HomeMy WebLinkAbout040302 PC Agenda In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
m~eting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6~.~.~. Notification 48 hours pdor 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
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
APRIL 3, 2002 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2002-007
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute: Telesio
Roll Call: Guerdero, Mathewson, OIhasso, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
1 A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1,1 Approve the Agenda of April 3, 2002
R:~LANCOMM~Agendas~002~4-3-02.doc
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of the Joint PC/CC meeting on January 29, 2002
2.2 Approve the Minutes of March 6, 2002
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 Planninq Application No. 01-0307 (Development Plan) - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0307 pursuant to Section
15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 01-0307, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT,
ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 24,t70 INDUSTRIAL/
WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON t.50 VACANT ACRES.
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ZEVO
DRIVE, WEST OF DIAZ 'ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 909-360-034
4 Plannin(~ Application No. 01-0309 (Development Plan) - Rick Rush Proiect Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0309 pursuant to Section
15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2002~4-3-02.doc
2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 01-0309, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT,
ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 16,200 INDUSTRIAL/
WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 1.09 VACANT ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED ON WINCHESTER ROAD NORTH OF
COLT COURT AND SOUTH OF ZEVO DRIVE KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-020
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting: April 17, 2002 - Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
R:~LANCOMM~Agendas~002~4-3..O2.doc
3
ITEM #2
MINUTES FROM THE
JOINT PC/CC MEETING ON
JANUARY 29, 2002
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
JANUARY 29, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at
7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 29, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of TerneCula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, and Roberts
Planning Commissioners: Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chiniaeff
Absent: Planning Commissioner: Guerriero
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Comerchere.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
No comments.
CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS
1 General Plan Update
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Receive and file the information and provide direction as appropriate.
Providing a brief overview of the staff report (of record), Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised
that the current process of updating the General Plan would be the first update since the
General Plan was adopted in 1993; and introduced Mr. John Bridges, from
Cotton/Bridges/Associates, who would present information regarding the updating procedure.
Via overheads, Mr. Bridqes presented the followin(~ data reqardinc~ the General Plan, and the
updatinq process:
· Defined a General Plan as a long-range document that guides growth and development in a
City or County, which was required per State Law;
· Specified the ten elements of the City's General Plan, some of which were required by law;
· Relayed the implementation program, which consists of daily activities, which work toward
achieving the goals and policies of the General Plan;
R:~Vlinutes\012902
1
· Noted the importance of managing and proactiveiy planning for expected growth, advising
that estab!!shed goal~, policies, and programs will guide that growth and development over
the next 10-20 years;
· Specified the process of updating the General Plan, which was an approximate 14-month
process, inclusive of community participation;
· Relayed the exploration of options for the Land Use, Housing, and Circulation elements,
specifically noting the efforts aimed towards improving transportation;
· Advised that an EIR would be prepared in association with the General Plan Update.
· Elaborated on the tentative schedule for this particular update, noting the various tasks to be
completed, and the meeting schedule (4-Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meetings,
3-Community Workshops, 5-Citizens Advisory Meetings);
· For informational purposes, noted that via the City's website, information would be able to
be attained regarding this evolving updated General Plan document during this process;
· Relayed that each Councilmember and Planning Commissioner had received a notebook for
the purpose of keeping all the General Plan update information together, requesting that
Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners write any comments regarding the
documents in the space provided, advising that feedback would be extremely helpful in the
early stages of the program; and
· Read the Preliminary Draft Vision for the Future (per agenda material), noting the process of
developing this document, which involved obtaining aid from the Community Advisory
Committee (CAC) regarding priorities; and requested input with respect to the vision
statement, which could be provided either tonight or via notes forwarded at a future point.
In res~)onse to the readinq of the Draft Vision Statement, the Commissioners and
Councilmembers offered the followincl comments:
· Chairman Chiniaeff queried the inclusion of language, which stated promoting agricultural
industries, noting that preserving a large amount of agriculture land within the City
boundaries would be difficult.
· With respect to Village Centers, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that although this concept had
been implemented in the original General Plan, it was his opinion that this was a goal, which
had not been truly realized.
· Regarding the phrase the local circulation meets the needs of Temecula residents,
Councilman Pratt expressed his disagreement with this statement, while opining that there
were avenues that had not been utilized which could address this issue effectively.
· Providing clarification, Commissioner Mathewson noted that although this document was a
compilation of the Vision Principles that were prioritized at the Community Advisory
Committee (CAC), that the CAC had not had an opportunity to review this document in this
form, advising that he had similar concerns regarding agriculture and the Village Center as
expressed by Chairman Chiniaeff.
· Mayor Pro Tern Stone recommended that there be a stronger emphasis on recreational
facilities and programs developed to attract all age groups within the City of Temecula.
· With respect to the reference to higher education, Commissioner Olhasso advised that
attracting higher education to this community would require an aggressive pursuit; relayed
that she noticed the omission of a reference to the relationship of the City with the
surrounding region, and/or Temecula's significant role in the State of California; and due to
the importance of economic factors, recommended that there be a strong economist working
with the development of the revised General Plan.
In response, Mr. Bridges noted that Mr. Stan Hoffman was the economist working with the
consultants on this document.
· Councilman Naggar recommended that there be a stronger emphasis on job creation,
advising that in 2020 the goal should be for the City of Temecula to be a place where one
R:~linutes\012902
2
can live, work, go to school, and play; specifically recommended that there be additional
emphasis regarding the trails system, and open space; and concurred with Commissioner
OIhasso with respect to the importance of a quality higher education facility.
· Councilman Comerchero relayed a desire for the concept of Culture and Cultural Arts to be
elevated, specifically recommending that there be mention of an aim towards expansion of
museums, and art in public places.
· Commenting with regard to the economic impetus of the City, Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted
the importance of developing the necessary infrastructure network in order to attract high
end industries; and advised that another vital element impacting the economics of the City
would be air transportation (i.e., the French Valley Airport, and the future public use of
March Air Force Base.)
· Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that there be an emphasis on the creation of j.obs,
specifically with respect to the process of acquiring new businesses.
· Concurring with Commissioner Olhasso's comments, Councilman Comerchero
recommended that the elements that business Iocators are seeking be identified (not
necessarily in the vision statement) in order to ensure that these particular elements are
being addressed in the City.
For Mayor Roberts, Mr. Bridges advised that while the 2r~ Joint City Council/Planning
Commission meeting should be scheduled as soon as possible, that postponing the meeting
from the month of February to Mamh would not be critical.
For informational purposes, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that at the CAC Meeting,
Mr. Greg Morrison had been appointed as Chairman of the Committee, and Mr. Chuck
Washington as Vice Chair; and relayed that both Chairman Morrison and Committee Member
Connerton were present at tonight's meeting.
Senior Planner Hoqan provided a presentation reoardincl the Housincl Element Update, as
follows:
· Noted that while other elements included in the General Plan were long-term documents
regarding future plans, that the Housing Element was more of a midterm-housing program
of five to seven years.
· As part of this process, relayed that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment identified for
cities and counties a specified required number of housing units in various income
categories, which typically served as a precursor for the Housing Element Update.
· In order to improve the coordination of the update of the General Plan and the Housing
Element, advised that the City was utilizing the same consultants for both documents.
· Relayed that at this time, staff and the consultants have developed a Draft Housing Element
which assessed the special needs, and addressed the Housing Program, and was
subsequently submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HOD); and advised that in response to the submittal, HCD has requested the City to
demonstrate that Temecula has sufficient property zoned at appropriate densities to
accommodate the City's share of the regional housing needs for all income groups.
· For State certification of the Housing Element, noted the necessity to demonstrate
appropriate provisions for higher densities in the designated high-density zones, as well as
adding additional acres for this purpose, relaying the challenge associated with
accomplishing this due to the lack of a plethora of vacant land.
