HomeMy WebLinkAbout080603 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Actl if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Tit e ]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
August 6, 2003 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2003-046
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Mathewson
Roll Call:
Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes
each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no._.~t on the Agenda. a
salmon colored "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 August 6, 2003
R:~PLANCOMM',Agendas~2003\08-06-03.doc
1
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of Jane 4, 2003
'2.2 Approve the Minutes of June 18, 2003
2.3 Approve the Minutes of JulY 2, 2003
2.4 Approve the Minutes of July 16, 2003
3
Director's Hearin,q Case Update
'RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for July 2003
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.
Continued from July 2, 2003
4
Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0702 A Development Plan for Planninq Application PA02-
0702 for six {6)1 sinqle story ,industrial buildinqs totalin.q approximateIv 82,220 square feet
located on the north side of Zevo Drivel approximately 500 feet east of Winchester Road
(APN 909-370-007), Dan Lonq, Associate Planner
'RECOMMENDATION: ;
.4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exem~3tion for'Planning Application NO. PA02-0702 (Development
Plan) pursuant to Section., 15332 Of th6 California :nvironmental Quality Act;.
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: '
R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~003\08-O6-O3.doc;
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA02-0702, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO.CONSTRUCT SIX
FREE-STANDING, SINGLE STORY INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 82,220 SQUARE FEET..THE
SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
ZEVO DRIVE,' APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EAST OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 909-370-007
New Items
5 Plannin.q Application No. PA03-0249 To add two out-parcels into the Harveston Specific
Plan and amend the Official Zoninq Map located north of the intersection of Ynez Road and
Equity Drive within the Harveston Specific Plan, David Ho.qan, Principal Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING 'MAP FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA TO ADD TWO OUT-PARCELS INTO THE
.HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN AND INCORPORATE TWO
OUT-PARCELS INTO THE APPROPRIATE TEXT AND
EXHIBITS OF SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION
PA03-0249)
6
Planninq Application No. PA03-0254 A request for a one-year Extension of Time for
Tentative Parcel Map 29643 to subdivide 4.72 acres of vacant industrial land into three
parcels located on the west side of Business Park Drive approximately 600 feet south of the
Business Park Drive/Rancho Way intersection, Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA03-0245 (Development
Plan) pursuant toSection 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act;,
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:\PLANCOMM~ endas~2003\08-06-O3.doc
3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING! PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0254, A REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION
OF TIME (THE FIRST ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643, TO SUBDIVIDE 4.72
ACRES OF VACANT LAND INTO THREE (3) PARCELS WITHIN
THE 'LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE, GENERALLY LOCATED
ON~ THE WEST SIDE OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF THE BUSINESS
PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-068
7
Plannin.q APplication No. PA03-0323 To revise an approved si.qn pro.qram for Etco Plaza, a
shoppin.q center consistinq of two build n.qs located at 27270 Madison Avenue, Matthew
Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA03-O323,.TO REVlSEAN APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM FOR
THE ETCO PLAZA DEVELOPMENT GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE TERMINUS OF SANBORN DRIVE AT MADISON
AVENUE ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS
910-272-005 AND 006.
.COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJouRNMENT
Next regUla~ meeting:
Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive
~.Temegula, CA 92590
AuguSt 20,'2003
R:\P LANC OM Iv1'~Ag endas~2.003'~08-06-03.doc
4
ITEM #2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 4, 2003
(TO BE DELIVERED UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 18, 2003
CALL TO.ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, June 18, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Olhasso led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLLCALL
Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and
Chairman Chiniaeff
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 18, 2003.
2. Minutes
RECOMMENDATION
2.1 Approve the Minutes of May 7, 2003
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1
and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
None.
R:~,Minutes~lanning Cornmission~061803 ].
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
NEW ITEMS
Plannin.q Application No. PA03-0318 To construct, establish and operate a two-
story, 21,849 square foot preschool/day care center consistinq of three buildinqs
and a request for an exception to the development standards to reduce the onsite
parkinq requirements by 12 spaces located on the northwest corner of Villaqe
Road and Landinqs Road in the Harveston Specific Plan area, Matthew Harris,
Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Adopt Notice of Determination for Planning Application No. PA02-0707 and
PA03-0136 (Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map) pursuant to Section
15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA03-0138, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A TWO-
STORY, 21,849 SQUARE FOOT PRESCHOOL/DAY CARE
CENTER AND A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE ONSlTE
-PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY 12 SPACES ON A 1.75
ACRE SITE WITHIN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF VILLAGE ROAD AND
LANDINGS ROAD ALSO KNOW AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 916-170-028.
Associate Planner Harris provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda
material), noting the following:
That the planning application is a request to construct, establish, and operate a
two-story, 21,849 square foot, preschool/day care center that would be located
on 1.75 acres with a proposed maximum capacity of 312 children ranging from
infants to kindergarten;
That the proposed project will be located on the northwest corner of Village Road
and Landings Road in the Harveston Specific Plan area within the pedestrian
village of Harveston;
· That the three proposed buildings will be interconnected via sidewalks and a
trellis;
R:~Minutes~:)lanning Commission',061803 2
Architecture
· That the buildings' architecture will emulate an Americana style in keeping with
the style of the surrounding buildings;
LandscapinR
· Thatthe applicant will be proposing thatthe areas within the interior courtyards
belandscaped;
· That there will be landscaping between building footprints and street frontages;
That because landscaping for Village Road will be addressed through the Village
Road Landscape Plan, it has not been reflected on the proposed plans; that staff
has reviewed both landscape plans to ensure consistency;
That staff is of the opinion that both the site plan and landscaping plan conform
with the development standards of the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines with
the exception of off-street parking;
That the Harveston Specific Plan will require that off-street parking requirements
be determined at the site plan review phase; that there are no specific off-street
parking requirements in the Specific Plan with regard to day care centers; that,
as per the City's Development Code, one parking space will be required for every
two employees plus one parking space per five children; that staff has
determined that, as per the Development Code, the proposed project would be
required to provide 82 off-street parking spaces; that the applicant is proposing to
reduce the number of off-street parking spaces to 70 spaces (12 space
reduction); and that the Planning Commission may waive or modify this
requirement if the requested reduction were to not impact the health and safety
of the facility;
· That the applicant is of the opinion that the requested reduction will not impact
public health and safety for the following reasons:
o That the maximum number of children onsite is rarely achieved
o That many parents have multiple children at the facility
o That many employees carpool to work
· That in light of the above-mentioned reasons, staff is of the opinion that the
requested reduction would not impact the health and safety of the building;
Buildinq Desiqn
· That the Specific Plan lists specific design criteria, as follows:
o That the first floor of any multi-floor building should be oriented to the
pedestrian
o That the design of the building facades shall be architecturally interesting
and in scale with the pedestrian
R:'~[nutes\Planning Commission~061803 3
o That large blank walls be avoided on the ground floor elevations
· That with the exception of some items (as noted below), staff would generally be
satisfied with the overall building design and architecture:
Staff is of the opinion that more significant and interesting corner
treatment would be warranted and recommended; that a false entry
feature be incorporated into the tower at the entrance of the main
building;
Staff would recommend that the proposed dormer windows be replaced
with three dormer windows to match the design of those used on the main
entry elevation;
o Staff would also recommend that the concrete block wall be opened up to
the street with the use of wrought iron;
o Staff would further recommend that architectural modifications be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director;
· That the applicant has been unwilling to incorporate staff's recommendation into
the building;
· That Condition No. 70 (Building and Safety Condition) should be deleted from
the conditions of approval.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Harris stated that, as per the State
Social Services Department, day care centers rarely reach the maximum capacity at any
one time.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bill Storm, Lennar Communities, spoke in favor of the project's architecture and
landscaping.
Speaking in support of the proposed project, Ms. Malinda Smith, 29705 Solana Way,
advised that ABC Day Care recently achieved nationwide accreditation; that the hours of
operation are 4:30 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. in an effort to assist with traffic flow; that special
programs are spaced throughout the week; and that there is a drop-off point off the
street. With regard to the proposed added conditions, Ms. Smith voiced no opposition
with the exception of the false entry feature,, noting that licensing would not permit this
type of an entry.
Mr. Matthew Fagan, 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera, relayed the applicant's willingness to
continue the urban streetscape appearance established at the Welcome Home Center
within the Harveston project and that he would as well concur with the added conditions
with the exception of the false entry feature. Mr. Fagan noted that a day care center
would energize the street and that the parents utilizing the day care center could
possibly support retail within the area of discussion.
R:"~Minutes\Planning Commission\061803 4
Mr. Dave Madden, 23932 Hamlin Ct, Murrieta, arChitect for the project, further
commented on the Americana style, noting the use of rustic building materials.
