HomeMy WebLinkAbout071101 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Roll Call:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
2
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JULY 11, 2001 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2001-019
Chairman Guerriero
Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Guerriero
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 [imit 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.
Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 11,2001
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of May 2, 2001
R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~001\7-11-01 ,doc
3 Planninq Application No. 00-0403 (EOT) Alpine Gardens East
Rick Rush, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0403 (Extension of Time)
based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative
Declaration was previously adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 -
Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations.
3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0403 (ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME), TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SENIOR APARTMENT
BUILDING, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING
27,700 SQUARE FEET, 69 INDEPENDENT CARE HOUSING
UNITS WITH A DETACHED CLUBHOUSE AND POOL (380,859
TOTAL SQUARE FEET) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND
LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.62 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOMALINDA
AND PALA ROADS, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
961-010-014 AND 961-010-015. (PA97-0420)
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
4
Planning Application No. PA01-0106 (EOT) Coleman Buildinq
Rick Rush, Proiect Planner - ITEM CONTINUED FROM JUNE 27, 2001 DUE TO THE
LACK OF A QUORUM
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~001\7-11-01 .doc
2
5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 01-0106 A EXTENSION OF TIME TO DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCT A 14,532 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.22 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF McCABE COURT WEST
OF MADISON AVENUE IKNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 910-262-007
Plannin,q Application No. PA00-0094 'Revised Development Plan)
Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner - ITEM CONTINUED FROM JUNE 27, 2001 DUE TO THE
LACK OF A QUORUM I
RECOMMENDATION: o
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption f r Planning Application No. PA00-0094 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Enwronmental Quality Act Guidelines and;
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: i
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0094 (REV!SED DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 8,972 SQUARE FOOT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 0.92 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF ROICK IDRIVE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET
WEST OF WINCHES'rER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-051.
6
Planninq Application No. PA00-0502 (Development Plan) Promenade Car Wash
Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner!- CONTINUED FROM JUNE 27, 2001, DUE TO THF
LACK OF A QUORUM I
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE! PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA00-0502, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,222 SQUARE FOOT, FULL SERVICE,
CAR WASH (PROMENADE CAR WASH), ON A .85 ACRE LOT
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN
THE TWO ENTRANCES TO THE PROMENADE MALL SOUTH
OF WINCHESTER ROAD! KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL
NO. 910-320-040, AND EOT Q OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
PA98-0495 AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007.
R:\PLANCOMIV~gendas~O01\7-11-01 ,doc
3
7 Planninq Application No. 01-0121 (EOT Appeal)
Rick Rush, Proiect Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA01-0121 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
EXTENSION OF TIME), AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE FIFTH
AND FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP No. 23209, FOR 220 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A PARK
SITE LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA
SERENA WAY AND WALCOTT WAY ALONG BUTTERFIELD
STAGE KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 957-250-009,
957-009-010, 957-250-011, AND 957-250-013 THROUGH 957-
250-027;
or, ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0121 (TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP EXTENSION OF TIME), AND AMENDING THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE FIFTH AND FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 23209 FOR 220 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS AND A PARK SITE LOCATED EAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF LA SERENA WAY AND WALCOTT WAY
ALONG BU'I-I'ERFIELD STAGE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCELS NO. 957-250-009, 957-009-010, 957-250-011, AND
957-250-013 THROUGH 957-250-027.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next Regular Meeting:
July 12, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R:\PLANCOM M~Agendas~001\7-11-01 .doc
4
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 2, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday May 2, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Chiniaeff.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster,
and Chairman Guerriero.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
City Attoi'ney Thorson,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Thornsley,
Project Planner McCoy,
Project Planner Rush,
Fire Safety Specialist Davidson, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 2, 2001
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes from March 7, 2001
R:Plan Com m/minut e s/050201
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and
2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Application 00-0421 (Chan.qe of Zone) and PA00-0422 (General Plan
Amendment) To approve a General Plan Amendment to chan.qe the Land Use
Desi.qnation from NeiRhborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC)
and Open Space (OS). To approve a Change of Zone to chan.qe the zoning from and
Nei.qhborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC) and Open Space
Conservation (OS-C) located at th~ southeast corner of Butterfield Staqe Road and
Hi.qhway 79 South and identified as Assessors Parcel Numbers 952-200-002, 011,
012 and 013. - Patty Anders, Associate Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve a Negative Declaration for Planning Application PA00-0421 and PA00-
0422; and;
3.2 Adopt Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-0422 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 952-200-002, 011, 012 AND
0'13", AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0421 (CHANGE OF ZONE) TO
AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 952-200-002, 011,012 AND
013 ".
Via overhead maps, Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (of record), noting
the request for a General Plan Amendment and a change of zones, relaying the current
zoning designation as Neighborhood Commercial for the entire site, specifying that the
proposal was to upgrade the commercial area from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to
Community Commercial (CC), and to designate the channel area as permanent Open
Space Conservation (OS-C); noted the limitations with respect to permitted commercial
uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone, advising the since this site was
R: PtanCom rn/minut es~50201 2
located on a key corner along a major arterial road, staff opined that the NC zoning was
not an ideal use for this area; relayed that the proposed changes would not have a
significant negative impact with respect to traffic generation (per the traffic analysis); and
via supplemental agenda material, noted the two letters staff recently received regarding
this item (since the agenda packets were distributed) which expressed opposition to the
proposed changes.
In response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that with
respect to the surrounding zoning to the east of this site, that while he did not have
specific data, it was his understanding that the County would be upzoning portions of
this area; provided additional information regarding the building setback lines; advised
that the 11 acres of usable property did not include the half-width improvements of
Butterfleld Stage Road, noting that additional dedications would be assessed when
specific development proposals are submitted.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hogan provided additional information
regarding the traffic analysis conducted in association with this proposal; confirmed that
the flood control easement takes away approximately forty-two percent (42%) of this
site, advising that due to this portion of the property, the site would generate less traffic
than if the entire site had been developed as Neighborhood Commercial (NC.)
Senior Planner Hogan noted, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, that at this time no parcel map
has been submitted along with this request, providing additional information regarding
the four current parcels, clarifying that the existing pads would still be developable.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan specified that he received
the letter in opposition to this proposal from MDC Vail, today.
Mr. Tom Jerele, Sr., representing the applicant, provided additional information
regarding the methodology utilized in the traffic analysis which was consistent with the
original General Plan's traffic analysis; and for Commissioner Webster, advised that the
primary purpose for the zone change request was due to the size of the permitted uses,
noting the desire to accommodate a larger user.
Mr. Robert Kahn, traffic engineer, representing the applicant, for Commissioner
Mathewson, specified that with the existing General Plan designation the entire parcel
would generate approximately 15,000 trips a day, noting that using the usable parcel
available, Community Commercial (CC) was estimated at about 9,000 trips a day,
relaying that if a comparable sized Neighborhood Commercial (NC) was analyzed,
(utilizing the usable parcel) that the trip generation would be similar (i.e., 9,000 trips a
day); advised that the proposal was a substantial reduction from the General Plan's
estimated traffic; and provided additional information regarding the factors considered in
the traffic analysis.
In response to Mr. Kahn's comments, Commissioner Mathewson disagreed that if the
CC and the NC zones were calculated with the same Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the trip
generation rates would be essentially equal.
Mr. Jerele further specified the traffic analysis for this parcel, noting the applicant's
copious efforts to follow the guidelines, analyzing the entire parcel map with the existing
zone, the entire parcel map with the proposed amendment, and the usable parcel map
R:Plan Com m/minut es/050201 ; 3
with the proposed amendment, advising that the applicant worked closely with staff to
ensure that the projections were accurate.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided
additional information regarding the traffic analysis which encompassed comparing the
traffic model created from the General Plan, specifying the manner in which it was
determined that this proposal will create considerably less traffic than what was originally
proposed.
Reviewing the rationale for originally zoning this area as NC in the General Plan,
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the desire to provide a transition to the rural densities
along the west side of Highway 79 (South) towards Vail Lake; advised that with the
County's current proposals, this previous zoning may not be appropriate; opined that the
concerns at this time should be, as follows: 1) the impact on the adjacent properties,
which appeared to be properties in transition, and 2) the overall traffic impact occurring
along Highway 79 (South); and noted that while he was not opposed to the proposed
changes, it was his desire that a permitted large use not be located at the edge of the
City.
Noting that he was not specifically concerned with respect to the proposed changes in
zoning, Commissioner Mathewson advised that in his opinion the traffic analysis was not
consistent in the applications of FAR, while noting that since there would be no increase
in traffic generation, he would not oppose the request,
Based on this particular site, and the adjacent land uses, Commissioner Webster
concurred with the applicant's desire te change the zoning; and recommended that there
be a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) developed, allowing the uses per the CC
zoning, while keeping the Development Standards per the NC zoning, advising that this
would satisfy the applicant's concerns, and also provide the opportunity to design a
quality project to fit on this unique parcel.
Senior Planner Hogan concurred that the transition between the potential County's
suburban residential, and this site, would be a key issue; relayed that the specific
development proposals would be presented to the Planning Commission, which would
provide an opportunity to address any concerns.
Commissioner Webster provided additional information regarding the benefits of a PDO,
opining that this would clarify what the developer could expect, as well as what the City
could anticipate.
Presenting another option, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the zoning could be left,
as is, and that the Planning Commission could consider a zoning change along with a
development proposal. ,
Requesting clarification regarding the Planning Commission's concerns, Director of
Planning Ubnoske relayed that the differences in the Development Standards between
CC and NC were minimal, specifying the various differentials.
In response, Commissioner Webster noted that the maximum FAR differences in CC
and NC were between 0.4 and 1.0 which was significant, additionally relaying that the
R:PlanCom m/minut es/050201 4
differentials in the two zones with respect to setbacks, height, and maximum coverage
standards which constituted a significant difference.
For informational purposes, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that if a proposed project
exceeded FAR, the Planning Commission would need to approve that request.
Additional discussion ensued regarding revising the parcel arrangement.
Commissioner Webster recommended that there either be a PDO for this site, or that the
Planning Commission consider a zone change in conjunction with a development
proposal.
.MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to leave the zoning, as exists, until an
application is submitted specifying the.development. Commissioner Telesio seconded
the motion. {Ultimately this motion was amended; see below.)
The applicant relayed that efforts could be made to work with a specific development in
conjunction with the zone changes.
For informational purposes, City Attorney Thorson relayed that it was acceptable for the
Planning Commission to move that there be no changes at this time, noting that if it was
the Planning Commission's desire for nothing to occur, this could be done without
prejudice to the applicant, in order for the applicant to bring back a proposal in
conjunction with the zoning changes; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted that with the
Planning Commission's action, the General Plan Amendment could be brought back,
relaying that the specific development plans would come in as a separate application.
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that this item could be continued off calendar in
order to allow the applicant time to bring in a specific development proposal with zoning
changes.
Mr. Jerry Kokoszke, representing the applicant, reiterated the rationale for the request
for the zone changes, noting the problems the applicant has had with potential tenants
due to the standards being more stringent with respect to the allowable size of uses,
citing a grocery store which was restricted from developing on this site; and relayed the
goal to be able to accommodate a larger use.
MOTION: Amending his previous motion, Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue
this item off calendar, and that the applicant bring back proposed zone changes in
conjunction with a development proposal. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Telesio. (Ultimately this motion was withdrawn; see below.)
Commissioner Telesio noted the desire to provide the applicant the flexibility he has
requested.
For Commissioner Mathewson, and Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning
Ubnoske advised that the applicant would best be served with a Planned Development
Overlay (PDO), noting that the standa{.cls would be revised to allow a larger use.
At this time Commissioner Chiniaeff withdrew his motion.
R:PlanCom m/min~t e s~5(~01 5
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to continue this item off calendar, and to direct
staff to work with the applicant to prepare a PDO on this site to be presented to the
Planning Commission at a future date.',The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Mathewson. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.)
For clarification, and in response to Senior Planner Hogan, City Attorney Thorson
clarified that since this item was being continued off calendar that there was no
recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council at this time, noting that staff has
been directed to bring back a PDO to the Planning Commission.
For Mr. Jerele, Sr., Director of Planning Ubnoske further clarified a PDO, noting that the
overlay could address the existing restrictions with respect to size of uses, and
essentially would enable the applicant to create their own zone for the property, noting
that a list of proposed anticipated users, square footages, height, landscape and setback
requirements would be presented to the Planning Commission with the PDO.
Mr. Jerele Sr., provided additional information regarding this particular site. In response,
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the applicant's past discussions with potential
users would aid in the development of the overlay.
Providing clarification, City Attorney Thorson further explained a PDO, noting that it
would be an amendment to the Zoning Code, relaying that the permitted uses and other
requirements (i.e., height standards) would also be listed, advising that the PDO would
not restrict the site to one particular user, or a specific applicant.
The applicant's representative reiterated that his primary concern was the desire for the
site to be able to accommodate a larger user. In response, Chairman Guerriero and
Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding the PDO, which would
provide the applicant the requested flexibility.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval of the motion.
4 Planning Application No. PA01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware - a
Development Plan application to design, construct and operate a 19,710 hardware
and lumber store, with a partial second-story stora.qe area ~, 41731 Enterprise Cimle
South, 1 block west of Jefferson Avenue and 1 block south of Winchester Road -
Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for PA01-0033 pursuant to Section 15332 of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
4.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 010
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0033
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A t9,7t0
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING SUPPLY AND HOME IMPROVEMENT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON t.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. ~09-270-023.
By way of overheads, Project Planner McCoy provided an overview of the project
(via agenda material), highlighting the location, the General Plan and Zoning
designation (i.e., Service Commercial), the site design and project layout, the
access, the loading area, the surrounding land uses, the landscape plan, and the
berm which will screen the parking area; relayed that the City's Landscape
Architect has recommended that the proposed flowering pear trees be replaced
with more effective shade trees and be moved closer to the parking area to meet
the parking and shading requirements more effectively; specified the building
design, and the entry treatments; relayed the condition which had been added
(Condition No. 14) to require that the applicant make an effort to have installed
an 8-foot view obscuring chain-linked fence on the adjacent property in order to
screen the loading area from Winchester Road; noted the discussions between
staff and the applicant regarding creating more color banding (i.e., painted reveal
lines) in order to improve the visual aesthetic appearance; relayed the proposed
.38 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which was .08 above the target FAR; and outlined the
applicant's rationale for qualifying for the minor increase in FAR, noting the
economic benefits, and employment opportunities the project would provide.
For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner McCoy relayed that Condition No. 14
addressed installation of an 8-foot chain-linked fence with a vinyl coating and a
view obscuring material; in response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, advised that this
condition was added due to the Development Code standards which address
screening loading areas, additionally noting that the rear of the parcel was
exposed to a to a distant public right-of-way due to the lack of adjacent
development; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the
potential for the adjacent property owner to not grant this applicant permission to
install a fence, advised that the applicant has had discussions with the adjacent
property owner in an attempt to gain approval for this installation. Senior Planner
Hazen added that if the adjacent property owner does not consent to the
installation of the fence then the rear loading doom would be exposed, as is the
adjacent building, advising that staff was optimistic regarding gaining the owner's
permission; and provided additional information regarding the screening material
(i.e., slats) placed in the fencing. '
Project Planner McCoy specified that the adjacent property owner where the
fence would potentially be installed was currently owned by the Press Enterprise
Corporation and was for sale, noting that staff would address the fencing issue
with the property owner.
Mr. James Horecka, representing the applicant, expressed thanks to staff for
their efforts regarding the project; relayed the planning process the project
R:Plan Com m/minut es~50201 7
undertook; provided additional information regarding the applicant, Mr. Hank
Hornveld, noting the growth of the Hank's Hardware business, additionally
providing a brief history of this particular parcel which had plans which were
previously processed through the County, relaying that the project has been
redesigned, specifying various elements of the proposal; relayed the request for
a minor Far increase of .08; advised that the applicant was in agreement with the
Conditions of Approval with the exception of Condition No. 14 (regarding the
installation of the fence) opining that the intent of the Development Code was
that loading zones be screened from public ways, and was applicable with
respect to the fronts and sides of buildings; and relayed the applicant's efforts to
locate the loading area completely off of Enterprise Circle South so as to have no
view from the street, noting the distance from Winchester Road to the site.
Addressing staff's recommendation to .replace the flowering pear trees with
London plane trees, Mr. Vincent Didon'ato, landscape architect for the applicant,
noted that he disagreed with the recommendation, relaying that the broad canopy
trees proposed around the parking area would fulfill the shading requirement;
specified that the pear trees have been proposed for this area adjacent to the
building due to their potential height of 30 feet whereas the sycamore trees would
ultimately be too tall; relayed that pear trees have been installed on the adjacent
property; and, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, specified that Condition No. 7a.
requires the applicant to replace the pear trees.
Mr. Roger Jaeger, 41325 Billy Joe Lane, noted that he was a long-term customer
of Hank's Hardware; and urged the City to help existing businesses in Temecula
as much as possible.
Mr. Abraham Feltus, 42675 Callie Contento, noted his concurrence with the
applicant's representative, recommending that the pear trees not be replaced
with sycamore trees; relayed that at Hank's Hardware he was able to obtain
hard-to-find parts, and experienced great customer service from Mr. Hank
Horneveld; and noted his support of thls particular project.
For clarification, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that staff was not recommending
that the pear trees be replaced specifically with a sycamore tree, but an alternate
specie, Project Planner McCoy providing additional information regarding this
issue. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that a London plane tree
was in the same family as a sycamore tree, which was specifically recommended
in Condition No. 7a.
For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that
the conditions associated with the action on this project would be the revised
conditions dated May 2, 2001 (per supplemental agenda material).
Concurring with the public comments, Commissioner Telesio relayed that there
was most likely not a better hardware store than Hank's Hardware; supported
enhancing this use's capabilities with the proposed project; with respect to the
pear tree/London plane tree issue, rec?mmended that the applicant work with
staff regarding this matter; with respect to the fencing issues, queried the
necessity of screening the rear view to the degree that would be required with a
front or side view; and advised that he supported the project.
R: Pla nCornrnkninutes/050201 8
Commissioner Webster recommended approval of the project with the deletion of
Condition No. 14 (regarding the fencing), and 7a. (regarding replacing the pear
trees.)
With respect to the existing condition of the roads in this area, for Commissioner
Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that he would check the
Pavement Management Plan.
Addressing Condition No. 14 (regarding the fencing), Commissioner Mathewson
recommended that the condition be modified, in lieu of deleting it, to state that
the applicant shall try to work to install the screening material; clarified that his
primary concern regarding this project was the issue of the request for a FAR
increase, relaying that with respect to the applicant's criteria outlining the three
items that were denoted as qualifying elements for the FAR increase, that he was
only in agreement with Item No. 1 (regarding the employment, fiscal, social, and
economic benefits of the use).
For clarification, and in response to Commissioner Mathewson, City Attorney
Thorson relayed that concurrence with one of the three provided elements
regarding this project qualifying for the'requested FAR increase would be
sufficient for granting the request, if that was the Planning Commission's desire.
With respect to the fencing issues, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that in his
opinion the fencing was not warranted.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing, and to
approve staff's recommendation, granting the request for a FAR increase based
on the findings in the staff report, and with the Conditions of Approval, as revised
on May 2, 2001, and subject to the following modifications:
Delete-
· Condition No. 7a. (regarding replacing the pear trees)
· Condition No. 14 (regarding installation of fencing)
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster. {Ultimately this motion
passed; see page 10,)
For Commissioner Mathewson, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that the motion
did not include requiring the applicant to attempt to obtain permission to install
the fencing on the adjacent property.
Reviewing previous projects required to screen loading areas, Chairman
Guerriero opined that there should be some type of screening material at the rear
of the site until the adjacent site is developed.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the fencing.
For Chairman Guerriero, City Attorney Thorson provided additional information
regarding the Planning Commission's discretion to require that the fencing be
installed on another property owner's site, or to require that the applicant just put
forth their best efforts in attempting to gain permission to install the fencing.
At this time voice vote was taken, reflecting approval with the exception of
Commissioner Mathewson who voted n_9o.
At 7:43 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7;52 P.M.
5
Planning Application No. PA01-0147 (Variance) to desiqn and construct a 230
square foot room addition to a single-family residence that will encroach 7 feet into
the required 15-foot exterior side yard set back corner side yard setback located @
30464 Bo,qart Place (APN 919-461-009) - Rick RushI Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA01-0147 pursuant
to Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-011
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0147 A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 230 SQUARE FOOT ROOM ADDITION TO
ENCROACH 7 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 15- FOOT EXTERIOR SIDE
YARD SETBACK, LOCATED AT 30464 BOGART PLACE, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 919-461-009.
Project Planner Rush presented the project plan (of record); via photographs,
relayed the proposed room addition which would encroach seven feet into the
required fifteen-foot exterior sideyard setback, highlighting the location of the
project, the General Plan Designation and Zoning (Low Medium Density
Residential), and the total square footage; and advised that the applicant is
requesting the variance to accommodate a permanently handicapped family
member, noting that granting the variance will allow the applicant to build a
ground level bedroom.
Mr. Rick Ford, the applicant, reiterated the need for this downstairs addition,
relaying that at this time he is carrying a handicapped family member up and
down the stairway; for Commissioner Telesio, noted that in gathering signatures,
there had been no opposition to the project; for Commissioner Chiniaeff,
specified the location of the proposed windows, relaying that the fence would be
moved back; for Commissioner Webster, clarified that the front door would be a
typical front door and not have a back door appearance, noting that the computer
rendering door representation was the only door available to clip and paste.
Pointing out the window planter box denoted proximate to the front door,
Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that a similar element be added to the
alternate window. In response, the applicant was agreeable.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Ford further specified his plans for
landscaping.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, City Attorney Thorson clarified, from a
legal perspective, the findings that would qualify the project for the variance; and
for Chairman Guerriero, advised that staff investigated associated elements with
the review of this project (i.e., the configuration of the lot, the impacts of the
project).
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing, and to
approve staffs recommendation, subject to the following modifications:
Add-
A condition requiring additional landscape on the elevation along
Pauma Valley Road, and a condition that a window planter box be
added to the window along this particular elevation.
· That the door be of an acceptable quality similar to the front doors in
this particular tract.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
6 Planning Application No. 01-0026 (Conditional Use Permit) - Extended Stay America
- to design and construct a 46,623 square foot hotel building on a 1.86-acre lot and
the installation of a 12-foot in diameter dish antenna located ~ the northeast corner
of Jefferson and Overland (APN 910-310-014 and 910-310-002). - Rick Rush,
Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption fbr Planning Application No. PA01-0026 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0t-0026 A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A
46,623 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING (EXTENDED STAY
AMERICA) AND THE INSTALLATION OF A TWELVE-FOOT
DIAMETER GROUND-MOUNTED DISH ANTENNA ON A 1.86 ACRE
LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND AND
JEFFERSON, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-310-014
AN D 9t0-310-002.
Presenting the site plans overhead, Project Planner Rush provided an overview
of the project (per agenda material), highlighting the location, the zoning
(Community Commercial), the dimensions of the site, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
R:Plan Comm/minut es/050201 11
which is .57, the access, the parking, the proposed walkway which will promote
pedestrian access, the location of the trash enclosure, and the satellite dish;
relayed that the proposed hotel would have 106 rooms ranging in size from 310
to 400 square feet; specified the setbacks which greatly exceed the
requirements; noted that the architecture was consistent with the adjacent uses
(i.e., the Hungry Hunter), relaying the building materials and the architectural
enhancements; noted the proposed screening of the air conditioning units;
presented the landscape plan, and the incorporation of river rock, the plan to
screen the trash enclosure and satellite dish area (in the northeast corner) with
landscaping and a six-foot wall; with respect to the FAR which is .27 above the
target, referenced the Code, Section 17.08.050, outlining the criteria for
qualifying for an increase in FAR, advising that staff concurs with the applicant's
determination that the project qualifies for a .27 FAR increase due to the
economic benefits, the meeting room facility, and the exceptional landscaping
and architecture; noted that staff has conditioned the project to require the
applicant to provide the meeting room to non-profit organizations at a discounted
rate, and additionally restricted the applicant from renting any room for more than
30 consecutive days; relayed that staff received a letter from Mr. David K. Hill
(per supplemental agenda material), outlining his opposition to the project due to
the negative impacts of the traffic generation; advised that staff has determined
that this use will net create any more traffic impacts than other uses that could be
developed at this site under this particular zoning, and that since the traffic from
this use would primarily not be generated during peak hours that this factor was a
beneficial; advised that the applicant has requested that Condition No. 41
(regarding public improvements) be revised to be required Prior to a Certificate of
Occupancy, in lieu of Prior to Building Permit, advising that the Public Works
Department had no objection to the revision.
Addressing Commissioner Webster's queries regarding Condition No. 41,
(regarding the installation of the raised landscape median), Deputy Director of
Public Works Parks noted the importance of the median for traffic control with
respect to egress and ingress movements into the facility; provided additional
information regarding the City's current project for rehabilitating Jefferson Avenue
from Overland Drive to the north City boundaries, noting the applicant's concern
with that project delaying the applicant, advising that it was staffs opinion that the
applicant could work with the contractor to coordinate the work.