Referencing the current litigation matters between the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) and various cities due to the determined allocation of each city's fair
R:Wlinutes\012902
3
share of affordable housing, Councilman Naggar queried how this issue would impact the City
of Temecula's Housing Element's and General Plan's updating processes.
in response, Senior Planner Hogan noted that while it was difficult to predict the outcome of the
litigation that there could be some reduction in the amount of high-density requirements; and
opined that with diligent efforts (noting the "can do" attitude the City has always had) it was
possible to meet the requirements of the HCD, advising that the upcoming Villages of Old Town
Project would aid in satisfying a portion of the high density requirements, additionally noting that
there may be some areas in the City appropriate for consideration of transitioning land uses.
Further commenting, Assistant City Attorney Curley concurred that the current litigation could
result in a change in the allocations (of required high density areas), or not, advising that it
would not be advantageous for the City to wait for this determination; noted that since HCD has
provided comments, the most prudent avenue for the City processing through certification would
be to address these remarks; and advised that if the litigation were to result in a change, there
could be amendments made at that time.
Addressing the density issue, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that while these required
allocations would provide a challenge, that there were certain shopping centers in the City which
potentially could provide opportunities for mixed uses which would aid in addressing the high
density concerns; and noted that there were significant negative impacts for a city if the Housing
Element were not certified (i.e., imposed sanctions, potentially financial sanctions).
Reiterating that the update process included investigating Land Use, Housing, and Circulation
alternatives, Mr. Bridges noted that there would be efforts to aid the City in identifying areas
feasible for increasing the density in order to fulfill housing element obligations, relaying that the
high density zones would be limited to meeting these requirements, acknowledging the
concerns regarding an abundance of high density areas in the community; and advised that the
consultants would additionally provide economic information regarding satisfying the
requirements of HCD.
For Councilman Comemhero, Senior Planner Hogan advised that the information provided in
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment was categorized by household income, and not by
housing type or density, adding that while the City of Temecula relates more to the San Diego
housing market than that of Riverside County, it was relayed that this could not be taken into
consideration due to San Diego being a different county as well as having a different council of
governments.
In response to Senior Planner Hogan's comments, Commissioner OIhasso suggested that the
housing market issue be addressed legislatively.
Mr. Bridges relayed that most communities have more difficulty finding adequate land for the
Iow, and very Iow-income categories, noting that in these two categories there would be a need
to designate land (with a high enough density to make if affordable) for 1788 of these type units,
advising that programs could be put in place to subsidize the units to bring these costs down;
and additionally noted that with the land costs in Temecula it was difficult to demonstrate that at
a market rate, Iow income units could be build at 20 units, or less, per acre.
In light of his recent trip to New Jersey, Councilman Pratt relayed that in various states
(including New Jersey), cities purchase homes that are in foreclosure, subsequently utilizing
these units for affordable housing, which reduced the costs associated with the provision.
R:~Vlinutes~012902
4
In response~to Council comments, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that density issues would be
addressed at this time, noting that at the time of the next housing element cycle, or the
following, the City's vacant land would be extremely limited.
Noting that while a City does get some credit for past performance, Mr. Bridges relayed that the
Regional Housing Need's numbers reflects requirements for new construction, advising that the
majority of cities have more difficulty meeting these particular requirements.
Commissioner Olhasso queried whether senior housing qualified as Iow-income housing, noting
that she had made some recommendations to staff regarding potential locations for senior
housing, which would revitalize various shopping centers (as previously indicated by Deputy
City Manager Thornhill). In response, Mr. Bridges confirmed that senior housing qualified for
Iow-income housing; and additionally confirmed, for Commissioner Mathewson, that all the Iow-
income housing could not be senior housing, advising that the housing element which includes
a housing needs assessment will determine the future housing needs in the community over the
next five years, which will aid in establishing the demand for senior housing, ergo what portion
of the new units could be designated for senior housing.
Commissioner Olhasso provided additional information regarding the various cites' suit against
SCAG and the rationale for pursuing litigation (i.e., the disproportionate requirements for Iow-
income housing in Riverside County vs. other counties); and recommended that the City get
involved with the legislative arm of the Inland Empire Economics Partnership (IEEP). Chairman
Chiniaeff noting that as early as the 1970's the requirements for Riverside County were not
balanced, advising that at that time some of the older communities were pushing the demand
for Iow-income housing out to the Inland Empire.
With respect to the language in the Vision for the Future document, where it stated Diverse
housing options are available to meet the needs of all segments of the community, while
protecting the character and value of single-family neighborhoods, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed
that this phraseology clarifies the conflict, concurring that the challenge for this provision would
be a great one.
For Commissioner Olhasso, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that he would provide the
Planning Commission an update regarding the status of the litigation with SCAG.
Updating the City Council and the Planning Commission, Mr. Bridges relayed that the 2"d
Community Workshop will be held in March at which time Land Use, Circulation, and Housing
Alternatives would be explored (Mayor Roberts recommending that this meeting be scheduled
on an evening or Saturday in order to better accommodate the working schedules of the
residents); that the 3'~ Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting would be held on
^pril 1st from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. at City Hall in the Main Conference room at which time Land
Use, Circulation, and Housing Alternatives would be discussed; that the 4t~ CAC Meeting would
be held on April 22n~ from 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. with the same topic of discussion; that the 5t~
CAC Meeting would be held on May 6t~ from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. at which time the discussion
topic would be Selection of Preferred Land Use, Circulation and Housing Alternatives; and that
the 3'~ City Council/Planning Commission Joint Workshop would be held in May whereby
the subject of discussion would be Selection of Preferred Land Use, Circulation, and Housing
Alternatives.
R:~linutes~012902
5
At this time the I~ublic was invited to comment
Mr. Greg Morrison, 31045 Oak Hill Ddve, Chairman of the CAC, opined that this particular
committee was comprised of excellent appointees, noting the diligent efforts of this group of
individuals, commending the City Council for its appointments; relayed his disappointment that
the CAC was not able to review the Draft Vision Statement documents pdor to City Council
presentation, advising that the concerns of the City Council/Planning Commission were the
same as those that have been expressed by the Committee Members; and requested that staff
have the CAC review documents such as this in the future in order for the Committee to fulfill its
function; and noted that the Committee has additionally discussed reviewing the Housing
Element in conjunction with the General Plan.
Commending the assiduous efforts of the CAC, Councilman Naggar applauded the members
who serve on this committee.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:20 P.M., Mayor Roberts formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on Tuesday, Februarv t2, 2002, 7:00 P.M.,
and to the next Planning Commission regular meeting on Wednesday, February 6, 2002, 6:00
P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Debbie Ubnoske,
Chairman Director of Planning
R:~Vlinutes\012902
6
MINUTES FROM
MARCH 6, 2002
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 6, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Olhasso.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson,~ Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Fire Battalion Chief Ahmad,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Harris,
Associate Planner Papp,
Assistant Planner Preisendanz, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Ronald Knowles, 39675 Cantrell Road, questioned the process of agenda items,
specifically relaying his confusion regarding Agenda No. 5 (on the March 6, 2002,
Agenda), noting that this item had been considered by the Planning Commission
previously, forwarded to the City Council with a Planning Commission recommendation
for denial, and was now, once again, before the Planning Commission for consideration.