Ms. Anna Marchard, 41973 Via Renate, spoke in favor of the proposed ABC Daycare
Center.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Thanking Ms. Smith for presenting this project to the Commission and for making the
requested changes to the dormer, Commissioner Guerriero relayed concern with regard
to the fence, requesting that a more solid fence material be utilized to prohibit the
potential of wandering transients.
Commissioner Mathewson requested that public seating be either moved to another
location along the street or that a solid wall will be constructed in the front,
Echoing Commissioner Guerriero's comment with regard to the use of fence materials,
Commissioner Telesio relayed his desire for better screening and questioned why a
different color is being proposed for the bottom portion of the tower element.
Pleased with the proposed project, Commissioner OIhasso thanked Ms. Smith for her
participation within the community.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation with the
following modified conditions:
o Exception of a false entry feature be incorporated into the tower that will emulate
the main building entrance;
o Modification to bring the shingle fa(;ade (on the tower) down to the first floor;
o Modification to the concrete block wall be opened up to the street with
incorporation of wrought iron; and
o Deletion of Condition No. 70 (that the' City of Temecula has adopted an
ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee).
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected
unanimous decision.
R:~Minutes~Planning Commission~061803 5
4. Planninq Application No. PA02-0257 To construct, establish and operate a chumh
facility in two phases. Phase 1 includes a 10,500 square foot fellowship hall with
administration and classroom areas and a 2,880 square feet modular classroom
buildinq totaling 13,380 square feet. Phase 2 includes a 10,670 square foot, 450
seat church sanctuary, youth room with an additional 2,600 square feet of
classroom area and removal of the modular classroom buildinqs for the project at
build out is 23,770. Override the Airport Land Use Commission decision that
determined the proposed use to be inconsistent with the French Valley Airport
Land Use located southwest Corner of Calle Medusa and Nicholas Road, Saled
Naaseh, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration;
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-042
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0257, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A CHURCH
FACILITY IN TWO PHASES TO INCLUDE A
FELLOWSHIP HALL WITH ADMINISTRATION AND
CLASSROOM AREAS, A TEMPORARY MODULAR
CLASSROOM BUILDING, A 450 SEAT CHURCH
SANCTUARY WITH YOUTH ROOM AND ADDITIONAL
CLASSROOMS TOTALING 23,770 SQUARE FEET AT
BUILD-OUT AND TO OVERRIDE THE AIRPORT LAND
USE COMMISSION DECISION THAT DETERMINED THE
PROPOSED USE TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN ON THE
4.98 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF CALLE MEDUSA AND NICHOLAS ROAD
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 957-140-010
While presenting the staff report (of record), Senior Planner Naaseh noted the following:
· That the proposed resolution should be corrected to reflect a 4.98-acre site, not a
5.98-acre site
· That the planning application is a request to construct, establish, and operate a
church facility in two phases;
· That staff has conditioned the project to ensure that landscaping would be
completed in Phase 1;
R:'uMinutes\Ptanning Commission~61803 (~
That the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the proposed project to be
inconsistent with the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan; that the Public Utilities
Code Section 21774.5 (d) would permit the City Council by a majority vote to
override the ALUC decision if certain findings were made and certain conditions
were adhered to by the project;
· That staff has determined that the necessary findings could be made;
· That Phase I will include a temporary 2,880 square foot, modular classroom
building, which will be removed in Phase 2;
That the Development Code would require screening of the temporary modular
classroom but that this may not always be possible; that another section of the
Code would require that if not built as stick structures, then the structure must be
screened with landscaping; that staff would be of the opinion that with the
proposed landscaping and added Condition No. 31, the modular structure will be
sufficiently screened from the street;
That the improvements for the project will include road improvements to Calle
Medusa and Nicholas Road and the undergreunding of existing lines and utility
poles;
That staff has determined that the proposed project will be consistent with the
Development Code and City's Design' Guidelines and will conform to all
applicable development regulations; that staff would recommend that the
Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval by City
Council.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Senior Planner Naaseh stated that for safety
reasons, specifically large gathering underneath the flight pattern, the ALUC has
discouraged such a use in the airport traffic pattern.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Russell Rumansoff, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, architect/applicant, stated that he
would agree with the recommended conditions and advised that the proposed design is
the result of the congregation's need.
Mr. Jerry Hangen, Pastor, 32120 Corte Carmela, provided a brief overview and
commented on the need for a Presbyterian Church; thanked staff and the City for all its
assistance; and presented a model of the project to the Commission.
Although expressing support for the project, Mr. Dennis Fitz, 39910 Jeffrey Heights
Road, relayed concern with regard to the modular buildings to which Mr. Rumansoff
described the various pop-outs on the modular building.
Mr. Steve Nadall, 41365 Enterprise Circle North, Hamer Group, explained the various
landscaping; advised that trees and shrubs will be utilized to screen the air conditioning
units; and noted that the railings on the site will be made of iron.
R:\Minutes\Planning Commission\061803 '7
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Rumansoff advised that buildings across the
street are the modular buildings that will be used but that they will be upgraded.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
In reply to Commissioner Telesio's safety concern by placing structures along an airport,
Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that the Aviation Easement would prohibit an
owner from filing any complaints against the airport.
For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Rumansoff that no week day events will be scheduled
by the preschool.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff's recommendation to City
Council with the modification to the resolution of 4.98 acre site and the addition of heavy
screening around modular buildings. ~The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous decision.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
A. Commissioner Guerriero thanked the Commission for being able to attend
the City tour, noting that some of the residential housing is interesting and some of it is in
need of significant improvement.
B. Commissioner Telesio congratulated Commissioners Chiniaeff and
Guerriero on their reappointed for another three years.
C. Commissioner Mathewson stated that temporary sign at Advantage Rent-A-
Car is still posted.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. Planning Director Ubnoske stated that a consultant has been hired to prepare the
City's Design Guidelines and requested that a subcommittee of two Planning
Commissioners be appointed to work with the consultant and staff. Commissioners
Guerriem and Telesio were appointed to the Design Guidelines Subcommittee by
unanimous voice vote.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:45 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned the meeting to the next re,qular
meetinq to be held on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Dennis W. Chiniaeff
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\Minutes~Planning Commission~061803 8
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 2, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:13 P.M.,
on Wednesday, July 2, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman
Chiniaeff
Absent: Commissioner Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 2, 2003.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
None.
R:~Minutes Planning Commission~vlinutes 2003\070203
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
NEW ITEMS
2. Planninq Application No. PA03-0113 An Extension of Time request (the first
one-year extension of time) for a Development Plan for the desiqn and
construction of an industrial stora.qe facility comprised of eiRht buildin.qs with a
total of 64, 073 square feet on 1.82 acres located on the north side of Winchester
Road, west of Diaz Road (next to RCWD [APN 909-310-074], Stuart Fisk,
Assistant Planer
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA03-0113
pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines;
2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-042
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA03-0113 (THE FIRST ONE-YEAR
EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR PA00-0110, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL STORAGE
FACILITY (WESTSIDE STORAGE) COMPRISED OF
EIGHT BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL OF 64,073 SQUARE
FEET ON 1.82 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF WINCHESTER ROAD, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-310-074.
Associate Planner Fisk provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material),
noting the following:
That the application is an Extension of Time request (the first one-year
extension of time) for a Development Plan for the design and construction of
an industrial storage facility comprised of eight buildings with a total of 64,073
square feet on 1.82 acres site;
That the site is located at 42189 Winchester Road which is situated west of
Diaz Road and west of/and adjacent to the Rancho California Water District
(RCWD);
That the design and construction of an industrial storage facility has been
previously approved on February 21, 2001; that the expiration date for this
approval was February 21,2003;
R:'~linutes Planning Commission~linutes 2003\070203
That the applicant has submitted building plans to the Building and Safety
Department and has nearly completed the building plan check process, but
since the original approval has expired, the applicant is requesting ari-
Extension of Time in order to obtain a building permit;
That Planning, Building and Safety, Fire, and Community Services
Departments have reviewed the application and have requested revisions
and additions to the original conditions of approval;
o That Condition of Approval No. 1 be amended to reflect the current
County administrative fee;
That Condition of Approval No. 2 be amended to reflect wording currently
used by the City for all planning applications with regard to the applicant's
agreement to indemnification of the City;
That Condition of Approval No. 3 be amended to change the time period
for expiration from two (2) years from the approval date to one (1) year
from the approval date to reflect the expiration period for an Extension of
Time;
That the Building and Safety Department has required that the project comply
with the latest edition of Building Codes and Title 24 California Disabled
Access Regulations that the Building and Safety Department has as well
requested that Condition Nos. 63-67 be added;
· That the Fire Department has requested the addition of Condition Nos. 88
and 89;
· That the Community Services Department has requested the addition of
Condition Nos. 90-93
That staff would make the findings of approval and would recommend that
the Commission approve the application for an Extension of Time with the
additional conditions of approval and find that the project would be
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Associate Planner Fisk noted that the additionally requested conditions are reflected in
the proposed resolution (Attachment No. 1).
