that since that issue was not affected by this proposal, he was in support of the
proposal, inclusive of the request for a slight FAR increase.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staffs recommendation with the addition of Condition No. 61 (regarding compliance with
Riverside County Flood Control & Conservation District issues) as presented in the
supplemental agenda material. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson
and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was
absent.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
For Commissioners Webster and Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed
that she would further investigate the zoning map in the Notice of Public Hearing
included in the Planning Commission's agenda packets.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeffs queries regarding proximity to the
Water District property, Commissioner Webster provided additional information.
Chairman Guerriero noted that Councilman Naggar had appealed the Planning
Commission's action regarding the Bel Villaggio Project based on the rationale
that a project of this magnitude needs to be considered by the City Council;
queried what magnitude of projects should come before the Planning
Commission for approval; and relayed that in his opinion the Planning
Commission was wasting its time.
In response, Attorney Curley noted that there may or may not be an
augmentation for this particular appeal which may respond to Chairman
Guerriero's concerns; acknowledged Chairman Guerdero's comments regarding
the charge given the Planning Commission with respect to Land Use jurisdiction;
advised that it was not uncommon when a Councilmember believes that while an
issue is worthy of the Planning Commission that it was additionally worthy of City
Council consideration due to the consequences and implications of the project;
and noted that the appeal had no reflection on the Planning Commission.
Chairman Guerriero relayed that three approvals of the Planning Commission
had been appealed by Councilman Naggar; and queried whether the parameters
of the Planning Commission's authority should be re-explored.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she would relay to the City Council that
if there was a desire to modify the approval authority matdx, that the City Council
provided that direction to staff, advising that in her opinion it was unfair to
applicants when the approval authority matrix standard was challenged, while
acknowledging that any Councilmember has the right to appeal any project.
For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Councilman
Naggar had specific quedes regarding the traffic study, noting that the appeal
would provide him an opportunity to address these issues.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that he was on the odginal City
Council when the parameters for the appeal process were put in place, noting the
concern at that time regarding individuals not having the financial resources to
appeal a project, ergo, the decision to allow any one Councilmember the ability to
appeal a decision of the Planning Commission; relayed that under those same
guidelines it was established that it took four votes for an individual to be
appointed to a Commission; noted that in the past year, the City Council revised
the process of appOinting a Commissioner to a requirement of three votes; and
relayed that the Planning Commission should not take this appeal personally,
noting that there were dynamics that needed to be addressed at the City Council
level.
Chairman Guerriero reiterated that his concern was regarding the information
that stated the reason for appeal was due to the magnitude of the project.
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the cumulative traffic was an issue of
concern; and for Chairman Guerriero, noted that there have been discussions
regarding the feasibility of conducting focused traffic studies on Highway 79
South, and Winchester Road.
Chairman Guerriem reiterated his past recommendation to place a tollbooth at
Murrieta Hot Springs RoadANinchester Road.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that staff met with
Cosco representatives to detail the issues regarding landscaping, advising that
the applicant had responded with proposals; noted that unfortunately the
timeframe for the City's Landscape Engineer's contract had lapsed and staff had
to wait for the City Council to renew that contract; advised that Cosco did submit
a permanent sign plan to the City, noting that a permit was issued on February 7,
2001, relaying the staff communication lapses regarding the timeframe required
for installing the sign; advised that he had notified the Cosco representatives that
the sign needs to be installed in 14 days; relayed that the City's Landscape
Architect was back on contract, and that staff would update the Planning
Commission regarding the Cosco use at a subsequent meeting; provided a
history of the dealings with the Cosco representatives, and the recent installation
of the bollards; and for Chairman Guerdero, noted that the City's Landscape
Architect had relayed that with respect to the plantings in the planter proximate to
the gas station area, that this area may have been over-planted, while noting that
the dead trees would be replaced.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that staff could indicate to the Cosco
representatives that there was one Planning Commissioner who was irate at their
inappropriate timing in addressing the previously discussed issues.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske
provided an update regarding the process of the General Plan Update, noting
that a firm has been selected and that the scope of work has been defined; and
confirmed that she would provided additional information in terms of the scope of
the work and the schedule for completion.
