HomeMy WebLinkAbout062701 PC AgendaIn compliance w~th the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate Jn this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6~.~.q. 'Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JUNE'27, 2001 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2001-0__
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Chairman Guerriero
Roll Call:
Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster and Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and .~;tate 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 li~it for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTI~;E~T0 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 actmn.
A,qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 27, 2001
R:~OLANCOMM~,gendas~001~6-27-01 .doc
1
2 Minutes.
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of May 2, 2001
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.
3 Plannin(~ Application No. PA01-0106 (EOT) Coleman Buildin.cl
Rick Rush, Project'Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200"1-._
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 0"1-0106 A EXTENSION OF TIME TO DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCT A "14,532 S. QUARE FOOT OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL
BUILDIN~G 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
4 Planninq Application No. PA00-0094 (Revised Development Plan)
Michael McCoy, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATItDN:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Applicatic,n No. PA00-0094 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality ACt Guidelines and;
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 ~6-27-01 .doc
2
4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
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. .,
5
Plannino AI31~lication No. PA00-0502 (Develol3ment Plan) Promenade Car Wash
Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-
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.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR,s REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next Regular Meeting: July 11, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
~ Temecula, CA 92590
R;~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 ~6-27-01 .doc
3
ITEM #2
MINUTES WILL BE PROVIDE UNDER SEPARATE COVER
ON FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2001
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 27, 2001
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. ADOPTa 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 OFFICF./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:
EXISTING LAND USE:
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 Commemial (SC)
East: Service Commemial(SC)
West: Service Commemial (SC)
Service Commemial (SC)
Vacant
R:~E O %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 motomycle spaces.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved Planning Application 96-0354 on March 3, 1997. The
expiration of this approval was March 3, 2000. Pdor 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 commercial 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 bythe Rancho-Temecula-Murfieta Board of Realtors has changed and
is now designated for multi tenant office use. The applicant still proposes offices atthe 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 ofthe previous
extensions of time the Floor Area Ratio and the Lot Coverage were reduced to .31 and 31%
respectively. All other development standards have been met for the Service Commercial Zone.
R:'~ 0 T~01.0106 Coleman BLDG',Staff Report.doc
2
Zoning Criteria Zoning Requires
Target Floor Area Ratio 0.30
Minimum Width 100 feet
Minimum Depth 120 feet
Minimum Street Frontage 80 feet
Yard Area Adjacent to Street 15 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet
Maximum Height 50 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 30%
Minimum Landscape Open Space 20%
Project Provides
0.31
Approximately 175 feet
Approximately 240 feet
Approximately 175 feet
35 feet
195 feet
24 feet
31%
20%
Site DesiQn
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 ddve
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.
Landscapinq
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 :~ "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). 'l'he 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 O ~)1-0106 Coleman BLDG~Staff Report.doc
3
meetings or other events. Lastly, the project improves cimulation 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 Code. 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 Provisions.
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-O106 Coleman BLOG~Staff Report.doc
4
native species of plants, no unique, rem, threatened or endangered species of plants, no
native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no ir~ication 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 (Dew~lopment 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 Report.doc
5
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
APPROVING PA01-0106
EXTENSION OF TIME
R:'~E O T~1-0106 Coleman BLOG~Staff Report.doc
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
15,467 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 1.22 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF McCABE COURT WEST OF ~IADISON 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, 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 I'~o. 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 ail
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
R:~E O T'~1-010~ Coleman BLDG~Staff Repor{.doc
7
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. 01-0105 (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 27th day of June 2001.
A'I-rEST:
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 certifythat
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:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
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 P,LAN
R:~E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG~Staff Report.doc
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
Extension)
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 Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and California
Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said for~,-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, 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 dew, loper/applicant 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~D1-0106 Coleman BLDG~Staff Report,doc
10
o
o
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.
o
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
'f't01-0106 Coleman BLDG~Staff Report.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 Temecu;a Municipa;
Code regarding the Endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat.
9. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a wdtten 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 Irricjation Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval and shall be accornpanied 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 comer 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 l:)e 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 sleel, 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 p-'irking 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 T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG~Staff Report.doc
12
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates
issued for physically handicapped pemons 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, wails, 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 T~O1-O106 Coleman BLDG~Staff Report.doc
13
32.
33.
34.
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.
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
ail 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 mad 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
wdtten clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Planning Department
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conse~¥ation 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 identi~
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.
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 ail 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 '~01-0106 Coleman BLDG~Staff Report.doc
15
· Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to
driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
· 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 Municipal Water 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~1-0106 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
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 3~01-0106 Coleman BLDG~taff Report.doc
17
'CALIFORNIA
#ISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
-SYSTEM
MONO
RiVER.~;ID E
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (gog) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-540g
CULTURAL RESO CE iRIgVIEW
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: .PR ~,- ~:.¢
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical R~ources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project nma has not been survcyed for cultural resourees and contains or is adjacent to known cultu~l
rcsouren(s). A Phase I study b recommended.
__ Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study
is reeommcnded,
A Phsc I culturzl resourco stud)'
) identified one or moro cultural resources.
-- The project ama contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, duc to thc nature of thc
projec~ or prior dim recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not
racommcoded.
A Phase I cultural reaource study (MF # ~' / ) identified no cultural rosoumes. Fuflher study is not recommended.
There is a Iow probability of cultural r~ourocs. Further study is not recommended.
~If, during construction, cultural resources at: encountered, work should be halted or diverted in thc immediate area while
a qualified ar~:hicologist evaluates thc finds and makes recommcodations.
__ Due to the arohaco[ogical sensitivity of the ama, ecflhmoving during constroction should bc monitorad by a profcssioual
arcbacologiat.
The submission of i cultural resource management report is rccommcn,Jcd following guidelines for Archaeological
Resource Management Reportz prel~nxl by thc C. alifomia Office of Historic Preservation, Pre.ver~ation Planning Bulletin
#(a), December 1989.
Phase I
Phase n
Phase II1
Phase IV
Records search ~nd field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation mcasuras for 'significant" sites.]
Mitigation IDsta recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or s combination of the two.]
Monitor ~tthmoving activities
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Easters Information Center
DAVID P. ZAPPE
C~:n~ral Managcr-Chicf
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL .
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: ~,~/~ {_L~ ,"~O/V,~
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
FE 10i 97i
By
Ladies and Gent~emen: Re: (P~ ~ - ~)~ ~:~/
The Dislfict 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 lettem or other Ilood
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the Disthct including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and
drainage facilities which could be considered a logical componantor 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 h. as not .rev. la. wed the (~ropos.ed project in .d. etail and the following checked comments do not in .any way
constitute or imply D~nc~ approval or enoorsernent of me proposed project wi~ respect to flood hazard, public nealth
anti safety or any other such issue:
t,/ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional
interest proposed.
Thi_s project in.vo!v..es D_i.strict_ Ma~ter Plar~ .facilities. The Dis~ct will accept ownem, h_i@ .of such fa.ciliti.es on.
wriEen request or me uky. ~-acilities must De constructed to uisthct standards aha u~strict plan cnecK aha
inspection will be required for District acceptance. P an check, inspection and administrative fees w I be
required.
This p.roje~t, propose, s channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
consloere~ regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such fac~l~es on written request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to DistriCt standards, and District plan check and inspection wall be
required for Disthct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
~" This project is located within the limits of the Disthct's Hc~RRI~'rP, ~,£~.K/5/~ ?A ~C.~TAg. D/~ Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees shou~be paid to the Flood Control
Districtor Citypdor to final approval of the project, or in the case of a_pamel map or subdivision prior to
recordation of the final map. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of recordation, or if
deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This proj.e.c.t ~ma,.,y require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
.P, esouroeo C,~n~'ol Board. Clearance ,'or grading, reco~ation or o~er final approval should not be given until the City
nas determ ned that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempL
If this project invo. lves a Federal. Em .e, rgem,'y Mana. ge.m. ent Age. ncy (FE.MA). mapp. ed flood plain then the City should
require me applicant to provioe all studies, calculations, p~ans ano omer inlormatiofl 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 ~y this project, the City should require the a~p. licant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California uepartment of Fish and Game and a Clean water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permiL
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:
Janua~ 7,1997
Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Depa~ b.ent
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 17 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23561-2
APN 910-200-046
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 Distdct (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCVVD and the property owner.