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bob Mahoney, AOY Construction, accepted the additions to the conditions of
approval.
At this time the public hearing was closed.
R:~linutes Planning Commission~Minutes 2003~070203 3
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff's recommendation with
additionally imposed conditions (as per Attachment No. 1). The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Guerriero who was absent.
3. Planninq Application No. PA02-0702 A Development Plan for Planninq
Application PA02-0702 for six (6), sinqle story industrial buildin.qs totalin.q
approximately 82,749 square feet located North side of Zevo Drive,
approximately 500 feet east of Winchester Road (APN 909-370-007), Dan Long,
Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this item for
redesign.
Associate Planner Long reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the
following:
That the proposed application is a request for a Development Plan for six (6),
single-story industrial buildings totaling approximately 82,749 square feet
(located on the north side of Zevo Drive, approximately 500 feet east of
Winchester Road);
That staff has reviewed the project and has determined that it will meet the
minimum standards of the Light Industrial (LI) Zone;
· That staff has noted some issues with the architecture and the landscape
plan;
· That the landscape plan does not indicate the precise types of species
proposed for all areas; that staff would prefer one tree type;
· That staff has determined the architecture of the project will not be consistent
with the Design Guidelines;
· That staff would recommend continuing this item for a redesign to include the
recommendations given by staff.
In response to Commissioner OIhasso, Associate Planner Long noted that the purpose
of the meeting would be to present to the Commissioners staff's efforts with the
applicant, advising that the applicant has requested feedback from the Commission.
Associate Planner Long, for Commissioner Telesio, advised that staff has been informed
by the applicant that the applicant would be unwilling to'make any further changes and
that staff was of the opinion that the project, as presented, does not meet the Design
Guidelines.
Principal Planner Hazen stated that the applicant requested to seek direction from the
Commission instead of staff.
R:~Minutes Ple, nning Commission~linutes 2003\070203
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ralph Hastings, 5031 Bimh Street, Newport Beach, Hastings Partners, Inc., stated
that he would continue to work with staff regarding the landscape; that the architecture
requirements have been met; that many changes have been made at the request of
staff, advising that the entries have been changed to a two-story elevation; that the use
of glass has been increased by 50%+; and that a marquee has been added. Mr.
Hastings requested that the Commission provide input with regard to the elevation.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Hastings noted that the proposed glass will be high-
performance reflective green glass captured in aluminum storefront; that the base
material will be slate; and that three earth tone colors will utilized for throughout the
building.
Although relaying the Commission's willingness to work with any applicant as it relates to
the development of industry buildings, Commissioner Mathewson expressed
disappointment that the applicant was not able to resolve the outstanding issues with
staff considering the criteria and requirements are clearly reflected in the Design
Guidelines. Mr. Mathewson also requested that the type of tree species be clearly
identified in the landscape plan.
Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Commissioner Olhasso
suggested that the Turner project on Grove Avenue in Ontario be explored as an
example for design standards.
Commissioner Telesio concurred with his fellow Commissioners and staff.
Mr. David Silver, 20 Rivo Alto Canal, Long Beach, Manager of Hastings Partners, Inc.
stated that, in his opinion, staff should not be requiring major design changes to design
elements that are proposed because structural integrity.
Commissioner Telesio noted that the outside of the building would be in need of more
articulation.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue the item to the August 6, 2003,
Planning Commission meeting so that the applicant may work with staff on elevations.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent.
Planninq Application No. PA02-0551 to construct a sinqle story 18,810 square
foot multi-tenant industrial buildinq on a 1.27-acre parcel located on the north
side of Roick Drive approximatelv 150 feet west of Wincheste~ Road, Dan Long,
Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0551
(Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California
Environmental Quality Act;
R:\Minutes Planning Commission~Minutes 2003\070203
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0551, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE STORY 18,810 SQUARE
FOOT MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. THE
SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF ROICK DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET WEST
OF WINCHESTER ROAD, ALSO KNOW AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 909-320-055.
Associate Planner Long presented an overview of the staff report (as per agenda
material), noting the following:
· That the proposed request is to construct a single-story, 18,810 square foot,
multi-tenant industrial building on a 1.27-acre parcel;
· That the proposed project will meet the conformance in the Light Industrial
(LI) zone;
That the project will include a curved driveway with a slope front setback on
the eastern portion of the lot; that the building will be set back into the slope
on the western portion of the lot;
· That the main entrance of the building will face the street and will include a
decorative wrought iron amhed canopy;
· That the eastern elevation of the building will include office entries with metal
canopies over the entrance;
That the Landscape Architect has reviewed the application and has
concluded that the landscape plan will conform to the landscape
requirements.
Associate Planner Long presented several photos of the site, noting that from the
centerline of the street, the top of the slope will not be visible from the street; that from
the sidewalk, the top of the slope will not be visible; that staff would make the findings of
approval and would recommend that the Commission approve the application and find
that it would be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Quentin Wall, 201 Via Orvieto, Newport Beach, stated that he was available for
questions.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
R:\Minutes Planning Co~nmission~M[nutes 2003\070203
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff's recommendation. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was .absent.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
A. Commenting on the Harveston project street signs, Commissioner Mathewson
relayed his objection to the color and design.
B. Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that staff use digital photos (as shown in Item No.
4) in the presentations, noting that the use of photos greatly assist the Commission with
achieving a better understanding of the proposed item; requested that a picture book be
started; and that a laser pointer be provided for Commission use.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. Principal Planner Hazen stated that a Design Standards Kick-Off meeting has
been scheduled for Monday, July 7, 2003 from 1:00 P.M. - 3:00 P.M. to discuss the
Design Guidelines with the consultants, noting that the first Design Standards
Subcommittee update would be agendized for the July 16, 2003, Planning Commission
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:27 p.m. Chairperson Chiniaeff formally adjourned the meeting to the next re.qular
meetinq to be held on Wednesday~ July 167 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, and Temecula.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:~linutes Planning Commission~vlinutes 2003\070203 7
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, July 16, 2003, in the City Counci.I Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLLCALL
Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and
Chairman Chiniaeff
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 16, 2003.
2. Minutes
RECOMMENDATION
2.1 Approve the Minutes of May 21, 2003.
3. Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Update for June 2003.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
R:~Minutes Planning Comrnission~Minutes 2003~071603 ].
COMMISSION BUSINESS
None.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
NEW ITEMS
4. Planninq Application Nos. PA02-0707 and PA03-0136 A Development Plan to
desi.qn and construct two-free-standinq multi-tenant industrial buildinqs totalinq
approximately 88,640 square feet and a Tentative Tract Map (Map 31259) for 31
industrial condominiums and a common area on 5.58 acres located on the north
side of Zevo Drivel approximately 635 feet east of Winchester Road, Dan Lon,q,
Associate Planner,
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Adopt Notice of Determination for Planning Application No. PA02-0707 and
PA03-0136 (Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map) pumuant to Section
15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-044
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0707, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT TWO MULTI-TENANT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY
88,640 SQUARE ON 5.58 ACRES, GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ZEVO DRIVE,
APPROXIMATELY 635 FEET EAST OF WINCHESTER
ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-370-
0O8
4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-045
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA03-0136, A TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP FOR 31 INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND
A COMMON AREA ON 5.58 ACRES, GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ZEVO DRIVE,
APPROXIMATELY 635 FEET EAST OF WINCHESTER
ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-370-
0O8
R:',Minutes Planning Commission~Minutes 2003\071603 2
Associate Planner Long provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda
material), noting the following:
That the planning application is a request to construct two, single-story
industrial buildings totaling 88,640 square feet and a Tentative Tract Map to
subdivide the buildings into 31 industrial condominiums located on a 5.58-
acre site.
Environmental Determination
That staff has prepared an addendum to the previously adopted Negative
Declaration; that the original NegatiVe Declaration was approved by the City
Council in 1991 and readopted in 1996, due to a modification to the approved
tentative map;
That staff has reviewed the project and has required the necessary
geotechnical reports; that the County Geologist has reviewed and approved
the geotechnical reports and plans as proposed; that staff has included
conditions of approval for archeological mitigation measures; and that the
Public Works Department has added the necessary mitigation measures with
regard to traffic;
Site Plan
That the proposed architecture will include painted concrete, tilt-up buildings
and the use of glass and awnings is being proposed throughout the site; that
the building will include numerous breaks in the wall plane;
· That the eastern elevation loading areas are adequately screened with the
use of building orientation, wing walls, and/or landscaping;
· That there will be a beamed entry way over the primary driveway, allowing
signage to name the site;
· That staff would be in favor of the main entry way fountain;
Landscapinq
· That the landscape plan will include a variety of native and non-native
deciduous and evergreen species, as well as, tud;
· That the applicant has proposed landscaping at the base of the buildings to
produce an island affect as stated in the Design Guidelines;
That there will be access to the building by way of two primary driveways
zevo Drive; that there will be a circular access around the buildings with the
exception of the building on the east;
R:~Vlinutes Planning Commission'Minutes 2003\071603 3
Tentative Tract Map
That the applicant has provided a proposed Tentative Tract Map for 31 units;
that a condition of approval requiring the establishment of CC&Rs will be
imposed, which would address landscaping of the building.