For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Rush advised that the applicant
opted to model the architect of the Hungry Hunter's use in order to blend in with
this adjacent use, and to create a visually pleasing aesthetic appearance,
clarifying that the two uses were not owned by the same individual.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, Project
Planner Rush specified that the applicant had added the meeting room due to
desiring to meet the criteria for the FAR bonus; and for Commissioner Telesio,
specified that there would be two employees per shift, and clarified the ratios for
developing the necessary parking requirements.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, noted that this building will not
have siding as does the Hungry Hunter use, but would be constructed of stucco
and stone, noting this minor correction on pages 3, and 4 of the agenda material,
additionally noting that the sewer easement was an Eastern Municipal Water
District (EMWD) sewer easement and not Rancho California Water District; with
respect to Condition No. 6 (regarding screening the satellite dish) noted that to
lower the dish six feet below grade would create a drainage problem, relaying
that the site was lower than the adjacent properties, noting a willingness to be
conditioned to screen in an alternate manner (i.e., lattice enclosure); provided
additional information regarding the size of the dish which was necessary due to
the video provider utilized; with respect to Condition No. 41 (regarding the
median), noted for the record, that it was the applicant's opinion that the
applicant should only be responsible for the project's frontage, and the project's
half of the installation, requesting that if the Pavement Management Plan was not
completed, that the applicant be able to meet this condition with a cash payment;
with respect to Condition No. 81 (regarding two points of access), relayed the
proposal to widen the driveway and add a raised median that would satisfy the
access needs for the Fire Department and the Public Works Department; in
response to Commissioner Telesio, noted that there would be a total of 8-10
employees; confirmed that the meeting reom was added due to the Planning
Commission's previous approval of a FAR increase for an alternate hotel,
relaying that this conference room would be made available pursuant to the
conditions of staff; and advised that it was the applicant's opinion that the primary
element that contributing to the project's qualification for the FAR increase was
the benefit of the Transient Occupancy Tax (i.e., bed tax).
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Markham provided a brief history of
the access issues on site, relaying that access would not be made available to
this project either through the Hungry Hunter use or the RV use; provided
additional information regarding the proposal to widen the entry approaches,
advising that since this was a right-in, right-out only driveway there would be no
conflicts; with respect to screening the satellite dish, relayed that lattice and vines
would most likely be a better solution to the screening issue; for Commissioner
Mathewson, confirmed that the initial screening proposal was the six-foot wall
denoted in the agenda material; confirmed that the applicant would not be
opposed to removing the meeting room from the project plan; for Commissioner
Telesio, confirmed that three sides of the satellite dish could be screened without
interfering with the line of sight visibility of the satellite; noted that the towers
were an architectural treatment provided to enhance the visual appearance of the
project.
Addressing the Fire access issue, Fire Safety Specialist Davidson relayed that
the applicant's recommendation to provide access by widening the driveway with
a median allowing only right-ins, and right-outs has already been reviewed by the
Fire Department, and was acceptable.,
With respect to screening the antenna, Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended
discovering which side could not be blocked, and subsequently engineering
screening on the remaining three sides; and with respect to architecture, noted
the consistency with the adjacent use.
Concurring with the previous comments, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that
the screening of three sides of the satellite dish would be adequate; with respect
to Condition No. 41 (regarding the median), noted that he could support the
R: PlanComm/minut es/050201 1 3
applicant's request to substitute the installation with a cash payment if the
Pavement Management Plan was not completed; with respect to Condition No.
81 (regarding Fire access), relayed that since the Fire Department had no
objections to the applicant's proposal he would support the applicant's request;
with respect granting the FAR bonus, advised that he could support the increase
based on the exceptional architectural treatments, as well as, the benefits of the
Transient Occupancy Tax; and recommended that the meeting room be deleted
from the plan if it was solely added in an attempt to meet the criteria for the FAR
bonus.
Commending the architect for the style, and enhanced articulation on the project,
Commissioner Webster relayed gratitude; with respect to Condition No. 6
(regarding the satellite dish), recomme, nded modifying this condition to remove
the requirement to lower the dish; with'respect to Condition No. 81 (regarding
Fire access), recommended modifying this condition per the Fire Department's
comments; and with respect to Condition No. 41b. (regarding the landscaped
median), recommended that the language be modified to state as determined by
the City Engineer and with the acceptance from the applicant. In response,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided the rationale for the median
extension requirements, noting the goal to provide for ingress and egress
movements, as well as public safety, confirming that the City is offering the
Development Impact Fee (DIF) credits for the portion installed outside of this
project's frontage.
Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Commissioner Webster
noted his concurrence with respect to the findings justifying the FAR increase,
and the recommendation to delete the meeting room.
Reiterating kudos to the applicant for the excellent amhitecture, Commissioner
Telesio concurred with the previous cqmments, specifically, as follows: that the
meeting room should be deleted from {he plan, and that the satellite dish would
be adequately screened without lowering it; and relayed support of the project.
Chairman Guerriero noted the need for additional hotel sites in this area.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing, and to
approve staff's recommendation with the following revisions:
Modify-
· With respect to Condition No. 6 (regarding the screening of the
satellite dish), that in lieu of requiring that the antennae be placed
below grade, that screening be provided to the top of the
antennae dish on three sides.
· With respect to Condition No. 81 (regarding Fire access) that the
language be revised to indicate that the driveway would be
widened with a raised median.
· That the conference fa~;ility (meeting room) be removed from the
project plan (which is addressed in Condition No. 4.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
R: PlanC omm/minut es/050201 14
At 8:50 P.M the meeting recessed, re¢onvening at 9:00 P.M.
7 Planning Application No. 00-0272 (Extension of Time Appeal) to appeal the Director
of Plannin.q's Decision to approve Planning Application No. PA00-0272, an Extension
of Time for Vested Tentative Tract No. 23143 located ~ the southwest corner of
Paula Road and Butterfield Stage Road (known as Crowne Hill). - Thomas
Thornsle¥, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0272 (Extension of
Time) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15182 - Subsequent EI R's and Negative Declarations;
7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-0t3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME-APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272 THE FIFTH AND FINAL EXTENSION
OF TIME FOR VESTED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 23143 FOR THE
REMAINING 696 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF PAUBA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 962-020-009, -012, -0t3, -
015, -016, & -020 AND 952-030-012, -013, & -014.
Or,
7.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME-APPEAL), AMENDING THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S APPROVAL AS CONDITIONED FOR
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272, THE FIFTH AND FINAL
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
23143, FOR THE REMAINING 696 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PAUBA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD
STAGE ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 952-020-
009, -012, -013, -015, -016, & -020 AND 952-030-0t2, -013, & -014.
For the record, Commissioner Webster disclosed that Rancho California Water
District (RCWD) (his place of employment) worked as a co-permittee with the
take permit with Fish&Wildlife Services associated with this property, clarifying
the RCWD was not affiliated with this 3articular project; and for City Attorney
R:Plen Comm/minut es~O502~)1 ~{ 5
Thorson, clarified that RCWD's interest in the permit was not related to this land
area.
Providing additional information, Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, representing the applicant,
noted that Commissioner Webster was referencing the Sub-Regional Habitat
Conservation Plan for the off-site mitigation for properties.
Via overhead maps and diagrams, AsSociate Planner Thornsley provided an
overview of the Appeal of the Time Extension which had been approved for one
of the two maps that make up the Crowne Hill Development, relaying the specific
location; noted that the 5t~ and last extension was considered at a hearing on
February 15, 2001 at which time numerous residents from the surrounding area
attended the meeting to voice their concerns regarding the development of this
particular site, listed as follows: concern regarding the volume of grading that
would take place, the clearing of the land, and erosion control and dust impacts;
relayed that the residents were not concerned with the ultimate development of
homes on this property, but the impacts while the homes are being built;
specified the approximate 700 lots that are part of the current time extension; and
in order to address erosion control, relayed that the Planning Director assigned a
new condition requiring that erosion control methods be in place Prior to the
Issuance of a Grading Plan, and subsequently approved the time extension.
Noting that 15 days after the approval, the granted time extension was appealed
by a local resident, Associate Planner Thornsley specified the main issues in the
appeal, as follows: concern with respebt to the clearing and grubbing of such a
large area of property, the extent of the mass grading, the visual impact between
the time that the site is graded and the development is completed, dust control
during development, the need for conditions to address the clearing of the
property, and the time allowed to develop homes or replace the vegetation;
clarified that the City has no jurisdiction over the clearing and grubbing of
property, and has no regulations that limit the amount of grading that can take
place at any one time on a project; noted that based on the level of infrastructure
that will be constructed on this particular site, and in order to meet the
requirement for the construction of parks, the grading would have to be
completed across the entire remaining area; reiterated the City's requirement for
an erosion control plan which must meet with the Public Works Department's
approval, additionally noting the previous conditions imposed from the original
approval, relaying that it was the City Attorney's opinion that with these
conditions there were sufficient methods by which to control the erosion;
provided additional information regarding the Gnatcatchers found on the site in
past years, discovered during a biological assessment, noting the applicant's
efforts with Fish&Wildlife Service to adopt a mitigation program, relaying that the
applicant now has the rights for the next 30 years to disturb this property as it
relates to the Gnatcatcher; with respect to Air Quality Management District
(AQMD) issues, noted that there is a requirement that prior to a development of
this size that the developer file a dust control plan for the grading; as a
requirement of the City, under Public Works, relayed that the developer is
required to file a Notice of Intent and to receive clearance from the State Water
Resources Control Board prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit; reiterated that it
was staff's opinion that there are sufficient erosion control measures in place,
and that the City has no legal basis to specify that additional measures be taken;
noted that staff had received five phone calls from various community residents,
as well as written correspondences, relaying that the comments were primarily
based on past issues regarding the project, and were not associated with the
matters of the appeal.
Clarifying the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission regarding this matter, City
Attorney Thorson noted that the applicant has requested an extension of the time
for the life of a vesting tentative map, advising that with respect to the extension
on a map, the Planning Commission's jurisdiction was limited to approving or
denying the extension, and not to impose any conditions without the consent of
the applicant; clarified that at this point, the Planning Commission was only
addressing whether, or not, the map should be extended; noted that if the
Planning Commission was to deny the. extension, that the developer could still
complete all of the requirements and file for, and get, the final map recorded;
specified that this was a vesting tentative map, and that under California Law, the
applicant is entitled to rely upon all of the City's ordinances, laws, and polices
that were in effect in 1992 when this map was first approved, reiterating that
there were no City ordinances that govern granting a permit for simply clearing
the vegetation on the land, and that there were no ordinances addressing the
length of time after the land has been cleared that the applicant would be
required to construct the buildings or re-landscape; and reiterated the main
issues of the appeal which were regarding erosion and dust control, noting that
State Law requires that the applicant obtain a permit from AQMD prior to clearing
the land, relaying that this permit will require some type of dust control measures
for the entire project.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, City Attorney Thomon confirmed that the applicant
was in agreement with the conditions imposed at the approval at the Planning
Director's hearing.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's queries, Commissioner Webster
relayed that an AQMD permit was not required to farmland.
For clarification, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the applicant has been
restricted from abating weeds due to the environmental issues which have been
resolved with Fish&Wildlife Service, clarifying that at this time, if the applicant left
all the vegetation on the site, the Fire Department would come in and conduct
weed abatement. In response, City Attorney Thorson added that the Fire
Department would most likely not require that all the vegetation be removed from
the land.
With respect to the AQMD permit, for Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director
of Public Works Parks noted that there were controls regarding dust after
grading, relaying that the applicant would be required to either place a chemical
suppressant on the ground, or to re-vegetate (i.e., with a light grass).
For Commissioner Telesio, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that without the
developer's approval, no conditions could be added to the project; with respect to
the removal of vegetation, noted that the developer would deal with AQMD
regarding dust control; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed the process of
addressing this appeal, noting that while the Planning Commission's jurisdiction
was limited, the comments that would .be expressed during the public headng
may have remedies (i.e., the Planning 'Commission could direct staff to work with
AQMD to address certain issues.)
Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that numerous conditions addressed in the
appeal already exist.
Mr. Roger Jaeger, 41325 Billy Joe Lane, the appellant, via overheads, outlined
his concerns regarding this site, as follows: the extensive grading, the dust
impacts, and the property being left vacant and absent of any vegetation;
provided a brief history of the project; acknowledged the Planning Commission's
restrictions regarding this issue; referencing the conditions associated with the 4th
extension, noted that it was stated that any subdivision phasing was subject to
planning approval, recommending that the Planning Commission direct the
developer to first build the homes between his property and the portion of the site
to be developed at a later point, if the entire site was to be graded; referencing
the conditions associated with the 5th extension of time, noted that Item No. 86
stated that a grading permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any
grading; while relaying discussions with staff regarding the difference between
stripping and grading, opined that the developer's plans constitute grading and
that a permit should be obtained; with respect to Item No. 11 (per the 1992
conditions), noted that this condition stated that all grading of slopes over three
feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City's
Development Code; with respect to Item 20 B. (per the 1992 conditions), relayed
that this condition stated that underdeveloped land shall be maintained in a
weed-free condition and shall be planted with interim landscaping or provide
other erosion control methods, noting that the manner in which erosion control
was being addressed in the City was not working, noting the ineffectiveness of
sandbagging, advising that the weed-free condition would essentially create the
erosion impacts, recommending that mowing be conducted in order to keep the
root structure in place; queried the determination of what constitutes
undeveloped land; with respect to Item No. 24B., 2b, relayed that this condition
addressed approximate timeframes for grading; with respect to Item No. 24B.,
2d., noted that this condition required that the developer identify the areas of
temporary grading outside of a phase; and referenced the language which
addressed landscaping requirements, recommending that this site be left natural,
or solely be mowed.
For Mr. Jaeger, Associate Planner Thornsley provided additional information
regarding the Ordinance (No. 457.75) referenced in the conditions, which was
the County's old grading ordinance, which the City adopted at incorporation.
Continuing his comments, Mr. Jaeger referenced Item No. 90 Which addressed
the construction of full street improvements; advised that from Butterfield Stage
Road, erosion ruts could be viewed that were so large that a truck could drive
through; and noted the deteriorated sandbags left on curbs, emphasizing the lack
of effective erosion control.
For the record, Chairman Guerriero relayed that Ms. Eileen Runde, Ms. Judy
Howard, Ms. Connie Carroll, and Mr. Frank Frattto filled out request to speak
forms for the public hearing but had to leave the meeting, requesting that it be
noted that they support the appeal.
Ms. Pat Ommert, 43-250 Los Corralitos, representing the Rancho California
Horsemen, read into the record a letter (which was submitted to staff), outlining
her concerns, relaying her request to be advised of the status of the equestrian
trail currently designated along the floo. d plain area.
Ms. Annette Rosen, 42115 Colleen Circle, representing the HOA of Country
Roads Estates, relayed concern regarding the potential of this proposed project
to egress into the Country Roads Estates Development, noting the negative
impacts this egress would have on the privately maintained roads.
Mr. Abraham Feltus, 42675 Calle Contento, noted concern regarding the traffic
generated from this project; queried how the property facing the County Roads
Estates would be developed, recommending that landscaping be installed to
screen the rear of the development; relayed that the equestrian trail could be
utilized as a multipurpose trial; requested that the developer be required to
construct larger parks due to the need in this area; recommended that there be
an easement placed along Pauba Road to the Country Road Estates
Development; and concurred with the recommendation to mow or hydroseed to
address the erosion control.
Mr. John Wayland, 33342 Pauba Road, noted that promises had been made
over the years regarding this project, ~pecifically requesting that the recreational
and equestrian trails be designated as such; relayed concern regarding the traffic
from this development negatively impacting the portion of Pauba Road which
was privately-maintained; and noted the original proposal of the developer to
build large, well-articulated homes, requesting to be provided information
regarding any change in these plans.
Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, representing the owner of the property, noted that the
majority of the public comments were from residents of the County, addressing
challenges that exist in the City; in response to Mr. Ommert's and Mr. Wayland's
comments, specified that there was a trail designation; for Ms. Rosen, clarified
that there is no access from the streets of this particular project into the Country
Roads Estates; for Mr. Feltus, recommended that County residents address the
need for parks with the County; provided an overview of the timely process of
addressing the environmental issues on this site at a cost of approximately $2
million; relayed the rights of a property owner to develop their property;
commended Mr. Jaeger for his efforts in investigating this issue, noting that his
quarrels were with the system which was not the property owner's burden;
addressing Mr. Jaeger's comments, clarified that a view was not a health and
safety issue, that it is difficult to forecast the economic future, that the property
has signs posted addressing restrictions regarding off-roading, that the
conditions referenced will be complied with as a requirement of the project, and
that the ruts on the property could not be addressed due to the environmental
issues restricting the property owner from taking any action on the property; and
relayed the unique agreement with Fish&Wildlife Service.
R:PlanCom m/rninut es~50201 19
Ms. Mary Rauschenburg, owner of the property, noted that there were no plans
at this time to clear the site, but that there would be weed abatement conducted
in compliance with any notices given; relayed that there will be efforts to avoid
going through additional environmental issues, noting that the site will most likely
be mowed; via photographs, displayed the surrounding properties; advised that
along with signage restricting off-roading, there would be signage restricting all
trespassing (including horseback riding) due to the liability issues; and for
Commissioner Telesio's queries regarding Mr. Jaeger's comments, noted that
she had relayed that there was a possibility that the site will be cleared due to the
endangered species issue, and that prior to that time Mr. Jaeger would be
notified, clarifying that at this time there are no plans to clear the land.
Sympathizing with both parties in this matter, Commissioner Mathewson
highlighted the issues addressed by Mr. Jaeger, advising that the concerns
raised have been addressed in the conditions.
Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson, Commissioner Webster noted that
the concerns raised by Mr. Jaeger, which are valid issues, are associated with
enforcement of the existing CEQA, and Conditions of Approval which will control
the applicant's development of this project; advised that enforcement will rely on
the actions of the individual agencies; with respect to the other items addressed
by the other public speakers, noted that those issues do not apply to the
Planning Commission's action tonight; provided additional information regarding
AQMD, noting that if there was a problem with dust control, AQMD would be the
entity to voice these complaints to, via phone calls, relaying that the phone
number is 1-800-CUTSMOG; advised that the Regional Water Quality Control
Board out of San Diego would enforce the erosion control and storm water run-
off; concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation to deny the
appeal, noting that enforcement issues are not applicable to this time extension
of a vesting tract map. ,
Reiterating the limitations of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Telesio
relayed that he concurred with Mr. Jaeger's concerns, noting that sufficient
erosion control measures are not in place, or are not being enforced.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; to adopt
Resolution No. 2001-013, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Director's
decision to approve the application for the 5t~ and final extension of Vested Tentative
Map No. 23143; and to adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application NO. 00-
0272 (Extension of Time). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
For Chairman Guerriero, Senior Planner Hazen updated the Planning
Commission regarding the Cosco use, noting that the sign installation began over
the weekend and would be completed in a day or so.
R:PlanC om m/minut es/050201 20
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Department would be
losing two planners, noting that Associate Planner Thomas would be leaving on
May 11~h, and that Associate Planner Anders last day would be June 1st; and
advised that staff is recruiting for these positions at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:26 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next re,qular
meetin,q to be held on Wednesday, May t67 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:PlanComm/minut es/050201 21
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 11, 2001
Planning Application No. 00-0403
(Extension of Time)
RECOMMENDATION:
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Project Planner
The Director of Planning recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0403
(Extension of Time) based on the Determination of Consistency with
a project for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's
and Negative Declarations.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA00-0403 ( ONE YEAREXTENSlON OF TIME), TO CONSTRUCT
AND OPERATE A SENIOR APPARTMENT BUILDING, TWO
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDII~GS TOTALING 27,700 SQUARE FEET,
69 INDEPENDENT CARE HOUSING UNITS WITH A DETACHED
CLUBHOUSE AND POOL (380,889 TOTAL SQUARE FEET) WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 22.62 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LOMALINDA AND PALA ROADS, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO,S 961-010-014 AND 961-010-018.
(PA97-0420)
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Daniel Lomax, 2390 Willits Road, Alpine, CA 91901
To obtain a one year Extension of Time for the design and
construction and operation of a senior care facility consisting
of a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior
apar(l~ent building, two medical office buildings totaling
27,700 square feet, an Alzheimer's facility of 7,200 square
feet, 69 independent care housing units with a detached
clubhouse and pool, with associated parking and landscaping
on a 22.62 acre site (380,859 total building square footage).
R:~ O T100-0403 Alpine Gardens East~Staff Report.doc
1
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Parking Area:
Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
Unit Sizes:
Attached Condominium:
The 0, orthwest corner of Loma Linda and Pala Roads.
PO (Professional Office)
PO (Professional Office)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Not requested
Residential
LM (Low Medium Residential)
Specific Plan- Wolf Creek
PO (Professional Office)
LM (Low Medium Residential)
22.628 gross acres
20.398 net acres
380,859 square feet
413,400 square feet
139,000 square feet
0.43
348 parking spaces
400 parking spaces
Medical Buildings:
Alzheimer Clinic:
Assisted Care Facility (ACF):
Senior Apartments:
Independent Care Housing
Club House:
Thirty-Seven (37) Feet
Eighteen (18) Feet
Forty-one (41) Feet
Forty-one (41) Feet
Twenty-Seven (27) Feet
Twenty- Two (22) Feet
Assisted Care and Apartment Buildings:
Studio: 398 square feet
Alcove: 500 square feet
One Bedroom: 625 square feet
Two Bedroom: 925 square feet
Two Bedroom/1.5 Baths:
One Car garage:
900 squar, e feet
250 square feet
R:'tE O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East'Staff Report.doc
2
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission originally approved Planning Application 97-0420 on October 7, 1998,
and which was due to expire on October 7, 200. The Extension of Time for PA97-0420 was
submitted to the Planning Department on October 6, 2000. On November 3, 2000 the applicant was
provided Development Review Comments, for the project. The project was deemed complete on
May 30, 2001 and scheduled for the soonest available Planning Commission meeting. If approved
this application will expire on October 7, 2001 and another application for time extension will be
required if building permits are not issued prior to expiration. The Development Code permits up to
three one-year time extensions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is for the design, construction and operation of a senior care facility consisting
of a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical office
buildings totaling 27,700 square feet, an Alzheimer's facility of 7,200 square feet, 69 independent
care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool, with associated parking and landscaping on
a 22.62 acre site. The total square footage of building area is 380,859 square feet.
The proposed senior care facility is an age-in-place concept development. The theory is that this
project could be the final location for the elderly by providing a variety of housing types to service the
needs of seniors as they age. For example, the project provides condominiums for seniors that are
completely independent and ambulatory, s,maller apartment units once the condominium becomes
too large or too much to care for, and aSsisted care units for seniors that require additional or
continual medical assistance. The project also provides on-site medical offices and an Alzheimer
clinic to service the needs of the residents so they do not have to travel.
The assisted care and apartment buildings offer a variety of units with different sizes. The smallest
unit is a studio with a combined living/sleeping area with approximately 398 square feet. The next
size is an alcove unit, which offers a small, separate bedroom and a living area with approximately
500 square feet. The one bedroom unit offers approximately 620 square feet, and the two
bedrooms offer 925 square feet. The attached condominium units are all 900 square feet and offer
two bedrooms and one and a half baths with a one-car garage of two hundred and fifty square feet.
Due to the age-in-place concept of this development, this project is intended to service the needs of
the elderly on-site. Therefore, the project provides extensive on-site amenities such as walking
paths with benches; garden areas; outdoor activity areas such as croquet or lawn bowling; large,
park-like landscaped areas, water features and health and personal hygiene services such as
barber and beauty salons. There will also be a variety of bus and shuttle services to meet any off-
site needs of the residents.
ANALYSIS
During the review of the time extension request, the applicant and the Public Works Department
came to an agreement on a new Condition of Approval. The new Condition is added under Prior to
Issuance of a Grading Permit section and reads, "The Developer shall provide a drainage easement
and temporary construction easement at the southwest corner of the property to accommodate four
10'x7' reinforced concrete box storm drain facility as shown on the City of Temecula Capital
improvement Project No. PW99-11". This Condition has been added to the Conditions of Approval
as #56.
R:',E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East~Staff Report.doc
3
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Professional Office (PO). Existing zoning for
the site is Professional Office (PO). Senior Care Facilities are permitted with the approval of a
development plan pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan and Design Guidelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for the PA97-0420. Per Section 15162 of the
California Environmental Quality Act, when~a Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project,
no subsequent Negative Declaration need be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that substantial
changes have occurred in the project or new environmental information of substantial importance
has been discovered. Staff has determined that no new changes or information are present that
would require any new environmental action.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards
and guidelines. Staff believes it is compatible with the nature and quality of surrounding
development, and will represent an attractive addition to the surrounding area. Staff recommends
approval of the time extension with the modified conditions and previous mitigation measures.
FINDINGS- DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No.
655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety
and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the
standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_ ~ Blue Page 5
Exhibit A Conditions of Approval- Blue Page 8
Initial Environmental Study dated September 10, 1998- Blue Page 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program PA97-0420 - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 11
A. Vicinity Map ~
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Site Plan 1
E. Site Plan 2
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\Staff Report.doc
4
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
APPROVING PA00-0403
(EXTENSION OF TIME)
R:\E O T'~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\Staff Report.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0403 (
ONE YEAREXTENSION OF TIME), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A
SENIOR APPARTMENT BUILDING, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS
TOTALING 27,700 SQUARE FEET, 69 INDEPENDENT CARE HOUSING
UNITS WITH A DETACHED CLUBHOUSE AND POOL (380,859 TOTAL
SQUARE FEET) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON
A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.62 ACRES LOCATED ATTHE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LOMA LINDA AND PALA ROADS, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.S 961-010-014 AND 961-010-015. (PA97-0420)
WHEREAS, Daniel Lomax, initiated Planning Application No. PA00-0403 (Extension of Time), in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA00-0403 (Extension of Time) was processed including, but
not limited to public notice, in the timely manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Extension of Time was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application
No. PA00-0403 (Extension of Time) on July 11,2001, at which time interested persons had an opportunity
to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. PA00-0403;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0403;
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. 00-0403
hereby concludes that the original findings for Planning Application 97-0420 still apply.