With respect to requests for FAR increases, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried
whether the Planning Commission desired to have insignificant increase requests
brought before the Planning Commission. In response, Chairman Guerriero
concurred that issues similar to the two percent (2%) increase presented earlier
in the meeting did not need to be brought before the Commission.
Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that parameters (in terms of a specified
percentage) should be set regarding the requests for Far increases as to whether
the requests would be dealt with at a Director's Headng or at the Planning
Commission level.
Chairman Guerriero noted that if the issues were addressed at a Director's
Hearing, a Planning Commissioner could appeal a decision if there was concern.
In response, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would concur, as long as
there was adequate notification.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that at times exhibits provided in the staff report
were so miniscule that they were illegible, noting that typically the full set of plans
were additionally provided; and queried whether in an effort to save paper these
illegible exhibits should be eliminated from the agenda material.
In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if it was the Planning
Commission's desire these exhibits could be omitted.
For Commissioner Webster, Attorney Curley relayed that staff would investigate
as to when the Planning Commission would receive their annual Conflict of
Interests statements to complete.
For Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that
reservations have been made for the Planning Commissioners to attend the
Planners' Institute, advising that Administrative Secretary Wimberly would be
providing the Planning Commission with additional data.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's queries as to re-scheduling the
Mamh 21, 2001 Planning Commission meeting (due to the Planning
Commissioners being out of town at the Planners' Institute Conference), it was
the general consensus of the Planning Commission to schedule the second
March Planning Commission meeting for March 28, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:40 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular
adjourned meeting to be held on Wednesday~ March 7~ 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerdero,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
ITEM #3
VERBAL DISCUSSION
ITEM #4
CITY OFTEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
April 18, 2001
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for March, 2001
Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action
March 1,2001 PA00- A development plan for mass WMII Partners Approved
00247 grading for future
development - to create build
able pads at two locations on
a long 5.45 acre site capable
of supporting up to a 5, 000
and a 10,000 square foot
buildings
March 8, 2001 PA00-0355 Tentative Parcel Map No. Keith London Approved
29949 - to subdivide a 20-
acre parcel into 1 parcel (5.21
acres) and one remainder
parcel (14.79 acres)
March 15, 2001 PA00-0443 Tentative Parcel Map- WMII Partners Continued
request to subdivide a 3.09 off
acre parcel into two lots Calendar
March 29, 2001 PA00-0452 Extension of Time for Vesting Yogesh Goradia Approved
Tentative Tract Map 25004 -
third one year extension of
time
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas ~ Blue Page 2
R:XDIRHEARWIEMO~200 l'dVlarch2001 .memo.doc
1
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
R:~D IR H EAR'uMEMO~2001 'uVlatch2001 .memo.doe
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 1, 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_._Jt 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: Planning Application No. PA00-0247 (Development Plan for mass
grading for future development.)
Applicant: WMII Partners LP, c/o Mr. Gary Nogle, 2398 San Diego Ave., San Diego,
CA
Location: A 5.45 acres site located between Margarita Road and Rustic Glen Drive
both west of Winchester Road (Assessor's Parce{ Numbers 911-170-090)
Proposal: A grading plan application to create buildable pads at two locations on a
long 5.45 acre site capable of supporting up to a 5,000 square feet building
adjacent to Margarita Road and up to a 10,000 square foot building
adjacent to Rustic Glen Drive. The future development will likely include
office and supportive commercial uses.
Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Case Planner: Thomas Thornsley
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION: APPROVED
p:~LANN ING~DIRHEAR~2001 \03-01-01 AGENDA..doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 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 am not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
ACTION:
PA00-0355 (Tentative Parcel Map Number 29949)
Keith A. London
30835 Lolita Road
Request to subdivide a 20-acre parcel into 1 parcel (5.21 acres) and
one remainder parcel (14.79 acres).