Conditions of Approval
Associate Planner Long requested that the following conditions of approval be revised:
Condition No. 1 - That under Planning Division/Within Forty-Eiqht (48) Hours
of the Approval of this Proiect - delete the following:
o One Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen Dollars ($1,314.00) which
includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00)
fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus
Condition No. 25 - That under Prior to Issuance of Gradin.q Permits (PA02-
0707) - add the following language to the beginning of the
condition:
o If subsurface below fill will occur ....
Condition No. 8 - That under Prior to Issuance of Gradinq Permits (PA03-
0136) - add the following language to the beginning of the condition:
o If subsurface below fill will occur ....
Condition No. 26 - That under Prior to Issuance of Gradin.q Permits (PA02-
0707) - add the following language to the beginning of the condition:
o If condition of approval #25 is implemented, ...
Condition No. 9 - That under Prior to Issuance of Gradin.q Permits (PA03-
0136) - add the following language to the beginning of the condition:
o If condition of approval #8 is implemented, ...
Condition No. 23 That under Public Works DepartmentJGeneral
Requirements (PA03-0136) -the following text should be changed:
o Principal should be changed to Modified
In closing, Mr. Long advised that staff could make the findings of approval with the
modified conditions (as noted above) and would recommend that the Commission
approve this application.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Long reviewed elevation plans,
commenting on the varied parapet heights and noting that the roof top equipment would
be screened from public view.
Associate Planner Long, for Commissioner Telesio, advised that screening from public
view was not considered from the Western Bypass with Mr. Telesio requesting that
attention be given to this matter.
R:',Minutes Planning Commission,Minutes 200~071603 4
In order to ensure proper identification for the Police Department, Commissioner Telesio
requested that a condition of approval be imposed to address this matter..
Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff requested the imposition of a
condition ensuring the proper maintenance of faded awnings.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Fagan, 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera, representing Goodtime Development,
thanked Associate Planner Long for his work on the project and relayed that the
applicant's willingness to accept the modified/added conditions as requested by the
Commission and staff.
Mr. Fagan requested that the following conditions be amended:
· Condition No. 46 to move the recordation of the final map .from Prior to
Issuance of Building Permits to before Prior to Issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy / Condition No. 51 for timing reasons;
· Condition No. 12d.- that the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS)
language be moved for flexibility, if required.
Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that because of this being a condominium map, she
would have no objection with Condition Nos. 46 and 51 as requested.
Mr. Hector Courrea, 28362 Vincent Moraga Ste. C, HLC Engineering, explained that
moving Condition Nos. 46 and 51 would not affect the City's hold on the project.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that a condition be added to ensure continual
maintenance of the awnings to the approval of the Director of Planning.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Chiniaeff stated that the buildings would be leasable, not sellable.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staff's recommendation with the
modified and added conditions of approval (as noted above) for both applications. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous
decision.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
Commissioner Telesio updated the Commissioners on the meeting with staff and
consultants regarding the Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Olhasso stated that she will be presenting Mr. John Hastings' work with
San Bernardino to the Commission for review.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Planning Director Ubnoske introduced Ms. Sheila Powers the Department's newly hired
Associate Planner.
R:\Min~es Planning Commission~vlinutes 2003\071603 5
Mr. Mathew Fagan, 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera presented the Commission with an
example of the Harveston Street Name Sign Design with the Commission requesting
that unique signage be explored to these signs. Mr. Fagan suggested that any change
to the signs should be completed through the Specific Plan.
Commissioner Mathewson apprised staff of several large utility boxes within the
Harveston project that are not screened.
It was noted that the joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop scheduled for
July 29, 2003 has been canceled.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:55 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned the meeting to the next regular
meetin,q to be held on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the Council
Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecuia, CA 92590
Dennis W. Chiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R:'~.linutes Planning Commission'~linates 2003\071603 (~
Redhawk Annexation Status Update
July 25, 2003
1. Mailing Labels and Public Hearing Notice, Complete.
2. Fiscal Impact Analysis, Phyllis and I gave Stan Huffman everything he asked
for. According to an email from Genie, we should see the first draft by July 30.
3. Legal Description, The contract has been awarded and the engineer is working
on the legal description. It will be completed by on or prior to July 31.
4. Plan of Services, I am waiting for couple of pieces of information from Phyllis. I
~retyped and distributed the Plan of Services to PW and TCSD, and Finance on
Friday. Their comments are due by the end of the day next Tuesday. I need to
get some information from outside agencies next week. I will complete it by next
Tuesday, if I do not need anything from the Fiscal Impact Report.
5. Environmental, Completed.
6. Application Fee, The fee is $12,000. I sent a check request to finance today (7-
23-03) and waiting for the check. Which is due 7-30-03.
7. LAFCO Application, Completed.
8. Exhibits for LAFCO Application, Steve is coordinating through GIS, to be
completed by July 31st.
9. LAFCO Filing, Steve to hand carry the application to LAFCO on August 4,
2003.
10. Staff Report, Steve has drafted and distributed the draft Staff Report to all
departments on Friday. Comments are due next Wednesday. Staff Report will be
finalized by the deadline of August 4.
11. Certified copies of CC Resolution to LAFCO, City Clerk's office has been
informed that Planning needs signed and certified copies of the Resolution. Saied
to transmit to LAFCO on August 13th.
12. Pre-Zone, Completed.
13. Pre Annexation Agreement, Jeff Stone to contact Supervisor Buster. Jim sent
an email to Jeff today (7-28-03) and asked Jeff to contact Buster.
14. Slope Maintenance Responsibility by HOA Letter, Completed.
ITEM #3
TO:
· I~ROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
July 16, 2003
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for May 2003
June 12, 2003 PA03-0058 Product Review for 114 single family homes US Home Approved
~ Crowne Hill Corp
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE12,20031:30PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL,.'I'O ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a
white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
Item No. 1:
Planning Application Number:
Case Name:
Applicant:
Owner:
Proposal:
Location:
Assessor Parcel Number:
Intended Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Status:
Action:
PA03-0058
Stratford Homes at Crowne Hill
US Home Corp., Randy Schroeder, 391 North Main Street,
Suite 300, Corona, CA 92880
US Home Corp.
Product review for 114 detached single-family residential
homes with three different floor plans and three architectural
designs.
Those lots in the northeast comer of Buttedield Stage Road
Road and Pauba Road west of Crowne Hill Drive.
Tracts 23143-1
CEQA Exemption
Thomas Thornsley
X New Project
Re-submittah Previous DRC Date:
Approved
ITEM #4
· SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 6, 2003
Planning Application No. PA02-0702, Sigma Enterprises (Development Plan)
Prepared by: Dan Long, Associate Planner
1. Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0702 (Development Plan)
pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA02-0702, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT SIX FREE-
STANDING, SINGLE STORY INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 82,220 SQUARE FEET. THE SITE
IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ZEVO
DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EAST OF WINCHESTER
ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-370-
OO7
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Ralph Hastings
Hastings Partners, Inc.
5031 Birch Street, Ste A
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PROPOSAL:
A Development Plan for Planning Application PA02-0702 for
six (6), single story industrial buildings totaling approximately
82,220 square feet.
LOCATION:
North side of Zevo Drive, approximately 500 feet east of
Winchester Road (APN 909-370-007)
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)
R:~D P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Ddve',Staff Report for approval-l.doc
1
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Industrial Building
South: Industrial Building/Parking lot
East: Vacant r.
West: Industrial Building
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Lot area (net)
5.02 acres (218,469 square feet)
Footprint:
82,220 square feet total
Building square footage:
82,220 square feet total
Building height:
31 feet (single story)
Landscape area:
44,261 square feet (20.2%)
Parking required:
159 spaces
Parking provided:
161 spaces
Lot coverage: 37.6%
Floor area ratio: .376
BACKGROUND
The project was submitted on December 23, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on January 23, 2003 to
discuss outstanding site, landscaping and building design issues. The Planning Commission
reviewed the project on July 2, 2003. The Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the
August 6, 2003 meeting and directed the applicant to work with staff to enhance the amhitecture and
provide more detail on the landscape plan. The Planning Commission agreed that the initially-
proposed project required enhancement of the building entries and locations visible from the public
street. It was also agreed that the landscape plan should be complete and provide specific types of
species for each aroa. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to review other quality
developments in the Inland Empire to provide the applicant with amhitectural concepts that should
be incorporated into the project.