In response to Mr. Knowles, Assistant City Attorney Curiey clarified that there are two
types of actions that the Planning Commission has jurisdiction over, listed as follows: 1)
with certain items the Planning Commission has final authority, unless the matter is
appealed to the City Council, and 2) with other items, the Planning Commission reviews
the matter and makes a recommendation to the City Council where the final action will
be taken, advising that with these particular issues, the City Council will take into
consideration the Planning Commission's and staff's recommendations prior to taking
action; with respect to Agenda Item No. 5 on tonight's agenda, relayed that with this item
the City Council determined to send the matter back to the Planning Commission for
further deliberation, advising that at a future date the Planning Commission's second
recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration along with
staff's recommendation; and in response to Mr. Knowles' question, noted that typically
with an ordinance amendment item there are no direct mailings. Director of Planning
Ubnoske further clarifying that with this type of issue (Development Code Amendment),
the agenda item is placed in the newspaper and the sites are posted; and noted that if it
was Mr. Knowles' desire to be contacted with information regarding when Agenda Item
No. 5 would be considered by the City Council, that he could let her or Senior Planner
Hazen know, and he would be provided this information.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 6, 2002.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of February 20, 2002.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3 Planninc~ Application No. 01-0485 (Development Plan) - Rolfe Preisendanz,
Assistant Planner - Continued from February 20, 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0485 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California. Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-004
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0485, DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
OF A 10,926 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE I RETAIL
BUILDING ON t.14 VACANT ACRES. GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF DARTOLO ROAD
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-080-014
Via overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz specified the revisions to this particular
project plan since the item was continued from the February 20, 2002 Planning
Commission meeting, highlighting the addition of a cultured stone veneer wainscoting
(which will wrap around the entire building), the recessed windows on the front element,
and the raising of the parapet; noted the detail of the cornice molding on the parapet, as
well as on the building which will add visual interest; and specified the trees located on
the adjacent property which will soften the building frontage.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that although the
trees on the west elevation (located on the adjacent property) were not shown on the
drawings at the February 20, 2002, hearing that the trees currently exist at this location.
Mr. Richard Finkel, architect representing the applicant, for Commissioner Guerriero,
noted that the material board was accurate, specifying that the roof tile would be
consistent with the adjacent medical building; briefly noted the revisions in the project
implemented due to the Planning Commission's desire for the architectural design to be
enhanced; clarified that the three-dimensional images of the project were provided to
demonstrate massing and the variations in the roof and walls, and were not
representative of the final landscaping and color plans.
Chairman Chiniaeff thanked Mr. Finkel for the applicant's efforts in revising the
architectural plan in order to address the Planning Commission's concerns.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; to approve the
project plan, as per the presented revised design plan; to adopt a Notice of Exemption
for Planning Application No. 01-0485; and to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
2002-004. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
4 Planninc~ Application No. 01-0586 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan) -
Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt an Addendum to a previously approved Negative Declaration;
4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0586, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT & DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT,
ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 6,489 SQUARE FOOT
NINE (9) CLASSROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
CHURCH FACILITY IN TWO (2) PHASES. THE 5.49-
ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT 42690 MARGARITA
ROAD, EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, NORTH OF
RANCHO VISTA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 954-020-010
By way of overheads, Associate Planner Harris provided an overview of the project (of
record), noting the proposed addition to an existing church facility encompassing a 6,489
square foot nine-classroom addition (to be utilized for Sunday school instruction) which
would be constructed in two phases; relayed the project site designation (Public
Institutional Facilities), and zoning (Margarita Village Specific Plan), and the surrounding
uses; provided a history of the development at the site, noting that the actual sanctuary
has not yet been constructed and is not expected to be developed for five years;
specified that Phase I would include four classrooms, and a restroom facility and was
anticipated to be commenced in the Spring of 2002, and that Phase II would include five
classrooms and was anticipated to be commenced in the Spring of 2003; noted that the
architectural design will be consistent with the existing finishes, colors, and materials;
relayed that the proposed tower element at the southern end of the building would match
the existing tower element; provided additional information regarding the existing parking
lot provisions (158 parking spaces) which the project was conditioned to install for
Phases I, II, and III of the 1993 project plan of which only Phases I, and II had been
constructed; noted that it was not anticipated that this project would generate additional
traffic; with respect to the landscaping, advised that the four missing street trees (liquid
amber trees) along Margarita Road would be installed as well as 16 pine trees (required
per the Margarita Village Specific Plan) which were never planted; with respect to
Condition No. 53 (which required a secondary access) noted that the applicant has been
working with Fire Department staff regarding this condition, advising that upon further
investigation the Fire Department staff has agreed that this condition could be deleted.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
relayed that Condition No. 29 (regarding the requirement for a geological report to be
prepared) was most likely included as a standard condition, advising that if the report
was not necessary the applicant would not be required to prepare it.
Mr. Rumansoff, architect representing the applicant, noted the efforts with the applicant
and staff regarding the development of this project plan, specifying the elements of the
project which would be consistent with the existing facility; and relayed that the
additional pine trees installed on the slope would aid in providing a pleasing streetscape.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
sta~s recommendation, subject to the deletion of Condition No. 53. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner OIhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
5 Plannina Aoolication No. 01-0566 (Development Code Amendment) - Dave Ho(3an,
Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO, 2002-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING TITLE t7 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING THE STANDARDS FOR
SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS (PLANNING
APPLICATION 01-0566)
Senior Planner Hogan introduced newly hired staff member Associate Planner Papp
who would present the Development Code Amendment proposal. In response, the
Planning Commission welcomed him aboard.
Associate Planner Papp provided the staff report (per agenda material), noting that the
proposed amendment was for the purpose of increasing the allowable size of second
dwelling units to 2,000 square feet; relayed that the Planning Commission had
considered this item on December 5, 2001, and forwarded a recommendation for denial
of the amendment to the City Council, that subsequently the City Council (on December
11, 2001) deliberated and there was a general consensus that increasing the allowable
size of second dwelling units may be appropriate in certain circumstances, and that the
City Council then took action (with a 4/1) vote) for the Planning Commission to further
deliberate regarding this matter, and subsequently the item was sent back to the
Planning Commission for consideration; advised that based on staff's additional
investigation the following data was revealed: 1 ) that most of the cities which have
adopted second dwelling unit ordinances have followed suit with the State and kept the
maximum size at 1,200 square feet, and 2) that the City of Moreno Valley and the
County of Riverside allow larger second units, as well as vadous cities outside of the
County of Riverside, ergo a precedent has already been established; noted that the table
on page 2 of the staff report displays a theoretical maximum number of secondary
dwelling units (by unit size) which could be constructed in the City of Temecula based on
existing lot coverage criteria in the Development Code; relayed concepts for reducing
the number of secondary dwelling units, as follows: 1) solely allowing the units larger
than 1,200 square feet to be constructed on lots one acre in size, or greater, 2)limiting
the maximum size of the second dwelling unit to a size equal to 75% of the primary unit,
and/or 3) requiring a Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for secondary dwelling units
proposed over 1,200 square feet; via maps, indicated the parcels in the City which were
one acre in size, or larger; advised that staff recommended that approval of secondary
dwelling units larger than 1,200 square feet should only be considered on lots one acre
in size or larger, and that approval be obtained via a Minor CUP to ensure that there are
no blanket approvals for larger second dwellings; specified the performance criteria
which will be included in the Development Code (as denoted on page 3 of the staff
report); relayed the proposed seven findings which would be mandatory for the Planning
Director to make for all secondary dwelling units proposed in excess of 1,200 square
feet; and for clarification, noted the following corrections: that on the table denoted on
page 11 of the staff report, at the second entry line, the square footage for the secondary
dwelling units should read 1,201 square feet to 2000 square feet in lieu of 1,200 square
feet to 2000 square feet, that on page 12 of the staff report, in Section M., Subsection
l.x., the last three sentences be stricken, beginning with the phrase "Permitted uses,"
and that in Section M., Subsection 2., in the last line of the first paragraph, that the
language after the word "section" be deleted.
For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Papp clarified when Section M.,
Subsection 1 .x. would be applicable (which required an additional access for emergency
vehicles if the second unit was placed more than 150 feet away from a public right-of-
way.)