This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 15
Categorical Exemption 15315 (Minor Land Divisions)
Rick Rush
APPROVED
P:~PLANN1NGXDIRHEARX2001 \03-08-01 AGENDA..doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 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 not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before, that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Planning Application No. PA00-0443 (Tentative Parcel Map)
WMII Partners LP, c/o Mr. Gary Nogle, 2398 San Diego Ave., San Diego,
CA
On the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road
(Assessor's Parcel Numbers 921-900-076)
Proposal: A request to divide a 3.09 acre parcel into two (2) lots.
Environmental Action: Exempt per CEQA Sec. 15315 (Minor Land Divisions - Four or fewer lots.)
Case Planner: Thomas Thornsley
ACTION: ITEM WAS CONTINUED OFF CALENDAR
p:~PLANNINGkDIRHEAR~2001\03-15-01 AGENDA..doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING'
MARCH 29, 2001 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so membem of the public can address to the Planning
Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers am limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you am 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. Them is a throe (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
Case No:
Case Name:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION
Planning Application No. PA00-0452 (Extension of Time)
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25004
Yogesh Gomdia
Northerly of Nicolas Road and east of Seraphina Road
The third one-year Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
25004
Compliance with previous environmental findings, per California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15162 Subsequent EIRs
and Negative Declarations
Rolfe Pmisendanz, Assistant Planner
Maym L. De La Torre, Assistant Engineer
Approval
APPROVED
P:XPLANNING~IRHEAR~001 \03-29-01 AGENDA..doc
ITEM #5
ClTY OFTEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
· TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Subject:
Planning Commissioners
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director
April 18, 2001
Planning Application No. PA00-0427 is a request 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, located on the south side of Winchester
Road, west of Diaz Road across from Rancho California Water District (RCWD)
[APN 909-310-006 (Lot 6) & 909-310-007 (Lot 7)].
PREPARED BY:
Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt a Notice of Exemption for/and
approve PA00-0427 (Development Plan for two industrial buildings).
BACKGROUND:
This project has been continued from the March 7th, March 28 th, and
the April 4th, 2001, Planning Commission meetings to allow the
applicant time to confer with staff and prepare a complete set of
plans reflecting an alternative building and site design that eliminates
the roll-up doors facing Winchester.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted revised plans that eliminate the loading docks that projected from the
sides of the buildings; added further accenting and windows on the side elevations, and increased
the landscape areas.
On the east elevation there is a need for a roll-up door to accommodate the tenant's needs. This
door is now located near the middle of the eastern elevation. To reduce the public visibility, staff
recommended that the wall be insert four feet from the vertical plane of the forward portion closest to
Winchester Road. This offset will not only aid in screening the roll-up door but it helps provide relief
along the side of the building.
On the west side of building #7, the loading dock has been eliminated. Windows are now proposed
along the upper band of portion of the entire side and rear elevation. With the drive aisle
realignment, the entire west side of the building will now be landscaped. Although an offset was
provided on the east elevation, a similar offset to this elevation would create complications to the
tenant's floor plan. Along the first third of this elevation, from the front back, there are sufficient
offsets with the projected entry and the clipped corner. Staff felt that the rear two thirds were less
likely to be visible, so to add a little extra screening, staff suggested that a portion of the parking,
along the west property line, be shifted rearward on the site and landscaping be brought forward.
R:'xD P~2000~0(~0427 Accel-Gentek~C memo 4-18-01.doc
1
This relocated landscaping will further screen the view of this side of the building as seen from
Winchester Road.
Adjustments were also made to the alignment of the drive aisles on both sides of the buildings with
the elimination of the original loading dock. This realignment has added additional landscaping
along the entire length of the west elevation and increased the planting area along both side
property lines from five feet to over 15 feet in some location. Overall landscaping has increased to
24.9% for Lot 6 and 26.4% on Lot 7.