ANALYSIS
Architecture
Staff has worked closely with the applicant to help design a project that is consistent with the Design
Guidelines for industrial development. The applicant has reseamhed other industrial development
throughout the Inland Empire and has made the following revisions to the building design:
· Buildings 1 and 6 along Zevo Drive include decorative stone, cornice and pro-cast concrete
columns at the amade of the main entrance.
R:~D P~2002't02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive,Staff Report for approval-l.doc
2
The arcade projects two feet from the main building and includes a cornice on top of the
arcade and the main building, establishing a strong main entrance identity.
Windows (4' x 6') are proposed on the upper portion of the elevations for buildings 1 and 6
along Zevo Drive, along the eastern property line for buildings 5 and 6 and on the western
elevation of building 1 (these elevations will be the most visible from the street).
A cornice above the arcade has been proposed, as well as a capitol above the parapet
along the roofline.
The southwest corner of building 1 and southeast corner of building 6 along Zevo Drive
include corner treatments similar to the main entrance adding interest from the public street.
Landscaping has been proposed at the southeast corner of building 2 and southwest comer
of building 5, which softens their appearance from the main driveway.
Staff has determined that the revised elevations are consistent with the Design Guidelines. The
applicant has provided a focal entry for each building, enhanced the street scene along Zevo Drive
with facades, increased projections, and windows and score lines have been added to add visual
interest as well as break-up the mass of the buildings.
Landscaping
The landscape plan has been revised to indicate the precise types of species proposed for all areas.
The legend indicates that ten percent (10%) of all trees shall be 36"box, thirty percent (30%) of all
trees shall be 24" box and sixty percent (60%) of all trees shall be 15 gallon.
The applicant has proposed a total of thirteen 36" box London Plane trees and Camphor trees along
the frontage Zevo Drive and at the main building entr..ances of buildings 1 and 6. An additional 36"
box Camphor tree is proposed at the entrance between building 3 and 4. Also, the main driveway is
lined with 24-inch box Long-leaf Yellow Wood trees, which will provide a green corridor as one
enters the site.
The applicant has proposed ten (10) Long-leaf Yellow Wood (Podocarpus Henkellii) trees, plus a
Camphor shade tree on the northeast portion of the site. The Long-leaf Yellow Wood tree is a cross
between the Fern Pine and Yew Pine, which is an evergreen tree that provides good screening.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is
Categorically Exempt from CEQA. (Section 15332 In-fill Development Project)
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the revised plans are consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and
Development Code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Development Plan with the
attached conditions of approval.
R:'~D P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive,Staff Report for approval-l.doc
3
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F)
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan and with all applicable
requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan and with all applicable
requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city, because the plan to develop six
free-standing industrial building totaling approximately 82,220 square feet is consistent with
the Light Industrial (LI) policies and standards, City-Wide Design Guidelines and
development regulations. The 82,220 square foot facility complies with all applicable
development standards of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district as well as off-street parking
and landscaping requirements.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare, because the project has been conditioned to conform to the
Uniform Building Code, and City staff pdor to occupancy will inspect all construction. 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:~D P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive.taft Report for approval-l.doc
4
Attachments
1. Resolution for Approval 2003- - Blue Page 6
2. Exhibit A Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
3. Revised Exhibits - Blue Page 21
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Pro ~osed Site Plan
E. Pro ~osed Building Elevations (Building 1 )
F. Pro ~osed Building Elevations (Building 2)
G. Pro 3osed Building Elevations (Building 3)
H. Pro ~osed Building Elevations (Building 4)
I. Pro ~osed Building Elevations (Building 5)
J. Pro ~osed Building Elevations (Building 6)
K. Pro ~osed Floor Plans (Building 1)
L. Pro ~osed Floor Plans (Building 2)
M. Pro ~osed Floor Plans (Building 3)
N. Pm )osed Floor Plans (Building 4)
O. Pro )osed Floor Plans (Building 5)
P. Pro ~osed Floor Plans (Building 6)
Q. Grading Plan
R. Landscape Plan
Planning Commission Staff Report, Meeting of July 2, 2003 - Blue Page 39
,¸4.
R:'~D P~002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive.taft Report for approval-l.doc
5
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
R:~D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA02-0702, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT SIX FREE-
STANDING, SINGLE STORY INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 82,220 SQUARE FEET. THE SITE IS
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ZEVO DRIVE,
APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EAST OF WINCHESTER ROAD,
ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-370-007
WHEREAS, Hastings Partners, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA02-0702, (A
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
July 2, 2003 and August 6, 2003, 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.
reference.
The above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.01 OF of the Temecula Municipal Code;
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F)
A. 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 six free-standing, single
story industrial buildings totaling approximately 82,220 square feet is consistent with the Light
Industrial (LI) standards, City-Wide Design Guidelines and development regulations.
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan and with all applicable
requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city, because the plan to develop six
free-standing, single story industrial buildings totaling approximately 82,220 square feet is
consistent with the Light Industrial (LI) policies and standards, City-Wide Design Guidelines
and development regulations. The 82,220 square foot facility complies with all applicable
development standards of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district as well as off-street parking
and landscaping requirements.
R:'~D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
7
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare, because the project has been conditioned to conform to the
Uniform Building Code, and City staff prior to occupancy will inspect all construction. 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.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption has prepared and
adopted by the Planning Commission in accordance with Class 32, Section 15332 of CEQA
Guidelines. Whereas, no further environmental review if required for the proposed project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request to develop six free-standing, single story industrial
buildings totaling approximately 82,220 square feet set fodh 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 6thday of August 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of August 2003, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~D P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Ddve',Staff Report for approval-l.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-1 ,doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
PA02-0702 Development Plan
Project Description:
Planning Application to construct six free-
standing, single story industrial buildings,
totaling approximately 82,220 square feet. The
site is generally located on the north side of
Roick Drive approximately 150 feet west of
Winchester Road also known as assessor's
parcel No. 909-370-007
Development Impact Fee Category: Business Park/Industrial
Assessor's Parcel No.:
909-370-007
Approval Date:
August 6, 2003
Expiration Date:
August 6, 2005
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department 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 Resoumes 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
Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall
be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards,
judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary
damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of
the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or
legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action,
or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to
be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
R:~D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
10.
13.
14.
15.
All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
Development Plan.
The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one year extensions of
time, one year at a time.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this development plan.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), Q (Grading Plan), E-J (Building Elevations), K-P (Floor Plans), R (Landscape
Plan), and the Color and Material Board contained on file with the Community Development
Department - Planning Division.
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit"R" (Conceptual Landscape
Plan). 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.
Jute netting shall be installed on all slopes exceeding 3:1.
All utilities shall be shown on the landscape construction drawings and shall be provided
with appropriate screening as approved by the City.
Final landscape construction drawings shall graphically show locations of all trees, shrubs
and ground covers. Final locations shall be subject to City approval.
The following ratio of trees shall be provided: minimum 10% at 36" box, 30% at 24" box and
60% at 15 gallon.
A minimum of one broad canopy type tree shall be provided for each 4 parking spaces. The
tree shall be provided in close proximity to the parking spaces it serves.
All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed
below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall.
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and with the Color and Material Board, contained on file with the Planning
Department.
R:~D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Repor~ for approval-1 .doc
11
Exterior Colors:
Exterior Wall:
Column Base:
Accent/Trim/Base Color:
Address:
Cultured Stone
Blue Reflective Glass
Pre-cast Concrete with clear sealant
Devoe Paint No. 1W18-3, Avon Cream
Devoe Paint No. 2W18-4, Heartwood
Devoe Paint No. 2W 18-5, Tuscon Trail
Devoe Paint No. 2W23-6, Cauldron
16.
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.
17.
The electrical transformer, gas meter and all other externally mounted utility equipment shall
be located in a discreet location and screened with landscaping as approved bythe Planning
Director.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
18.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for
their files.
19.
If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, amhaeological/cultural resources, or
any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or
amhaeological resoume are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the
City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the
affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may
require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the
City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at
no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find.
Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the
Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize
the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural
resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation
or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have
been approved by the Director of Planning.
20.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department 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 Exhibits "E-J", 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.
21.
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.
22. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department.
R:\D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Repor~ for approval-1 .doc
12
23.
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
24.
The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign program for the project site. A separate
building permit is required for all signage.
25.
An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility
equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department.
26. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
27.
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.
28.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the
approved Exhibit "H", 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 following items shall accompany the plans:
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).
e. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the
proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and
landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved
maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor
who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
Prior to Release of Electrical Power
29.
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.
30.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
Prior to Building Occupancy
31.
The applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of the building for Planning Department
inspection, prior to commencing] paintin~j of the building.
R:'~D P~002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-1 .doc
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
32.
A Grading Permit for a precise grading plan, 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.
33.
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.
34.
All improvement plans, 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
35.