Mr. Ronald Knowles, 39675 Cantrell Road, noted his oppostion to the proposed
amendment; with respect to the few individuals who have already constructed second
units over 1200 square feet, advised that these residents should have checked the Code
prior to construction, and was opposed to modifying the Code to address these few
individuals concerns; and relayed concern with respect to the negative impacts if this
amendment is passed, in particular regarding increased densities, increased traffic, and
decreased property values.
Noting that the current allowable 1200 square foot size for secondary dwelling units
would be adequate, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that he would not be in favor of
amending the Code.
Concurring that a 1200 square foot secondary dwelling unit would be ample space for
caregivers, or elderly family members, Commissioner Mathewson opined that increasing
the allowable size to 2,000 square feet would create significant negative impacts; and
relayed that his position has not changed on this issue.
In light of potential traffic and alternate negative impacts, Commissioner Olhasso
advised that she was not in favor of increasing the allowable size of secondary dwelling
units; and noted that she would not be opposed to the secondary units being utilized for
business of a home occupation (referencing the restriction denoted on page 3 of the staff
report.)
In response to Commissioner Olhasso's comments and State legislature regarding this
matter, Assistant City Attorney Curiey relayed uncertainty that the secondary dwelling
units could be restricted from conducting business or home occupations.
Concurring with previously expressed comments, Commissioner Telesio relayed that
after additional exploration of this issue he was still opposed to increasing the allowable
size of secondary dwelling units; and noted the potential negative impacts on the
adjacent neighbors if the secondary dwelling unit could be 2,000 square feet.
For clarification and in response to Mr. Knowles' comments, Chairman Chiniaeff advised
that the maximum number of potential second units which could be constructed in the
City of Temecula would not change whether or not this amendment was approved, but
that the amendment addressed allowing units larger than 1,200 square feet; noted that
with the revision, one-acre site property owners within the Meadowview development
could construct a secondary dwelling unit of 2,000 square feet, advising that this could
create a negative impact while on a threee-acre lot, or larger, the impacts would be less
significant (Senior Planner Hogan noting that there were only approximately 10 lots in
the Meadowview development that were one acre, or larger); and relayed that
determining an appropriate criteria as to what size secondary dwelling unit would be
suitable for a certain sized parcels would be difficult, advising that it would be his
preference to leave the Code, as is.
In light of comments expressed regarding a concern with respect to the traffic impacts
associated with this issue, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that there has
been no finding of any significant traffic impact that would be created by second units. In
response, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that from his own experience, when
rentals were utilized for student housing that a four bedroom unit could have 8-10
students residing in one house with a constant of 8-10 cars with potentially 20-30
vehicles parked on the neighborhood streets on weekends, opining that this would
create a significant negative impact.
For informational purposes, Commissioner Olhasso opined that the numerical statistical
data in the staff report was not helpful for this particular type of proposal.
MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to recommend that
the City Council deny approval of the proposed Development Code Amendment. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriere and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
A. Commissioner Olhasso reiterated the importance of con'elating the General Plan
with the Economic Development Strategy and Economic Report.
B. Updating the Planning Commission, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
relayed that the signals on Rancho California Road are linked but that the
coordination has not been completed, advising that this was a priority project,
and efforts were being made to address this issue at this time.
For informational purposes, Assistant City Attorney Curley introduced one on his
colleagues from the Brea Law Office who was in the audience, Ms. Carrie Ahn.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that on the date of the next scheduled
meeting, most of the Planning Commissioners would be at the conference, and
after additional discussion it was determined to adjourn this meeting to the April
3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:20 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjoumed this meeting to the next reQular
meeting to be held on Wednesday, AI3ril 3, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Debbie Ubnoske,
Chairman Director of Planning
R:PlanC~nm/mirl~tes~30602 8
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 3, 2002
Planning Application No. 01-0307 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0307 pursuant to Section
15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-._
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0307, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND
OPERATE A 24,170 INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON
1.50 VACANT ACRES. GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF ZEVO DRIVE, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-034
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Don Mosco Builders
PROPOSAL: A proposal to design, construct and operate a 24,170
square foot industrial/warehouse building.
LOCATION: South side of Zevo Drive, approximately 2,700 feet west of
Diaz Road
EXISTING ZONING: Light Industrial (LI)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Light Industrial (LI)
South: Light Industrial (LI)
East: Light Industrial (LI)
West: Light Industrial (LI)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant
South: Vacant/Industrial Building
East: Warehouse Building
West: Industrial Building
R:~D P~20OI\01-0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Rcpo~ and COA$.doc
1
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Lot area (net) 1.50 acres
Footprint: 22,670 square feet
Building square footage: 24,170 square feet
Building height: 30'-0"
Landscaped area: 13,050 square feet (20%)
Parking required: 41 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, and 1
motorcycle
Parking provided: 42 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, and 1
motorcycle
Lot coverage: 35%
Floor area ratio: .38
BACKGROUND
The applicant submitted a Development Plan application on June 22, 2001. The application was
subsequently deemed incomplete for processing on July 19, 2001. A Development Review
Committee meeting was held on October 2, 2001. Staff expressed a variety of architectural and site
plan concerns to the applicant at the meeting.
Architectural concerns included the lack of building indentations and architectural details, an under
accentuated and defined main building entry, minimal use of siding materials and lack of variety in
building colors. Site plan concerns included the lack of pedestrian sidewalks between the building
and parking areas, and non-existent screening of loading docks and overhead doors from Zevo
Drive. In addition, staff expressed concern about the lack of significant landscaping at the main
building entrance.
In the months since the October 2nd DRC meeting, several revised plans have been submitted; and
while staff's concerns have not been completely alleviated, the plans do meet the minimum
standards required for approval. The applicant has been reluctant to make further changes to the
plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story 22,670 square foot industrial/warehouse building
including a 1,500 square foot office area. A future 1,500 square foot second-story office mezzanine
is also proposed. The building is approximately 100 feet wide and 247 feet long, and will be sited
along the southern property line, perpendicular to Zevo Drive (and oriented to face north). The
building will have a 62-foot front setback from the Zevo Drive right-of-way. Within that setback there
will be a 20 foot-wide landscape planter along Zevo Drive and a row of trees along the front building
R:'~D P~.00I~01-0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc
2
wall face. In addition, a six-foot tall screen wall will be provided perpendicular to Zevo Drive on the
east side of the building to provide additional screening of loading doors.
Access/Circulation
Access to the site will be from a single driveway off Zevo Drive. Based on the proposed uses, the
site is required to provide 41 parking spaces and the site plan shows 42 spaces to be provided.
Parking rows will be located along the north and east sides of the building. Two motorcycle spaces
and six bicycle racks will also be provided onsite.
Building Design
The spec building is being constructed to provide for 21,170 square feet of warehouse or
manufacturing space. A single entry will be accessed at the northeast corner of the building. In
addition, four separate roll-up doors will be accessed from the east side of the building.
The proposed building will be constructed of tilt-up concrete with a plain painted finish. The front of
the building features a recessed aluminum storefront with green reflective glass. A sandblasted
trellis structure will project out from the storefront to provide a defined element to complement the
building entrance. A recessed panel will be incorporated into the northern building elevation with
three separate building offsets along the eastern elevation all serving to provide building articulation.
Several windows with green reflective glass will be utilized along the northern and eastern building
elevations.
The majority of the building's concrete panels will be painted "Caisson". A panel along the east and
north sides will be painted "Soloman Sand" to provide a complementary contrast. In addition, a
three-quarter inch recessed, five and one-half inch wide horizontal painted detail line will be
provided at the top and mid-section of the north and east building elevations along with three-quarter
inch recessed painted squares. A material sample board provided with the application shows the
proposed colors/materials.