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City
Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance),
and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety
and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted
by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\Staff Report.doc
6
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0403
was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies
when a Negative Declaration has been previously adopted and there are no substantial changes to the
project; no new significant environmental effects requiring revision of the Negative Declaration; and the
Negative Declaration is deemed adequate for the project being considered.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning
Application No. PA00-0403 for the Extension of Time for the design, construction and operation of a senior
care facility consisting of a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment building, two
medical office buildings totaling 27,700 square feet, an Alzheimer's facility of 7,200 square feet, 69
independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool (total building square footage of
380,859), with associated parking and on a proposed parcel containing 22.62 acres located atthe northwest
corner of Loma Linda and Pala Roads, known as Assessor's Pamel No. 961-010-014 and 961-010-015,
subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 11th day of July 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 du y and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula at a reguiar meeting thereof held on the 11th day of July, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\E O T~0-0403 Alpine Gardens East\Staff Report.doc
7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\Staff Report,doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 00-0403 (Extension of Time)
Project Description:
The design, construction and operation of a senior care facility
consisting of a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit
senior apartment building, two medical office buildings totaling
27,700 square feet, an Alzheimer's facility of 7,200 square feet,
69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse
and pool with associated parking and on a proposed parcel
containing 22.62 acres located at the northwest corner of Loma
Linda and Pala Roads (total building square footage is 380,859).
Assessor's Parcel No.: 961-010-014 and 961-010-015
Approval Date: October 7, 2000
Expiration Date: October 7, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money
order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred
Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty
Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-
Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources
Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
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
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, 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 Planning Application No. PA97-0420
(Development Plan). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action,
or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action.
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
R:'~E O Tx00-0403 Alpine Gardens East~COA.doc
10.
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.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of
the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the
Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the
landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as amended
by these conditions.
A minimum of three hundred forty eight (348) parking spaces shall be provided.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit G (color rendering), or as
amended by these conditions.
If the assisted care, apartment buildings, or condominium units are converted to a different
use as a result of local market demands, any exterior, structural, unit mix, square footage or
floor plan changes shall be approved by the Community Development Director.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by
these conditions (color and material board). The applicant shall work with staff to add
additional trim colors that are non-monochromatic (no gray colors) to the sixty-nine (69)
condominium units only. (Added by the Planning Commission October 7, 1998).
Materials Colors
(A) Stucco Ivory (#57)
(B) Stucco Reveal Cape Cod Grey
(C) Metal Railing Cape Cod Grey
(D) Architectural Ornaments Grey
(E) Window Frames White
(F) Fascia Board and Gutters Cape Cod Grey
(G) Roof Shingles Grey Blend
(H) Doors and Frames White
(I) Balcony Scuppers Terracotta
(J) Timber Overheads Cape Cod Grey
(K) Architectural Columns, Downspouts & Flashing Ivory
(L) Architectural Window Molding Cape Cod Grey
(M) Aluminum Storefronts White
(N) Aluminum Storefronts Dark Bronze
(O) Stucco Dark Ivory
(P) Concrete Roof Tile Grey Blend
(Q) Garage Doors White
(R) Wood Siding Ivory
R:~E 0 T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\COA.doc
2
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
11,
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation).
12.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
13. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
14.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees.
15.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown.
These 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.
16.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
17. An application for a comprehensive sign program shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Manager.
18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
19.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and
shading plants. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The
irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
20.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed
refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the
International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in
area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80
inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a
minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A
sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking
facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying
distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities
may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by
telephoning 909 696-3000."
R:kE O Tx00-0403 Alpine Gardens East~COA.doc
3
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.
21.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee
the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and
adequate maintenance of the planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of
Planning.
22. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by
this permit.
23.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
24.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and
Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24
Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.
25. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance
number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
26. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
27. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be R-I/B/I-1.1/A-3.
28. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
29. Provide demolition permits for all existing buildings that will be removed prior to the demolition
(i.e. finaled building permits or Certificate of Occupancy)
30. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all
details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994)
31. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of all building.
32. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
33. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
34. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
35. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
36. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
R:XE O TX00q)403 Alpine Gaxdens East~COA.doc
4
37. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
38. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
39. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required at time of plan submittal for plan review.
40. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
41. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctlyshows 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
42.
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.
43. 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.
44.
All improvement plans, grading plans, and raised landscaped median plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to
the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
45. The vehicular movement for the proposed southerly driveway on Loma Linda Road is
restricted to right in/right out only.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
46.
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.
47.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
48.
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 soiJs conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of
engineered structures and pavement sections.
R:',E O Tx00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\COA.doc
5
49.
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 adjacent properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties
and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities caused by
project impacts, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make
required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
50.
Improve the existing channel along Pala Road as necessary to provide adequate capacity to
safely convey tributary storm flows to an adequate outlet. The design of this facility shall also
include an analysis of the impact to downstream facilities. If the downstream facilities are
adversely impacted by this project, upsizing or the installation of additional drainage facilities
may be necessary.
51.
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 orthe project
is shown to be exempt.
52. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
53. 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.
54. 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.
55.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone AE and Zone
AH. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which
may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development
Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
56.
The Developer shall provide a drainage easement and temporary construction easement at
the southwest corner of the property to accommodate four 10'x7' reinforced concrete box
storm drain facility as shown on the City of Temecula Capital Improvement
Project No. PW99-11.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
57.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula
Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The
following design criteria shall be observed:
R:~E O Tx00-0403 Alpine Gardens East~COA.doc
6
58.
59.
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving. Street flowline grades along Loma Linda Road may be reduced to 0.35%
minimum over P.C.C.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees unless
otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. The centedine intersection
between Temecula Lane and Loma Linda Road can remain at the current alignment.
Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades.
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.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General
Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved bythe Director
of the Department of Public Works:
Improve Pala Road (Modified Arterial Highway Standard - 110' R/W) to include
installation of half-width street improvements allowing for two lanes in each direction
with a center left turn lane, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage
facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
Improve Loma Linda Road (Secondary Highway Standard - 88' R/VV) to include
installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited
to water and sewer).
Improve Temecula Lane (Local Road Standard - 60' R/W) to include installation of
half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited
to water and sewer).
Widen the existing bridge at the intersection of Pala Road and Loma Linda Road to
accommodate the project related street improvements.
The Developer shall design and construct or provide a cash deposit for half width
raised landscape median on Pala Road, along property frontage. Plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Pala Road to
include signal intemonnect with the signal at the intersection of Pala Road and
Highway 79 South. The Developer is eligible for credit for regional signal facilities
installed by her/him.
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per CaltransC standards for transition to existing street sections.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public
Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic
signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\COA.dcc
7
Storm drain facilities
Sewer and domestic water systems
Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
60.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of
Public Works.
61. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by
the Department of Public Works.
62. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside
Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works.
63.
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.
64. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in
accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
65.
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.
66.
In compliance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the ultimate Pala Road is
classified as a Urban Arterial Highway Standard - 134' R/W', therefore the developer shall
record a written offer to dedicate additional right of way of 24 feet along property frontage on
Pala Road.
67.
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 Ultimate Storm Drain Facility and Pala
Road Widening Improvements 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
68. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy,
The traffic signal at the intersection of Pala Road and Loma Linda Road shall be
installed and operational.
Pala Road improvements shall be complete to include the Pala Road Bridge
(Public Works #97 -15) Added by the Planning Commission on October 7,
1998,
Loma Linda Road improvements shall be complete
Temecula Lane improvements shall be complete.
69. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written
clearance from the following agencies:
R:~E O T~00~403 Alpine Gaxdens East\COA.doc
8
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Department of Public Works
70. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
71.
All public improvements, including traffic signals, shall be constructed and completed per the
approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
72.
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.
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.
73.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews
building plans. Identification and implementation of specific conditions regulating the
use and storage of compressed gases, bio-hazardous materials and medicinal waste
shall be an express component of this review. These conditions will be based on
occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related
codes which are in fome at the time of building plan submittal. (Added by the Planning
Commission on October 7, 1998).
74.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 3250 GPM at 20
PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 700 GPM for a total fire
flow of 3950 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the
approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection
measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has
taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A)
75.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x 4"
x 2-2 D" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to
public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 250 feet apart and shall be located no more than
150 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an
hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-
B)
76.
As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project
on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2)
R:kE O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\COA.doc
9
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-
sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (UFC 902.2~2.2.3 and Ord 460)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved
temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed.
Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 lbs GVVV.
(UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
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 70,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec
902 and Ord 95-15)
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. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15)
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. (UFC 902.2.2.4)
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. (UFC 902.2.1)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system
plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by
a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the local
water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau
for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being
placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association
24 1-4.1)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall
be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall
display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals
shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite
identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite
address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument
sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each
complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the
name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant
R:',E O TX00-0403 Alpine Gas-dens East\COA.doc
l0
locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted
to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation.
88.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire
sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15)
89.
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. (UFC Article 10)
90.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm
system. (UFC 902.4)
91.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4)
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
92.
The City's park land dedication requirements will apply to the 141 unit senior apartment
building and the 69 independent care housing units (210 units). Said requirements will be
satisfied through the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to $90,000 per acre, and pursuant to
the following formula:
234 x 210 units x .005 = 2.46 acres/park requirement
93.
The City is willing to provide up to a 50% credit (1.23 acres) against the park land requirement
for private recreational areas provided on site. In order for the City to consider granting said
credits, the developer will need to provide the TCSD with a written description of the acreage
and amenities proposed for recreational use. Land exceeding a 10% slope, landscaped
parkways and street scape do not qualify for park credit. Upon review of this information, the
TCSD will determine the amount of the credit available to the developer and the amount of the
remaining in-lieu fees.
94.
The TCSD will consider the developer's request to pay the in-lieu park fees prior to issuance
of certificates of occupancy. Prior to issuance of building permits for the 141 unit
apartment complex and the 69 housing units, the developer shall satisfy the City's park
land dedication (Quimby) requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to
1.23 acres of park land, based upon the City's then current land evaluation. Said
requirement includes a 50% credit for private recreational opportunities provided on-
site and shall be pro-rated at a per dwelling unit cost prior to the issuance of each
building permit requested. (Added by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1998).
95.
Prior to the installation of arterial street lighting, the developer will be required to comply with
the street Jight dedication process and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the transfer of
said street lighting into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program.
R:~E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East~COA.dcc
96. All perimeter parkway landscaping and slope areas shall be privately maintained.
OTHER AGENCIES
97. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water
District's transmittal dated December 24, 1997, a copyof which is attached.
98. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated March 2, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
99.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated December 30, 1997, a copy of which
is attached.
100. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood
Control transmittal dated February 2, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
101. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information
Center, University of California Riverside transmittal dated January 5, 1998, a copy of which is
attached.
102. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of
Transportation transmittal dated February 2, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
103. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA) transmittal dated February 23, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above
mentioned 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 Department approval.
Applicant Name
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\COA.doc
12
dohn F, Hennigar
Phillip L. Forbes
Per*'y IR. Louck
Linda ,M. Fregoso
Best Best .~: Kriegor LLP
December 24, 1997
Ms. Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
TEMECULA SENIOR CARE FACILITY
APN 950-110-007 and APN 950-110-008
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0420
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water Service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Development Engineering Manager
97/SB:BJ:eb329/FEG
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
IWednesday Septenber 2~ 1998 2:l]Fm -- From ,o, 11803~ -- Page
SENT §Y:E # W O ~- 2-$B ; 3:03P~
E:stem '[unicipal /rat er Di,trict
90969464??;# 2
~s,s~.~ ~ March 2, 1998
County o !Riverside
Health Se'trices Agency
Dept. b., .nt of Envimnment~ Health
P.O. Box 7600
Riverside C_,allfomia 92513-7600
RE: T .mecula Independent Care Facility California (APN 950=110-007, 00$ or l
al ~1 2 ofl'M 8856) Supplemental Requirements to Land Division Sewer Se~
Dear
We have eviewed the ~-"wer service needs ofth¢ subject project at the northwesterly c~
Pala and ] oma Lind~ Rp.~ads. The subject project is reported to be a senior care ~ac[lity '
medical o .~ice buildings totalin8 27,700 sq. ~, a Alzheimer faciliw of 7 200 ,,~ ~ ~ ~,
~edc~fa ...... · -~ . ' '"~'*"'
cility btuldins, 141 teat semor apa, tment building,. 69 independent care he
units witl: detached clubhouse and pool, and associated parking and landscaping.
The subje ~ project is within EMWD's lmproveme~ District U-8 and Rancho V'dhges
Asscssme tt District No. ]59 ~or sewer se~ce. The following COmments are offered to ~
sanitary s facilities necessary for sen c
The amid reed average daily wastewater flow generated by the subject project will be t~
disposed I y EMWD's Temecula V~ey Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). At thi~
TYRWRI 'has stt~eient capacity to provide treatment and disposal of the subject projec
wastewat, r flow.
An existir t gravity sewer pipeffne ia/.oma Linda Road will bc available for connection c
subject pt ~je~'s ons~te gravity ~ewera. Sewer servi~e will not be granted, ho,a~vcr,
Rancho ¥ ~lages Ass~anmt Distdct No. I59, Pala Road gravity sewer pipeline~
~rOm Loft ~ Linda Road to tho intersection of HW~ 79 Sodlh with Pala Roa&
o te =b. Uo.. ..vity s.cw r pipe. llnc shall be constructed to serve ' v own
.. .... every prive~y
mey ~ ms~. tt ~ entre s~te ~s rmuntamed under one o~nera~ip, ~en' onsite ptlvate s
Mall re: Po~t Office 'aox 8.t00 San ]a~.l~to, Callforaln 92.~11~9500 * T&~one (909) 92~-7~ ·
~ Offi~ 204~ ~ ~ ]~ Av~ ~ ]~nto - ~ 8~ / ~ ~ 440 ~ 0~
~gom & M~' ~ce ~t~ ~70 ~ble ~ad, P~Is, ~ ~2571 Td~ho~ (~9) ~28-~ *
arcels 1
vice
ne~ of
dthtwo
alt
team'be
ated nnd
time the
[oL a~
I~ednesday September 2~ 1998 2:13Fm -- From 'n ~1803' -- Page 31
SENT BY:E M W D 4- 2-.ql~ 3:03P~d ;
9096,
system, ,iU be ne~..
Tho eve 'leble capacity of'E~lW~'s sanita~ sewer system is continually chsn~ng due t
occurm ~ ot~development within the District's service arcs end pmgntrns or' system
improw ncntt A~ such, service to the sub]cct project is dependent on ~c timing of~
project..he status of EMWD's permit to ope~,*~, and the se~Ace ngreement with the:
Should ~ ~ be any question, please contect this office nt (909) 766-1810. extension,
Warren..~ Back
Custom~.r Service Deparmmnt
WAG/
[arkham & Associates
v. enfion: 1T~ta Miller
1750 W'mchester R~nd, St~ L
~mecula, California 92590
905694§4??;# 3
istdct.
~7.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: DECEMBER 30, I997
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Patty Anders
REGOR DELLENBACH. Environmental Health specialist IV
PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0420
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0420 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b)
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture
schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California-Uniform Retail Food Facilities 'Law. For specific reference, please contact Food
-Fhcility-Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022.
c)
A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-5055
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/LEA).
Page 2
4. PRIOR TO PLAN CI~ECK SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE REQUIRED:
d) "Will-serve" letters from the watering and se~vering agencies.
e)
Three complete sets of plans for the swimming pool/spa will be submitted, 'in order to ensure
complim~ce with the California Administrative Code, California Health and Safety Code and the
Uniform Building Code.
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
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
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: ~/~TT~ /~?"/.D/[ ~, ~
t
Ladies and Gentlemen:
! 995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.1
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases n ncorporated cities.
The Distdct also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases. Distdct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the District including District Master Dra nage Plan fac t es, other rep ona flood control and
draina..ge facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master p an system and District
Area urainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, informat on of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in deta and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approva/or endorsement of the proposed project w th respect to flood hazard public health
and safety or any other such issue:
~ This project would not be impacted by Disthct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will accept ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, nspection and administrative fees will be
required.
__ This rDroject proposes, channels storm drains 36 inches, or arger n d ameter, or other fac t es that could be
considered regional m nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request
of the City: Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards and Distdct plan check and inspection will be
required for Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspect on and administrative fees will be required.
This project is located within the limits of the District's Am=
ralnage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicab e fees should be paid by cashier's check
or money order only to the Flood Control District or City pdor to issuance of building or grading permits,
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of[he actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
.Reso,u .rces Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City
nas aetermined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a Federal Emergengy Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should
require the applicant to provide all studies, calcu at ons plans and other reformat on requ red to meet FEMA
requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior
to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Califom a Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Qua ty Certification may be
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
MONO
]NYO
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW
DATE: .'~O~,,z ot.u-~t ._~, Ictcl~
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation:
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
Thc proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural
resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended.
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase 1 study
is recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #
) identified one or more cultural resources..
Thc project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural rosourccs. However, duc to the nature of thc
project or pr/or data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not
recommended.
__ A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
__ There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while
a qualified archaeologist evaluates the £mds and makes recommendations.
Due to thc archaeological sensitivity of the area, carthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional
archaeologist.
Resource Management Reports prepared by thc California Office o f Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin
4(a), December 1989.
Phase 1
Phase Ii
Phase Ill
Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.]
Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.]
Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern lntbrmation Center
.STATE OF CAUFORNIA. BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATIUN AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, 464 W. 4th STREET, 6th FLOOR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-'1400
PETE WILSON, Governor
February 2, 1998
08-Riv-79-19.07
Ms. Patty Anders
Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Ms. ~Lnders:
PA97-0420
We have reviewed the above-referenced documents and request
consideration of the following comment:
Caltrans supports economic growth and orderly land use
development; however, new development must pay its fair
share for upgrading infrastructure facilities needed to
serve the development. This infrastructure includes State
highways and freeways. It also includes both direct and
cumulative traffic impacts. Ail jurisdictions should take
measures available to fund improvements and reduce total
trips generated. In view of the fact there are limited
funds available for infrastructure improvements, we
recommend the City of Temecula take the lead in developing
a fair-share mechanism in which each project can fund
improvements for the decrease in Level of Service (LOS) for
which it is responsible.
If you have any questions, please contact Mark Grant at
(909) 383-4655 or FAX (909} 383-7934.
Sincerely,
CECIL KA~RSTENSEN, Acting Chief
Office of Riverside County
Transportation Planning
l
1
l
February 23, 1998
Ms. Patty Anders
City of Temecula
Temecula Planning Depax tment
43200 Business Park Drive
Te:aecula, CA 92590
RE: PA97-0420
Riverside Transit AgenCY
1825 Third Street
P.O, Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone; (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
Dear Vivian:
We do not currently provide service to the site mentioned above but based on the size of the project
and our own plans for future growth, we are requesting that a bus turnout or a pad for a bus stop
be incorporated into the general design. To ensure accessibility to the available transit services
for residents and visitors of this development, RTA would like to suggest that the following transit
amenities should be provided by the owner/applicant to mitigate transportation impacts.
Transit stop located at: Lorna Linda Rd nearside Pala Rd. adjacent to Medical Bldg. A
A bus turnout, should be provided at the above stop location, if determined by City Traffic
Engineer to be necessary based on roadway cross section, travel volumes and speeds. I can provide
an exact location for the turnout/bus stop as the project progresses.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this p~o. ject. Please contact me or Fina Clemente at
(909)684-0850 shou~.d you require a0ditional information or specifications.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Oiler
Deputy General Manager
SO/jsc
PDEV# 162
'1998
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
PA97-0420
Dated September 10, 1998
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\Staff Reporl.doc
9
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
8. Description of Project:
10.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0420 (Development Plan)
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
(909) 694-6400
The northwest corner of Loma Linda and Pala
Roads.
Brain Sesko
B & B Properties
424 Stratford Court, B-10
Del Mar, CA 92014
PO (Professional Office )
PO (Professional Office )
The project consists of the design, construction and
operation of a senior care facility consisting of a 121 unit
assisted care facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment
building, two medical office buildings totaling 27,700 sq.
ft., an Alzheimer's facility of 7,200 sq. ft. , 69 independent
care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool, with
associated parking and landscaping on a 22.62 acre site.
The project is proposed on two legal parcels that will be
merged to accommodate the proposed development. There
are a few dilapidated buildings on the subject parcels. The
area to the north is an existing residential development, to
the south is vacant land, to the east is a community park and
some existing large lot, ranch houses. To the west, across
Pala Road is an existing residential development.
Riverside County Fire Department, Health Departmem;
Temecula Police Departmem; Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District, Southern
California Gas Company, Southern California Edison
Company, General Telephone Company and Riverside
Transit Agency.
R:~PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [X ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [X] Public Services
[X] Water [X] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics
[X] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation, I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signature
Printed Name:
Date:
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
September 10, 1998
For: City of Temecula
R:h°LANNING\420pa97 ENV..doc
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Soume 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] ix] [ ]
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source 4, p. 17.02-3)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-16)
[]
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or mmori~ community)? [ ]
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LM~ACTS
[] [) IX]
[ ] [ ) IX]
la,b The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and has a Land Use Designation of PO (Professional Office).
The proposed project is a senior facility which includes a 121 unit assisted care facility building, a 141 unit
senior apartment building, two medical office buildings totaling 27,700 sq. ft., an Alzheimeel facility of 7,200
sq. ft., 69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool, with associated parking and
landscaping on a 22.62 acre site. The proposed project is apemaitted use under the PO zoning classification.
The overall impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact
Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the
analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures
approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are
' also being given the oppommity to comment on the project and it is'anticipated that they will make the appropriate
comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. There will be limited, if
any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposed senior facility will not be incompatible with existing land uses, and will not be considered
incompatible or impact the existing single family developments, neighborhood parks or the limited neighborhood
retail and commercial uses in the vicinity. The project has been designed so that the one-story condominium units
are located at the western portion of the site, adjacent to the existing, detached, single family residential
development. The three story apartment and assisted care buildings are located near the center and eastern pordon
of the site, away from the adjacent residential development. The medical buildings are clustered around the
southeast comer of Pala and Loma Linda Roads, also away from the adjacent residential tract to the west of the
subject property. The single story condominiums will serve as a good transitional product between the existing
tract development to the west and the proposed three story apartment and assisted care structures. The project has
been designed to comply with the City-Wide Design Guidelines, the Development Code and General Plan. The
architectural style was designed to be residential in nature and to be compatible with the surrounding residential
developments. With the proposed site layout, architectural style and interfacing, no significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
ld,e The project will not affect agricultural resources or disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is proposed on two parcels with an
existing residential use and some accessory structures on site. However, there are no established residential
communities (including low-income or minority communities) being disrupted or divided.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact incorporated Impact Impact
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infraslructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
2.a
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The proposed project
is designed to accommodate senior citizens within Temecula and the surrounding areas. Although the project may
provide housing for seniors currently living outside of Temecula, it is anticipated that the project will not be a
s~gnificant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections due to the limited number of units being approved with this development application. The project
is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of PO (Professional Office) and is
not exceeding lot coverage or floor area ratio requirements; therefore, no significant effects are anticipated as a
result of this project.
2.b
2.C
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent
with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of PO (Professional Office) and will primarily serve the
housing and medical needs for people in the immediate and surrounding areas. The project may cause some
people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth
in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing as the site does not have existing housing.
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Inco~orated Impact Impact
a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-5)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
[ ] ix] [ ] [Xl
[ ] txl [ ] t I
R:~P LANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
e. Landslides or mudflows?
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
f. Erosion, changes m topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
[ ] [ ] ix] [ ]
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
h. Expansive soils? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
i. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.a,b The project is located in Southern Califomia, in an area which is seism/cally active. The proposed development
may have a significant impact on people involving fauh rapture, and seismic ground shaking as the site lies within
Ground Shaking Zone II which is expected to vary from moderate to intense in the event of an earthquake,
depending on the composition of underlying geologic formations, the earthquake's epicenter and the order of
magnitude of the seismic event. A Preliminary Geoteclmical Investigation noted that Uniform Building Code
(UBC) Seismic Zone 4 standards would apply to constxuction at this site. Preliminary soils reports are required
and reviewed as part of the application submittal, and recommendations contained in these reports are used to
determine appropriate conditions of approval for the project. The soils reports will also contain recommendations
for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground
shaking or erosion.
3.c,dThe project will not expose people to ground failure; including liquefaction; a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard;
subsidence or expansive soils. The area is located in an area that the General Plan identified as having the
potential for liquefaction. However, a Geotecimical Investigation Report that was submitted for the project
indicated that the site has a very low potential for liquefaction and expansive soils. In addition, no tmique geologic
or physical features or upslxeam water impoundments have been identified that could impact the site. As a result,
no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.e The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of
Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to
the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.f,h The proposed development may have an impact on people involving changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from expansive soils, excavation, grading or fill. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated
through building consU'uction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. In addition, a
Geotechnical report was submitted and reviewed for the above conditions. Recormnendations contained in this
report will be used to determine appropriate constxuction practices and recommendations for the compaction of
the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from grading, expansive soils, excavation, grading or fill prior to the issuance of permits.
Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant since
modifications will be consistent with UBC and the approved Geotechnical report which analyzed soil conditions
and qualities.
3.i
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. The site lacks any notable existing sloped areas.
No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
R:~P LANNING\420pa97ENV, ,doc
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff?.