'If fire protection is required, 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
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
971SB:eb003/F012/FEF
C: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
PLOTPLANN0, PA964)3 lrasITrack
The Department of Enviwrmmemal Health has z,zvic'wed ~1~ Plot Plan No. PA96-0354, Fast
Track, (Development Plan) and has no objections. Saaita~y sewer ~,,a water serv/c~ may be
availablc in th!,: ~
PRIOR ~'0 davr II. AN CBTCCK,,V-o'BMI"/TAL for health clearance, the following ~ arc.
r ,i d:
3. "WUl-serve" letma fium ~ appropriate w,,,,'- a,xl sewering ageacies.
with li~ Califomi~ Unifoml Retail Food Facl3ities Law. For specific refem~.nce, please
contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022).
$. A cleazance letter lmm the Hazardous Services Ma/erials Management Branch (909) 694-
5022 will be requi_rr.d indicatilag that the pm}ec~ h~ bee~ cleared for:.
a) Uude. rg!'o~o~c~be' Ordinance#617.4.
b) ~dous Waste C,~uator Services, Ord;,,.,,~ce ii 615.3.
c) I-Iazaldous Waste Disclosure ('m accordan~ with Ozdiuance # 65 i .2).
d) Wa~,.e reduction
6. Waste R.~,ulmionBra~ (W~Z ColImio]YLEA).
OD:dr
(9O9) 275-898O
NOTE:
Any cunznt additional r~luirernmts not cowmud, eau'be applicable at time of
Building Plan l~--wi~v for final Department of Enviw,?,,,~Ud Health clearauce..
Carole Donahoe
RE: PA96-0354
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above r~ferenced 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 requimi to set a minimum ~r~ flow for the remodel or construction
of all commercial building using the procedures established in City of Temecula
Ordinances and Uniform Fh'e Code appeodix IliA. A fu~ flow of 1625 GPM for a 2 hour
duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure m,,~t be available before any combustible
material is placed on the job site.
A combinmion of on-site and off-gte super fi~ hyckants (6'x4'x2-2 1/I'), will be located
no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from m~y portion of the building as measured
along approved vehicular travelways. The r~luired fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered dvil engineer, containing a Fire Department
approval signature block, and shali conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and
minimum fu~ flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals
shall be presented to the Fire Department for sigmture.
The nxlui~d wmer system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted .by the
approprinro_ 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 impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/develol~r shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE IV[ET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a complete fu~ 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 buikting(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the tire page of the building
Insudl a supervised waterilow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to
the Fire Depa~h.ent for approval prior to installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be ins~lled on all buildings/suits. If building/suite requires
Hazardous Ma~ Reporting (M~-riai Safety Data Sheets) the ICuox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be ins~Hed. If buildiug/suites are pwtected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require 'Tamper' monitoring. Plans s~! be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
10. All exit doors shall be open,able without the use of key or special knowledge or effo~.
11.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
12.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classifY
it as an 'H" occupancy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code.
13.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private s~reets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street d/rectly in line with
fire hydrant.
14.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall paint fire lanes with
appropriate lane painting and or signs.
15.
Sln~t address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
16.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
17. Please contact the Fire Department for a f-mai inspecti°n prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding thc meaning of these conditions; shall be referred to the Fire Department
Planning and engineering section (909)693-397~.