Landscaping
The site is required to have a minimum of 20% landscape coverage and 20% will be provided. The
plan shows a 20-foot wide planter along the Zevo Drive frontage, consisting of six liquid amber
trees, fern pines and assorted shrubbery. Within the parking area along the eastern property line,
minimum five-foot wide planters (exclusive of parking overhang) will be planted with 24~inch box fern
pines, london plane trees and assorted shrubbery. A 36-inch box, multi-trunk crepe myrtle tree and
three 24-inch box fern pines will frame the walkway leading to the building's main entrance. A
seven-foot wide landscape planter will be planted along the rear (southern) property line with six
Canary Island Pine trees and assorted shrubbery to serve as a buffer.
ANALYSIS
Environmental DeterminatiOn
The project is exempt from environmental review based on Section 15332 (In-Fill Development
Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act and there are no potentially significant
environmental constraints on the site. The project qualifies for an infill development exemption
because the project is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning regulations; is
located on a site within the city limits which is served by all utilities; and is less than 5 acres in area.
R:'~D 1~2001~01-0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Rcpon and COAs.d~c
3
Site Plan
The project conforms to all of the development regulations of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district.
The building setbacks exceed the minimum requirements of the Development Code, including the
western interior side-yard setback, which is permitted to have a zero setback. The proposed 35% lot
coverage is below the maximum permitted lot coverage of 40%, and the .38 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
is below the maximum permitted FAR of .40 for the Light Industrial district. The plan also exceeds
the minimum number of required parking spaces, and the distribution of the parking is functional and
accessible to all areas of the building entry points.
Access and Circulation
The Public Works Department has analyzed the projected traffic impact of the project and
determined that the impacts are consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the
General Plan EIR. The Fire Department has also reviewed the plan and determined that there is
proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site.
Building Design
The building design is consistent with the minimum requirements of the Development Code, and
Design Guidelines and is consistent with adjacent industrial buildings. The variations in building
form and colors will present a visual interest from the streets and will maintain a balance of scale,
form and proportion with the surrounding area. Staff had requested that a variety of siding materials
such as tile, masonry or stone be incorporated into the building architecture so as to provide interest
and break-up building wall expanses. However, the applicant was reluctant to incorporate such
materials.
Landscaping
The landscape plan conforms to the minimum landscape requirements of the Development Code
and Design Guidelines, and the City's consulting landscape architect recommends approval of the
plan. Conditions of approval have also been added which require a one-year landscape
maintenance bond to be submitted prior to occupancy (Condition # 19); and that the location of the
parking lot lighting fixtures not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees
(Condition # 14).
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and
conforms with all of the applicable development regulations. Staff recommends approval of the
Development Plan with the attached conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F)
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan and with all applicable
requirements of state law and other City ordinances. The plan to develop a 24,170 square
foot warehouse/industrial building is consistent with the Light Industrial (LI) policies and
development regulations. The proposed plan incorporates architectural and landscape
designs, which will achieve the City's General Plan Community Design Goal #2, "Design
excellence in site planning, amhitectura, and landscape architecture in new development".
2. The overall development of the land is designed fo~' the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare. The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform
R:~D P~2001\0t -0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COPs.doc
4
Building Code, and all construction will be inspected by City staff prior to occupancy. The
Fire Department staff has also found that the site design will provide adequate emergency
access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. - 02- - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
2. Exhibits- Blue Page 20
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D, Site Plan
E. Grading Plan
F, Building Elevations
G. Floor Plan
H. Landscape Plan
R:~D t~2001\01 ~1307 mosco lot 34~Staff Repor~ and COAs.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
R:~D P~2001\01-0307 mos¢o lot 34~S~aff Report and COAs.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0307, DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND
OPERATE A 24,170 INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON
1.50 VACANT ACRES. GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF ZEVO DRIVE, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-034
WHEREAS, Don Mosco Builders, filed Planning Application No. PA01-0307 Development
Plan "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 a 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
April 3, 2002, 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 recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon
the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
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 the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 176.05.01 OF of the Temecula Municipal Code:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan and with all applicable
requirements of state law and other City ordinances. The plan to develop a 24,170 square
foot warehouse/industria! building is consistent with the Light Industrial (LI) policies and
development regulations. The proposed plan incorporates amhitectural and landscape
designs, which will achieve the City's General Plan Community Design Goal #2, "Design
excellence in site planning, architecture, and landscape architecture in new development ".
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare. The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform
Building Code, and all construction will be inspected by City staff prior to occupancy. The
Fire Department staff has also found that the site design will provide adequate emergency
access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site.
R:~I) P~2001~01-0307 mosco lot 34\Staff Report and COAs.doc
7
Section3. Environmental Compliance. The project will have no significant
environmental impacts and has been found to be categorically exempt, Pursuant to Section 15332
class 32 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request to develop a 24,170 square foot
warehouse/industrial building set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 3rd day of April 2002.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 02-__was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of April, 2002, bythe following vote of the
Commission:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:XD PL2001 X014)307 mosco lot 34XStaff Report and COAs.doc
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RSD PX2001\014}307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc
I
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA01-0307 Development Plan
Project Description: Planning Application to construct, establish
and operate a 24,170 square foot
warehouse/industrial building on 1.50 acres of
vacant land.
Development Impact Fee Category: The Development Impact Fee for the project
will be Business Park/Industrial
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-360-034
Approval Date: April 3, 2002
Expiration Date: April 3, 2004
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-
Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108lb) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not
delivered to the Community Development Department o Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
General Requirements
2. The 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.
3. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or
proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to
be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
4. All conditions shall be' complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
Development Plan.
5. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this development plan.
6. 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.
7. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), E (Grading Plan), F (Building Elevation), G (Floor Plan), H (Landscape Plan),
and I (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development
Department- Planning Division.
8. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
9. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed
below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall. A roof top equipment plan, including
equipment model numbers and cross-sections shall be submitted for review and approval
prior to submittal of building plans.
10. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and with Exhibit 'T' (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
Primary wall exterior: Behr paint #3A15-3 "Caisson"
Behr paint #3A15-4 "Soloman Sand"
Exterior Accent Behr paint #3A15-5
Building Glazing Azurelite Green Reflective (Downey Glass)
11. The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
12. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
13. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color
and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored
architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on
the photographic prints.
14. The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department which
meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance.
The parking lot Fight standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the
growth potential of the parking lot trees.
15. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department.
R:\D P~001~I ~}307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COAs,doc
It
16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall show temporary
irrigation and seeding for the Phase lB area. 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 Building Occupancy
19. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department
for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing
and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
20. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
21. 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.
22. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
23. 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.
24. 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.
R:'O P~2001\01-0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc
12
25. 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.
26. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address
special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
27. 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 studyshail 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.
28. 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.
29. 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 cf Public Works
c. Southern California Edison
d. Verizon
30. 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.
31. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
32. 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.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
33. 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.
34. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801,802 and 803.
RAD P~2001\01-0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc
13
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400, 401and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
g. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
35. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed
by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City
Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. The Developer shall record a written offer to partici'pate in, and waive all rights to object to
the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass
Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
39. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Department of Public Works
40. 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.
41. 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
42. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
43. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-I. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2125 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 2350 GPM for a
total fire flow of 4475 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CF(; 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
R:~,D P~001~014)307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc
14
44. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A~III-B-1. A minimum of 5 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-
site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and
adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 300 feet apart, at each intersection and
shall be located no more than 180 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
45. 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)
46. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
47. 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 sudace for
80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
48. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (
CFC sec 902)
49, Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6)inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
50. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
51. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
52. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
53. 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)
54. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a
R:\D PX?.001~01-0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc ·
I$
contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
55. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
56. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10)
57. 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)
58. 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)
59. 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.
80. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81)
61. Prior to the issuance of a Cedificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both
the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
Special Conditions
62. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall
include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block
walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A)
63. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and ·
to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life
safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA - 13, 24, 72 and 231-C.
64. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the
RAD P~2.00 I\0l q)307 mosco lot 34',Sta ff Report and COAs.dcc
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention
for approval.
65. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
66. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
67. All perimeter landscaping and parkways shall be maintained by the property owner or private
maintenance association.
68. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
69. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure
area.
BUILDING AND SAFETY
70. 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.
71. 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 street lights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
72. 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.
73. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
74. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
75. 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)
76. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
77. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
R:XD P~2001\01-0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc
17
78. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
79. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
80. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of extedor lighting, fire
alarm systems.
81. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Obtain the Division of the State
Architect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the
Building Official, to implement in the building design,
82. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
83. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
84. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
85. · Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
86. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
87. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
88. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
89. Show all building setbacks.
90. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m,
No work is permitted on Sundays of holidays.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
91. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted
on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inch apart. The numerals
shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied
over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as
closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
92. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 17, 2001 from the California
Historical Resources Information System.
R:'~D Px2001\01-0307 mo~co lot 34XStaff Report and COAs.doc
18
93. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated August 8, 2001 from the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
94. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 11,2001 from Rancho Water
95. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 2, 2001 from County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature Date
Name printed
R:~D Px2001~014)307 mosco lot 34~qtaff Report and COAs.doc
19
1
AI'rACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
RAD P~2001\01 ~)307 mosco Io~ 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc
20
CITY OF TEMECULA
Project Site l
·
CASE NO. - PA01-0307 VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
R:\D P~2001~1-0307 mosco lot 34\Staff Report and COAs.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
I r,-~ " I~ ~' ~' ' :l ,'~, ,
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION -(LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
EXHIBIT C - ZONING
DESIGNATION - (LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
CASE NO. - PA01-0307
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - APRIL 3, 2002
R:~D P~001~D1-0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Repor~ and COAs.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0307
EXHIBIT - D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
R:~ P~001~01-0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0307
EXHIBIT-E GRADING PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
R:'~D P~001~01-0307 mosco lot 34\Staff Report and COAs.doc
CiTY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0307
EXHIBIT-F BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
R:'~D P~,2001~1-0307 mosco lot 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01'0307
EXHIBIT ~ FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
CITY OF TEMECULA
PHONE: (760) 724-0747
JOB ~01-110 5/11/2002
CASE NO. - PA01-0307
EXHIBIT-H LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
R:',D P~001~01-0307 mo$co lot 34~Staff Report and COAs.doc
1
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 3, 2002
Planning Application No. 01-0309 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Project Planner
1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0309 pursuant to Section
15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
2. ADOPT.a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-._
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0309, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND
OPERATE A 16,200 INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON
1.09 VACANT ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON WINCHESTER
ROAD NORTH OF COLT COURT AND SOUTH OF ZEVO DRIVE
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-020
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Don Mosco Builders
PROPOSAL: A proposal to design, construct and operate a 16,200
square foot industrial/warehouse building.
LOCATION: Located on Winchester Road north of Colt Court and South
of Zevo Drive
EXISTING ZONING: Light Industrial (LI)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Light Industrial (LI)
South: Light Industrial (LI)
East: Light Industrial (LI)
West: Light Industrial (LI)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant
South: Industrial Building
East: Vacant
West: Industrial Building
RAD 1~2001\01 ~)309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
[
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Lot area (gross): 57,064 (1.31 acres)
Lot area (net) 47,480 (1.09 acres)
Building square footage: 16,200 square feet
Building height: 27'-0'
Landscaped area: 11,645 square feet (24%)
Parking required: 31 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, and I motorcycle
Parking provided: 33 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 3 bicycle, and 1 motorcycle
Lot coverage: 35%
Floor area ratio: .35
BACKGROUND
The applicant submitted a Development Plan application on June 22, 2001. The application as
submitted was deemed incomplete on July 19, 2001. The applicant resubmitted on September 13,
2001, and the project was deemed complete on October 10,2001. A Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting was held on November 1, 2001. During the DRC meeting staff
expressed concerns with the proposed architecture for the building.
The amhitectural concerns included building entry location and accentuation, window shapes and
sizes, large blank, flat surfaces, loading doors facing the street, and long unarticulated walls. Staff
also expressed concerns with the colors and materials used on the building.
The applicant resubmitted revised plans on three separate occasions. On March 14, 2002 itwas
determined by staff that the revised plans met the minimum requirements of the Development Code
and the Design Guidelines.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Desian
The project is located on the east side of Winchester Road and south of Zevo Drive. Access to the
site is taken from a single driveway off of Winchester Road. Customer parking for the site is located
along the south property line and the west elevation near the front entrance. Employee parking is
located at the rear of the site. The applicant is also providing four motorcycle spaces and three
bicycle spaces. Loading and unloading of products will take place at the rear of the site and will not
be visible from the public view. In order to meet Fire Prevention requirements the applicant has
provided drive aisles of at least twenty-six feet and has provided a hammerhead turn around for fire
trucks.
The applicant has provided an employee lunch area at the rear of the building. Condition of
Approval number nineteen requires the applicant to submit a detail of this area to include type of
furniture to be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The trash enclosure for the site has
been located in the southeast corner of the site and will not be visible from Winchester Road.
RAD 1~2001\01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
2
Landscaping on three sides will surround the trash enclosure to soften its from view on site. The
trash enclosure will be constructed with concrete tilt-up and will be painted to match the building.
The applicant has provided an exposed aggregate path from the public right of way to the entrance
of the building that matches the exposed aggregate located at the driveway entrance.
Architecture, Color and Materials
The proposed building will be constructed of tilt-up concrete. The building dimensions are 110 feet
wide by 140 feet long, with a height of 27 feet. As proposed the building has five-foot offsets on
both the south and the north elevation that create a shadowing effect. The Roll up doors are located
on the rear elevation of the building as to not be visible from the public right of way. The office
portion of the building has been located along the west elevation just a little off center nearest to the
north property line. Two separate five and a half inch reveal lines have been provided on all four
elevations of the building.
Landscapina
The Development Code requires projects within the Light Industrial (LI) designation to provide a
minimum of twenty percent landscaping coverage. The amount of landscape materials proposed by
the applicant is 11,645 square feet, which is twenty-four percent lot coverage. Additionally, the
applicant is providing 1,200 square feet of hardscape, which includes an employee eating area, and
an exposed aggregate concrete path of travel to the entrance. The City's landscape architect has
reviewed and commented on this project's conceptual landscape plan and landscape conditions of
approval are included as part of this package.
The front landscape area along Winchester Road has been well planted with a mixture of trees,
shrubs and lawn area. The majority of the landscaping provided on the site has been concentrated
in this area as to be visible from Winchester Road. The trees to be located in this area are Fern
Pines, Flowering Pears, and London Plane trees. The front landscaping areas provided vary from a
minimum of twenty feet to a maximum of forty-five feet. The landscaping along this elevation
extends all the way to the building and around the office portion of the building. The landscaping
extends along the north elevation at a width of five feet until the area where the building is right on
the property line. Within this area three Canary Island Pines have been located to further break up
this wall plan. The landscaping along the north property line starts again right at the rear of the
building and extends to the rear property line. An approximate six hundred square foot planting area
has been provided in the northeast corner to include trees and shrubs. The remanding landscaping
along the east property line is within a seven feet landscape buffer. A seven-foot landscape buffer
and a three hundred square foot planting area have been proposed along the south property line.
The applicant is proposing to add landscaping along the south elevation to further break up this
elevation.
ANALYSIS
The project conforms to the development standards of the Light Industrial zone designation.