[] [] ~] []
b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
[] ~] [] []
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
[] [] ix] []
d. Changesintheamountofsurfacewa~rinanywater
bo~?
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
[] [] IX] []
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
[] [] [] [~
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
othenvise available for public water supplies?
[] [] [] [x]
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.a
The subject site has limited stxuctures on site (one single family residential and dilapidated accessory structures).
Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected
whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered
impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and
surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design and improvements. Drainage
conveyances will be required for the pmject to safely and adequately handle ranoffwhich is created. In addition,
the project will be conditioned to participate in an assessment district or other funding mechanism to improve the
drainage system in the mediate area. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
4.b The project could have a significant impact to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding since
a portion of the project site is encompassed by two FEMA 100 year flood plains as shown on the FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060742 0010 B, dated November 20, 1996. The Temecula Creek
flood plain crosses the area about 600 feet north of the site. The Flood Insurance Rate Map provides approximate
flood plain limits and 100-year flood plain elevations to which buildings must be elevated. The flood plain
approaches Temecula Lane and crosses the property in an east to west direction. The North Side of Wolf Valley
flood plain is shallow with approximate depths of up to one foot. The North Side of Wolf Valley flood plain
crosses approximately the southerly 600 feet of the site. This flood plain has an expected 100-year flow of 3,129
CFS at the intersection of Pala Road and Loma Linda Road. The existing grouted rip-rap Impezoidal channel along
RAPLANNING~420pa97ENV..doc
the north side of Pala Road has a limited capacity. The remaining flows spread out as a shallow flood plain across
the fight of way of Pala Road. These overland flows approach Loma Linda Road as a relatively shallow and wide
flood plain (about 750 feet across). To address these potentially significant impacts, it is anticipated that a
combination of barrier protection along the site perimeter and elevation of onsite slxuctures will be utilized to
protect the proposed development from off`site flows. In addition, it is also expected that coordination of the
design with the adjacent landowners and some participation in a joint funding mechanism will be needed to
construct the ultimate drainage facilities.
To mitigate these potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, the project will be conditioned to
provide a detailed hydrology study and grading plans, and receive City approval of the storm drain improvement
plans to ensure that the on-site structures will be floodpmofed and that tributary storm flows around the site will
be conveyed to an acceptable outlet in accordance with the approved hydrology study, prior to the issuance of a
grading permit. The project will not be permitted to increase flows or divert flows to impact any adjacent
properties. It may also be necessary to install storm drain facilities or other improvements along Temecula Lane
and through the site to protect the project and convey storm flows to an adequate Outlet. Finally, the project will
conditioned for the developer to record a written offer to participate in, and waive all fights to object to the
formation of an Assessment District for the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities. With the conditions
of approval and mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.C
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface
water quahty. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with
the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Contxol Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been flied or the
project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be
mitigated to a level less than significant. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d,e The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the mount of surface water in any water body
or ~mpact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because
previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape
and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into the City's drainage
system will not be considered siginflcant. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.f-h The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters.
However, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the
site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on gmand waters. Less than significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.i
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water
demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will be
provided by Rancho Califom/a Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
RAPLANNING~420pa97ENV..doc
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Violate any air quality standard or conaibute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] [ J [X]
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
5.a
T~ne project is not expected to violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation. The project is below the threshold (612 units) for potentially significant air quality impact
established by South Coast Air Quahty Management District for retirement community projects (Page 6-11,
Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants nor sensitive
receptors in proximity to the project. No significant iurpacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in clflnate. The single-
story, limited scale of the project precludes it fi.om creating any significant impacts on the environment in this
area. No significant/mpacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d The project may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the project, or, if the biohazardous
material is not properly stored or removed from the site in accordance with the Medical Waste Management
Act pursuant to the Health and Safety Code. However, this project will be conditioned to obtain all necessary
permits and clearances fi.om the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health which enforces the
state regulations in the handling, storage, removal, etc. of biohazardous materials. The construction impacts
will be of short duration, and the biohazardous materials will be regulated by the Department of
Environmental Health; therefore, no other odors are anticipated as a result of this project.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
[] IX] [] [ ]
[ ] [ ] ix] []
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
R:~PLANNING~420pa97ENV..doc
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
DISCUSSION OF TIlE ENVIRONMENTAL 13'IPACTS
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
[ ] [ I Ix] [ I
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
6.a The site is located in an area that currently has level of service (LOS) "F" at the intersections of Pala Road and
Loma Linda during peak traffic hours. The traffic report submitted for this project states that the proposed
development will generate approximately 2,214 Mps per weekday with 128 vehicles per hour during the AM peak
hours and 205 vehicles per hour during PM peak hours, or 4.4% to 11%. The recent traffic counts for this
intersection do warrant installation of a traffic signal--even if this project is not built. The signal has been included
in the 1998/99 Capital Improvement Program. The City has agreed to allow the developer to install the signal with
the consUmction of this project, and to reimburse the developer for the cost of the signal. In addition to the
installation of the traffic signal, the project will be conditioned for the following road improvements: to construct
the portion of Pala Road adjacent to the subject site to create four through lanes and a left turn lane; to construct
the portion of Loma Linda Road adjacent to the subject site to its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary
Highway (88 foot right-of-way); to construct the portion of Temecula Lane adjacent to the subject site to its
ultimate half-section width as a residential street (60 foot right-of-way); to provide a two-way left turn median on
Loma Linda Road for eastbound vehicles desiring to mm left into the project site; to participate on a pro-rata basis
of funding city-wide traffic improvements based upon adopted City fees; and to agree not to oppose an assessment
disuSct or other funding mechanism to improve the Pala Road corridor street system to solve the ultimate traffic
problem. The project will also be conditioned that Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted until all
conditioned road improvements are completed.
In addition to the above mitigation measures, additional off-site mad improvements in the surrounding area will
also help to accommodate the existing traffic as well as the incremental increase caused by the proposed project.
The existing two-lane Pala Road Bridge will be widened to at least four lanes. The bridge improvements are
anticipated to be completed in December 1999. Highway 79 South interchange is currently being enhanced and
construction is scheduled to be completed in Mamh 1999. The future expansion of Highway 79 South between
Interstate 15 and Pala Road is currently being designed and funding is being acquired to complete this expansion.
This project is scheduled to go to bid in March 1999 and completion of this project is scheduled for the spring
of 2000. After mitigation measures are performed, road improvements completed, and pnhlic facilities fees paid,
the traffic impacts associate with this project are anticipated to be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
6.b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City
standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The project is
designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not interfere with access
to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d. The project provides sufficient parking on-site. The project is providing parking that exceeds the required number
of parking spaces for each use type. Overall, the on-site parking exceeds the Development Code parking
requirements. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. The project is designed to current
City standards requiring sidewalks and bicycle lanes pursuant to General Plan Road standards. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.f. The project will not conflict with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation. The project will be
conditioned to provide a bus turnout for a bus stop as requested by Riverside Transit Agency letter dated February
R:~PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
23, 1998. Therefore, the project will be supporting alternative methods of transportation. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.g. The project will not result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts. Rail, waterborne or air traffic do not exist in
the mediate proximity of the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7a.
7.b
7.C
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, and animals
and bt'ds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migr~h~orddorsS'
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] £ ] [ ] IX]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but
not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique,
rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site and there are no
indications that any sensitive species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species,
provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat since it is not in a location to connect
existing habitat areas. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area and Habitat
Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts of urbanization on the species. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in
the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project
is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or adjacent to the
site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve
as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~P LANNINGXA20pa97£NV..doc
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adapted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
rammer?
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated hnv,~,.t Impact
[ ] [ ] [ ] Ix]
[ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
8.a
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed
for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits
will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b The pr°ject will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non_renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion
of nourenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the
subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources, due to the small scale of the proposed
development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
8.C
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region
and. the residents of the State is located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
[1 IX] [1 []
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
R:\P LANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brash,
grass, or trees?
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
9,a
The two medical office buildings and assisted care facilities will generate small amounts of biohazardons materials.
However, the handling, storage, and removal of such materials is regulated by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health which ensures compliance with the Medical Waste Management Act of the Health and
Safety Code. The Department of Environmental Health stated the applicant will be required to obtain a clearance
letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch for the following: Hazardous Waste Generator
Services, Ordinances #615.3, Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance 651.2) and Waste
Reduction Management. The project will be conditioned to obtain all necessary permits and/or clearances from
all pertinent local and state regulating agencies. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result
of this project.
9.b
.The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site
is not located in un area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a
maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.c,d,e The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard, nor expose people to
existing sources of potential health hazards, nor increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brash, grass or U'ees.
The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check and occupancy
stages of development. No perm/ts will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these laws. No
health hazards are known to be in proximity to the project site. The project site is not located within or prox/mate
to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
[ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
[ ] [ ] ix] [ ]
10.a The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and
development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as
increases to noise in the area over the long mn. This type of senior facility may result in more frequent exposure
to sirens; however, the overall increase in siren noise is extremely incremental and therefore considered to be a
less than significant impact to the surrounding neighborhoods.
10.b. The project will result in some short term severe noise levels. The project may expose people to severe noise
levels during the construction phase of development. Consmxcfion machinery is capable of producing noise in
the range of 100+ dBA at I00 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady
eight-hour exposure. However, the source of such noise at the project site will be of short duration, and not
considered significant. There will be no lung-term exposure of people to severe noise (reference 10.a above). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~P LANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
11.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Potentially
Significant
Pot~ntially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
b. Police protection? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
c. Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ '] [X] [ ]
e. Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1 l.a,b The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police
protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for frre and police protection; however, the project
is required to pay development impact fees which are utilized to help pay for these services. No additional
personnel or equipment will be required as a result of this project. The project will pay its fair share to provide
these services through the required development impact fees; therefore, less than significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
11. c. The project will not have a significant impacts on school facilities; however, in accordance with State Laws,
the developer will contribute his/her fair share of development impact fees earmarked for the school district.
After mitigation is performed and development impact fees paid, no significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
ll.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon maintenance of public facilities, including roads.
Funding for the maintenance of roads is derived fi-om the State of Cahfomia gasoline tax, which is distributed
to the City of Temecula. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of the project
will be incremental, and not considered significant. The gasoline tax is sufficient to provide for maintenance
expenses. In addition, the applicant shall pay applicable public facilities fees. No significant knpact is
anticipated as a result of this project.
11 .e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. The
project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area. The effect upon governmental services is
expected as part of the build-unt of the area. No siguificant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12. UI'ILITIES ~ SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Power or natural gas?
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
R:~P LANNING\420pa97 ENV..doc
b. Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Local or regional water ~'eahaaent or distribution
cities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Storm water drainage? [ ] IX] [ ] [ ]
f. Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
g. Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
12.a The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas.
These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
12.b The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication
systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.c The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional
water U-eaUnent or distribution facilities. The existing facilities in place can accommodate the additional
incremental increase due to this project; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.d The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer
systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: '"ooth EMWD and RCWD have indicated
an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEll{ further states:
"implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since
the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
12.e The project will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the existing storm water
drai~ge facilities. The existing gxouted dp-rap txapezoidal channel along the north side of Pala Road has a limited
capacity. The remaining flows spread out as a shallow flood plain across the entire mad width of Pala Road. These
flows approach Loma Linda Road as a 750 foot wide flood plain. The project will not be permitted to increase
flows or divert flows to impact any adjacent properties. It may also be necessary to install storm drain facilities
or other improvements along Temecula Lane and through the site to protect the project and convey storm flows
to an adequate outlet.
Due to a significant portion of the site being within a flood plain, the amount of CFS that crosses the site, and the
limited capacity of the existing storm drainage facilities, the proposed project will be conditioned to provide a
hydrology study and grading plans, and submit storm drain improvement plans to ensure that tributary storm flows
around the site will be conveyed to an acceptable outlet prior to the issuance ora grading permit. The project will
also be conditioned for the developer to record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to
the formation of an Assessment District for the construction of the ultimate storm dram facilities for the Pala Road
corridor area. Additional discussion of this issue is provided under Section 4.b. With the conditions of approval,
mitigation measures and payment of development impact fees described in this Initial Environmental Study, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
RSPLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
12.f. The project will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sohd waste disposal systems. Any
potential impacts from so[id waste created by this development can be addressed through participation in a Source
Reduction and Recycling Program implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
12.g The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water
supplies. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
c. Create light or glare?
[ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
13.a The pmjest will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is
a scenic vtsta. Fm-ther, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b The project will not have a demons~able negative aesthetic effect. The site is currently vacant without any
outstanding aesthetic qualities worth retaining. A landscape plan proposes a variety of trees shrubs and ground
cover to enhance the site. The proposed landscaping also provides park-like settings, shade and erosion control.
The proposed trees, shrubs and bushes are typical of the urban landscape in Temecula and will provide a visual
link with the established residential uses. The design review process ensured the proposed smactures were
compatible with the existing development in terms of colors, materials, bulk and mass and overall architectural
design. As proposed, the design is compatible with the existing development; therefore no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result
in [ight/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential
to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No.
655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With this condition in place, no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
(Source 1, Figure 5-7, Page 5-22)
[ ] [ ] ix] []
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
(Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21)
[ ] [ ] ix] []
R:~P LANN ING~A20pa97 ENV..doc
c. Affect historical resources?
(Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21)
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values
(Source 1, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21)
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area?
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
[ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
14.a,b
The project location was sent to and reviewed by Eastern Information Center at the University of
California Riverside, Depamnent of Anthropology. UCR reports that the project area has not been
previously surveyed for cultural resources and is located in a region known to contain cultural resources.
Therefore, the project will be conditioned to have a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist on site
during grading. As conditioned, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.c No historic resources exist at the site or are proximate to the site. The project will not have an impact on historical
resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or
sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less 'I~an
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
[] [] [1 ~]
DISCUSSION OF 'I'HE ENVIIIONMENTAL I1VIPACTS
15.a,b
The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities. Although the subject site is located adjacent to the park, due to the age, health and
mobility of the residents, it is anticipated that the impact to the park will be minimal. Moreover, the proposed
senior facility is designed to provide substantial park-like men/ties such as walking trails, benches, a croquet or
lawn bowling area, garden areas, water features, a pool and clubhouse to specifically accommodate the resider~ts
recreational needs on-site. Due to the large number of recreational amen/ties provided for the residents on-site,
it is determined that the proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities, or adversely affect the existing recreational resources or oppommities.
RSPLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
16.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict
the range ora rare or endangered plant or ammal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulahvely
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project is considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects ofprohable future projects).
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
None.
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Enviroumental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. City of Tcmecula Development Code
[ ] [ ] [ ] ix]
R:L° LANNING~420pa97 ENV, .doc
ATrACHMENT 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PA97-0420
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\Staff Report.doc
10
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA97-0420 (Development Plan)
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading
plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:~PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development
Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes m absorption rates, drainage patterns
and the rate and amount of surface runoff.
The project will be conditioned to control runoff from the site and
through the site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties,
including drainage conveyances and storm drainage facilities.
The applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan to the
Department of Public Works for approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns
and the rate and amount of surface runoff.
The project is conditioned for the developer to record a written offer to
participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an
Assessment District for the construction of the ultimate storm drain
facilities.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
RAPLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding.
The project will be conditioned to provide a hydrology study and
submit storm drain improvement plans to ensure that the on-site
structures will be floodproofed and that tributary storm flows around
the site will be conveyed to an acceptable outlet.
The applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan to the
Department of Public Works for approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
The project will result in exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding.
Mitigation Measure:
The project may be conditioned to record a written offer to participate in,
and waive all fights to object to the formation of an Assessment District for
the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities. In addition, due to
the magnitude of the storm flows tributary to this site and the size of the
facilities necessary to convey these flows, it may be necessary for the
developer to coordinate the design with the adjacent land owners to fund
the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities.
Specific Process:
Submit signed conditions of approval for this project as approved by
the Planning Commission within three days of approval of the project.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works.
R:~PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic
impacts.
Pay the appropriate fee in the amount in effect at the time of submittal.
Prior m the issuance of building permits.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
.The project will be conditioned to improve their half of Pala Road (interim
tmprovements), and Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane to the ultimate
General Plan build-out including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street
lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer). The project will also be conditioned to widen
the existing bridge at the intersection of PUla Road and Loma Linda Road
to accommodate the project related street improvements and to install a
traffic signal at the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Pala Road to
include signal intemonnect with the signal at the intersection of Pala Road
and Highway 79 South.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Submit road improvement plans (including widening of the bridge and
the street light) as approved by the Planning Commission.
Submit road improvement plans with precise grading plans prior to
issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works.
R:WLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion and confiicts with adopted
policies supporting alternative transportation.
The project will be conditioned to install a bus turnout as required by
Riverside Transit Agency and bicycle lanes along Pala Road and Loma
Linda Road as required pursuant to the General Plan Circulation
Element.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Submit road improvement plans that comply with the approved site plan
and the General Plan Circulation Element.
Submit road improvement plans with precise grading plans.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works.
Bi 1o' IRso rce
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but
not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat
habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
Energy and Mineral Resourcen
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Affect upon energy conservation plans.
Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation.
Submit energy calculations and pertinent data for review.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department
R:\PLANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental
.services regarding fire and police protection. The project will
incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however,
it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision.
Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for fire mitigation.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the storm water drainage facilities.
The project will be conditioned to provide a hydrology study and
submit storm drain improvement plans to ensure that tributary storm
flows around the site will be conveyed to an acceptable outlet with
adequate capacity.
Submit drainage improvement plans that illustrate an acceptable
drainage facility with adequate capacity as stated in the hydrology
study.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
RAPLANNiNG\420pa97 ENV..doc
The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the storm water drainage facilities.
The project may be conditioned to record a written offer to participate in,
and waive all fights to object to the formation of an Assessment District for
the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities. In addition, due to
the magnitude of the storm flows tributary to this site and the size of the
facilities necessary to convey these flows, it may be necessary for the
developer to coordinate the design with the adjacent land owners to fund
the construction of the ultimate storm drain facilities.
Submit signed conditions of approval for this project as approved by
the Planning Commission within three days of approval of the project.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public
facilities, including roads.
Mitigation Measure:
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic
impacts, and public facilities.
Specific Process: Pay the appropriate fee in the amount in effect at the time of submittal.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works.
Aesthetics
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will be compatible with the existing area and not have a
negative aesthetic effect.
Compliance with the approved elevations, colors and materials.
Submit construction plans that are consistent with the approved
elevations, colors and materials.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, review plans for compliance
with Planning Commission approval.
Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
The project will create light and glare.
Compliance with Mt. Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance.
Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be low pressure sodium on building
plans.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department.
R:\P LANNING~420pa97ENV..doc
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Disturb paleontological or cultural resources.
Require a Paleontologist to monitor on-site during grading.
The applicant and a qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist shall meet with
the Planning Manager to discuss the potential for significant resources
and to establish an on-site monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Planning DeparUnent
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Party:
Disturb paleontological resoumes.
Require a Paleontologist to monitor on-site during grading.
A qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist shall be present on site if
necessary as determined by the pre-grading meeting with the Planning
Manager.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Planning Department
R:~LANNING\420pa97ENV..doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\Staff Report.doc
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
ect Site1
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0403 (Extension of Time)
EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11, 2001
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East~Staff Report.doc
12
CITY OF TEMECULA
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
EXHIBIT B ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - Professional Office (PO)
~ .~ti~:Loo ooooooooooooooo ".'":~%~i i
EXHIBIT C GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - Professional Office (PO)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0403 (Extension of Time)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11,2001
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\Staff Repo~l.doc
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
PART~N. SITE PI. AN - AREA 1
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0403 (Extension of Time)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11, 2001
SITE PLAN I
R:\E O T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East~Staff Report.doc
14
CITY OF TEMECULA
IASE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0403 (Extension of Time)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11,2001
SITE PLAN 2
R:\E 0 T~00-0403 Alpine Gardens East\Staff Report.doc
15
ITEM #4
ClTY OFTEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Plannina Commission
Rick Rush, Proiect Planner
July 11,2001
PA01-0106 (Coleman Building)
Due to the tack of a quorum for the June 27t' Planning Commission meeting, this application
has been continued to the July 11th meeting. The agenda packet remains unchanged, however,
the draft resolution and Conditions of Approval have been updated to reflect the proper hearing
dates.
Attachment
Resolution - Blue Page 2
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 3
Original Staff Report dated June 27, 2001 - Blue Page 4
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLOGYnemo to pc.doc
1
A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG~memo to pc.doc
2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 01-0106 A EXTENSION OF TIME TO DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCT A 14,532 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING t.22 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF McCABE COURT WEST
OF MADISON AVENUE 'KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 910-262-007
WHEREAS, Michael Coleman filed Planning Application No. 01-0106, in a manner in
accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0106 was processed including, but not limited
to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. 01-0106 on June 27, 2001, but do to a lack of quorum, continued the public
hearing to the July 11, 2001 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approve'd Planning Application No. 01-0106 subject to the
conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 01-0106 conformed
to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
by reference.
Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. 01-0106 (An Extension of Time for a Development Plan) hereby makes the following
findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State Law. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances
including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance),
and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Provisions.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
C. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmental, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
D. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species
or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project
site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There are no
native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native
vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species
exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A Deminimus impact finding can be made
for this project.
E. The project meets the requirements of Section 17.08.050 (a) (1) of the Temecula
Development Code.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has previously
prepared and adopted by the Planning Co.,mmission. Whereas, no further environmental review
if required for the proposed project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 01-0106 (An Extension of Time for a
Development Plan) to construct a 14,532 square foot commercial/industrial building located on
the north side of McCabe Court, west of Madison Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No.
910-262-007 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference
made a part hereof.
Section 5, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 11~ day of July 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
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 11th day of July, 2001, by the
following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG~memo to pc,doc
3
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Revised July tt, 2001
Planning Application No:
Project Description:
DIF Category:
Assessor's Parcel No:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PA96-0354 (Development Plan) and PA01-0106 (One-Year
Extension)
A Development Plan to construct a 14,528 square foot
commercial/industrial building on t.22 acres
910-262-007
March 3, 200t
March 3, 20?2
Service Commercial
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the
amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable
the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code
Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development
Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project
granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c). ·
General Requirements
2.
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, 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 Planning Application
No. PA96-0354 (Development Plan). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant
of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
4.
This approval shall be used by the Expiration Date noted above; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or
the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with revised Exhibit D -
Site Plan, approved with Planning Application No. PA99-0076, or as amended by these
conditions.
A minimum of four (4) bicycle spaces shall be provided. Bicycle spaces shall be
installed in a manner, which allows adequate area for access. General space
allowances shall include a two (2) foot width and a six (6) foot length per bicycle
and a five (5) foot maneuvering space behind the bicycle. The spaces shall be
located on a hard, dust-free surface, preferably asphalt or concrete slab. Racks
shall be located so as to not create an obstruction to pedestrian movement.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by these
conditions.
· The applicant is to ensure that mature plantings do not interfere with utility lines
and traffic sight lines.
· Street planting should be preserved as much as possible in order to maintain
street scene continuity.
· The minimum five-foot dimension for perimeter landscape areas is exclusive of
curbs.
The two entry trees at the front corners of the project site shall be specimen trees
upgraded to a minimum 36" box in size from 24" box.
(Added by Planning Commission March 3, 1997)
Building elevations shall conform substantially with revised Exhibit E and Exhibit H
(Color Elevations) of PA96-0354 or as amended by these conditions.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from the public way.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit I of PA96-0354 (Color
and Materials Board) or as amended by these conditions.
Materials
Concrete tilt up panel (smooth, sand blast)
Building wall - Accent One
Building wall - Accent Two
Metal standing seam roof, canopies
Store front glazing glass
Colors
Ameritone #4440W - Sand Tan
Ameritone #5221W - Farm House
Ameritone #5850W - Magnolia
Reliant Bldg Specialties - Evergreen
Kawneer - ivy Glen
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
8. The applicant shall comply with~ the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code regarding the Endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat.
9. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10.
11.
12.
13.
A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing
fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. These 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 applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14. An application for a master signage program shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Manager. Any individual tenant's signage shall be in substantial conformance
with the approved master signage program.
15. Signage will be limited to one sign per tenant, utilizing the proposed locations of the
awnings and the southeast corner walls of the building.
16. All landscaped areas shall be planted and maintained in accordance with approved
landscape, irrigation, and shading plans.
17. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and maintained in
a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
18. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at
a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished
grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each
entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly
and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates
issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at __ or
by telephone "
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.
19. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
20.
21.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
22. Comply with applicable provisio~ns of the 1998 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1996 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
The project data on the plans is incorrect. Make necessary changes to reflect the
Building & Safety information on the construction drawings.
23. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998).
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1998 edition of the California Plumbing Code.
28. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
29. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
30. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
31. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
32.
33.
Disabled parking shall be calculated at the rate of 1 per 25. Further, van accessible
parking shall be provided at the rate of 1 per 8 disabled parking spaces required.
Provide approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal in order to check for
disabled access requirements.
34. Separate permits are required for:
· Trash enclosures
· Parking lot lighting
· Monument and wall signs
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
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 tentative site
plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require
revision.
General Requirements
35. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
36. 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.
37. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation 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
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Planning Department
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· Department of Public Works
41. A Soils Report shall be prepared b~ a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
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.
42. 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.
43. Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works,
44. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
45. 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.
46. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
47. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
48. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
49. The Developer shall accept and p~'operly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or
through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets
for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply.
Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for
drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
50. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City Standards subject to approval by
the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed:
· Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving.
· Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
· All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
· 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.