A Precise 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.
36.
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.
37.
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.
38.
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.
39.
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 ali existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts.
40.
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 shalJ be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
R:\D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Reporl for approval-1 .doc
41.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Planning Department
b. Department of Public Works
c. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
42.
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.
43.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
44.
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.
45.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
46.
A precise grading plan shall be prepared and approved and 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.
e. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance
with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402.
d. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
The building pads 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.
46.
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.
49.
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.
R:\D F~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
15
50.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
51.
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.
52.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
53.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
54.
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.
55.
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 3 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)
56.
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 I hydrant, 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 500 feet apart, at each intemection and
shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access mad(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
R:~D P~002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Reporl for approval-l.doc
16
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
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)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
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)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads until permanent roads are
installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface
designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW (CFC sec 902)
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)
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)
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)
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, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the
Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants
shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible
building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National
Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a
contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family
R:~D P',2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval*l .doc
17
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
67.
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)
68.
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)
69.
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)
70.
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.
71.
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)
72.
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)
Special Conditions
73.
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.
74.
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)
75.
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)
R:\D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-t.doc
18
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Conditions
76.
All perimeter landscaping, fencing and on site lighting within this development, shall be
maintained by the property owner or a private maintenance association.
77.
The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure
areas.
78.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
79.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide TCSD verification of
arrangements made w th the C~ty s franch se solid waste hauler for disposal of construction
debris.
BUILDING AND SAFETY
80.
81.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access
Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County ama
wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on
Mamh 31,2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building
permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee
schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
85. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
86.
87.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
R:~D P~002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Report for approval-1 .doc
88. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
89.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans pdor
to permit issuance.
90.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
91.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
92.
Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with
disabilities.
93.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
94.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
95. Show all building setbacks.
96.
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 Sunday or Government Holidays
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
97.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from Rancho Water dated December
30, 2002.
98.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District dated February 4, 2003
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Name printed
Date
R:\D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-l,doc
20
December 30, 2002
DEC, 3 ~ ~00~_
Dan Long, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planing Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL NO. 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 24085-2
APN 909-370-007; SIGMA ENTERPRISES
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0702
Dear Mr. Long:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner and the construction of all required on-
site and/or off-site water and sewer facilities.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees
and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
This project has the potential to become a commercial condominium site with
individual building owners and a homeowners' association maintaining the
common property and private water and fire protection facilities. RCWD
requires that the City of Temecula include a Reciprocal Easement and
Maintenance Agreement for these on-site private water facilities, as a condition
of the project. In addition to this agreement, RCWD will require individual
water meters for each building if a condominium conversion takes place.
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
02~SB:aI340\FOI 2-T6\FCF
Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Bud Jones, Senior Engineering Technician
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
General Manager-Chief Engineer
City of Temecula
Planning Depadment
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
A.ention:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREEI'
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
51i80. i
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL :-:77;'
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
~l FEB 0 ? Z003
The D stdct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District a so does not .p an check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard re~rts for sucn cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to terns of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood
contra and dra nape faci t es wh ch could be considered a logical componentor ext.ension of a.master pla? system
and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, nrermat on or a genera~ nature s
provided.
The Distdct has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
This pr.oject would not b.e impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor ar~ other facilities of
regional interest propose(~.
This project nvolves D strict Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
-- written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and Distdct plan check and
inspection will be required for Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage P an The Distdct would cons_ide, r a, ccepti.ng .o .~em,~p .of s. uc.h ta~litie, s on.written [gque.s,t,
of the City. Fact ties must be constructed to uistrict stannaras; aha u~strict ~an checK ana inspecaon wm
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
t,/' This project is I. ocate, d. within the Ii.mits ,of the. District'? .[~i)R et~.-r~). ~? t~_~. ~/~4~4~J~,~. ~.~c~'-~. e.a
Drainage Plan ~or w'nich drainage tees nave Deen.aagpteq app~!caole rees. s.t~..u!9 be para .py cas'me, rs
check or money order only to the Flood Control D~stnct poor ro ~ssuance o!. ~u,o!n.g or graoLn~, pem.?as~
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the t~me or issuance otme acmm
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Th s project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) p. ern~.i.t'fro, m. the. State .W..a!er
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approva~ snoma not De g~ven unto me
City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
f th s Project involves a Federa Emergency Management Agency (FE.MA) mapped flOOd plain then the City should
requ re the applicant to provide all stud es ca cu arians plans and omer ~nformation r_equired to meet FEMA
requirements and should further requ re that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
prior to grading, recordat on or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to
occupancy.
f a natura watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section i601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of .Engineers, or. ,wfitten.~rr.e. spo.n_dg.n, ce' fro..m t.h.,e~ a.g~en~es
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean water Am ~ecaon 4u1 water uuaj[ty t.;~emnca~on. '
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance or the uorps u~
permit. ~
C:
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil E.~neer
Date: 2_ - w - ~ OO'~
A'FI'ACHMENT NO.
EXHIBITS
R:\D P~002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive,Staff Report for approval-l.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
ect Site
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
VICINITY MAP
R:~D P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
,., ×~ ...................... . ~,~ ,~ .........
~ ~~~~.,'~
~?;,,...,,.,..';
',:
,'.
., ·
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION -{LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - (LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
R:~E) PX2002\02~702 Sigma @ Zero Dr~ve\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
23
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
R:~D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Report for approval-1 .doc
24
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING I
R:~D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
25
CITY OF TEMECULA
,
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONS
R:~D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
26
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 3
R:~D P~2002V32-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-1 .doc
27
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT -H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 4 ELEVA'[IONS
R:~D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
28
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT- I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 5 ELEVATIONS
R:~D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
29
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - J
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 6 ELEVATIONS
R:~D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive,Staff Report for approval-l.doc
3O
CITY OF TEMECULA
building one floor plan
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT- K
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FLOOR PLAN
R:~O P',2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
CITY OFTEMECULA
building two floor plan
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - L PROPOSED BUILDING 2 FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
R:\D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
32
CITY OF TEMECULA
building three floor plan
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - M
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 3 FLOOR PLAN
R:',D P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
33
CITY OF TEMECULA
building four floor plan
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - N
I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 4 FLOOR PLAN
R:~E) P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for approval-1 .doc
34
CITY OF TEMECULA
building five floor plan
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - O
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 5 FLOOR PLAN
R:\D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Report for approval-l.doc
35
CITY OFTEMECULA
building six floor plan
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - P
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 6 FLOOR PLAN
R:~D P~002~02-(:}702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Report for approval-1 .doc
36
CITY OF TEMECULA
~, ~I~ . :, ~ h~ ~ i -~ I *~ I~~X~,~ ~
~,~, , /~,,~~': , ~ '- ~ ..... _'x"~,, %:: ~!
:
~ ~ .... ~ ~ _]x_ii ', yx I J : ~. fCi~[ ',
-- ~~= - ............ ~-= ............ =~==~ ~ ~'~ .¢ H
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - Q PROPOSED GRADING PLANd
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6, 2003
R:~D Pk2002\02~3702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Report for approval-1 .doc
37
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - R PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 6,2003
R:~D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Repor~ for approval-1 .doc
38
ATtrACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OF JULY 2, 2003 MEETING
R:\D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Drive,Staff Report for approval-l.doc
39
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 2, 2003
Planning Application No. PA02-0702, Sigma Enterprises (Development Plan)
Prepared by: Dan Long, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this
item for redesign.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Ralph Hastings
Hastings Partners, Inc.
5031 Birch Street, Ste A
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PROPOSAL:
A Development Plan for Planning Application PA02-0702 for
six (6), single story industrial buildings totaling approximately
82,749 square feet.
LOCATION:
North side of Zevo Drive, approximately 500 feet east of
Winchester Road (APN 909-370-007)
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: Industrial Building
South: Industrial Building/Parking lot
East: Vacant
West: Industrial Building
R:\D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for continuance.doc
1
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Lot area (net)
5.02 acres (218,469 square feet)
Footprint:
82,749 square feet total
Building square footage:
82,749 square feet total
Building height:
31 feet (single story)
Landscape area:
43,732 square feet (20.0%)
Parking required:
167 spaces
Parking provided:
169 spaces
Lot coverage: 37.9%
Floor area ratio: .379
BACKGROUND
The project was submitted on December 23, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on January 23, 2003 to
discuss outstanding site, landscaping and building design issues. The applicant has revised the
elevation and landscape plans, however staff believes the plans do not meet the level of design
required to recommend approval. The applicant has requested a public hearing by the Planning
Commission to receive direction on the proposed project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan
The applicant proposes to construct six (6) industrial buildings totaling approximately 82,749 square
feet. The buildings range in size from 11,545 square feet to 16,526 square feet. Each building has a
similar design and shape. The widths range from 115 feet to 136 feet wide and the depth ranges
from 85 feet to 145 feet. Each building is 31 feet in height.