With the increased landscaping, the added windows and the reconflguration of the loading areas,
staff believes the applicant has meet the objectives of the Planning Commission and kept a design
that meets their business needs. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Planning commission Adopt
a Notice of Exemption and approve this project based on the attached findings and conditions of
approval.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 2
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval (revised) - Blue Page 6
2. March 7, 2001, Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 17
R:~D pL2000\00-0427 Aec~l-G~ntck~PC memo 4-18-01 .doc 2
A3-FACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:~D P~2000~00-0427 AoceI-Gentek~PC memo 4-18-01.doc
3
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 N O'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 7th, March 28t~ and April 4th, and April 18th, 2000, at duly noticed public hearings as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did
testify either in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved 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~2.000~00-0427 AcceloGentek'~PC memo 4-18-01 .doc
4
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-
0427 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following
criteria:
· The sites are 2.09 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
· The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area.
· The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
· The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
· The buildings building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan
designations for the site.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0427 for a Development Plan to build two
adjoining industrial building on two separate lots with the building on lot 6 totaling 18,787 square feet
on 1.08 acres, and the building on lot 7 totaling 18,381 square feet on 1.01 acres on the south side
of the Winchester Road, west of Diaz Road, and known as Assessor Parcel No's. 909-310-006 (Lot
6) & 909-310-007 (Lot 7). The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 18th day of April 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 18th day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'~D P~2000~)0-0427 AcceI-Gentek~PC memo 4-18-01 .doc
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:~D P~2000~30-0427 AcceI-Gentek~PC memo 4-18-01.doc
EXHIBIT A
Proiect Description:
CiTY OFTEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
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.
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
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - planning Division a
1. cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-
eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice
of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California
Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant
has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check
as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all
claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary
damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters
of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167).
The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the
action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional
deposits to cover anticipated costS. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions
of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly
notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify,
defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
R:~D I~000~004M-27 Accel-Gentek'u~C memo 4. lS-01.doc
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 criteria 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 prior to final agreement with the utility companies.
c. The site plan shall be modified to bring seven feet of the rear landscape buffer to the
front of the site along Winchester Road.
Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Details of these lights shall be submitted to
the Planning Department during plan check for review prior 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 surfaces of each building.
b. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements
that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When
determined to be necessary bythe 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
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 criteria must be met prior to development of
the project:
a. Replace the three Pyrus Calleryana and the Prunus Ceraasifera 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:'ff) Pk2000~004)427 Accel-Gentel6.PC memo 4-18-01.doc
8
Material
Windows, doom
Exterior walls:
Wall face
Columns
Accent Band
Finish & Color
Silver anodized frames with blue-green glazing
White Shadow 181 (warm white)
Sandblasted concrete
Light Gray-green
Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits
10. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
bythe Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and 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 Material Board) to reflect the final Conditions of Approval and submit five (5) full size
copies.
13. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy 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 prints.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
15. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved 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).
16. A reciprocal access agreement between lots 6 and 7 shall be recorded upon the deeds of
both properties and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Director of
Planning.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
17. 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~200~00-0427 Accel~3entek~C memo 4-18-01.dec
9
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.
18. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction
landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department -
Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant.
19. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text er equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in are and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-
street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, cleady and conspicuously stating
the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3
square feet in size.
20. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with 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 flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
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:kD Pk2000~00-0427 Accel-GentekAPC memo 4-184)1.dcc
10
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 study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
29. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
30. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Planning Department
b. Department of Public Works
c. Southern California Edison
31. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
32. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
33. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
34. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation 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.
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, SectJon 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may
include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit
shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
36. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
R:'fl) F'~2000X004427 Accel-Gentek'xPC memo 4-184}1.doc
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with 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. 401 and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. 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.
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
preperty.
39. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
40. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to
the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass
Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
41. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Department of Public Works
42. All public improvements, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
43. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
44. All design components shall comply with applicable previsions 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.
R:'xD PX2000~00-0427 Accel-Gentek'd'C memo 4--18~)1.doc
12
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50,
51.