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY DATED 2-11-97
R:\E O T~1-0106 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:
Gancral Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
PlainS Applic~onNo. PA96-0354 (Development Plan)
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Tcmecula, CA 92590
Carole Denahce, Frojex~'t planner (909) 694-6400
North side of McCab~ Court, west of Madison Avenue, in
the North Jeff.;on Business Park
Michael Coleman
cio Coldwell Breaker Advantage Consultants
27919 Front Street, Suite #101, Tcmccula, CA 92590
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commcmal)
To constract and op~xatc a 15,467 square foot commercial
and industrial btdlding
Vacant to thc east, Basics Etc. businass to thc west, vacant
portion of Calsonic Stxctch Forming business to th~ north,
and vacant to the south
Riverside Cotmty F~re Department, Riverside County
Health Deparmaent, Temecula Police DeparUnent, Eastern
Municipal Water DLstrict, Rancho California Water
District, Southern California Gas Company, Sonthern
California Edison Company, and General Telephone
Company
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving a~ least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the ehecldist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Serviens
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a siEnificant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an att~hed sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signature
Printed Name: Carole IC Donahoe
Da~e
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
1. LA_ND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan des/gnation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable g~vironmental plaus or policies
saopt~d by agencies with jurisdiction over th~ project?
c. Bc incompatible with existing land use in the ~icinit~
(Source 1, Fisure 2-1, Page 2-17)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact~ to
soils or fanul~l& or imp~ct~ from incompatible land uses)?
(Source 1, Fisore 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangemaat of an cstablished
community (including low-income or minority colmntmity)?
2. POPIJIATION AiVI) HOUSING. Would be propossh
a Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects? (Source 1, Pages 2-23 1o 2-31)
b. Induce substantial g~wth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projccf in aa undeveloped are~
or ~ion of major inffnzlructore)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6)
b. Seismic ground sh~ag?
c. Seismic ground failure, includ[ug liquefaction?
& Seiche, mmami, or volcanic
e. Landslides or mud.flows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
[] [] [] ~]
[] [] [] pc]
[] [1 [] IX]
[] [] [] IX]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] IX] [1
[1 [] [1 ['x']
[] [3 [1 IX3
[1 [1 [1 IX]
[] IX] [l []
[1 IX] [3 []
[] [3 [] IX]
[] [1 [1 IX]
[] [3 IX] [1
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
g. Subsidonce of the land?
(Source 2, Figur~ 7, Page 68)
h. Expunsive sods?
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER, Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, d~in.ge patterns, or tim
rate and amount of suffac~ rtmo~
Exposure of p~ople or propa~ to water related h~'ds
such~sfloodinff? (Soorco2, Figore 13, Paffeg$ and
Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190 )
Discharge into surfi~ waters or oth~ alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperatu~, dissolved oxTgun or
turbidity)?
cl. Changes in the amount of surface water in uny water
boc~
e. Changes in corrents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either throuflfi
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater ri:charge capability?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h. Impscts to groundwater quality?
I.
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Source 2, Page 263)
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any ~ir quality standard or contribute to ~n
existing or projected air quality violation?
(Source 3, Page 6-10 ~nd 6-11, Table 6-2)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Si~icmt
]mpa
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[3
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
s~
[]
pc]
[]
[]
[]
IX]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
IX]
[1
[]
[]
[]
No
pc]
[]
[]
[1
[]
IX3
[]
[1
[3
IS~JF~ AND SUPPORT~G INFORMATION SOURCF~
c. A/ret a/r movement, mo'~h~e or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUlATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. hcrease vehicle ~ips or traffic cong~tion?
b. l-T~rds to safe~ from design festures (c.g. sharp curves
or dangerous int~tion or incompatible uses)?
Inadequate emergency access or a~:ess to nesrby uses?
Insufficient paddng capaci~ on-site or off-site?
e. Hs~-rds or baniers for pedesiriaus or bicyclists?
£ Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
~ramponation (e.g. bus mmonts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Would the propessl
result in impact~ to:
(including but not limited to plants, tish, insects, ,nimals
andbirds)? (Source l, Page $-15, Fignre$-3)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. Locally designatcd natural communities (e.g. oak fore~
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitet (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8, ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the propossl:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
[]
Il
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
(3
(3
(]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
IX]
()
()
[1
[]
[]
()
[]
[l
[]
[1
[]
NO
[x]
[]
(]
ix'3
IX3
[)
AND b*UPPORTING INFORMATION ~OURCF~
No
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasieful aad ineiScient
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral r~oul~
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of~he Staie?
9, HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release ofhsT~ntous
subs~nces (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 healtb h~7~i or potent/al health
hazard?
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
1L 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 area~:
a. Fke protection?
b. Police pwtection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
[] [] pc] [1
Il [1 Il [xl
[] [] Ex] []
[] [] [1 pc]
[] [1 Ex] []
[] [] Ix] []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] IX] [1
[] [] IX] [1
[1 [] tx] [1
[] [] ix] []
[] [] [x] []
[] [] IX] []
[] [] [] IX]
AND SIJI'ImOR'I'IIqO INlq~RlviATION SOURCE~
Si?ifi~ No
12. U'fll~fiES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal reeult in a need for new syatoma or supplie~,
or substantial alterations to the following utilitiea:
a Power or naU~al 8as?
b. Comm,micafious systems7
¢. Local or ~egioual wate~ trcaimeut or disu'ibutiou
facilities?
d. Sew~' or septic tanks? (Soume 2, I~{l~ 39-40~
¢. Storm wat~
f. Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional wat~' supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the propusah
Affect a scenic vista or sceui¢ highway~
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
¢. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a Distu~ paleontological resources?
(Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280)
b.Distu~ archaeological r~sources?
(Source 2, Figure $6, ?age 283)
c. Affect historicalresources?
d. Have the poteutial to cause a physical change which would
e. ResUict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
[] [] [] IX]
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] pc]
[] [] [] pt]
[] [] [] IX]
[] [] [] pt]
[] [] [] IX]
[] [] [] ix]
[] [] [] ix]
[] IX] [] [1
[] [] [] pt]
[] [] [] pc]
[] [] [] pt]
[] [] [] ix]
[] [] [] pc]
ISSUE~ AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION ~OURCE~
polemidly UuI~ L~ Thru
No
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
[1 [] Ix] Il
Il [1 IX] []
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MAI~DATORY FINDINGS OF $IGI, fl~'iCANCE.
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 sell-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal I~Ommultily, I~dUC~ the llumb~r ofr~{liCt
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or elimin~
important examples of the major periods of California kisto~y
or prehistovfl
[1 [1 [3
b. Does the project have the potantial to achieve short-tema, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
[1 [] Il
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 futwe projects).
d. Does the project have environmental eiCects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly7
17. EARLIERANALYSE5. Nonr.
SOURCES
[1 [1 Il IX3
[1 [] [] [x]
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of T~mecula Genc"r al Plan Final Enviromrien~al Impact P. eport.
· ~. South Coast Air Qt~li~ Manag~nont DisUic~ CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. Review and Acceptance of Cmoteshnical Report, dated lqovember 19, 1996, by H & T S~fls Testing
5. Cultural Resource Review, Jantmvj 3, 1997, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside
6. Site Trs. ffic Analysis, January 30, 1997, RIO~ & Associates
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
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 Des~gnetion 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. IVlitigation measures approved with the EIR
will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdlotion 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 Housino
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 Commemial, 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 eil~her directly or indirectly. The project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Se~ice Commercial. The project will cause
people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its liimited 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 use
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Geoloaic 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 Cede 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
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 mudsildes 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 fiat 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 hardscapa 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 affect 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 Di,*;charge 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 then 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 chenge in the amount of surface water in any
waterbody or impact currents, or to the ccurss or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff
will occur because previcusiy 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 interceFtion 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.
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.