· All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through
undersidewalk drains.
51. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan"
in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
52.
53.
The Developer shall provide an easement for ingress and egress to the adjacent
property owner.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
54.
55.
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 Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
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 Temecuia Municipal Code and
all the Resolutions implementing C~hapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
56.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern MunicipaIWater District
· Department of Public Works
57. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
58. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
59. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and r'~placed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
60.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Information Center's transmittal dated January 3, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
61.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated February 4,
1997, a copy of which is attached.
62. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated January 7, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
63.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health transmittal received January 7, 1997, a
copy of which is attached.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
64.
The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval as submitted by the Fire
Department, a copy of their transmittal dated July 12, 1999, is attached.
Applicant Signature:
Date:
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 2
ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT FOR
June 27, 2001
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG~memo to pc.doc
4
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 27, 2001
0RIG NAL
Planning Application No. 01-0106 (Extension of Time)
COLEMAN BUILDING
Prepared by: Rick Rush, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0106 A EXTENSION OF TIME TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A
14,532 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 1.22 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF McCABE COURT WEST OF MADISON AVENUE KNOWN
AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-262-007
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Michael Coleman
Tony Boyd
An Extension of Time to design and construct a 14,532 square foot
office/industrial building.
North side of McCabe Court, west of Madison Avenue, in the North
Jefferson Business Park.
Service Commercial (SC)
North: City of Murrieta - Business Park
South: Service Commercial (SC)
East: Service Commercial (SC)
West: Service Commercial (SC)
Service Commercial (SC)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Vacant portion of Calsonic Stretch Forming (in Murrieta)
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Industrial (Basics Etc.)
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Lot Area:
Building Area:
Building Height:
Landscaped Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
46,609 square feet (1.22 acres)
14,532 square feet
24 feet
9,308 square feet (20%)
43 vehicle spaces, 4 bicycle spaces, and 2 motorcycle spaces
62 vehicle spaces, 4 bicycle spaces, and 2 motorcycle spaces.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved Planning Application 96-0354 on March 3, 1997. The
expiration of this approval was March 3, 2000. Prior to the expiration, the applicant was granted a
one-year time extension to March 3, 2001. The final time extension request was submitted to the
Planning Department on March 2, 2001. On March 29, 2001 the applicant was provided
Development Review Comments for the project and on April 3 2001 the project was deemed
complete.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the design, construction and operation of a commemial and industrial building within
the existing North Jefferson Business Park. Since the project was approved, the 5,000 square foot
area intended to be occupied by the Rancho-Temecula-Murrieta Board of Realtors has changed and
is now designated for multi tenant office use. The applicant still proposes offices at the rear of the
building of approximately 3,300 square feet. The balance of the building, in the central portion, is
designed to accommodate either commercial or industrial permitted uses, with three bay doors
fronting to the west.
ANALYSIS
The project was originally approved with a Floor Area Ratio of .33 and Lot Coverage of 33%, which
exceeds the requirements for the Service Commercial zone designation. During one of the previous
extensions of time the Floor Area Ratio and the Lot Coverage were reduced to .31 and 31%
respectively. Ali other development standards have been met for the Service Commemial Zone.
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
2
Zoning Criteria Zoning Requires Project Provides
Target Floor Area Ratio 0.30 0.31
Minimum Width 100 feet Approximately 175 feet
Minimum Depth 120 feet Approximately 240 feet
Minimum Street Frontage 80 feet Approximately 175 feet
Yard Area Adjacent to Street 15 feet 35 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet 195 feet
Maximum Height 50 feet 24 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 30% 31%
Minimum Landscape Open Space 20% 20%
Site Design
The project will take access from McCabe Court, with parking on three sides of the building. The
project circulates internal traffic around the building by sharing their easternmost driveway and drive
aisle with the adjacent property owners. This driveway will be constructed to its full width and a
redwood header will be installed in accordance with standard Public Works practice. The applicant
has provided more vehicle spaces that the minimum City of Temecula standards in order to
maximize flexibility of uses.
Landscaping
Perimeter landscaping is provided along the rear property line and the west property line. The
reciprocal driveway is to the east; landscaping areas proposed along the east side of the building,
which also wraps around the rear. There are additional landscape pockets adjacent to the
employee outdoor lunch area.
The applicant will need to remove some existing street landscaping in order to construct the
proposed driveways to City standards. He has added trees in the west seven-foot wide perimeter
strip to compensate for those removed. The landscape architect has concentrated landscaping at
the front entryway in order to draw attention to the main entrance to the site and building.
Landscaping adjacent to the west side of the building has not been purposed because the applicant
feels the planters will interfere with the truck traffic anticipated on this side. The applicant feels that
the visual effect of his proposed building will be similar to that which is directly adjacent to the west,
where truck bays and drive aisles exist without landscaping. He has provided mitigation measures
by increasing the perimeter landscaping on this side by two feet, increasing the number of trees, and
by wrapping architectural features around this side of the building.
Architecture
The front and east sides of the building are the most visible portion of the site from McCabe Court,
and the architect has enhanced the building features in these areas by breaking up the building lines
with indents that will be amply landscaped. The use of glass in a "step" pattern and the use of metal
roof canopies add interest and character. The architect also proposes texturing along the base of
building walls. The building will have a combination of colors using gray, shades of green and
shades of beige.
Floor Area Ratio Increase
When the project was originally approved the Planning Commission allowed the applicant per
Section 17.08.050 an increase in their Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The original staff report sited that the
project provides architectural and landscape design, which reflects an attractive image for the city. In
addition the project provides parking beyond Code requirements to accommodate community
R:~E 0 T'~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
meetings or other events. Lastly, the project improves circulation by its proposal for a reciprocal use
driveway with the adjacent property. At the time of approval the City Traffic and Land Development
Engineers determined that the increased FAR would not create unmitigable impacts upon the traffic
circulation in the area or overburden the utilities serving the area. As submitted the Extension of
Time will not increase the approved Floor Area Ratio.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation and the existing zoning for the site is Service Commercial
(SC). Office uses and light industrial uses are permitted with the approval of a development plan
pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Cede. The project is consistent with these
designations.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study had been prepared for the project, which determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects were not considered to be
significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of
Approval. The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on March 3, 1997.
Per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act, when a Negative Declaration has
been adopted for a project, no subsequent Negative Declaration need be prepared for that project
unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole
record, that substantial changes have occurred in the project or new environmental information of
substantial importance has been discovered. Staff has determined that no new changes or
information are present that would require any new environmental action.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with all applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies.
The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality, and staff
recommends approval of the time extension as originally conditioned.
FINDINGS
Development Plan
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State Law. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances
including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting
Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Previsions.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
An Initial Study was previously prepared for the project and it has been determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmental, these
effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the
project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project sit e
has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There are no
R:~E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
4
native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no
native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife
species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A Deminimus impact finding
can be made for this project.
The project meets the requirements of Section 17.08.050 (a) (1) of the Temecula
Development Code. The project as proposed provides exceptional architectural and
landscape design amenities which reflect an attractive image and character to the city.
Attachments-
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA01-0106 (Development Plan) Blue Page 9
Initial Study Dated 2-11-97 - Blue Page 18
Notice of Determination- Blue Page 19
Exhibits for PA01-0106 (Extension of Time for a Development Plan) - Blue Page 20
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Floor Plan
G. Landscape Plans
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff ReporLdoc
5
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
APPROVING PA01-0106
EXTENSION OF TIME
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Repod.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0106 A EXTENSION OF TIME TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A
14,532 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 1.22 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF McCABE COURT WEST OF MADISON AVENUE
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-262-007
WHEREAS, Michael Coleman filed Planning Application No. 01-0106, in a manner in accord
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0106 was processed including, but not limited to a
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. 01-0106 on June 27, 2001, but do to a lack of quorum, continued the public hearing
to the July 11,2001 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or 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. 01-0106 subject to the conditions
after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 01-0106 conformed to the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
01-0106 (An Extension of Time for a Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as
required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State Law. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including:
the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's
Water Efficient Landscaping Provisions.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
C. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmental, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the
Conditions of Approval added to the project.
D. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site
R:\E O '~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report,doc
7
has been previously disturbed and graded~ and streetscape installed on site. There are no native
species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation
on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the
site serves as a migration corridor. A Deminimus impact finding can be made for this project.
E. The project meets the requirements of Section 17.08.050 (a) (1) of the Temecula
Development Code.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has previously prepared
and adopted by the Planning Commission. Whereas, no further environmental review if required for
the proposed project.
Section 4. .Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 01-0106 (An Extension of Time for a Development
Plan) to construct a 14,532 square foot commercial/industrial building located on the north side of
McCabe Court, west of Madison Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-262-007 subject
to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 11th day of July 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
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 11th day of July, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~E O 'i-~01-0106 Coleman BLDG~taff Report.doc
8
species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation
on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the
site serves as a migration corridor. A Deminimus impact finding can be made for this project.
E. The project meets the requirements of Section 17.08.050 (a) (1) of the Temecula
Development Code.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has previously prepared
and adopted by the Planning Commission. Whereas, no further environmental review if required for
the proposed project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 01-0106 (An Extension of Time for a Development
Plan) to construct a 14,532 square foot commercial/industrial building located on the north side of
McCabe Court, west of Madison Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-262-007 subject
to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 27~h day of June 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
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 6th day of June, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA01-0106 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:\E O T'~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Revised June 14, 2001
Planning Application No:
Project Description:
DIF Category:
Assessor's Parcel No:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PA96-0354 (Development Plan) and PA01-0106 (One-Year
Extehsion)
A Development Plan to construct a 14,528 square foot
commercial/industrial building on 1.22 acres
Service Commercial
910-262-007
March 3, 2001
March 3, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-
Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice
of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California
Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant
has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check
as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, 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, er 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 Planning Application No. PA96-0354
(Development Plan). City shall promptly notify the developedapplicant of any claim, action,
or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action.
R:'~E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
This approval shall be used by the Expiration Date noted above; otherwise, it shall become
null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by
this approval, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with revised Exhibit D - Site
Plan, approved with Planning Application No. PA99-0076, or as amended by these
conditions.
A minimum of four (4) bicycle spaces shall be provided. Bicycle spaces shall be
installed in a manner, which allows adequate area for access. General space
allowances shall include a two (2) foot width and a six (6) foot length per bicycle and
a five (5) foot maneuvering space behind the bicycle. The spaces shall be located
on a hard, dust-free surface, preferably asphalt or concrete slab. Racks shall be
located so as to not create an obstruction to pedestrian movement.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by these conditions.
· The applicant is to ensure that mature plantings do not interfere with utility lines and
traffic sight lines.
· Street planting should be preserved as much as possible in order to maintain street
scene continuity.
· The minimum five-foot dimension for perimeter landscape areas is exclusive of
curbs.
The two entry trees at the front corners of the project site shall be specimen trees
upgraded to a minimum 36" box in size from 24" box.
(Added by Planning Commission March 3, 1997)
Building elevations shall conform substantially with revised Exhibit E and Exhibit H (Color
Elevations) of PA96-0354 or as amended by these conditions.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from the public way.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit I of PA96-0354 (Color and
Materials Board) or as amended by these conditions.
Materials
Concrete tilt up panel (smooth, sand blast)
Building wall - Accent One
Building wall - Accent Two
Metal standing seam roof, canopies
Store front glazing glass
R:\E O T'~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Repod.doc
11
Colors
Ameritone #4440W - Sand Tan
Ameritone #5221W - Farm House
Ameritone #5850W - Magnolia
Reliant Bldg Specialties - Evergreen
Kawneer - Ivy Glen
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
8. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code regarding the Endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat.
9. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees.
12.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown.
These 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.
13.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14.
An application for a master signage program shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Manager. Any individual tenant's signage shall be in substantial conformance with
the approved master signage program.
15.
Signage will be limited to one sign per tenant, utilizing the proposed locations of the awnings
and the southeast corner walls of the building.
16.
All landscaped areas shall be planted and maintained in accordance with approved
landscape, irrigation, and shading plans.
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and maintained in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good
working order.
18.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-
street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating
the following:
R:\E O %01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
12
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates
issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at __ or by telephone
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.
19.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined bythe Planning Manager to guarantee
the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and
adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of
Planning.
20.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
21.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
22.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing
and Mechanical Codes; 1996 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title
24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.
The project data on the plans is incorrect. Make necessary changes to reflect the Building &
Safety information on the construction drawings.
23.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
24. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
25.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998).
26.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and
fire alarm systems.
27.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Plumbing Code.
28. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
29.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
30.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
31. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
R:\E O 'r~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
13
32.
33.
34.
Disabled parking shall be calculated atthe rate of 1 per 25. Further, van accessible parking
shall be provided at the rate of 1 per 8 disabled parking spaces required.
Provide approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal in order to check for
disabled access requirements.
Separate permits are required for:
· Trash enclosures
· Parking lot lighting
· Monument and wallsigns
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
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 tentative site plan
all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
35.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall
be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained read right-of-way.
36.
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.
37.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation 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
38.
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.
39.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Ne
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
40.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Planning Department
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· Department of Public Works
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
14
41.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to 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.
42.
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.
43.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
44.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
45.
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.
46.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
47.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
48.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
49.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or
through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for
drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the
quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes,
the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
50.
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City Standards subject to approval by the
Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed:
· Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
· Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
· All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
15
· 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.
· All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through
undersidewalk drains.
51.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in
accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01:
52.
The Developer shall provide an easement for ingress and egress to the adjacent property
owner.
53.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
54.
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 Soils Engineer
shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
55.
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
the Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
56.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern MunicipaIWater District
· Department of Public Works
57.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
58.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
59.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
60.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated January 3, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
61.
62.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated February 4, 1997, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated January 7, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
R:'~E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
16
63.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health transmittal received January 7, 1997, a copy of which is
attached.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
64,
The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval as submitted by the Fire
Department, a copy of their transmittal dated July 12, 1999, is attached.
Applicant Signature:
Date:
R:\E O %01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
iNFORMATION
. YSTEM
MONO
INYO
Eastern Inforrnatlon Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW
DATE:
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation:
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
__ Thc proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural
reaouree(s). A Phase I study is recommended.
Based upon existing data thc proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study
is recommended.
A Phase 1 cultural resource study (MF # ) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, dun to the nature of the
project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not
recommended.
~/A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ~ / ) identified no cultural resouroes. Further study is not recommended.
There is a Iow probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
~[~1 f, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted
in
the
immediate
a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during eonstroetion should be monitored by a professional
archaeologist.
The submission of a cultural resource management repo~ is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological
Resource Management Reports prepared by thc California Office o f Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin
4(a), December 1989.
Phase I
Phase II
Phase Ill
Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant' sites.]
Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.]
Monitor earthmoving activities
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
EIC'~FRM~TR.ANSMIT
DAVID P. ZAPPE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL .
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Ddve
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: ~/~ L/~ ."~O/',//~
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
1 0 lg9/' JUl
By.
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities:
The Disthct also does not plan check city land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and
drainage facilities which could be considered a logical componentor extension of a master plan system, and District
Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District appreva/or endorsement of the proposed project with resl:~'t to flood hazard, public health
and safety or any other such issue:
~ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards, and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required,
__ This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master...D, rainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such ,faci?ies ,o.n writt,e.n req.,u,e, st
of the ~ity. Facilities must be constructed to District standaras and District plan cnecK ano inspection wu oe
required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees w be requ red.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project ~m.a,y require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources C,~ntrol Board. Clearance ~r grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City
has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a Federal Emergen~ Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should
.require the applicant to provide all studies calculations plans and other information required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior
to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requirements. AClean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
C;
Very truly yours,
SIUARI fi. MGKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:
Janua~ 7,1997
Ms. Carole. Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 17 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23561-2
APN 9'10-200-046
PLANNING APPLICATION NO; PA96-0354
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (P, CWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
'If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact P,CWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any,~
to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
P,epresentative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
971SB:eb003/F012/FEF
C: Laude Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
RE:PLOTPLANN0,PA964354 ve10pmentPh) FasITraek
The Degar~ent of Env~uo~unmtal Health lms ~viewed ~be Plot Plan No. PA96-0354, Fast
Track, (Development Plan) and has no objections. Sanitary sew~ and water ser~ces may be
available in this are~
PRIOR TO A~F//'PL//dV CItECK ~JB~IITTAL for health clearance, the following item~ are.
required:
"Will-serve" lettms from ~be appropriate water and scwcring agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submiiieg, including a
f~xtre schedule, a fininh ~ and a pltmlbing schedule in ordel' to ensure complimlce
with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific t~fe~ace, please
contact Food Fafffity Plan examine~ at (909) 69~-5022).
A clear'auce letter from the Haznrdou~ Services M~o,i.le Ma~gement Branch (909) 694-
5022 will be required indicating that the project h.~ be~a
a) Underground storage tank& Ordinance # 617.4.
b) Na~,~dous Waste Genmn~r Services, Ordi~nce # 615.3.
c) Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in a~otdance with Ora;,~,,,,,-,e # 651.2),
d) Waste reduction ma-~gemenl.
6. Waste Regulation B~neh (Waste CoiIection/f.P.&).
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Kay cra,cat additional requirements not covered, ean'be applicable at time of
Building Plan review f~ final Detxaaaent of Eaviro?m~utai Health clearance.
Ci_ty of Temecula
43200 Bu~ne~ Park Drive · Teme~la, CA 92590 · M~il~ng,~d~: P,O. Box 9033 · Temecula, CA 92589-9033
[~9] 694-6444 · Fax (c~9) 694-1999
Febmm'y 5, 1996
TO: Planning Depax~ent
ATrN: Caxole Donahoe
RE: PA96-0354
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced development plan, the Fire
Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for thc remodel or construction
of all commercial building using the procedures established in City of Temecula
Ordinances and Uniform Fke Code appendix IliA. A fire flow of 1625 GPM for a 2 hour
duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible
material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site supex fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be located
no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured
along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjaceat hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plan~ shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fi~e Department
approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and
minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals
shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as
mitigation for fire protection impact~.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $$82.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE ~ PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
10.
11.
12.
13.
· 14.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
15.
Install a supervised waterfiow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to
the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
16.
Knox K~y lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
H~rdous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans sh~{{ be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2AiOBC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
It is prohibited to usc/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classifY
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire hydrant.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the apphcant shall paint fire lanes with
appropriate lane painting and or signs.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
17. Please contact the Fi~e Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Depa.rtment
Planning and engineering section (909)693-3974.
Laura Cabral
Fh'e Safety Specialist
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY DATED 2-11-97
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name & Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning ApplicationNo. PA96-0354 (Development Plan)
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, CA 92590
Carole Donahoe, Project Planner (909) 694-6400
North side of McCabe Court, west of Madison Avenue, in
the North Jefferson Business Park
Michael Coleman
c/o Coldwell Banker Advantage Consultants
27919 Front Street, Suite #101, Temecula, CA 92590
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
To construct and operate a 15,467 square foot commercial
and industrial building
Vacant to the east, Basics Etc. business to the west, vacant
portion of Calsonic Stretch Forming business to the north,
and vacant to the south
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County
Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern
Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water
District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern
California Edison Company, and General Telephone
Company
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Se~wices
IX] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandato~ Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evah)~on, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signature
Printed Name: Carole K. Dona_hoe
Da e
R:\CEQAX354pA96.11~$ 2/11/97 idb
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Pol~aiially
Significam
pcdentially
U~l~ss
Mili~ation
No
1. LAND USE AND PI.ANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conffict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity7
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)7
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disrapt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-iacome or minority community)?
2. POPUI~TION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects? (Source 1, Pages 2-23 to 2-31)
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or exten/~on of major infrastructure)7
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose p~ople to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault ruptttr¢? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mu&flows?
£ Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soft conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
P~]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
Potentially
Si~ifiea~
Pote~Jally
Signifie~mt
Unl~
Yili~alion
g. Subsidence of the land7
(Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68)
h. Expansivesofls7
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surfaco nmofl~
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding~ (Sourco2, Figure 13, Page95 and
Sourco 2, Figure 30, Page 190 )
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surfaco water in any water
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aqffffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Sourco 2, Page 263)
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(Sourco 3, Page 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
IX]
[]
[]
[]
[]
No
[x]
[]
IX]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Potenlislly
Potentially
Units
Mitigation
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSP ORTATION/CIP. CULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency aeeess or access to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site7
e. Hazards or barfiers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
£ Conflicts with adopted policies supposing alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffc impacts7
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, meets, animals
and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak foresh
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[1
pt]
[1
[1
[]
pt]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
No
IX]
[]
[]
Ix]
IX]
[x]
[1
Pot~tially
pot~diafy
Mifig~ion
No
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c. Result in the loss of availability ora known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of ac~dental explosion or relense of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)7
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard7
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
~rass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
IL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the preposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the follow~g areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Ma/ntenance of public fac'flitics, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
[]
[]
[]
[1
[l
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[1
tx]
[x]
[1
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[1
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
Potentially
Si~ificam
Potentially
Unlesa
Mitigation
No
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
¢. Local or regional water ~reatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 39-40}
e. Storm water drainage?
£ Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional watt* supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare?
14, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontologicalresources?
(Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280)
b. Disturb archaeolog/cal ~sources?
(Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283)
c. Affect historicalresources?
& Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[3
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
Pei~tislly
S~nificant
Potentially Ualess L~s Than
$ignificznt Mitigation Significant
No
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
[]
[] [Xl []
[] Ix] []
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
[]
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict
the range ora rare or andangerad plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
[] [] [] pr]
[] [] [] pr]
c. Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None.
[] [] [] ~]
[1 [1 [] pr]
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
3. South Coast Air Quality Management Dislrict CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. Review and Acceptance of Geotechnical Report, dated November 19, 1996, by H & T Soils Testing
5. Cultural Resource Review, January 3, 1997, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside
6. Site Traffic Analysis, January 30, 1997, RKJK & Associates
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Plannino
1 .a,b.
The project will not conflict with the general plan designation, zoning, or applicable environmental plans
or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's
General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning of SC (Service Commercial). Impacts from all General Plan
Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR} the General Plan.
Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR
and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR
will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given
the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate
comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site
has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any
environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not affect agricultural resources or operations. While the project site is within an area
designated as farmlands of local importance, the site is not under Williamson Act contract, does not
contain agricultural facilities, nor is being actively farmed. The North Jefferson Business Park is already
partially developed, and the project can be considered an infill proposal on property already prepared for
development, with infrastructure installed and in place. No significant effects are anticipated as a result
of this project.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including Iow-
income or minority community). The project is a proposed professional office, sales and distribution
facility surrounded by some already developed similar uses. There is no established residential community
(including Iow-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Pooulation and Housina
2.8.
The project may cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is
consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Service Commercial, but the project
exceeds the target floor area ratio (FAR) for Service Commercial, a factor which the City uses to determine
a project's impact upon growth. However, the project's FAR of .33 exceeds the target by only .03 and
falls well within the range for Service Commercial of .25 to 1.5. The General Plan states the following:
"It is assumed that some development will occur below the target level
based on physical, infrastructure or other constraints. Some development
will most likely occur above the target FAR, based on the provision of public
amenities or benefits."
The project will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed
official regional or local population projections. Less than significant effects are anticipated as a result
of this project.
2.5.
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Service Commercial. The project will cause
people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial
growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore
no housing will be displaced. The project site is zoned for service commercial uses, not residential uses.
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Geolooic Problems
3.b,c,
f,h.
The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is
seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction
which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been
submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report
will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain
recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant
impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Increased wind
and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and
the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be
included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve
as permanent erosion control for the project. Modification to topography and ground surface relief
features will not be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding
development. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through
the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in
an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City
of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or
proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. The site is flat with no unique geologic
features or physical features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Water
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface
runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be
rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design.
Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is
created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of
surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required
to 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 has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements,
any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d,e.
The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any
waterbody or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff
will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings,
accompanying hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount
of drainage into Murrieta Creek will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
4.f~h.
The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity
and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered
significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact
on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise
available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can
accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to
the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is
typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5oa,
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation. The project is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact established by
South Coast Air Quality Management District. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants nor
sensitive receptors in proximity to the project. The project proposes to accommodate the regional
headquarters of the Rancho-Temecula-Murrieta Association of Realtors, other professional offices, some
industrial distribution facilities and religious facilities. These uses are not anticipated to generate
pollutants. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The
limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this
area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will
be of short duration and are not considered significant. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Transoortation/Circulstion
6,8.
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic
congestion. According to the Site Traffic Analysis by RKJK & Associates dated January 30, 1997 'The
intersections analyzed in the vicinity of the project site are not projected to experience an increase of 5%
or more in peak hour traffic volumes due to this project." The applicant will be required to pay traffic
signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation
measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current
City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is
designed to current City standards, has adequate emergency access, and does not impede access to
nearby uses. With the proposed reciprocal driveway configuration on the east side, the project will
enhance access in the area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The project meets code requirements for
vehicular, bicycle and motorcycle parking. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to
bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The
project supports alternative transportation by providing pedestrian and non-vehicular access and facilities.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the
immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Biolooical Resources
.8.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats,
including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously
disturbed and rough graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened
or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on the site. Further, there is no indication that any
wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier
to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of
cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.5,
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City.
Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site and the
wetland near the site will not be disturbed. Reference response 7.a. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does
not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Enerav and Mineral Resource.~
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check
stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource
and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation,
asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale
of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Hazards
The project will result in a less than significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any
hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the
request. The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and has no
concerns. The applicant must receive clearance from the Department of Environmental Health prior to any
plan check submittal. The applicant must receive clearance from the Fire Department prior to the issuance
of a building permit. This applies to storage and use of any hazardous materials. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The
subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will
take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency
evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will
be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will
be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. Reference response 9.a.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are
known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees.