52.
53.
54.
55,
56.
57.
58.
59.
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.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of
any construction or inspections.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building(s) is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope, stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled
Access Regulations effective April 1,1998). Provide precise grading plan for plan check
submittal to check for handicap accessibility
All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998,
Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the
main entries in accordance with California building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan
as requested above which indicates compliance with this.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and
structural calculations submitted for plan review.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire
alarm systems and exterior lighting.
Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed
by an appropriate registered professional.
Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
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.
R:~D PX2000\00-0427 Accel-Ocntek~l~C memo 4-18-01.doc
13
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), Califomia 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
dudng the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Iii-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 access road(s)
frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s)
in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2,
and Appendix Ill-B)
63. 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 903.2)
64. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
65. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access reads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
66. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (
CFC sec 902)
67. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
68. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
69. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
70. 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)
71. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
R:~D PE?.000~00-0427 AcceI-GenteIGPC memo 4-18-01.doc
Special
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 ara signed bythe local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fira
Prevention Buraau for signatures. The raquired 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 Fira
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. 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 Fira
Pravention 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 fira sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fira Prevention Bureau for approval prior 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. 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)
77. All manual and electronic gates on requirad 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. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepara and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
79. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fira department access reads. 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 abovegraund 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)
Conditions
R:~D P~2000~00~427 Accel. Gentek~C memo 4-18~!.doc
15
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. 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.
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. 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
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:'~) P~2000't004)427 AccelfoenlekAPC memo 4-18-01.d0c
November 3, 2000
Thomas Thomsley, Case Planner
City. of Temecula
Planning Depmtment
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
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 lmve any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Bram~on, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
00XSB:at218~F012-T6hCCF
CObNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HE,~
November 7, 2000
CiV,' of Temecula'Plannin" Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Plot Plan No. PA00-0427
NOV 1 3 7000
Dear Thomas Tho,'nsley:
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 area.
- ' ' are required:
2. pRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK sUBMITTAL for health clearance, the tollow~ng ~tems
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,
~~ironmental Health Specialist
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
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2
MARCH 7, 2001, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
R:~D P~2000\00-0427 Accel-Gentek~PC memo 4-18-01.doc
17
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mamh 7, 2001
Planning Application No. 00-0427
(Development Plan)
Prepared By: Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-
0427 pursuant to Section 15332 of the Califomia 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 California Water District (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
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 District Offices
South: Industrial Building
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
47,045 square feet 1.08 acres
18,787 square feet 0.399 FAR
16,430 square feet 34.9%
487 square feet 1.0%
9,785 square feet 20.8%
20,343 square feet 43.3%
Office 4,714 square feet (1:300) 16 spaces
Manufacturing 1,200 square feet (1:400) 3 spaces
Warehouse 12,783 square feet (1:1000) 13 spaces
32 spaces
32 spaces
43,996 square feet 1.01acres
16,381 square feet 0.374 FAR
16,381 square feet 45.5%
650 square feet 1.5%
8,931 square feet 20.3%
18,034 square feet 41.0%
Office 4,218 square feet (1:300) 15 spaces
Manufacturing 2,400 square feet (1:400) 6 spaces
Warehouse 9,763 square feet (1:1000) 10 spaces
31 spaces
32 spaces
BACKGROUND
The applicant began working with the City late last year when they submitted a formal application to
the Planning Department on October 19, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was
held on November 30, 2000, with follow up reviews completed in February. The project was
deemed complete on February 20, 2001.
R:~) 1=~2000\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 § totaling 18,787 square feet on 1.08 acres
and the building on lot 7 totaling 16,381 square feet on 1.0'1 acres. Accel Connectors Inc., and
Gentek Electronics, electronic component distributors, intend to occupy these buildings. Neither
business involves any manufacturing.
ANALYSIS
Site Desiqn and Circulation.
The site encompasses two lots totaling 2.09 acres located on the south side of Winchester Road.