5.5,
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutan'ts. 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.
Transeortation/Circulation
The project will result in s less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add
congestion, According to the Site Traffic Analysis by RKJK & Associates dated January 30, 1997 'The
intersec'dons 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
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.
Bioloaical Resot,rces
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 Stephan'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.
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 port of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Fnerov and Mineral Resources
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 Depan:ment 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 expasa 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 flarumable brush, grass, or trees.
The project is in an area of existing uses and proposed Service Commercial uses. The project is
located within or proximate to a tim hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
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.
lO.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short
run). Construction machine~ 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 Iong-torm
exposure of paople 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.
1 1 .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 relo,c, ate within or to the City ~1~
Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities, No significant impa~
are anticipated as a result of this project. . ~
1 1.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 future 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 Svstems
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 facil~es. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:~.QA~4pA.c~.IE~ 2/IN97 Idb
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary
sewer systems or septic tank~. 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 significanUy 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 te 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 fron~ 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 light/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). 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
project.
14.e.
~e 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 lass 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.
A'n'ACHMENT NO. 3
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
R:'tE O '1'~1-0106 CoJeman BLDG~Staff ReporLdoc
19
City of Temecula
Planning Department''
Notice of Determination
TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office.' FROM:
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
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
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 determination.~i regarding this project:
The project ([ ] will [X] will no0 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 me,azures (IX] were [ ] were not) made a condition of the approval of the project.
A Statement of Overriding Consideration ([ ] was [X] was no0 adopted for this project.
Findings (I-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,
92590. ~)~ ,
Sign=re: Da,,-: )-//' 77-
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:
)
CAL~ORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GA_ME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minibus Impact Finding
Project Proponent:
Michael E. Coleman
C/o ffffl 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-story 15,467 square foot commercial and
industrial building on 1.22 gross acres zoned SC Service Commercial
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
1)
The Project site has been previously distmrbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site.
are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of 1
native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. There is no indication that any wildlife species exist,
or that the site aerves a~ a migration corridor.
2)
An Initial F. avironmental 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 Environmental Study dated February
11, 1997.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above f'mding and that the project will not
individ,,ally or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as def'med in Section 711.2 of the
Fish and Game Code.
Debbie lJbnoske, Planning Manager Date
R:~enning~354~=96.NOD 3/11/9'/ekd
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\E O T~1-0106 Coleman BL(3G',Staff Report.doc
20
ClTY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0106
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- June 27, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R:~E O T~31q3106 Coleman BLDG~Staff Report.doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
Project Site
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC)
Project Site
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION - SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC)
CASE NO. - PA01-0106
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
-0106 Coleman BLDG',Staff Report.doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PARCEL 17 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23561-2
P.M. 168/71-73
IN THE CITY OF TE)~ECULA, CA.
CASE NO. - PA01-0106
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
SITE PLAN
R :",E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG'~Staff Report.doc
23
CITY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO.- PA01-0106
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
R:~E O T~01-0106 Coleman BLDG~Staff Report.doc
24
CITY OF TEMECULA
ii
!
CASE NO. - PA01-0106
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
FLOOR PLAN
R:~E O '1'~01-0106 Coleman BLDG',.Staff Repo~l.doc
25
CITY OF TEMECULA
BUa-D~G
CASE NO.- PA01-0106
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 27, 2001
LANDSCAPE
R:~E O 3~01~106 Coteman BLDG~Stafl Report.doc
26
1
ITEM #4
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 COMMIS~SION 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~/inchester Road intersection
BP Business Park
LI Light Industrial
R:'~D P~2000'~00-0094 Regency,PC staff report revised design 6-27-O1 .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 Mamh, 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./lO00 s.f.) 6,798 s.f. =
Total Required Parking Spaces =
7 spaces
7 spaces
14 spaces
R:~D P~2000~00-0094 Regenc3APC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doe
2
On-site Parking Provided = 26 spaces
Standard spaces = 21
Motorcycle spaces = 2
Bicycle spaces = 1 (rack of five)
Disabled spaces = 2
ANALYSIS
Site Desi(~n
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 1:o 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 buiiding'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 F~.000~00.0094 Regenc~APC staff report revised design 627-01,doc
3
Landscaping
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 doom 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-acre 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 significant 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.