The project site is located on the north side of Zevo Drive, approximately 500 feet east of
Winchester Road. A long driveway bisecting the site with buildings on each side provides access to
the site. Landscaping on each side flanks the main driveway aisle. The driveway continues
approximately 340 feet to the rear portion of the site. At the rear portion of the site are two buildings
(buildings 3 and 4) located in the middle of the site separated by a 10-foot walkway, employee area
and landscaping. The driveway continues to the northeast and northwest portions of the two rear
buildings.
The front portion of the site fronting Zevo Drive includes a 20 foot landscaped setback. The main
building entrance into the front two buildings (buildings 1 and 6) are located on the corner(s) facing
Zevo Drive and the primary driveway. Loading areas for the front two buildings are located in the
rear of the building away from Zevo Drive. The next two buildings (buildings 2 and 5) are located
directly behind buildings 1 and 6 with each main entrance located on a corner facing the buildings 3
and 4. The loading areas for buildings 2 and 5 are immediately adjacent to the loading areas for
buildings 1 and 6. Buildings 3 and 4 are located towards the middle of the rear portion of the site
R:~) P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Repot[ for continuance,doc
2
with the main building entrances located on the corners immediately adjacent and facing each other.
The loading areas for buildings 3 and 4 are located on the west and east sides of each buildings
and are not visible from the street.
Architecture
There are a total of six concrete tilt-up buildings proposed on the project site. Each building includes
the same architectural design theme and elements. The buildings each have four main colors
including the primary color: Avon crbme, Entryway structure: Heartwood, Base: Tucson Trail and
Trim: Cauldron. The entry feature includes an arcade and is located at the corner of each building.
The top of the entry arcade is approximately eight feet lower than the top of parapet. At the top of
the entry arcade is a painted 6-inch tube steel railing. Twelve-inch by twelve-inch slate tile are
proposed at the base of the columns at the entry as well as the base of each projection on the sides
of the building. Approximately 15 feet of glass flanks the entry arcade on each of the building
entrances and rises to the same elevation as the entry arcade. The buildings include projecting
"columns" approximately 20 feet high every 20 linear feet on the side elevations. At the top portion of
the columns are functional windows to provide natural light into the building.
Landscaping
The applicant is proposing to utilize a variety of native and non-native, drought tolerant plants onsite.
The landscape plan includes a 20-foot landscaped setback area along Zero Drive. Each of the
buildings includes a five-foot landscape planter between the parking spaces and the building(s)
producing an island affect. The western, sloped portion of the project includes various species of
tree, shrubs and groundcovers. The applicant has not indicated the precise type of landscape
species, however a list of potential tree species include: Camphor tree, Purple-leaf Plum, Bradford
Pear, Brea Evergreen Elm, Silver Dollar Gum, Long-leaf Yellow Wood, Red Crape Myrtle, Oleander
Tree, and Indian Hawthorn Tree. Potential shrub species include Purple Hopseed Bush, Redleaf
Photina, Pink Abelia, Texas Privet, Varigated Mock Orange, Compact Shiny Xylosma, Prostrate
Acacia, Daylily and Rockmse. Potential greundcovers include Hall's Honeysuckle, Ivy Geranium and
Star Jasmine. The applicant has proposed marathon II sod for turf areas and Jasmine and/or red
Trumpet Vine in various wall locations.
ANALYSIS
Site Plan
The site plan conforms to all of the development regulations of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning
district. The building setbacks meet the minimum requirements of the Development Code. The
proposed 37.8 percent lot coverage meets the maximum permitted lot coverage of 40 percent. Staff
has determined that 160 off-street parking' spaces are required to serve the buildings; 163 have
been proposed. The loading spaces have been proposed in a location where they are on the rear of
the building or screened from the street view.
The circulation pattern includes a long driveway with landscaping on each side. There are six dead-
end aisles, however staff has discussed this issue with the Fire Department and there is not an
issue of concern with circulation or access.
The applicant has proposed an employee area for each building. These areas are located atong the
western elevation of buildings 5 and 6, along the eastern elevation of buildings 1 and 2, and in
between buildings 3 and 4. A sidewalk system has also been proposed that links each building on-
site.
R:\D P~2002~)2-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for continuance.doc
3
Architecture
Staff has attempted to work closely with the applicant to help design a project that is consistent with
the Design Guidelines for industrial development. However, staff has determined the project is not
consistent with the Design Guidelines for the following reasons:
None of the buildings provide a variety of building indentations and architectural details.
Each building is uniform and the projections are minimal (eight-inches).
None of the entries provide sufficient building entry accentuation. The entries are lower than
the top of parapet and does not incorporate a strong statement as a main building entrance.
Each of the building walls appear as large blank surfaces due to inadequate projections
and/or breaks in the wall plane. Building indentations and architectural detail are required on
street frontages and elevations visual from the public right-of-way.
None of the entries portray an office appearance architecturally related to the overall building
composition.
Buildings 1 and 6 along Zevo Drive and 5 and 6 along the eastern property line include long
wall surfaces and do not provide significant projections, facades, or varied front setbacks.
Staff recommends the following revisions in order to achieve consistency with the Design
Guidelines:
Buildings I and 6 along Zevo Drive should provide enhanced and vertical entrytreatments to
further accentuate the entrance.
The columns should project at least 12 inches from the main building and extend to the top
of the roof.
Additional windows (5' x 5') should be provided on the upper portion of the elevations
between columns for buildings 1 and 6 along Zevo Drive, along the eastern property line for
buildings 5 and 6 and on the western elevation of building 1 (these elevations will be the
most visible from the street).
9. A roof element shall be provided such as a bull nose or cornice for each building.
10.
The southwest corner of building I and southeast corner of building 6 along Zevo Drive
should provide corner treatments to add interest from the public street.
11.
Building 2 should enhance the southeast corner and building 5 should enhance the south
west corner facing the driveway so they do not appear as the back of the building. This can
be accomplished with (false) windows or varied projections.
Landscaping
The applicant has failed to submit a complete landscape plan as requested by staff. The landscape
plan does not indicate the precise types of species proposed for all areas. The landscape plan does
not clearly show the proper tree and shrub size ratio in the legend. Ten pement (10%) of all trees
shall be 36"box, thirty percent (30%) of all trees shall be 24" box and sixty percent (60%) of all trees
shall be 15 gallon. The applicant verbally indicated to staff that all issues raised in the most recent
R:~D P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zero Drive\Staff Report for continuance.doc
4
comment letter would be complied with, however upon re-submittal, of the plan, staff discovered that
the plan was still deficient.
The applicant has proposed 13 trees along the frontage and at the main building entrances of
buildings 1 and 6 to be 36" box trees and an additional 36" box tree at the entrance between building
3 and 4. The precise specie(s) proposed has not been determined, however staff recommends
broad evergreen specie such as Camphor Tree at distinct locations such as building entrances.
The applicant has proposed 10 upright evergreen trees, plus a canopy shade tree on the northeast
portion of the site. The precise species is undetermined, however either tree planted is an evergreen
and will properly screen the loading area for building 4. The applicant has proposed various tree and
shrub species on the western sloped portion of the project site and they are grouped and staggered
to soften the appearance of the slope.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is
Categorically Exempt from CEQA. (Section 15332 In-fill Development Project)
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending continuing this item for a redesign to include the recommendations by staff. If
the Planning Commission decides to approve the project as submitted, staff requests that the item
be continued to the August 6, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow staff time to
prepare a resolution of approval, and conditions of approval.
Attachments
Exhibits - Blue Page 6
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
J.
K.
Vicinity Map
General Plan Map
Zoning Map
Pro Dosed Site Plan
Pro Dosed Building Elevations (Building 1)
Pro Dosed Building Elevations (Building 2)
Pro )osed Building Elevations (Building 3)
Pro Dosed Building Elevations (Building 4)
Pro Dosed Building Elevations (Building 5)
Pro Dosed Building Elevations (Building 6)
Grading Plan
L. Landscape Plan
R:\D P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for continuance.doc
5
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
EXHIBITS
R:~D P~002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Repod for continuance.doc
6
CITY OF TEMECULA
ect Site
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2, 2003
VICINI'I~ MAP
R:\D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Reporl for continuance.doc
8
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION -(LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - (LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
CASE NO. - PA02-0551
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2, 2003
R:~D P~002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for continuance.doc
9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2, 2003
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
R:~D P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive'Staff Report for continuance,doc
10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING I ELEVATION~c
R:~D P\2002~2-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for continuance.doc
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
~[ICASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONS
R:',D P~002~2-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for continuance.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2, 2003
PROPOSED BU
R:~D P',2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for continuance.doc
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT -H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING 4 ELEVATIONS
R:\D P~2002~2-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Reporl for continuance.doc
14
CITY OF TEMECULA
~ ~ - - I
- "J ' '~-~ti~ll
fill ~-, t ,, ,l .t,.. t ~i~:;'_ , -
- . o 11
Itii i Illii,ll,il,li~ilhl!il~l, ~
II1'11
""'
~ .51
, F t~
CASF NO. - ~A02-0702
EXHIBIT - I PROPOSED BUILDING 5 ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2, 2003
R:'~) P",.2002V;)2-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Reporl for continuance.doc
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
~J~ iiJi~ ;-~Jt-I ,~i , , J ~':~1~ ~
~ ~ ~. I1'1~1 ~ LU~
- ~b ~'" , ! r~ ~ /.