Both buildings abut the intedor common property line and as designed, appear more as one building
with entries on opposite sides. With the buildings in the center of the site, there will be two access
points off of Winchester Road and 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. Thedocks are appr°ximately 140 feet back fr°m the fr°nt °f the buildings and 200 feet
from the street. With depressed loading docks, shorter, eight foot, rollup doors can be utilized. The
dock are also be screened by the perimeter and parking lot landscaping, as will the planter provided
alongside the truck wells. Based on the placement of the docks and the landscape screening the
docks should only be visible through a narrow view corridor from the driveways into the site.
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 primarily finished in a warm white with
light gray-green accenting in va~ng 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.
Varied 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.
==.~n m~nnn\nn-(1427 AcceI-C-entek~Staff report.doc
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 CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons:
· The sites are 2.09 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
· The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area.
· The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
· The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
· The buildings building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations
for the site.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Business Park (BP). Existing zoning for the
site is LI (Light Industrial). A variety of industrial uses are permitted within this zone, with the
approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project
as proposed, meets all minimum standards of, and is consistent with, the General Plan,
Development Code and the Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards
and guidelines. We believe, given the additional conditions placed on the project, it is compatible
with the types of uses and quality of surrounding development, and will represent an aesthetic
addition to the City's industrial area.
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. The proposal, two industrial buildings, is consistent with the land use policies of the
Business Park (BP) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General Plan,
as well as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the City's
Development Code. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is
physically suitable for the type and density of industrial development proposed. The project,
as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local
ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide
Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water
Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes.
R:~D FA2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report, doc
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:
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. Genera/Plan
Site Plan
Elevation
Landscape Plan
Statements of Operation - Blue Page 27
R:~D 1:~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:~D P~000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek\Staff report.doc
A'n'ACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~ F~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff reportdoc
CITY OF TEMECULA
'× ~ND I'
Project
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R:~D P~2000~00-0427 Accel-C-entek~Staff report, doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
Project Site
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - LI
ZONING MAP
Site
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
GENERAL PLAN
R:~D P~000~00-0427 Accet-Gentek~5;~ff ,-=,.,..., ..,__
CITY OF TEMECULA
WIN CH£S~'~r~ r~OAD
PROPOSED BJILDING 7
~R,qPCSED BIjILDING 6
|/
PLANNING APPLICATION NO, 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
EAST ELEVATION
......... ~.~:::~ ............................ F,;~.-'-
': ~',';:; ~' .~: :~','~1 .
..... ~.. ~ ......
I
SOUTH ELEVATION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PAD = 23.75
F.F. = 24.50
PHASE II
PAR. 7
PAD = 23.75
F.F. = 24.50
PHASE
PAR. 6
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 7, 2001
LANDSCAPE
R:~D 1:~2000~00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STATEMENTS OF OPERATION
R:~D P~2000\00-0427 AcceI-Gentek~Staff report.doc
GENTEK ELECTRONICS
27941 DIAZ RD. STE. A'
TEMECULA, CA. 92590
PH: 909-587-0220
Attention: Temecula City Planning Department
Davcon Development Inc.
"STATEMENT of OPERATIONS"
Gentek Electronics:
Is an Independent Electronic Component Distributor
Currently we have five employees and project to have up
to fifteen people in our employ.
Our primary sales are telephone generated. We sell to national
and international accounts.
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 size, due to the nature
of our wholesale business and the amount of employees.
Gentek Electronics is not a manufacturing plant and we do
not handle or process hazardous waste.
Our business hours are: 7:00 am-5:00 pm Mort-Friday.
lg further inl'orma~ion is required please contact:
· Phil Lcwh, owner of G~t~k Elert, conic~
· l~b: 909-587-0220
Dam:09-20-0O
ACCEL CONNECTOi.,S INC
September 26, 2000
Statement of Operations
Accel Connectors, Inc., hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8 A.M. to
5 P.M. We currently have eight employees. We require at least 10 parking
places. The number of daily tdp.~ 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 President2,~--~'