2. 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~000'~00-0094 Regen~C staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
4
3. 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 anyfish, 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 resoumes, 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',2000~:)0-0094 Regency~=C staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
5
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 20011-
R:',D P~2000~00-0094 Regenc3APC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
6
ATI'ACHMENT 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 ACFIES, 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 Ne. 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 headng 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. Findin,qs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings es 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 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 1~2000~00-0094 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 day of 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:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
CHINIAEFF, GUERRIERO,
MATHEWSON,TELESIO
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~) P',2000~00-0094 Regenc,7~,PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:',D P~2000~00-0094 Regency~C 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: 900-320-051
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 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 Resoumes Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. 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 Ci~/and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
R:~D P~2000'O0-0094 Regenc3APC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
10
o
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 bdng the landscaping into
conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest.
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 orby
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
R:~J:) 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 o! 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~2000~0-0094 Regency~3C staff report revised design 6-27-01 .doc
12
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. Landings at exterior doors shall be level except that exterior landings may have a slope not
to exceed ~,~ unit in 12 units horizontal. (2% slope) California Building Code Section
1003.3.1.6
19. Landings at doors shall not be more than ~ 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 directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining properbj 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 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. 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 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',2.000~0-0094 Regen~C staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc 13
30.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for 3ower for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
31.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be ~n 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 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 othenNise 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-sil:e fiat 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'~00-0094 Regency~OC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
14
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.
41
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.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved bythe Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private
property.
46.
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.
47.
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.
48.
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.
49.
50.
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.
51.
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.
52.
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~2000~30-0094 Regency~=C staff report revised ciesign 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 ,3f 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 fom~ of the offer shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
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 F~?.000~00-0094 Regenc3APC 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
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 er Fire Department access
mad(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 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 roads shall be an all
R:~D P~2000~00-oog4 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 clea~rance 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 s~:reets 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)
Pdor to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and .conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards,
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency 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 frontin[i 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 minimurn 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 Prew.~ntion 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 appm,val 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~2000~3-0094 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 abovegreund 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:~E) P~2.000~00-0094 Regenc~C staff report revised design 6-27-O1 .doc
19
War
March 22,2000
Denice Thomas, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
IA/AT~D Akin ~I~%A/i::D A~IAIL~.D_II ITy
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 upo,n the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water rnanagement rights, if any, to
RCWD.
'~ you have any quostions, ~o"-o c ........ ~- =,~
p ..... "'"' *'"""',-. ,gl .....
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
00\SB:mc076\F012-C I~FCF
County of Riverside
TO: C~ OF ~C~ P~O D~~T
A~: D~ ~o~ / Ro~e P~
..
1. ~e D~p~m~t of ~v~ H~ ~ ~vi~w~ th~ Plot PI~ No. PA00~0094 ~nd ~' no
obj~o~. S~t~ sewer md ~ter s~i~ my be a~able
2. P~OR TO ~ PL~ C~CK
~q~d:
a) "Willosm'~
b)
~ubmitted
letters fxom the appropriate water and seweriug agencias.
flete sea of plans for ach food establishment (to inol.ude ~ending machines) will'be
including a fixture sehedul% a finish schexiul~, and a plumbing schedule in order to
ensure ~o:hpllance with tim California Uniform R~ail Food Facilities Law. For sp~ific
teferetlce, ~lease contact Food Facili~ Plan examinm's at (909) 694-5022).
A cl~ran~ letter fi.om the Ha~rdotm'Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055
r~qu~d iSdicating tha the proj~t has bern cleared for:
· Under'formal storage tanks, Ordinan~ # 617.4.