The project is in an area of existing uses and proposed Service Commercial uses. The project is not
located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Noise
lO.a.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently
vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction
phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this
project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project in either the short.or long-term.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short
run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100 + DBA at 100 feet which
is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of
noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term
exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Public Services
11 .a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or
police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however,
it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school
facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of
Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
11 .d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads.
Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of
Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and futura needs for maintenance of roads as
a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant.
The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
11 .e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or
regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary
sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems,
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD
have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas." The FEIR further
states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater
services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage
systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into
the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal
systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through
participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or
regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Aesthetics
13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where
there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project's architect proposes to
enhance the building with entry overhangs, ample storefront glazing, textured exterior walls, and an
articulated facade. The building is consistent with other designs in the area and proposed landscaping will
provide additional aesthetic enhancement. The applicant proposes an overall signage plan that requires
tenants to utilize uniform channel lettering on entry overhangs. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and
result in lighl~glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has
the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observato~. · The project will be conditioned to be consistent
with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
14.a.
The project will not disturb paleontological resources. The Eastern Information Center of the Department
of Anthropology for the University of California at Riverside has reviewed the project. Based upon surveys
previously done in the area in 1980, the Center determined that no cultural resources exist at the site.
14.b,c. The project will not have an impact on historical resources. No historic resources exist at the site or are
proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values. Reference response 14.b,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
14.e.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious
or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
Recreation
15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people.to relocate
within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in
demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality
or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. The project is designed to provide an
outdoor employee lunch area onsite. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
R:\E O '1~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
19
City of Temecula
Planning Department '
Notice of Determination
TO: County Clerk and Recorders Officd FROM:
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
SUBJECT:
Planning Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Filing of a Notice of Determination in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the
Public Resources Code.
State Clearinghouse No.: N/A
Project Title:
Planning Application No. PA96-0354 (Development Plan)
Project Location:
North side of McCabe Court, west of Madison Avenue in the North Jefferson
Business Park
Project Description:
To construct and operate a single-story 15,467 square foot commercial and
industrial building on 1.22 acres zoned SC Service Commercial
Lead Agency:
City of Temecula
Contact Person:
Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner Telephone Number: (909) 694-6400
This is to advise you that the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula has approved the above described
project on March 3, 1997 and has made the following determinations regarding this project:
The project ([ ] will [X] will not) have a significant effect on the environment.
That ([ ] An Environmental Impact Report [X] A Negative Declaration) was prepared for this
project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
Mitigation measures ([37] were [ ] were no0 made a condition of the approval of the project.
A Statement of Overriding Consideration ([ ] was [X] was not) adopted for this project.
Findings ([X] were [ ] were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments, responses, and record of project approval is
available to the General Public at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California,
3-//-
Signature: Date:
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:
R:~planning\354pe96.NOD 3111/97 ckd
)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minin~5 Impact Findin~
Project Proponent:
Michael E. Coleman
C/o Bill Dixon
Coldwell Banker Advantage
27919 Front Street, Suite #101
Temecula, CA 92590
Project Title:
Planning Application No. PA96-0354 (Development Plan)
Location:
On the north side of McCabe Court west of Madison Avenue, in the City of
Temecula; County of Riverside, California.
Project Description:
To construct and operate a single-sto~ 15,467 square foot commercial and
industrial building on 1.22 gross acres zoned SC Service Commercial
F'mdings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
1)
The Project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There
are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no
native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. There is no indication that any wildlife species exist,
or that the site serves as a migration corridor.
2)
An Initial Environmental Study'was prepared to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental
impacts which could result from this project.
3)
The Initial Study indicated that no significant impacts would occur to fish and wildlife resources
as a result of the project and recommended that a Negative Declaration be prepared for this
project. (No wildlife related mitigation measures were required for this project.)
4)
The Planning Commission for the City of Temecula adopted a Negative Declaration for this
project based upon the information contained in the Initial Envkonmental Study dated February
11, 1997.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above f'mdlng and that the project will not
individnally or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the
Fish and Game Code.
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager Date
R:~olannlng~354;a96.NOD 3/11/97 ckd
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\E O T'~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
2O
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0106
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- June 27, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC)
::: ~ .~ . ..:.-.=...,..-: ...........................
~,\'~~ii'?:'?:?:'~':
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION - SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC)
CASE NO. - PA01-0106
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
22
ClTY OFTEMECULA
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PARCEL 17 OF PARCEL MAP NO, 23561-2
P.M. 168/71-73
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA. CA.
CASE NO. - PA01-0106
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
SITE PLAN
R:\E 0 T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff ReporLdoc
23
ClTY OFTEMECULA
I
m mmmammmm~
CASE NO. - PA01-0106
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
ELAVATIONS
R:\E O T'~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
24
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0106
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
FLOOR PLAN
R:\E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
25
CITY OF TEMECULA
McCABE COURT
CASE NO.- PA01-0106
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 27, 2001
LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:\E O T'~01-0106 Coleman BLDG\Staff Report.doc
26
ITEM #5
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
'TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
July 11, 2001
Continuation of the Planning Commission's June 27, 2001 Public Hearing
On PA01-0094 - Revised, for the design and construction of an 8,972
square foot Industrial warehouse building on a 0.92 acre vacant parcel
within the LI (Light Industrial) zoning district.
Prepared by:
Michael McCoy, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Consideration of the applicant's development plan
application as originally proposed.
BACKGROUND:
This item was continued from the June 27, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting due to a lack of a
quorum.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 01- - Blue Page 2
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 5
;!. Original Staff Report from 27 June, 2001 - Blue Page 6
R:',D PX2000\00-0094 Regency~Agenda Report on Continuation 6-27.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO, 01-
RSD P~2000\00-0094 Regency~Agenda Repor~ on Continuation 6-27,doc
2
ATTACHMENTNO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 0t-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0094 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT
PLAN), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF AN 8,972 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
ON APPROXIMATELY 0.92 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF ROICK DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 200
FEET WEST OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-051.
WHEREAS, A & E WEST filed Planning Application No. PA00-0094 (the
"Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, this item was scheduled for the June 27, 2001 Planning Commission
meeting, but was continued due to a lack of a quorum to July 11, 2001, at a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons
had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the
conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City
of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETE.RMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application
hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula
Municipal Code;
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula
and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The
General Plan designation on the property is (BP) Business Park, which permits, with the
approval of a Development Plan, the office/manufacturing/warehouse uses proposed by
the project.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare. The Development Plan for the project has
been reviewed by City Departments and outside agencies whose responsibility it is to
ensure protection, and the project ha~' been conditioned based upon their requirements.
R:~D P~2000\00-0094 RegencyLAgenda Report on Continuation 6-27.doc
3
Staff has determined upon review of the project, that it is consistent with the City
Development Code and General Plan policies, documents designed to ensure protection
of the general public.
C. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the
project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by
development and is an in-fill site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have
an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. 00-0094 was made per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15332 Class 32, as the project does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment. The Planning Department shall retain and preserve
the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application for the design, construction and operation of a
8,972 square foot building on 0.92 acres, located on the south side of Roick Drive,
approximately 200 feet west of Win.chester Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel
No.909-320-051, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this eleventh day of July,
2001.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
11 July, 2001 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~D P~2000\00-0094 Rcgcncy~Agcnda Report on Continuation 6-27.doc
4
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:XD PX2000\00-0094 Regency~Agenda Report on Continuation 6-27.doc
5
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 00-0094 (Revised Development Plan)
Project Description: The design and construction of a 8,972 square foot industrial
(tilt-up concrete) building on a .92 acre vacant lot located on
the south side of Roick Drive, approximately 200 feet west of
Winchester Road.
Development Impact Fee Category:
Assessor's Parcel No: 909-320-051
Approval Date: July 11, 2001
Expiration Date: July 11, 2003
Business Pad( / Industrial
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division a cashier's check or moneyorder 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 fody-eight (48)
hour period the applicant/developer 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
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application. City shall premptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of
any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
R:\D P~2000\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01,doc
10
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 conform substantially to Exhibit D (Site Plan),
approved with Revised Planning Application No. 00-0094, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially to the approved to Exhibit E (Elevation
Plans), or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be
screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the
structures.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan,
Exhibit I, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be
continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and the Development
Code. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director
shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into
conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest.
All roof-mounted equipment shall be visually screened by parapet walls as high as or higher
than the tallest piece of equipment.
_ -The colors and materials.used fo~,this industrial.building shall conform substantially to the
approved color and material board, or as amended by these conditions.
Material
Concrete walls
AccentTdm ~ ----.
Concrete columns and overhangs
Storefront doors and window frames
Metal Seam Roof
Color
"Native Tan" Dunn Edwards #3204
"Coral Clay" Dunn Edwards SP-148
"Sheer Side" Dunn Edwards D7 3007
"Coral Clay" Dunn Edwards SP-148
'~/hite SP 1" Dunn Edwards
"Coral Clay" Dunn Edwards SP-148 Berridge Mfrg.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
o
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10"
glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and the colored
architectural Elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall
be readable on the photographic prints.
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.
R:'~D P~2000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff repod revised design 6-27-01.doc
11
10.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one
signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
Prior_to the Issuance of Building Permits
11.
The parking lot concrete wall and rolling entry gate designs and materials shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Department prior to permit issuance.
12. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
13.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container
size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient
Ordinance and conform substantially to the approved Exhibit "F" Conceptual Landscape
Plan or as amended by these conditions. The cover page shall identify the total square
footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14. Separate building permit applications for the installation of signage shall be submitted in
. c_0nforman~:__e_wi_._t_h _City Ord~inances, Design Guidelines, and Development Code.
15. _ Al! required lar~dscape planting an~d ir?!gation shall have been installed and be in a condition
acceptable to the Planning Director. Tlie plants shall be healthy and free of weeds,
disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working
order.
16.
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 plans, shall be filed with the Community Development Department
- Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Planning Manager, the bond shall be released.
17.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-
R:~D P~000~00-0094 Regency,PC staff report revised design 6-27-01 .doc
street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
· -displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3
square feet in size.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
18.
19.
Landings at exterior doors shall be level except that exterior landings may have a slope not
to exceed ~.4 unit in 12 units horizontal. (2% slope) California Building Code Section
1003.3.1.6
Landings at doors shall not be more than Y2 inch lower than the threshold of the doorway.
Please look at Unit A. California Building Code Section 1003.3.1.6
20.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
21.
22.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All 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.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
23.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
24.
25.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross
slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled
Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
26. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
27. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
28. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry,
29. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
R:~D P~2000'.00-0094 Regenc~APC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc 13
30.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
fire alarm systems.
lighting,
31.
. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Obtain the Division of the State
Architect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the
Building Official, to implement in the building design.
32. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
33.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
34.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
35. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal.
36. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap
accessibility.
37. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
38. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the
...... ~approved building plans, will require separateapprovals and permits. ~ ....
39. Show all building setbacks
40.
Post conspicuously at the entrance to the project the hours of construction as allowed by
City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and specifically Section G (1) of the Riverside
County Ordinance # 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Construction hours are as follows:
Monday - Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Code Holidays
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
41.
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
42. A Grading Permit for 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.
R:~D P~000~0-0094 Regency~C staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc 14
43.
44,
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.
The grading plan 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
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
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
properly.
51.
52.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
R:~D P~2000~00-0094 Regenc~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to
approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria
shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps near the driveway opening shall be constructed in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402.
d. All street and driveway centedine intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
e. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
~Public Works: -~:-'~-~ - ~. - ....... ~ ..... - ~- ..... - .~ -.
a. Drive approaches
b. Under sidewalk drains
c. Sewer and domestic water systems
d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the appi'oved PreiJise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil
Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
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.
The Developer shall record a wdtten offer to participate in, and waive all dghts to object to
the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bddge and
Major Thoroughfare Fee Distdct for the construction of the proposed Westem Bypass
Corddor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and City Attomey.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
58. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
R:~D P~2000~00-0094 Regency,PC staff report revised design 6-27-01 .doc
16
59.
60.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with the City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
61.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are
in fome at the time of building, plan submittal.
62.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commemial 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 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
dudng the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic
fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as
given above has taken into account all information as provided.
(CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
63.
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 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be
located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access
road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC
903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
64. 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
extedor of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants ara required. (CFC 903.2)
65. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
66. Pdor to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
67. 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 reads shall be an all
R:~D P~000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc 17
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
(CFC sec 902)
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)
The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed bya registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
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)
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. Commemial, 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 give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
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 a fire alarm
system monitored by a Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. (CFC Article
10) approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the
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)
R:~D P~000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01 .doc
18
77.
78.
79.
80.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings
housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code
Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of
high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications
to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the
following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and
storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire
Department access doors and Fire department access reads. (CFC Article 81 )
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from
both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
OTHER AGENCIES
81.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated March 22, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
82.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 28, 2000,
a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand, and I accept all the above-
mentioned 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 Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
R:~D P~2000~00-O094 Regenc~PC staff report re'~sed design 6-27-01.doc
19
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT
DATED JUNE 27, 200'1
R:~D P~000\00-0094 Regency~Agenda Report on Continuation 6-27. floc
6
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
2.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 27, 2001
Planning Application No. 00-0094
(Revised Development Plan)
Prepared By:. Michael McCoy, Project Planner
The Community Development Department Planning Division Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0094 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA00-0094 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT
AND OPERATE A 8,972 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
ON 0.92 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROICK
DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WEST OF WINCHESTER
ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-
051.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
A & E West
Dave Madden, A&E West
To design, construct and operate an 8,972 square foot industrial
building on 0.92 vacant acres within the Light Industrial (LI) Zone.
Generally located on the south side of Roick Drive approximately
200 feet west of the Roick Drive/Winchester Road intersection
BP Business Park
LI Light Industrial
R:\D P~2000\00-0094 Regency, PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Light Industrial
South: Light Industrial
East: Light Industrial
West: Light Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING: Not applicable
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
BP (Business Park)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Industrial
West; Vacant
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 2001 the applicant received Planning Commission approval for a 12,615 square
foot split-face block finish building. In March, 2001 the applicant returned to the City to submit
revised plans to replace the CMU block finish with a tilt-up concrete finish, modify the entrance
design, and eliminate approximately 3,000 square feet at the rear of the building due to financial
constraints. Since the original development plan application was reviewed and approved at a
Planning Commission public hearing, the revised plan was determined by staff to be most
appropriately reviewed by the Planning Commission. On May 24 the modified plan was deemed
complete and the application scheduled for Planning Commission public hearing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of an 8,972 square foot tilt-up concrete speculative industrial building on a
0.92-acre vacant pad on Roick Drive. According to the applicant, the first tenant will probably be
Quality Structures, Inc., a general contracting and framing contractor for industrial office and
storage of supplies. Quality Structures will occupy all of the building and has nine operational
employees who will occupy the 1,800 square feet of office space.
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Acreage:0.92 acres,
Building coverage:
Landscaping:
Hardscape:
39,905 square feet
8,972 square feet 22%
12,793 square feet 32%
9,394 square feet 24%
On-site Parking Required:
Office Use (1 space/300 s.f.) 2,000 s.f. =
Warehouse (lsp./1000 s.f.) 6,798 s.f. :
Total Required Parking Spaces =
7 spaces
7 spaces
14 spaces
R:~D P~2000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
2
On-site Parking Provided = 26 spaces
Standard spaces = 21
Motorcycle spaces = 2
Bicycle spaces = 1 (rack of five)
Disabled spaces = 2
ANALYSIS
Site Desiqn
The site is designed in a rectangular manner from north to south and will take access from Roick
Drive. The building site is on a prominent view location overlooking the Temecula Valley. The
parking area is situated along the western and southern perimeter of the project site. Two double-
gated trash enclosures buffered by landscaped planters are positioned on the west side of the site
within the parking area. An outdoor patio break area is placed on the east forward section of the
building to provide a relaxation area with panoramic view opportunities of the Temecula Valley.
Access and Circulation
Access to the site is from a 24-foot wide concrete driveway entrance from the south side of Roick
Drive. Employees, visitors and truck deliveries will all share the single access into the site. The
front of the building leading to the office entrance has an 8% sloped disabled access ramp off the
adjacent street sidewalk. The parking area is situated along the western and southern perimeter of
the project site, parallel to the proposed building's west elevation. The interior of the site is
accessed through a six-foot high rolling chain link gate with vinyl slats behind an eight-foot tilt-up
concrete wall. Staff has conditioned the wall and gate material to be reviewed and approved bythe
Planning Department prior to issuance of permits as addressed on Condition of Approval 11. Two
double loading areas with metal roll-up doors are evenly spaced near the front and center of the
west side of the building to accommodate materials delivery into the building's main core.
Elevations
The building is tilt-up concrete with a combination of sandblasted and smooth exterior finish. The
entire front side of the building off Roick Drive features a covered walk area at the twin storefront
entrance with vertical columns that wraps around each front corner of the building. Three vertical
pop-out elements that extend above the roofline are placed on three of the building sides to provide
greater relief and accent. Offsets and cutouts along the west and east sides of the building
effectively break up the wall planes. Several 5.5-feet x 4-feet blue aluminum framed fixed glass
windows are horizontally positioned on all sides to provide abundant natural light and break up the
building wall mass. A decorative cornice element extends around the perimeter of the parapet wall
to provide additional ornamentation on all sides of the building.
Staff believes that the revised building design is consistent with the City's Industrial Design
Guidelines in regards to creating effective entry character and visual interest from the street
frontage. The building frontage strives to portray a quality office appearance that is architecturally
related to the overall building design. In addition, the revised design provides an effective mix of
building offsets and roof height variations with wall mass relief through glass and reveal treatments.
In comparison to the originally approved design, the revised building design more effectively
achieves the quality of architectural design the City is seeking for industrial office and warehouse
buildings, particularly in regards to its compatibility with the design quality of the newer industrial
warehouse buildings within this business park.
R:'~D P~2000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
3
Landscapinq
The project site is comprised of 12,793 square feet of landscaped area (32% of the overall site),
which exceeds the minimum coverage requirements per the City Development Code. The
proposed landscape plan includes a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover; including London
Plane, Red Crepe Myrtle, Fern Pine and California Pepper trees. The perimeter of the project site
will feature a prominent landscape setback that surrounds the building. The project frontage has a
generous upward sloping landscape setback that meets up with the building edge to enhance the
site's entrance. Two landscape planters featuring 24-inch box size Fern Pine and Red Crepe Myrtle
trees with various shrubs are positioned adjacent to the two roll-up loading doors facing the parking
lot.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the application and recommends that a Categorical Exemption, in accordance
with Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 32 In-Fill Development
project be approved. The proposed development is within the City limits on a 0.92-acra site, and is
substantially surrounded by developed and vacant urban industrial uses. The project site has no
value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Approval of the project will not result in
any s~gnificant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. The project site is already
served by all required utilities and public services.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The BP Business Park General Plan designation views industrial warehouse buildings as a typical
land use. The (LI) Light Industrial zoning code designation lists office/manufacturing/warehouse
uses as a permitted land use with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.08
of the Development Code. The proposed project as conditioned is consistent with the policies
contained in the General Plan and with the requirements of the Development Code and City Design
Guidelines.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff recommends that based on the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, the
Commission approve Planning Application 00-0094 (Revised Development Plan) as designed and
conditioned because it is a permitted use within the zone and complies with applicable
development standards, regulations and design guidelines.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable
requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The General Plan designation on the
property is (BP) Business Park, which permits, with the approval of a Development Plan, the
office/manufacturing/warehouse uses proposed by the project.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety
and general welfare. The Development Plan for the project has been reviewed by City
Departments and outside agencies whose responsibility it is to ensure protection, and the
project has been conditioned based upon their requirements. Staff has determined upon review
of the project, that it is consistent with the City Development Code and General Plan policies and
documents designed to ensure protection of the general public.
R:'~D P~2000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01 .doc
4
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no
known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or
habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. The project will not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section
711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Exhibits - Blue Page 20
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Floor Plan
G. Building Sections
H. Conceptual Landscape Plan
I. Project Statement of Operations
R:\D P~000\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01 .doc
5
A'I-rACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:\D P~000\00-0094 Regency~PC staff repod revised design 6-27-01 .doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0094 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN 8,972 SQUARE FOOT
BUILDING ON APPROXIMATELY 0.92 ACRES, LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROICK DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET
WEST OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 909-320-051.
WHEREAS, A & E WEST filed Planning Application No. PA00-0094 (the "Application") in a
manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application, on
June 27, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the
project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code;
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecuia and with
all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The General Plan
designation on the property is (BP) Business Park, which permits, with the approval of a
Development Plan, the office/manufacturing/warehouse uses proposed by the project.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare. The Development Plan for the project has been reviewed by
City Departments and outside agencies whose responsibility it is to ensure protection, and the
project has been conditioned based upon their requirements. Staff has determined upon review of
the project, that it is consistent with the City Development Code and General Plan policies,
documents designed to ensure protection of the general public.
R:\D P~2000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
7
C. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect
any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill
site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife
resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No,
00-0094 was made per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 Class 32, as
the project does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The
Planning Department shall retain and preserve the record of proceedings upon which this decision
is based.
Section 4. Conditions.. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application for the design, construction and operation of a 8,972 square
foot building on 0.92 acres, located on the south side of Roick Drive, approximately 200 feet west
of Winchester Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No.909-320-051, subject to the project
specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this twenty seventh dayof June, 2001.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 27 June, 2001 by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
CHINIAEFF, GUERRIERO,
MATHEWSON,TELESIO
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'~D P~000~00-0094 Regenc~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~D P~000\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 00-0094 (Revised Development Plan)
Project Description: The design and construction of a 8,972 square foot industrial
(tilt-up concrete) building on a .92 acre vacant lot located on
the south side of Roick Drive, approximately 200 feet west of
Winchester Road.
Development Impact Fee Category:
Assessor's Parcel No: 909-320-051
Approval Date: June 27, 2001
Expiration Date: June 27, 2003
Business Park / Industrial
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division a cashier's check er 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 15052. If within said forty-eight (48)
hour period the applicant/developer 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
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of
any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
R:\D P~000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
10
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 conform substantially to Exhibit D (Site Plan),
approved with Revised Planning Application No. 00-0094, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially to the approved to Exhibit E (Elevation
Plans), or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be
screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the
structures.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan,
Exhibit I, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be
continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and the Development
Code. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director
shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into
conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest.
All roof-mounted equipment shall be visually screened by parapet walls as high as or higher
than the tallest piece of equipment.
The colors and materials used for this industrial building shall conform substantially to the
approved color and material board, or as amended by these conditions.
Material
Concrete walls
Accent Trim
Concrete columns and overhangs
Storefront doors and window frames
Metal Seam Roof
Color
"Native Tan" Dunn Edwards #3204
"Coral Clay" Dunn Edwards SP-148
"Sheer Side" Dunn Edwards D7 3007
"Coral Clay" Dunn Edwards SP-148
'~/hite SP 1" Dunn Edwards
"Coral Clay" Dunn Edwards SP-148 Berridge Mfrg.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10"
glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and the colored
architectural Elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall
be readable on the photographic prints.
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.
R:',D P~2000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
11
10.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one
signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
11.
The parking lot concrete wall and rolling entry gate designs and materials shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Department prior to permit issuance.
12. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
13.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container
size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient
Ordinance and conform substantially to the approved Exhibit "F" Conceptual Landscape
Plan or as amended by these conditions. The cover page shall identify the total square
footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14.
Separate building permit applications for the installation of signage shall be submitted in
conformance with City Ordinances, Design Guidelines, and Development Code.
15.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition
acceptable to the Planning Director. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds,
disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working
order.
16.
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 plans, shall be filed with the Community Development Department
- Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Planning Manager, the bond shall be released.
17.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of pomelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-
R:~D P~000~0-0094 Regenc~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
12
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
18. Landings at exterior doom shall be level except that exterior landings may have a slope not
to exceed ~A unit in 12 units horizontal. (2% slope) California Building Code Section
1003.3.1.6
19. Landings at doom shall not be moro than Y2 inch lower than the threshold of the doorway.
Please look at Unit A. California Building Code Section 1003.3.1.6
20.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
21.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All 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 dirocted so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
22.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensuro the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
23.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
24. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
25.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross
slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled
Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
26. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access rogulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
27. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
28. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
29. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
R:'~D P~000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc 13
30.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
31.
Restmom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Obtain the Division of the State
Architect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the
Building Official, to implement in the building design.
32. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
33.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
34.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
35.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal.
36. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap
accessibility.
37.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start ofthe
building construction.
38.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
39. Show all building setbacks
40.
Post conspicuously at the entrance to the project the hours of construction as allowed by
City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and specifically Section G (1) of the Riverside
County Ordinance # 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Construction hours are as follows:
Monday - Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Code Holidays
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
41.
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
42. A Grading Permit for 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.
R:'~D P~2000~00-0094 Regenc~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc 14
43.
44.
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.
.The grading plan shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing
~mprovements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of
Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
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.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
R:'tD P~000\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
15
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to
approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria
shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps near the driveway opening shall be constructed in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400.401and 402.
d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
e. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
a. Drive approaches
b. Under sidewalk drains
c. Sewer and domestic water systems
d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
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.
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.
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
58.
Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
R:~D P',2.000\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
16
59.
60.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with the City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
61.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are
in fome at the time of building, plan submittal.