Zoning Criteria Zoning Requires Project Provides
Target Floor Area Ratio 0.40 0.27
Minimum Width 100 feet 190 feet
Minimum Depth 120 feet 287 feet
Minimum Street Frontage 80 feet 190 feet
Yard Area Adjacent to Street 20 feet 45 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet 88 feet
R:~D P~20OI~O1-0309 Mosco Lot 20~S~aff Report.doc
3
Zoning Criteria Zoning Requires Project Provides
Maximum Height 50 feet 27 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 40% ~ 35%
Minimum Landscape Open 20% 24%
Space
Site DesiQn
The site as proposed will assure internal on site consistency with sound industrial site development
practices. The site meets the main elements of sound industrial site design as illustrated in the
Design Guidelines. The site is also consistent with the requirements for cimulation as defined in the
Industrial Performance of the Development Code. The Fire Prevention Division has reviewed the
project. As designed, emergency vehicles are able to access the site to provide the appropriate fire
and life safety services.
Architecture, Color and Materials
In order to create an entry statement the applicant has used a medium sandblast finish on the office
portion of the building, which helps this portion of the building to stand out from the rest of the front
elevation. A concrete tile roofing material has also been added to the office to further distinguish it
from the remainder of the building. Varying window sizes and shapes have been utilized on the
entry to include a glass entry door. The windows will be composed of a clear aluminum frame and
Azurite Green reflective glass. The medium sandblast finish will be added to three separate panel
sections on the north and south elevation. The sandblasting has been added to break up the wall
plans by adding a contrasting material to these elevations.
At the recommendation of staff the applicant has provided colors that are more consistent with earth
tone colors. The primary color on the building, roll up doors and man doors is beige. The reveal
lines will be painted with a dark brown color, which really helps these lines to stand out. This color
ties in with the brown tile material used on the front elevation of the building.
The offsets as provided work well to break up the building elevations and to create shadowing along
the south and north elevation. The earth tone colors provided will serve to be a complimentary
addition to the area~ The architecture as proposed meets the desirable elements for architecture as
stated in the Design Guidelines. It also meets the requirements in the Development Code for
architectural design
Landscar~ina
The landscaping as proposed exceeds the minimum requirements for the Industrial zoning district.
As proposed the landscaping will be a complimentary addition to the project and the building design.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is exempt from environmental review based on Section 15332 (In-Fill Development
Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act and there are no potentially significant
environmental constraints on the site. The project qualifies for a Class 32 infill development
exemption because the project is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning
regulations; is located on a site within the city limits, which is served by all utilities; and is less than 5
acres in area.
R:\D P~2001\01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
4
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and
conforms with all of the applicable.development regulations. Staff recommends approval of the
Development Plan with the attached conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F)
1. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Business
Park (BP) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development
standards for Light Industrial (LI) in the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is
therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and
density of industrial development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent
with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building
codes.
2. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other
associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and
safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as
conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines,
standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and
function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. - 02- - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
2. Exhibits- Blue Page 20
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Grading Plan
F. Building Elevations
G. Floor Plan
H. Landscape Plan
R:~D P~2001\01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
5
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
R:',D P~2.001~014)309 Mosco Lot 20~laff Report.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0309, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND
OPERATE A 16,200 INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON
1.09 VACANT ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON WINCHESTER
ROAD NORTH OF COLT COURT AND SOUTH OF ZErO DRIVE
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-020
WHEREAS, Don Mosco Builders, filed Planning Application No. PA01-0309 (Development
Plan 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 a 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
April 3, 2002, 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 recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon
the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
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 the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 176.05.01 OF of the Temecula Municipal Code:
1. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Business
Park (BP) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development
standards for Light Industrial (LI) in the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is
therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and
density of industrial development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent
with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building
codes.
2. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other
associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and
safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as ·
conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines,
standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and
function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
Section3. Environmental Compliance. The project will have no significant
environmental impacts and has been found to be categorically exempt, Pursuant to Section 15332
class 32 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request, to develop a 16,400 square foot
warehouse/industrial building set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 3rd day of April 2002.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 02-__was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of April, 2002, by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
1
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~D P~2001\01-0309 Mosco Lot 2(AStaff Report.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA01-0309 Development Plan
Project Description: Planning Application to construct, establish
and operate a 16,200 square foot
warehouse/industrial building on 1.09 acres of
vacant land
DIF Category: Business Park/Industrial ~
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-360-020
Approval Date: April 3, 2002
Expiration Date: April 3, 2004
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-
Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not
delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
General Requirements
2. The 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.
3. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or
proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to
be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
4. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
Development Plan.
R:~D PX2001\01 q)309 Mosco Lot 20~taff Report.doc
10
5. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this development plan.
6. 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.
7. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), E (Grading Plan), F (Building Elevation), G (Floor Plan), H (Landscape Plan),
and I (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development
Department - Planning Division.
8. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
9. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed
below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall.
10. All Downspouts shall be internaliz, ed.
11. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and with Exhibit "l" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
Primary wall exterior: Behr paint #3A15-3 "Caisson"
Exterior Accent Behr paint #3A15-5 "Hercules"
Building Glazing Azurelite Green Reflective (Downey Glass Manufacture)
Roofing Material Brown Concrete Tile
Sandblast Finish Medium Sandblast
12. The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
13. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and retum one signed.
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
14. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color
and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored
architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on
the photographic prints.
15. ' The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department, which
meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance.
The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the
growth potential of the parking lot trees.
15. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department.
R:\D P',200I ~01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
17. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
18. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
19. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall show temporary
irrigation and seeding for the Phase lB area. 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,
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).
20. The applicant shall submit details of the employee patio area to include type of furniture to
be installed.
Prior to Building Occupancy
21. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department
for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
22. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on
a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inch apart. The numerals shall be
painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a
contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as
possible to the edge of the building closest to the street.
DEPARTMENT OF. PUBLIC WORKS
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing
and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requiremente
23. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
24. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
25. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adiacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
R:~D P~2001\01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Reporcdoc
12
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
26. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
27. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
28. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
29. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address
special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
30. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The studyshall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
31. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resoumes 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.
32. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
d. Southern California Edison
33. The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
34.. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
35. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
36. 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.
~3
37. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance
with City Standard No. 800, 801,802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula standard Nos. 400, 401and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
g. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
38. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed
by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City
Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property.
39. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
40. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
41. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to
the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass
Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
42. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Department of Public Works
43. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
44. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
45. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in
force at the time of building, plan submittal.
R:~D P~2001\01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
46. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM at
20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a
total fire flow of 3600 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)
47. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 4 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-
site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and
adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and
shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
\
48. 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)
49. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020
50. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
51. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
52. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
(CFC sec 902)
53. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
54. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
55. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
56. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
R:~D PX2001~014)309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
15
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 )
57. 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)
58. Prior to issuance cf a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the preperty. Numbers shall be of a
contrasting color to their background. Commemial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
59. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
60. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10)
61. 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)
62. 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)
63. 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.
64. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doom and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions California File Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81 )
65. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both
the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
R:~) P~200I\01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
~6
I
Special Conditions
66. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and
to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life
safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA - 13, 24, 72 and 231-C.
67. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention
for approval.
68. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
69. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
70. All perimeter landscaping and parkways shall be maintained by the property owner or private
maintenance association.
71. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
72. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure
area.
BUILDING AND SAFETY
73. 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.
74. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
75. 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.
76. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
77. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
R:\D P~2001\01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Repon.doc
17
78. 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)
79. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
80. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
81. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
82. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
83. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
84. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Obtain the Division of the State
Architect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the
Building Official, to implement in the building design.
85. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
86. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
87. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic .
and mechanical plan for plan review.
88. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
89. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
90. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
91. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
92. Show all building setbacks.
93. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays of holidays.
R?,D P~001\01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
18
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
94. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 17, 2001 from the California
Historical Resoumes Information System.
95. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated August 4, 2001 from the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
96. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 11,2001 from Rancho Water.
97. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated June 29, 2001 from County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature Date
Name printed
July 17, 2OO1
TO: Rick Rush
City of Temecula Planning Department
RE: Cultural Resource Review
Case: PA01-0309/Mosco Lot 20
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information
System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric
or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to
known cultural resource(s). A Phase ! study is recommended.
-- Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources.
A Phase I study is recommended.
~ A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # )'identified one or more cultural resources.
The prolect area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the
nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not
anticipated. Further study is not recommended.
V' A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #2734 and MI://3513) identified no cultural resources within the
project boundaries.
There is s iow probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended,
If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the
immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
V' Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored
by a professional archaeologist.
I~' The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for
Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation,
Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(el, December 1989.
Phase I Records search and field survey
-- Phasell Testing[Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.]
Phase III Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or e combination of the two.]
~__ Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS: The p..roject area is located immediately adjacent to, but does not appear to
encompass any portion of, previously recorded archaeological site CA-RIVo237. Because of
the proximity of this potentially significant cultural resources site, it is recommended that a
qualified archaeologist monitor development of the project area as a precaution against
adverse impacts to components of RIV-237.
If you have any questions, please contact us,
Eastern Information Center
I
DAVID P. ZAPPE ~ 1995 MARKET STREET
· RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
General Manager-Chief Engineer ~ g 909.788.9965 FAX
,~ ~ ::'? ~ .,,~ ~,, 51180.1
' ' COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
' ' RIVERSIDE
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: t~lOec fl'oSt~
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: ~,~ O [ - O ~ ct
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions .or other~a, nd use cases in incorporated
cities._The District. also dogs not.plan check_city land use qa.ses, or pro,a.a. State uivis, ion of Real Estate le~.ers or.
other hood hazara reports mr SUCh cases, ois~ct com_.menturecomme..naatJons ror su.cn ~ses are normally limitea
to items of sl:~-Jfic ~nterest to the District inc;udin,g u[std.ct Master urainage Plan raci~itie, s, orne/regional flood
control and draina0e facilities which could be consioerea a ~ogi.cal componentor extension or a.rnasrer p~an system,
and Distdct Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation roes). In addition, information or a general narura is
provided. ·
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply Disb--ict approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
This prgject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional ~nterest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The Dist_Hct will accept .o~em. hi.~. of suc. h facilities on,
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to uisbict stanaaras, .ann. District p~an. check ana
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection ana aaministrative tees will be
required.
This p.roje~t, propos.e, s channels s.torm .drains, 36 inches or. I.arger in .clia. meter or other facilities that could be
cons~aerea regionm in nature ana~or a logical extension o~ me aaoptea
Ma..ster...D..rainage Plan. The District would cons_ide, r a. cc~. pti.rig .owne~h_ip ot s.u .c.~ taa. ld]e.s on.written ..mque.s.t.
/ of me c;ity. Facilities must be constructed, to .uisfric[ s..mnaaro.s a. na u[st~c[ pJan cn...e~, ann ins .ppcfion will
/ be required for District acceptance. Plan cnect(, inspection ana aaministrative roes wi, ~e requirea.
This project is ocated within the limits of the. District's I~f. lET4 C.P.~ (-r-e*~.c~c~'~ ,Are. a
Drainage Plan for which draina, ge fees have ~een adopted; applmable fees should be paid by cashiers
~.ec~. or money o~rder only to m..e FI .o~d. ,Con. t.m.I Di.s~ct p.rior to issu. an..c9 of, buildi, ng or gradi.n~[ perm..its~
whichever comes nrsL Fees to oe paio snomo ee at me rate in effect at me time or issuance o~tne ac[ual
GENERAL INFORMATION
his project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (NPDES) permit from the State Water
esources Control Board. Clearance for grading re,cordafion or other final .approva/should not be given until the
ty has determ ned that the project has been granteo a permit or is shown to oe exempt.
If this prg. ject involves a Federal Emergent, Management Age. ncy (FE.MA.~ map .l:[ed fl ..o~d plain, then the City should
require me applicant to provide a studies, calculations p~ans ana.. omar mrormafion..mq, uimd_ to meet FEMA
requirements and should further require that the applicant obtain a c;ondjtional Letter orMap ~evision (CLOM.R)
prior to grad ng, recordation or other fina approval of the project, and a Letter of Map I.~evision (LOMR) prior to
occupancy.
If a natum_l watercourse or mapped flood plain is i_mp..acted by this. project., the. City. s-.hould req.uire..t, he app. li.cant, to.
obtain a ~ection 1601/1603 Agreement from the c;alifomia uepanmem o; risn ann ~ame ann a c;~ean water P, Ct
Se..ctiqn 4.0.4 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of .Engi.n~rs 9r .writte. n. _corr.e. spo.n_dpn..ca' fromm ~es_e a.g.en.q'es
inaicating tne project is exempt from these reqmramenrs. A c;lean water Ac[ ~ection 4ut water Muality c;enlncation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404
permit.
~..~.~ry truly yours, .
STUART £. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
r'
~ July 11,2001
Rick Rush, Case Planner
City of Temecula
~o~ of D~o~ Planning Department
c~on, M. woo~ 43200 Business Park Drive
President
Post Office Box 9033
sr.v,~,~ae,t Temecula, CA 92589-9033
c..b,r.,~o SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY
a~,s V.K,a~ PARCEL NO. 20 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28471-1
s~ a. ra~n~ APN 909-360-020
J.~.y L ~u~, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0309
Jo~, ~.a~ Dear Mr. Rush:
Phillilol~Forbes Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
~ boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer
~. ~ob't~o~ service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
~,~h c. ~.~ between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees
and requirements.
s~a~,v.~ Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner sigrfing an
c. ~h~ co.~. Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E. .J [J L ] ~'~ ~ ~ ~
Development Engineering Manager
0 BSB:at 172~012-T3heCF
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
June 29, 2001
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Plot Plan No. PA01-0309
Dear Rick Rush:
The Depat~.ment of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0507 and has no objections.
Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
1. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CBrECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be
submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure
compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please
contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 600-6330).
c) A clearance letter fi-om the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with ordinance #651.2.
· Waste Reduction Management
Sincerely,
Sam Martin~mnmental Health Specialist
(909) 955-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
JUL 0 5 001
Local Enforcement Agency * pO' Box 1280. Riverside. CA 92502-1280 * (909) 955-8982 * FAX (909) 781-9653 * 4080 Lemon Street. 9th Floor, Riverside. CA 92501
Land Ose and Water Engineering * PO. Box 1206. Riverside. CA 92502-1206 * 1909) 955-8980 * FAX (909) 955-8903 * 4080 Lemon Street. 2nd Boor. Riverside. CA 92501
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~D P~2001~01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
20
ClTY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0309
EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
R:~D P~2001~01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Repon.doc
2t
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION --(LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
EXHIBIT C - ZONING
DESIGNATION - (LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
CASE NO. - PA01-0309
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - APRIL 3, 2002
R:~D P~2001~1o0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0309
EXHIBIT - D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
R:~D P~001~01-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff Report.doc
23
ClTY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0309
EXHIBIT-E GRADING PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
R:",D P~2001'~1-0309 Mosco Lot 20'~Staff Report.doc
24
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.- PA01-0309
EXHIBIT-F BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
R:~D P~2001~01-0309 Mosco Lot 20',Staff Report.doc
I
ClTY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0309
EXHIBIT -G FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
RAD P~2001~}1-0309 Mosco Lot 20~Staff RePOrt.doc
26
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.- PA01-0309
EXHIBIT-H LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- APRIL 3, 2002
R:',D P~2001~1-0309 Mos~ Lot 20~S~ff Report.d~
27