· Haza~ous W,~te Generatox Servxces, Ordmanc # 615.3.
· Emer~ncy Respouse Plans Disclosure (m accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Wast~!rexlaetion management-
CH:dr'
(909) 955 8980
NOTE:
A letter ;ri/the Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
Plfly c~t additional requixements not coYemd, can be applicable at time of Building
P[~ review for final Department of Envixotaneutal Health Clearance.
I~)ug Thompson, I4~ardom Materials
l[~nnie Dicrkiag, Supra'vising E~LS.
I
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:'~D p~2000~0,0094 Regency~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
2O
Regency Investments, LLC
Lot 2 of Tract 28.471-(2 or F)
Statement of Operations
Re~encv 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 manufhcmring 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 lcaowledge 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 t877, Temecula, CA 92593
Tel: (909) 699-60t9 *~* Fax: (909) 699-3263
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT SITE
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 Industrial
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP Business Pa~k
CASE NO. - PAD0-0094 - Revised
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
R:\D P~2000~00-0094 Regenc~PC staff report revised design 6-27-01.doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA00-0094 - Revised
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
SITE PLAN
P,:\D P~2.000\00-0094 Regenc~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 Regency, 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, 200'1
FLOOR PLAN
f~:\D P~000\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 Pg2000\00-0094 Regenc~PC staff repor~ revised design 6-27-01.doc
26
CiTY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA00-0094 - Revised
EXHIBIT- H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:~D P~2.000~00-0094 Regency\PC staff repo~l revised design 6-27-01 .doc
27
ITEM #5 '
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 27,2001
Planning Application No. PA00-0502
(Development Plan)
Prepared By: Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitldd:
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 Comiche 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 o'[ Ynez Road south of Winchester
Road between the two mall entrances.
Site CC (Community Commercial)
Site SP-7 (Retail Commercial)
R:~D P~000~00-0502 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,{)17 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 submittal 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 Januar~ 11,2000, and resubmittals
were made April 18, and May 10, 2001. With each resubmittal, changes made to address staff's
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 staff's satisfaction, the project is being brought forward with staff recommending the project
be denied.
R:~D P~2000~00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to build and operate a full service carwash 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 ddves 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 covedng the three queuing aisles where vehicles will be vacuumed and
prepped before heading into the wash.
ANALYSIS
Site Desi(~n and Circulation
The overall site is .8§ 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 ddve 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 screenecl 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:'C) P~2000~00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
3
Parking3 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 aisle. 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 question 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 architecture 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.
Landscapinc~
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~na~e
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~O00~D0-0502 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 d~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. Stafffinds 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 pro. ject 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~2,000~)0-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff repo~l.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:~D P~2000~00-.0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-
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, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA00-0502 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 opposition to this matter;,
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearin!; and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission denied Planning Applications No. PAO0-0502;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OI-' THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in denying Planning Application No. PA00-
0502 hereby makes the following findings as required by Seclion 17.05.010.F of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
A. The proposal, a full service car wash, with detail ~ervice 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.
R:'~D P~2000~0-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
7
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 confiicts"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 27~ day of June, 2001.
Ron Guerdero, 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 27t~ day of June,
2001 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~D P~000',00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report,doc
8
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~D P~2000~00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
9
CIT~. OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 7001
VICINITY MAP
R:~D P~2000~00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
10
ClTY OFTEMECULA
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263)
ZONING MAP
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION - CC (Community Commercial)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0$02 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 200t
GENERAL PLAN
R:~D P~2000~00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
~ 11
ClTY OFTEMECULA
NOT SUBMITTED
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
SITE PLAN
R:~D P~000~00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
12
CITY OF TEMECULA
NOT SUBMITTED
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0$02 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 2001
ELEVATION MAIN BUILDING
R:~D P~2000~0-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff repo;t.doc
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
NOT SUBMITTED
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0$02 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 27, 200t
LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:~D P~2000~00-0502 Promenade Car Wash~Staff report.doc
14