62.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commemial 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 G PM for a
total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic
fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as
given above has taken into account all information as provided.
(CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
63.
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 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be
located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access
road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC
903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
64.
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 are required. (CFC 903.2)
65.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
66.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access reads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
67.
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
R:\D P~000\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
17
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
(CFC sec 902)
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)
The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.8 Ord. 99-14)
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3,901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
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)
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 give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
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 a fire alarm
system monitored by a Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article
10) approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the
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 (8) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4)
R:'~D P~000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
18
77.
78.
79.
80.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings
housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code
Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of
high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications
to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the
following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and
storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire
Department access doors and Fire department access roads. (CFC Article 81)
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from
both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
OTHER AGENCIES
81.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated March 22, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
82.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 28, 2000,
a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand, and I accept all the above-
mentioned 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 Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
R:~D P~000~00-0094 Regency~PC staff repor~ revised design 6-27-01.doc
19
March 22, 2000
Denice Thomas, Case Planner
City of'Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
W ..... ANn SEWER ^w^, ^m, TV
PARCEL NO. 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28471
APN 909-320-051
Dear Ms. Thomas:
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 construction of any
required on-site and/or off-site water and sewer facilities and the
completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property
owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
'~ you have any
· ~'--', ,,,- .......
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
00~SB:mc076\F012-C 1 ~FCF
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
28, 2000
TO: CI'I~ OF TEMECULA PLANNIN .O. DEPARTMENT'
A~r~: Denice Thoma~ / R~olfe Pre~se,Sdanz . '
FROM 'CI,2LRENCE I-EAfiR.ISON, Environmental Health Specialist III
RE: PL(~T PLAN NO. PA00-0094
I. The Departm ,e~t of Fmvtronmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00'0094 and has' no
objections. Sa~i~ 'tary sewer and water services may be available iu this area
2. PRIOR TO ~ PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL fo~ health clearance, the fol]~)wbag items are
reqtfired: :
. l!. '
a) Will-ser~ · letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) Three complete sets of plato for each food e~abli~hment (~o in¢l.ude vending machines) willb¢
submitted iincluding a fixture schedule, a finish ~chedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to
refereuoe
c) A clearm
requked i
hpliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law.
,lease contact Food Facility Plan examiners a* (909) 694-5022).
For specific
; loner from the Hazardous'Materials Management Brauch (909) 358-5055 will be
iicating that the project has been cleared for:
· unde~round storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Ha?at~OUS Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Emer~aey! Response Plans D~sclosute (m accordance. . w~th Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Wazt~!reduction management.
d) A letter f~bm' the Waste Regulalion Bnmch (Weste Collectinn/LEA).
CH:dr
(909) 955-8980 I::
NOTE: ,~,.' y current additioaal requixements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building
P[hn review for final Department of Envkonmental Health Clearance.
cc: D~ugThompson, Hazardous Materials
l~ome Dierldag, Supervising E.H.S.
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~D P~000\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01 .doc
20
Regency Investments, LLC
Lot 2 of Tract 28471-(2 or F)
Statement
Regency Investments, LLC will lease space to Quality Structures, Inc., a
General Contracting and Framing Contractor. The building'will be used
for office and storage of supplies. We currently have nine employees
that will be working out of the new building. These individuals will be
operational in nature, i.e. estimators, secretaries, bookkeeper,
receptionist, etc. There will not be any manufacturing of any kind fi-om~
this building. We should need about 7 to 9 spaces for parking. Our
daily operations generates a very low number of trips, usually not
exceeding two per person daily. Our hours are 6:30 am to 3:30 pm with
several employees commonly working to 4:30 or 5:00 pm. The best way
to describe our use would be office. To our knowledge we do not use
any hazardous materials of any kind.
Hours and days: 6:30 am
Employees: 9
Parking Places: 7 to 9
Type of Equipment: Office
Hazardous Materials: None
Use: Office & Storage
Recap
- 3:30 pm, Monday - Friday
P.O. Box t87A rernecula, C~4 92593
Tel: (909) 699-6ol9 ',:* Fax: (909) 699-3265
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.- PA00-0094 - Revised
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R:~D P~000\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI Light Indust~al
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP Business Pa~k
CASE NO, - PA00-0094 - Revised
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
R:\D P~000\00-0094 Regency, PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
22
CITY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA00-0094 - Revised
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
SITE PLAN
R:\D P~000\00-0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
23
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA00-0094 - Revised
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
ELEVATIONS
R:\D P~2000\00-0094 Regenc~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
24
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA00-0094 - Revised
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
FLOOR PLAN
R:\D P~2000\00-0094 Regenc~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
25
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA00-0094 - Revised
EXHIBIT- G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 27, 2001
BUILDING SECTIONS
R:\D P\2000\00-0094 Regenc~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
26
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA00-0094 - Revised
EXHIBIT- H LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
R:~D P~000\00-0094 Regency\PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
27
ITEM #6
ClTY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
July 11, 2001
Continuation of the Planning Commission's June 27, 2001 Public Hearing
On PA00-0502 - a Development Plan proposal to design, construct and
operate a 6,222 square foot, full service, car wash facility on an .85-acre
lot. Located on the east side of Ynez Road south of Winchester Road
between the two mall entrances.
Prepared by:
Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial.
BACKGROUND:
This item was continued from the June 27, 2001 Planning
Commission Meeting due to a lack of a quorum.
Subsequent to the transmittal of the original agenda
packet, staff received a letter of opposition and operational
data of the car wash provided by the property owner.
Attachments:
1. Letter of Opposition - Blue Page 2
2. Car Wash Operational Data - Blue Page 3
3. PC Resolution No. 01- - Blue Page 4
4. Original Staff Report from 27 June, 2001 - Blue Page 5
R:kD PL?.000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27.doc
1
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1
LETFER OF OPPOSITION
R:'d) PX2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27.doc
2
ASHOH H. GUPTB
President
HELIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
(858) 4550320
Fox(858) 455-7434
June 25, 2001
Mr. Thomas Th~msley
Project Planner
City of Temecula
VIA FAX: 909-69~-6477
RE: Proposed Carwash facflit~ on Parcel Q, Promenade Mail, Temecula.
Dear Mr. T~ornale¥,
As you know, we have developed mad own the retail building on the adjoining parcel "R"
and share a common driveway for all ingress/e~ress with Parcel "Q" development.
As discussed on the previous attempt to develop a carw~h facility on the subject parcel,
we remain coneemad about the impact of heavy travel and the ability ofthe carwash
facility to accommodate all waiting ears in lines For washing, specially on the weekends.
Recently, while working on our building, we noticed cars backed up to the ring mad at
the Costco gas station. We believe ~hat any design under consideration should require a
wider driveway and enough back up area for ears so that ears waiting for the carw~h
service block neither the common driveway nor the ring mad.
Whether this can be accomplished on just the parcel "Q" should be studied carefully as
you know that in the past it was a proposed to be developed on combined pamels "P" and
Also, the City should require mitigation of loud vacuum equipment sound all day long so
the impact on adjacent development, which is in vet dose vicinity due to small lot sizes,
can be minimized.
5 ] 88 RENAISSANCE AVENUE * SAN DIEGO, CA 92
A'I-rACHMENT NO. 2
CAR WASH OPERATIONAL DATA
R?,D PX2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27.doc
3
JC CHEMTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
'Phone 714-432-1767
Fax 714-432-0155
2412 SOUTH BROADWAY
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 9270/
June 27, 2001
RE:
A NEW CAR WASH IN THE TEMECULA PROMENADE MALL
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
CARWASH CAPACITY ANALYS!-~
Capacity at 100%:
An 88 foot long tunnel is capable of handling 85 care per hour.
If the car wash runs at 100% capacity between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, the number of hours of operation would be 9.
Therefore the maximum capacity is 765 cars for a whole day.
Data:
It takes approximately 2-3 minutes to vacuum a vehicle.
It takes approximately 3-4 minutes to send a vehicle through a carwash tunnel.
It takes approximately 10-13 minutes to finish each vehicle after it has been washed.
The total time for a car wash is between 15-20 minutes.
AMK Car Wash Company is basing their projections on 300-350 care per day.
Comparison:
Cars at 100% capacity Cars at average capacity
85 cars an hour
(765 / 9 = 85)
Based upon a twenty minute
turnaround, the maximum
number of cars on site
would be 28.
38 cars an hour
(350 / 9 = 38.88)
Based upon a twenty minute
turnaround, the maximum
number of cars on site
Would be 13.
The Site Plan vedfies that 11 cars can be comfortably stacked in the Vacuum line, and 19 cars can comfortably
accommodated in the drying areas. And at least 5 cars in the car wash tunnel, including the correlator area, for a
total of 35 cars on site. 35 cars on site would correspond to a 105 cars per hour production rate, well past a
capacity of 85 cars per hour.
Conclusion:
The total number of cars that can be accommodated exceeds the number of cars at peak capacity by a minimum of
20%.
Please note that gas will not be pumped at this facility, thereby speeding up the vacuuming process.
Additionally, should there be a demand beyond the amounts calculated, labor can be increased to speed up the
flow. And beyond that, if there were to be a back up, the carwash expects that the pemeived delay would naturally
dissuade customers from dropping in.
Sincerely,
Chuck Persekian
Technical Engineer
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:~D PX2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27.doc
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA00-0502, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,222 SQUARE FOOT, FULL SERVICE,
CAR WASH (PROMENADE CAR WASH), ON A .85 ACRE LOT
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN
THE TWO ENTRANCES TO THE PROMENADE MALL SOUTH
OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL
NO. 910-320-040, AND LOT Q OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
PA98-0495 AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007.
WHEREAS, AMKO Enterprises, Inc, filed Planning Application No. PA00-0502, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA00-0502 was processed including, but not
limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA00-0502 was scheduled for the June 27, 2001
the Planning Commission meeting, but was continued due to a lack of a quorum to July 11,
2001, a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission denied Planning Applications No. PA00-0502;
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 denying Planning Application No.
PA00-0502 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the
Temecula Municipal Code:
The proposal, a full service car wash, with detail service bays, is consistent with the
land use designation and policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) land
use standards contained in the City's Development Code and the City of Temecula
General Plan, as well as the development standards for the Temecula Regional
Center Specific Plan (SP-7). However, the site is not properly planned nor is it
physically suitable for the density of commercial development proposed. Aspects of
the project, with conditions, could be consistent with applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting
Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and
building codes. However, without meeting complete compliance, this project cannot
be found to be in compliance with these findings.
B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and
other associated site improvements, will create traffic conflicts and fails to screen the
visibility of the services area and wash tunnel from public view as required by Code
Section 17.08.050 (D2). These items, therefore, jeopardizes and conflicts with the
intent to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of those utilizing or
working in and around the site. The project has been found to be inconsistent with,
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the
development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. Projects being recommended for denial do not require
CEQA finding. If the Planning Commission is inclined to approve the application, it must find
that the application is consistent with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan EIR.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2001.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 11th day of July,
2001 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ORIGINAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FROM 27 JUNE, 2001
R:kD PX2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27.doc
5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 27, 2001
Planning Application No. PA00-0502
(Development Plan)
Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-
0502, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,222 SQUARE FOOT, FULL SERVICE,
CAR WASH (PROMENADE CAR WASH), ON A .85 ACRE LOT
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN THE
TWO ENTRANCES TO THE PROMENADE MALL SOUTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.
910-320-040, AND LOT Q OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0495
AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
AMKO Enterprises, Inc
Cliff Kleopas
7597 La Corniche Circle
Boca Raton, FL 33433
Planning Application No. PA00-0502 is a Development Plan
proposal to design, construct and operate a 6,222 square
foot, full service, car wash facility on an .85-acre lot.
Located on the east side of Ynez Road south of Winchester
Road between the two mall entrances.
Site CC (Community Commercial)
Site SP-7 (Retail Commercial)
R:~D P~2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Staff report.doc
1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Project Area Net:
Total Building Areas:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Hardscape:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
North: SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan)
South: SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan)
East: SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan)
West: CC (Community Commercial)
Promenade Mall
North: Vacant
South: Multi-tenant Retail Building
East: Promenade Mall
West: Commercial Center
37,186 square feet
6,222 square feet
8,601 square feet
19,017 square feet
3,346 square feet
1,564 s.f. retail @ 5 spaces/1000 s.f.
5 space per 20 feet of wash tunnel
.85 acres
17.0 %
23.0 %
51.0 %
9.0%
8 spaces
22 spaces
30 spaces
32 spaces
28feet
BACKGROUND
This application, for a full service car wash, was formally submitted to the Planning Department on
December 12, 2000. Prior to formal submittal, staff worked with the applicant's architect on
alternative site plan designs and requested elevation changes for consistency with the Outlot
Developer Guidelines. When the formal sLCbmittal was received, staff advised the applicant that due
to the architectural inconsistency with the Guidelines this proposal would have to go before the
Planning Commission.
A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on January 11,2000, and resubmittals
were made April 18, and May 10, 2001. With each resubmittal, changes made to address staffs
previous concern or anticipated problems brought about problems elsewhere. After the third
submittal of revised plans the representative advised staff that it was their desire to move the project
forward to the Planning Commission and requested that any other necessary corrections be
included as conditions of approval. With the uncertainty about the applicant's ability to modify the
site to staffs satisfaction, the project is being brought forward with staff recommending the project
be denied.
R:~D P~2000~00-0502 Promenade Car WashtStaff report,doc
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to build and operate a full service car wash known
as the Promenade Car Wash. The project is located in the center parcel in a collection of three
parcels on the east side of Ynez Road between the two major entries drives into the Promenade
Mall. The building is 6,222 square feet, which includes the car wash tunnel, two detail bays, an
inside customer service and waiting area,'and miscellaneous equipment storage areas. On the
north side of this building will be a waiting area patio with seating. Attached to the south side of the
building is a canopy covering the three queuing aisles where vehicles will be vacuumed and
prepped before heading into the wash.
ANALYSIS
Site Design and Circulation
The overall site is .85 acres situated between two other parcels flanked by Ynez Road, on the west,
and the Mall Ring Road to the east, with a commercial building to the south and an undeveloped site
to the north. Two driveways to the Ring Road provide shared access between the three lots. The
carwash building is located at the setback line 37 feet from Ynez Road, placing the wash tunnel
roughly parallel to the street with a drive aisle passing in front of the building parallel to the Ring
Road and connecting the two driveways. Vehicles will take access to the site from the southern
driveway turning into the three queuing aisles for pre-wash servicing and exit the site from the
northern driveway. ~
Based on this site layout, staff believes that there are two major design deficiencies, which staff
cannot support:
· Operating congestion will impede onsite traffic circulation
· The carwash activity and wash bay will not be screened from the public right-of-way.
Although the site has adequate access, staff believes that the actual flow of vehicles in and out of
the site during peak operation hours will create internal conflicts and affect the neighboring sites and
potentially backup traffic onto the Ring Road. The pre-wash area can accommodate nine vehicles
before blocking the internal drive aisle. After 15 vehicles have entered the site the overflow begins
backs out onto the Ring Road.
Because the finish area had the potential of blocking the shared drive aisle to the northern site, a
curb barrier was installed to avoid this conflict. A break in this barrier is required at the exit to the
wash tunnel for vehicles to move around those in the drying area should there be a backup here.
Overflow vehicles would then proceed to the drive aisle that passes in front of the building where
they would be parked and finished. Vehicles trying to leave this area would then conflict with
vehicles trying to enter the carwash if there are more than nine vehicles waiting to be prepped or
would have to attempt to back up to exit through the northern exit.
With the building located adjacent to the street, it puts the entry of the wash bay tunnel in direct view
of the public north bound on Ynez Road with the vacuum area only 130 back from the street. A six-
foot high screen wall has been added to lessen the visibility of these items. However, the ability to
screen the wall with landscaping is at a minimum or not possible in some locations due to wall
footings, unless parking stalls are removed or drive aisles reduced. Neither of which are possible,
given the narrow planting area and limited site area.
R:',D P~2000~00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report,doc
3
Parking Analysis
This project was difficult to assess against the parking standards per the Outlot Developer
Guidelines and was therefore assessed under the City's Development Code for carwashes. Based
on the wash tunnel length, 22 spaces are required and those spaces can be in the pre and post
wash areas. The retail space requires 8 additional spaces as designated parking stalls and the
plans reflect 10 spaces along the southern property line.
Although, the site plan shows enough spaces on the site, several of these parking areas encroach
on the site's internal drive aisle bringing the holding capacity of the site into question. Both the pre
and post-wash areas can only accommodate 19 vehicles before encroaching on drive aisles when
22 spaces are required. In the pre-wash aisles there is room for 9 vehicles before additional
vehicles encroach on the internal drive aisre. In the post-wash area the site can accommodate 10
vehicles without blocking the internal drive aisle. All of the other observed carwashes in the city
appear to operate at high intensity levels, which calls into ¢ uestion the adequacy of the subject site
to accommodate the proposed use.
Architecture & Colors
The architecture of the carwash is a unique style offering a distinctive look for this particular
business. There is a multi facetted roof on this building with overhangs that wrap back to the
building, a cupola, and canopy. The roof color is marine green while the walls are stucco with an off
white finish with a concrete fiber base material in a natural finish. Trellises are provided over a
portion of the patio and the trash enclosure finish in Tourmaline (marine green). And, "1" beams
provide accent framing in several location around the building. The amhitecture of this building does
not conform to the design standard for the Outlots and could create a visual conflict with the Mall
and the neighboring projects.
Landscap n.q
The dominant landscape area of this site is along Ynez Road with the remainder along the Ring
Road and around the parking space on the south end of the site. There is limited landscaping
elsewhere around the site, although the project does provide 23% coverage thereby meeting the
minimum 20%. It had been recommended that more substantial planting areas be provide around
the patio to offer more opportunity for trees and shading to create a more appealing waiting area.
Si,qna.qe
Thus far the only signage propose is the one wall sign on the building's west elevation facing to
Ynez Road. No other signs have been proposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Projects being recommended for denial do not require CEQA findings. If the Planning Commission
is inclined to approve the application, it must find that the application is consistent with the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan EIR.
R:\D P~000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
4
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The project's use is consistent with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263 and the
Community Commercial (CC) land use d6)signation and zoning applicable to the property in the
Temecula General Plan and Development Code respectively. However, the site design fails to
comply with design standards contained in the Development Code.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be inconsistent with applicable City policies, standards
and guidelines. The Regional Center Specific Plan is silent on carwash standards, and deferred to
the City's Development Code. Staff finds that the layout of the project site cannot comply with the
standard for screening. Although the Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan permit
architectural variations, the architectural design of the building, though interesting, would be in sharp
contrast to the other retail building at the mall. Internal circulation of the site poses the greatest
complication and staff believes that it will not only impact the project site but is very likely to impact
the neighboring sites and the internal road system at the mall. With this type of impact staff cannot
make the appropriate findings to recommend approving this project.
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1.
The proposal, a full service car wash, with detail service bays, is consistent with the land use
designation and policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) land use standards
contained in the City's Development Code and the City of Temecula General Plan, as well
as the development standards for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP-7).
However, the site is not properly planned nor is it physically suitable for the density of
commercial development proposed. Aspects of the project, with conditions, could be
consistent with applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance
No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions, and fire and building codes. However, without meeting complete compliance,
this project cannot be found to be in compliance with these findings.
The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other
associated site improvements, will create traffic conflicts and fails to screen the visibility of
the services area and wash tunnel from public view as required by Code Section 17.08.050
(D2). These items, therefore, jeopardizes and conflicts with the intent to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare of those utilizing or working in and around the site. The
project has been found to be inconsistent with, applicable policies, guidelines, standards and
regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a
manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibits - Blue Page 9
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Site Plan
E. Elevation Main Building
F. Landscape Plan
R:\D P~000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
5
Cl'l'~, OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, .2001
R:~D P~000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
10
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263)
ZONING MAP
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION - CC (Community Commercial)
GENERAL PLAN
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
R:~D P~000~00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
~ 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
lll~-z~L'.~II I I t I I I l~ '..t '.---'~,,t.~-"~-.~--~- ~t~,~'J~c~D'~-'~-~,'
.......... ~--~ ~ ~ ~~-~¢--X:- ~J t
~0~08 Z3 N X
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502 ~evelopment Plan)
EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11, 2001
RAD P~2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27.doc
5
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11, 2001
ELEVATIONS
R:~D I~2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27,doc
6
CITY OF TEMECULA
NOT SUBMITTED
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0$02 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:~D P~2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11, 2001
DETAILED SITE PLAN
RSD Px2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27.doc
7
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11, 2001
RENDERING
R:XD P~2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27.doc
8
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11, 2001
RENDERING
R:~D P~2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27.doc
9
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT J
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11, 2001
RENDERING
R:\D P~2000\00-0502 Promenade Car Wash\Continuation 6-27.doc
10
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 11,2001
Planning Application No. 01-0121
(Extension of Time Appeal)
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Director of Planning recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0121
(Extension of Time) based on the Determination of Consistency with
a project for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's
and Negative Declarations.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA01-0121 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
EXTENSION OF TIME), AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE FIFTH AND
FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No.
23209, FOR 220 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A PARK SITE
LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA SERENA WAY
AND WALCOTr WAY ALONG BUTTERFIELD STAGE KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 957-250-009, 957-009-010, 957-250-
011, AND 957-250-013 THROUGH 957-250-027.
3. or, ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA01-0121 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
EXTENSION OF TIME), AND AMENDING THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE FIFTH AND
FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No.
23209 FOR 220 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A PARK SITE
LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA SERENA WAY
AND WALCOTT WAY ALONG BUl-DERFIELD STAGE, KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 957-250-009, 957-009-010, 957-
250-011, AND 957-250-013 THROUGH 957-250-027.
R:\E O 'r~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
1
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Won Yoo, 27431 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA 92590
PROPOSAL:
An Appeal of the Director of Planning's Conditions of Approval for Planning
Application No. PA01-0121, an Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No.
23209.
LOCATION:
East of the intersection of La Serena Way and Walcott Way along Butterfield
Stage Road.
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Tract Map 23209 was approved by the City Council on June 9, 1992. Since the original
approval of Tentative Tract Map 23209, the applicant has submitted four Extensions of Time and
they have all been granted by the Director of Planning. The applicant submitted PA01-0121 the fifth
and final extension of time request, on March 8, 2001. The application was deemed complete on
May 1, 2001.
On May 24, 2001, the Director of Planning approved the Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map
23209 with conditions. At the Director's Hearing, the applicant requested that Condition #33 be
deferred until building permits. Upon the recommendation of Public Works staff, the request was
denied and the applicant filed an appeal on June 4, 2001.
ANALYSIS:
The extension of time was approved with a condition that reads, "prior to recordation of the final
map, an Assessment District or other public financing mechanism shall be established to address
access to the area Butterfield Stage Road and Nicholas Road. The subdivider shall participate in
and pay for its fair share of any such Assessment District or other public financing mechanism
formed to provide improvements." At the Director's Hearing, the applicant requested that the timing
of the condition be changed to "issuance of building permits."
This condition along with condition No. 44. requires the developer of Tract 23209 to provide primary
and secondary access by the southerly extension of Butterfield Road to Rancho California Road.
Condition No. 33 also requires the developer to participate in and pay for its fair share of an
Assessment District or other public financing mechanism for the extension of ButterfieJd Stage Road
to the south and to the north, ultimately connecting to Nicolas Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Tract 23209 will dedicate one-half width right-of-way along its frontage and will require right-of-way
dedications on the east side of Butterfield Stage Road for any construction of north or south
extensions. The Assessment District will share the cost of right-of-way acquisitions as well as
construction costs of these extensions with other area developers such as Roripaugh Ranch.
Condition No. 33 was written to insure that the developer of Tract 23209 would participate in an
Assessment District prior to recordation of the final map. If condition No. 33 is deferred until Prior to
Building Permit as requested, the developer would have no obligation er need to participate in the
formation of an Assessment District until a building permit is issued, which may be many years in the
future. The formation of the Assessment District is vital to the much-needed extension of Buttedield
Stage Road. The Public Works Department recommends that Condition No. 33 remain as approved
R:\E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
2
and the Appeal of this condition be denied. This condition was originally approved by the City
Council in 1992, and modifications to the condition should be approved by the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On June 9, 1992 the City Council reaffirmed the adopted Negative Declaration previously adopted
by the County of Riverside. Per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act, when a
Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent Negative Declaration need be
prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in
the light of the whole record, that substantial changes have occurred in the project or new
environmental information of substantial importance has been discovered. Staff has determined
that no new changes or information are present that would require any new environmental action.
RECOMMENDATION:
In considering the appeal, the Planning Commission has two options:
Uphold the Director of Planning decision to approve the project as conditioned, and deny the
appeal of Planning Application No. PA01-0121. The resolution to deny the appeal is
contained in Attachment No. 1.
Approve the Appeal of Planning Application No. PA01-0121 and modify the conditions of
approval that will satisfy the appellant's concerns.
The City Attorney believes that the conditions of approval adequately address the appellant's
concern to the extent that City ordinances permit, and staff recommends that the Planning
Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's approval as conditioned.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_ - To Deny the Appeal of PA01-0121 - Blue
Page 4
Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_ - To Approve the Appeal of PA01-0121 -
Page 9
Appeal of the Director of Planning Decision - Blue Page 13
Minutes of the Director of Planning hearing of May 24, 2001 - Blue Page 14
Exhibits - Blue Page 15
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
R:\E O '~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
3
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
TO DENY THE APPEAL OF PA01-0121 (EXTENSION OF TIME - APPEAL)
R;\E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Repod.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA01-0121 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
EXTENSION OF TIME), AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE FIFTH AND
FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No.
23209, FOR 220 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A PARK SITE
LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA SERENA WAY
AND WALCO'I-F WAY ALONG BUTTERFIELD STAGE KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 957-250-009, 957-009-010, 957-250-
011, AND 957-250-013 THROUGH 957-250-027
WHEREAS, Ranpac Inc., initiated Planning Application No. PA01-0121 (Extension of Time),
in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA01-0 (Extension of Time) was processed including,
but not limited to public notice, in the timely manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Extension of Time was posted at City Hall, Temecula
Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning considered Planning Application No. PA01-0121
(Extension of Time) on May 24, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which
time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or
opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Director's hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Director approved PA01-0121 (Extension of Time) with conditions;
WHEREAS, an Appeal of the Conditions of Approval was filed on June 4, 2001 requesting
that Planning Application No. PA01-0121 (Extension of Time - Appeal) be brought before the
Planning Commission for their consideration;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Director's Hearing proceedings
and Staff Reports regarding Planning Application No. PA01-0121 (Extension of Time); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning
Application No. PA01-0121 (Extension of Time - Appeal) on July 11,2001, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application
No. PA01-0121;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission voted to deny the appeal of Planning Application No. 01-0121
(Extension of Time - Appeal) upholding the Director of Planning's approval as conditioned;
R:~E O ~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
5
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. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.
01-0121 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This
section applies when a Negative Declaration has been previously adopted and there are no
substantial changes to the project; no new significant environmental effects requiring revision of the
Negative Declaration; and the Negative Declaration is deemed adequate for the project being
considered.
Section 3. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 01-
0121 hereby concludes that the original findings for Tentative Tract Map 23209 still apply.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission, in denying the
Appeal, hereby approves Planning Application No. 01-0121 for an Extension of Time for Tentative
Tract Map No. 23209, for 220 single family lots and a park site located east of the intersection of La
Serena Way and Walcott Way along Butterfield Stage Road as conditioned at the Director's
Hearing. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 11th day of July, 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 11t~ day of July, 2001, by the following vote:
R:\E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
6
AYES:
NOES!
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\E 0'i-~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal ReporLdoc
7
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0121
FIFTH EXTENSION OF TIME
JUNE 9, 2001
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\E O 'r~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
8
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AMENDED FINAL COPY
(Approved as par1 of Extension of Time) - PA01-0121
Tentative Tract Map No: 23209
Project Description: 221 Lot residential subdivision on 80 acres, zoned LM (Low Medium
Density Residential).
Assessor's Parcel No.: 914-310-018 through 032
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the
conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State
Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the
expiration date.
2. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date,
unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is June 9, 2002.
3. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
4. Legal paved access as required by Ordinance 460 and the Department of Public Works
shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement
phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed
phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall
substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the
City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a
qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and
approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in
the County Health Department's transmittal dated January 7, 1992 a copy of which is
attached.
8. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the
County Fire Department's letter dated October 9, 1991 a copy of which is attached.
9. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology,
Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan.
R:XE O T~01-0121 TM 23209~DH staffreport.doc
3
10. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated December 19, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
11. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the City's LM zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and
shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion
control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works.
12. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the
responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Temecula
Community Services District.(Changed per the Planning Commission meeting on March
16, 1992).
13. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be
prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns
and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS
shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved
ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning
Department and the Department of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
"This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory.
14. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area
landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department
approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by
a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up
to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with
landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by
the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground.
d. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition
into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include
R:~E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~DH staff repo~.doc
4
earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards
shall be landscaped and street trees planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along La
Serena Way. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of
the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be
provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at
key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets
and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be
planted outside of the road right-of-way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants
where appropriate.
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the
subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall
note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing
trees shall be steel staked.
Any oak trees removed with four (4) inches or larger trunk diameters shall
be replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as approved by the Planning
Director. Replacement tress shall be noted on approved landscaping
plans.
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an
overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for
subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development
and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of
January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
RAE O T~01-0121 TM 23209~DH slaffreport.doc
5
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding
ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the
following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where
drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Department of Public Works that all adjacent off-site
manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope
maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the
n.......*...,..., c' c,..~.,~.. ~^~...~.~ Temecula Community Services District.
(Changed at the Planning Commission meeting on March 16, 1992).
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with
the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set
forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the
provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required
by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
15. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by
the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to
potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for
impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the
excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the
paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily dived, redirect or
halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
16. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within
the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides
evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of
one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as
mitigation for public library development.
RAE O T~01-012I TM 23209~DH staff report.doc
6
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety
an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish
appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units
within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements
from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County
Fire Marshal.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and
constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall
be permitted with Planning Department approval.
F. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less
than ten (10) feet.
H. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
I. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation.
17. Prior to the issuance of first OCCUPANCY PERMITS or model home the following
conditions shall be satisfied: (Revised at the Planning Commission meeting on March
16, 1992).
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved
plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not
permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be
utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and
Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved
plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is
required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be
determined by the acoustical study where applicable.
.......... ~ ....vv.~ ~cr, ~r.~.,v..~,. (Struck at the Planning Commission meeting on
March 16, 1992).
R:~E O ~01-0121 TM 23209'~DH staff report.doc
7
18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, or any use allowed by this entitlement, the
developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review, a copy of all required
agency clearances, and/or a biology study focusing on any, and all listed or endangered
species. The report(s) shall contain but not be limited to information relative to quality,
density, and extent of occupied habitat. In addition, the developer shall comply with any
processes required to mitigate the potential disturbance of any species or habitat.
19. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative
body concerning Tentative Tract Map No. 23209, which action is brought within the time
period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of
Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
20. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior
to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the
improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City
acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-
site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion
of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal
report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
21. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
22. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS/RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENTS:
23. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall
include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas,
parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings.
24. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association,
property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all
properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the
use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment
power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control,
R:XE O TX01-0121 TM 23209~DH staff report.doc
8
and the duty to maintain, ail of said mutually available features of the development.
Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to
meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall
permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of
Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to,
and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not
apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
25. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided
for in the CC&R's.
26. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit
or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) as share
in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas
and facilities.
27. All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible.
Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees
as approved by the Planning Director.
28. Any oak trees removed with four (4) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a
ten (10) to one (1) basis as approved by the Planning Director.
/'~,.,.'h,v~.,.I r~l~,rbv.~.,....in +hO.,, ~C~ ~f~, Eight w...~.~ e ..... +,, ff;.,~ ~11~,~ /~O~ nn~ ,.,k;~l.
/~O~ nn~ ~ .... t,. ~4~;.;.~.~H ...... Kin 'h~ C~ty tc f~e thc ~'~*;~
~ ..... / ...... ] ................. fcc, ~c ..................................
~ (Struck at the Planning Commission meeting on March 16,
1992).
30. Within fo~y-eight (48) hours of the approval of the proje~, the applican~developer shall
deliver to the Planning Depa~ment a cashiers check or money order payable to the
County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars
($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fi~ Dollars ($1,250.00)
fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2)
plus the Twenty-Five Dollar ($25.00) Coun~ administrative fee to enable the Ci~ to file
the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and
14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such folly-eight (48) hour period the
applican~developer has not delivered to the Planning Depa~ment the check required
above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of
condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
R:~E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~DH staffreport.doc
9
31.
Prior to the issuance of the 75th certificate of occupancy for the entire project area, the
applicant shall have completed to the satisfaction of the r, ...... =*" ~"~"~""" D!rcctcr
Temecula Community Services District all park site improvements relevant to Lot No.
221 of Tentative Tract Map No. 23209. (Revised at the Planning Commission meeting
on March 16, 1992).
32. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits the developer shall submit to the
City a disclosure statement for the tract area which identifies the potential future
impact of noise associated with the potential placement of wind machines at the
adjacent vineyard. Said disclosure shall inform buyers that rights to protest have
been waived by the developer. Said document shall be subject to the approval of
the Planning Director and the City Attorney. Said approval shall be obtained prior
to the issuance of occupancy permits. The City will require that said document
will be submitted to and signed in agreement by future residential occupants.
(Added at the Planning Commission meeting on March 16, 1992).
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of
Public Works.
It is understood that the Subdivider has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvements constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
33. "Prior to recordation of the final map, an Assessment District or other public financing
mechanism shall be established to address access to the area Tract "!c,",g Butterfield
Stage Road and Nicholas Road. The Subdivider shall participate in and pay for its fair
share of any such Assessment District or other public financing mechanism formed to
provide the improvements." (Amended at City Council August 11, 1992)
34. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
Parks and Recreation Department; and
Metropolitan Water District.
R:YE O ~01-0121 TM 23209~DH staff report.doc
10
35. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of
an existing Assessment District Must comply with the requirements of said section.
36. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
and shall continue in fome until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
37. The former Walcott Land alignment shall be used by the TCSD as a pedestrian access
and landscaped parkway in conjunction with the adjacent public park site. Provision
shall also be made for right of way dedication to provide for the remainder of the cul-de-
sac bulb for Leigh Lane. Developer shall improve the former section of Walcott Lane as
part of the park improvements within Lot No. 221.
38. Streets "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "G", "H", "J", "K", "L", "M", "N" and "O" shall be improved
with 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be
posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 104,
Section A (60'/40').
39.
Streets "F" and "1" shall be improved with 36 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in
accordance with City Standard No. 105, Section A (60'/36').
40. Improve Walcott Lane (Modified Principal Collector Highway Standards - 70' R/W) to
include dedication of street right-of-way, installation of street improvements, paving, curb
and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer).
41. Improve La Serena Way (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' RAN) to include dedication
of street right-of-way, installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter,
sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer).
42.
Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements
plus one 12' lane, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised
landscaped median. The design shall conform to the vertical alignment approved by City
Council on November 12, 1991.
43. Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed
throughout the land division.
44. The subdivider shall provide/acquire sufficient public offsite rights-of-way to provide for
primary and secondary access road(s) to a paved and maintained road. Said access
road(s) shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 106, Section B.
(32'/60') at a grade and alignment approved by the Department of Public Works. Said
offsite access roads shall include, but not be limited to, the southerly and easterly
R:~E O 'Ih01-0121 TM 23209'~DH staffreport.doc
extensions of Butterfield Stage Road to Rancho California Road or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
45.
East and west bound left turn lanes shall be provided on La Serena Way at the
intersections with Walcott Lane, Street "B" and Butterfield Stage Road as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
46. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way and
so noted on the final map with the exception of street intersections and driveways as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
47. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
48. Minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet.
49. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works.
50. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by
the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney.
The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title
interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be
enforceable by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and
recorded. The CC&R's shall be subject to the following Engineering conditions:
A. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of
Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions
as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect
the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association
are subject to the approval of Planning, Department of Public Works, and the City
Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy
shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and
related facilities.
The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and
maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
F. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition
required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving
reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole
expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City
R:~E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~DH staff report.doc
12
ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure
any such expense not promptly reimbursed.
The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of
any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently
maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City.
Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to Planning and the
Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits.
Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring
access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking
areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded
concurrent with the map, or prior to the issuance of building permit where
no map is involved.
51. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other
traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities.
C. Landscaping (street and parks).
Sewer and domestic water systems.
All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
F. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
52. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with
adjoining developments.
53. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with
the requirements of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the Department of Public
Works.
54. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department of
Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal
impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
55. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Building and Safety Department.
R:~E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~DH staffreport.doc
13
56. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
57. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
58. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300
feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
59. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
60. All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and shall be
shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with City Standard 207 and 401
(curb sidewalk).
61. All driveways shall be located a m~nimum of two (2) feet from the side property line. A
minimum of 4 feet of full height curb shall be constructed between driveways.
62. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb.
63. The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval.
The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. Letters of
permission from adjacent owners shall be provided for all offsite grading work.
64. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
as directed by the Department of Public Works at the time of application for grading plan
check. All work shall be in conformance with the County Geologist's letter dated April
28, 1989, and any subsequent amendments.
65. The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department of Public
Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
66,
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public
Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public
Works.
67. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within
drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map
stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
68. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release
of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the
recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the
recordation of the final map.
R:kE O Tx01-0121 TM 23209~DH staffreport.doc
69.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood
Control District for review.
70. The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or
through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets
for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article Xl of Ordinance No. 460 will apply.
Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for
drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
71
· The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
72. The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating areas of
identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the Department of
Public Works.
73. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to
Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements.
74. Ahem Lane (66' R/W) to include dedication of street right-of-way, installation of street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing
and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
75. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resoumes Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until a NPDES permit is granted or the project is
shown to be exempt.
76. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
77. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and
a construction permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
78. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
79. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete,
appropriate clearance letters have been obtained, and approval of the grading plan has
been granted by the Department of Public works.
R:kE O Tx01-0121 TM 23209~DH staffreport.doc
15
80. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion
control and runoff mitigation plans will be required. All plans shall be submitted with
appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
81. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any
other lot.
82. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area
Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new
charge needs to be paid.
83. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within their right-of-
way.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
84.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report
addressing compaction and site conditions.
85.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be
in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
86. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be
in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public
facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which
developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of
the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of
this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the
process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project;
provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any
traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
R:\E O ~01-0121 TM 23209kDH slaff report.doc
16
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
87. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior
public streets.
88. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Traffic control plans shall be provided as directed
by the Department of Public Works, and may be required to be prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer.
89. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following placement
of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard.
Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard
Specifications.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
90. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena
Way and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
91. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
92. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption
to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
93. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
94. The subdivider shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with
arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works.
95. Provide limited landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to
driveways to provide for minimum sight distance.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
96. The Citys park land dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the
development and dedication of 2.9 acres of park land, which will include the former
R:~E O ~01 *0121 TM 23209~DH s~aff report.doc
17
Walcott Lane alignment described in Public Works Condition No. 37, so long as it is
available for pedestrian access, landscaping and park purposes.
97. The installation of the park improvements, slopes and landscaped median on Butter[ield
Stage Road shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development
Plan Guidelines and Specifications. Construction of said improvements shall commence
pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance
Superintendent.
98. The developer shall complete the TCSD application/inspection process and pay the
appropriate fees prior to the acceptance of street lighting and perimeter slope areas into
the respective TCSD maintenance programs. Failure to comply with TCSD procedures
may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs.
99. The developer shall maintain the park, slopes and landscaped medians until such time
as these responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party.
100. Class II Bike lanes shall be provided on Butterfield Stage Road and completed in
concurrence with the road improvements required for this development.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
101 .The developer shall enter into an improvement agreement and post securities for the
neighborhood park site, landscaped median within Buttertield Stage Road, and the
proposed TCSD slope maintenance areas.
102,Ail slopes and parkway landscaping identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be
offered for dedication on the final map.
103. Landscape construction drawings for the park site, landscaped median and proposed
TCSD slope maintenance areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Services.
104.The developer shall obtain a landscape easement from the adjacent property owner for
maintenance of the offsite slope area located to the north of the cul-de-sac bulb on
Street BGO. Said maintenance easement shall be transferrable to the TCSD and
improved as part of the La Serena Way slope improvements,
105. The subdivider shall file an application with the TCSD to initiate property owner election
proceedings for the dedication and annexation of perimeter slopes and residential street
lighting into the respective TCSD maintenance programs. (Added by the Planning
Director, April 30, 1998)
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
106. The neighborhood park shall be dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens,
assessments or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for park
purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be
R:~E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~DH staffreport.doc
18
provided with the dedication of the property. (Condition relocated by the Planning
Director, April 30, 1998)
107. At the time of completion of the park and acceptance by City Council, the developer
shall receive fee credits against the remaining parks component of the CityDs
Development Impact Fees based on the actual cost of the onsite park improvements
which exceed the Quimby requirements, up to a total maximum credit of $265,815 (165
remaining homes x $1,611 park component = $265,815). The City shall have the right to
review, audit and verify all costs associated with said park improvements. (Condition
relocated by the Planning Director, April 30, 1998)
108. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the developer shall submit the
most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project.
109. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of
the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
110. Prior to the issuance of the 75th certificate of occupancy for the entire project area, the
applicant shall comply with the requirements stipulated in Condition of Approval #31,
contained here within.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Name printed
Date
R:~E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~DH staff report.doc
19
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
TO APPROVE PA01-0121 (EXTENSION OF TIME APPEAL)
R:\E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Reporl.doc
9
ATrACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA01-0121 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
EXTENSION OF TIME), AND AMENDING THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE FIFTH AND
FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No.
23209 FOR 220 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A PARK SITE
LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA SERENA WAY
AND WALCOTr WAY ALONG BUTrERFIELD STAGE, KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 957-250-009, 957-009-010, 957-
250-011, AND 957-250-013 THROUGH 957-250-027.
WHEREAS, Ranpac inc., initiated Planning Application No. PA01-0121 (Extension of Time),
in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA01-0121 (Extension of Time) was processed
including, but not limited to public notice, in the timely manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Extension of Time was posted at City Hall, Temecula
Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning considered Planning Application No. PA01-0121
(Extension of Time) on May 24, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which
time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or
opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Director's hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Director approved PA01-0121 (Extension of Time) with conditions;
WHEREAS, an Appeal of the Condtions of Approval was filed on June 4, 2001 requesting
that Planning Application No. PA01-0121 (Extension of Time - Appeal) be brought before the
Planning Commission for their consideration;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Director's Hearing proceedings
and Staff Reports regarding Planning Application No. PA01-0121 (Extension of Time); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning
Application No. PA00-0121 (Extension of Time - Appeal) on July 11,2001, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application
No. PA01-0121;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission voted to approve the appeal of Planning Application No. 01-0121
(Extension of Time - Appeal) amending the Director of Planning's approval as conditioned;
R:\E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
10
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. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.
01-0121 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This
section applies when a Negative Declaration has been previously adopted and there are no
substantial changes to the project; no new significant environmental effects requiring revision of the
Negative Declaration; and the Negative Declaration is deemed adequate for the project being
considered.
Section 3. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 01 -
0121 hereby concludes that additional conditions of approval are needed in order to make the
findings of consistency with the original findings Tentative Tract Map 23209.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves 'Planning Application No. 01-0121 for an Extension of Time for Tentative
Tract Map No. 23209, for 220 single family lots and a park site located east of the intersection of La
Serena Way and Walcott Way along Butterfield Stage Road as modified by the Planning
Commission. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 11th day of July 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 C ty
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 11th day of July, 2001, by the following vote:
R:\E O 'r~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report,doc
11
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\E O T~1-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
12
ATFACHMENT NO. 3
APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0121
R:\E O 'r~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
13
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
43200 Business Park Drive * Temecula · CA * 92590
P.O. Box 9033, Tomecula s CA * 92589-9033
(909) 694-6400 · FAX (909) 694-6477
Appeal
Thc purpose of the appeal procedure is to provide a method of recourse for persons aggrieved by or
dissatisfied with an action taken by an administrative agency of the City in the administration or
enforcement of any provisions of the Development Code.
B. FILING REQUIREMENTS
1. Development Application.
2. Appeal Form.
3. Filing Fee.
C. ~qOTICE OF APPEAL - TIME LIMIT
A notice of an aptx:al by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by
him or in his behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be
acted upon unless filed witl~ fifteen (15) calendar days after sea-vice of written notice of the decision.
D. NOTICE OF APPEAL - CONTENTS
D5/24/01
Appealing the decision of: plrec~'or of pi ~nnin0
(Specify Director of Pl-nning or planning Commi~ioa
Spec~y exactly what is being appe~ed: Condition 33 as it reads now
"Prior to recordation of the final mapt an Assessment District or other Dublic .:
finmcing mechanism shall be established to' address access tO the area .... "
JUN 0~2001:
By
Reason or justification to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal ~ach issue which
the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every agreement and a copy of every item
of evidence. (AUach separate sheet of paper if necessary).
Please see "Exhibit A"
Desired action to be
Please see "Exhibit B"
IIn the event any Notice of Appeal applicant fails to answer any information set forth above, then
the request Will be returned to the appellant, with a statement 6f the deficiencies: The appellant
shall be allowed five {5/ calendar days in which to refile the notice of appeal.
EXtqll IT A
REASON OR JUSTIFICATION
TO SUPPORT THE APPEAl,
Condition 33 was placed on Tract 23209 to address access to the area. The
condition reads "Prior to recordation of the final map, an Assessment District or other
public financing mechanism shall be established to address access to the area Butterfield
Stage Road and Nicholas Road. The Subdivider shall participate in and pay for its fair
share of any such Assessment District or other public financing mechanism formed to
provide the improvements." To allow the tentative map to record, the burden of the
formation of the CFD is placed on Calloway 220. However the formation process is
being led by the Department of Public Works of the City of Temecula, which intends to
form the CFD with both Calloway 220 and Roripaugh Ranch. Because Roripaugh Ranch
still needs to obtain approval for its specific plan, the timing of the formation of the CFD
is out of Calloway 220's control and under the City of Temecula's control.
The initial deposits have been paid by both Roripaugh Ranch and Calloway 220,
commencing the formation procedures for the CFD. Since the formation of the CFD is
under way, and Calloway 220 has done everything in its power to meet Conditiofi 33, we
ask that Condition 33 be modified.
EXHIBIT B
DESIRED ACTION TO BE TAKEN
We request that Condition 33 be changed l~om
"Prior to recordation of the final map, an Assessment District or
other public financing mechanism shall be established to address access to
the area Butterfield Stage Road and Nicholas Road. The Subdivider shall
participate in and pay for its fair share of any such Assessment District or
other public financing mechanism formed to provide the improvements."
To
"Prior to issuance of building permits~ an Assessment District or
other public financing mechanism shall be established to address access to
the area Butterfield Stage Road and Nicholas Road. The Subdivider shall
participate in and pay for its fair share of any such Assessment District or
other public financing mechanism formed to provide the improvements."
Ci..ty of Temecula
(909) 694-6444 · Fax (909) 694-1999
43200 Business Park D~ive · Temecula, California 92590 · IVJailin§ ^ddr~ss: P.O. Box 9033 · Temecula, California 92589-9033
A~rG~LXCA
2I~N
P/~CEL:
EOF
0/99
TYPE:
Type Description
Payment 070
calloway
ACCOUNT ITeM LIST: Descciption
PLNC--APPEAL3
P~-COMP TRANSPORT PLAN
TOTAS:351.00
Amount
351.00
?
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2001, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING HEARING
R:\E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
14
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DIRECTOR
MAY 24, 2001
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Director was called to order on Thursday,
May 24, 2001 at 1:30 PM, at the City of Temecula Main Conference Room, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California. Senior Planner, Don Hazen presiding.
Also present was Project Planner, Rick Rush, Senior Engineer, Jerry Alegria and Minute Clerk Lesa
Riddle.
Senior Planner, Don Hazen opened the public hearing for items not listed on the agenda at 1:35 PM.
There were no requests to speak.
Planninq Application No. PA01-0121 (Extension of Time), the fifth one-year
Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 23209
Project Planner, Rick Rush presented the staff report.
Don Hazen, Senior Planner opened the public hearing at 1:40 PM.
Won Yoo, 27431 Enterprise Circle W., Temecula, CA 92590, applicant asked if any of the
Conditions of Approval have been changed from the previous approval of the Extension of Time.
Mr. Yoo requested a change in Condition No. 33 to read "prior to building permits."
Rick Rush, Project Planner, advised that Condition no. 18 has been modified. Don Hazen read the
new language, "Prior to issuance of grading permits, or any use allowed by this entitlement, the
developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review, a copy of all required agency
clearances, and/or a biology study focusing on any, and all listed or endangered species. The
report(s) shall contain but not be limited to information relative to quality, density, and extent of
occupied habitat. In addition, the developer shall comply with any processes required to mitigate
the potential disturbance of any species or habitat." No other conditions have been changed.
Applicant stated that he has already cleared the land and has the clearances from the necessary
agencies.
Joanne Moore, 31914 Poole Ct., Temecula, CA spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Moore does
not want tract homes located directly behind her home to obstruct her view and to add more children
to the already overcrowded schools.
Ron Henderson, 31832 Poole Ct., Temecula, CA is in favor of the project with the following
condition: he requests that the applicant install a secure fence around the property so that people
with oft-road vehicles cannot trespass onto the property. They create noise and danger and are a
nuisance for the immediate community. The police have been called several times and patrol as
much as possible, but cannot keep a constant watch on the area. He also requested that No
Trespassing signs be posted.
Paul Barnes, 1123 Hampton Ct., Encinitas, CA spoke in favor of the project which has benefitted
the public by the work being done to frontage improvements on Butterfield Stage Road.
R ADIRHEAR~MINUTES'~2001~05-244)1 minutes.doc
1
With no others to speak in favor of or against the project, Don Hazen, Senior Planner closed the
public hearing at 2:02 PM.
Don Hazen, Senior Planner, opened staff discussion in reply to Won Yoo's request to change the
timing mechanism of Condition No. 33 from "prior to the final map" to "prior to building permits."
Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer responded by advising that staff would not support changing the
timing mechanism in the Conditions of Approval.
Don Hazen, Senior Planner, approved PA01-0121 subject to the current conditions of approval
including the modification of Condition no 18 as recommended by Staff.
Don Hazen,,S~eni]br Planner
R:~D 1RHEAR~Vl IN U TESL2001 \05 -24-01 minutes.doc
2
ATFACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
R:\E O T~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0121 (Extension of Time - Appeal)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -July 11, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R:\E O 'i-~01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
ZONING MAP
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION - Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0121 (Extension of Time - Appeal)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 11,2001
GENERAL PLAN
R:\E O %01-0121 TM 23209~Appeal Report.doc
17