CASE NO. - PA02-O?02
EXHIBIT - J PROPOSED BUILDING 6 ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2, 2003
R:\D P~2002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive,Staff Reporl for continuance.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT - K
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2, 2003
PROPOSED G
R:\D P~002\02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive, Staff Report for continuance.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0702
EXHIBIT- L
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - July 2,2003
PROPOSED LANDSCAPEPLAN
R:\D P~2002~02-0702 Sigma @ Zevo Drive\Staff Report for continuance.doc
18
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 6, 2003
Planning Application No. PA03-0249 (Zone Change and Specific Plan Amendment)
Prepared By: David Hogan, Principal Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA TO ADD 'i'~NO OUT-PARCELS INTO THE HARVESTON
SPECIFIC PLAN AND INCORPORATE 'rwo OUT-PARCELS INTO
THE APPROPRIATE TEXT AND EXHIBITS OF SPECIFIC PLAN
(PLANNING APPLICATION PA03-0249)
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Lennar Communities
REPRESENTATIVE:
Matthew Fagan
PROPOSAL:
To add two out-pamels into the Harveston Specific Plan and amend
the Official Zoning Map
LOCATION:
North of the intersection of Ynez Road and Equity Drive within the
Harveston Specific Plan
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: Service Commercial, Low Medium Density Residential and Open
Space
PROPOSED
GENERAL PLAN:
Service Commercial, Low Medium Density Residential and Open
Space
EXISTING ZONING:
Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: SP-13
South: SP-13
East: SP-13
West: SP-13
PROPOSEDZONING:
SP-13
R:\S P A~2003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
1
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Nodh: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the Harveston Specific Plan on August 14, 2001. The project included a
general plan amendment, development agreement, and environmental impact report. Throughout
the process, the fate of the two out-parcels that were not owned by Lennar Communities was a
concern. To protect the rights of the property owners and ensure land use compatibility, the two out-
parcels were zoned Low Medium Density Residential. The total size of the two out-parcels is
approximately 3.8 acres. The current location of the out-parcels and their relationship to the
approved Specific Plan are shown on Attachment No. 4.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will provide for the incorporation of two out-parcels into the Harveston Specific Plan. To
accomplish this, the following actions are being proposed:
1. Amend the Harveston Specific Plan to add the out-parcels into adjacent planning areas,
2. Amend the Zoning Map to include the out-parcels into the Specific Plan; and,
Make a determination of consistency between this amended project and the Certified
Final EIR.
The proposed future zoning and the Specific Plan Land Use maps are shown in Attachment Nos. 4
and 5, respectively. No changes are proposed for the small area shown on Attachment 4 that was
previously zoned Light Industrial.
ANALYSIS
The proposed inclusion of the out-parcels into the Harveston Specific Plan will not change the total
build-out potential for the Specific Plan. The amendment will add small amounts of acreage into
three planning areas as well as into the Ynez Road right-of-way as shown below.
Planning Area 1 - Community Park
Planning Area 8 - Low-Medium Density Residential
Planning Area 12 - Service Commercial
Ynez Road Right-of-Way
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ACREAGE
+ 1.5 AC
+ 0.8 AC
+ 0.5 AC
+ 1.0 AC
+ 3.8 AC
In almost all cases, the changes to the contents Harveston Specific Plan will Involve removing
references to, and discussions of, the out-pamels. The remaining changes to plan will relate to the
sizes of Planning Areas 1, 8, and 12 after the additional acreages are added. No substantive
changes to the Harveston Specific Plan will occur as a result of this amendment.
R:~S P A~2003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
2
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The City Council Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Harveston Project
on August 14, 2001 The FEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program evaluated the impacts of an
add t cna 1,921 residential units and approximately 1.96 m~ll~on square feet of servme commercial
and uses and included the rezomng of two out-parcels to Low Medium Density Residential. The
FE R nc uded Statements of Overndmg Conslderabon for short-term, long-term, and cumulahve a~r
quality impacts.
To evaluate the impacts associated with the proposed change to tl~e Harveston Specific Plan, staff
compared the current bu d-out potential with the build-out poti~ntial after the out-parcels are
incorporated ~n the Specd~c Plan. The primary change ~s that the t,otal acreage of the Spec f c Plan
will increase to approximately 549.5 acres. The original Harves~on Specific Plan encompassed
545.7 acres. /
However, despite the inclusion of an additional 3.8 acres, no ~hanges to the total number of
residential umts and commercial square footage are being propCsed. Th~s means that the total
intensity of the land uses within the approved Specific Plan and th4 potential environmental impacts
as described in the EIR w'll not change n rea 'ty, the actua numb'er of total residential units in this
area w;ll decrease slightly based upon the inclusion of the out-p, arcels rotc the spec f c plan. A
detailed analysis of the project changes is shown in Attachment 8. As a result of this information,
staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommenc to the City Council that a finding
of consistency with a previously certified EIR be made.
Attachments
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
Draft Council Resolution - Blue Page 7
Draft Council Ordinance - Blue Page 10
Current Zoning Map - Blue Page 13
Current Specific Plan Land Use Map - Blue Page 14
Proposed Zoning Map - Blue Page 15
Proposed Specific Plan Land Use Map - Blue Page 16
EIR Consistency Analysis - Blue Page 17
R:\S P A~2003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
3
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
R:\S P A~O03\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA TO ADD TWO OUT-PARCELS INTO THE
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN AND INCORPORATE TWO OUT-
PARCELS INTO THE APPROPRIATE TEXT AND EXHIBITS OF
SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION PA03-0249)
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities filed Planning Application No. PA03-0249 (the
"Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code
and Subdivision Ordinance;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
August 6, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Specific Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission hereby recommends
that the City Council amend the Harveston Specific Plan to incorporate parcels identified as 910-
110-003 and 007, in all the text and exhibits with the Specific Plan, including the Planning Area
discussions for Planning Areas 1,8, and 12, substantially in the form contained in Exhibit A.
Section 2. Zone Chanqe. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council amend the Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula for parcels identified as 910-110-
003 and 910-110-007, substantially in the form contained in Exhibit B.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The Planning Commission has reviewed the
information provided and hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula make a
finding of consistency with the previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) based
upon the information contained in the staff report, the Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 6th day of August 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
Fk\S P A~003~PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
5
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. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temeeula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of August 2003, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'~S P A~003~PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
6
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION
R:\S P A~003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
7
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN TO
INCLUDE, AND FULLY INTEGRATE WITHIN, TWO OUT-
PARCELS (PLANNING APPLICATION PA03-0249)
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities filed Planning Application No. PA030-0249 (the
"Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code
and Subdivision Ordinance;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
August 46 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested pemons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, the City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
__, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to
this matter;
NOW, TH EREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby amends the Harveston
Specific Plan by incorporating parcels identified as 910-110-003 and 007, into all the text and
exhibits within the Specific Plan, including but not limited to, the Planning Area discussions for
Planning Areas 1,8, and 12, and further directs staff to incorporate all appropriate and necessary
changes. In taking this action, the City Council has reviewed the information provided in the staff
report and hereby makes a determination the inclusion of these two out-parcels into the Harveston
Specific Plan does not increase the impacts that were assessed or the mitigation measures that
were established with the previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation
Monitoring Program. As a result, the City Council hereby makes a finding of consistency with the
previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
this
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
day of 2003.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R;\S P A~O03\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting thereof held on the day of ,2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS None
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\S P A~003~PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
9
ATrACHMENT NO. 3
PROPOSED COUNCIL ORDINANCE
R:\S P A~2003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
10
ORDINANCE NO. 03-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA TO INCLUDE TWO OUT-PARCELS WITHIN
THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby amends the Official Zoning Map for the City of
Temecula for parcels identified with Assessor's Parcel Numbers 910-120-003 and 910-120-007, by
changing the zoning designation from Low Medium Density Residential (LM) to Specific Plan (SP-
13).
Section 2. The City Council has reviewed the information provided in the staff report and
hereby makes a determination the inclusion of these two out-parcels into the Harveston Specific
Plan does not increase the impacts that were assessed or the mitigation measures that were
established with the previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation
Monitoring Program. As a result, the City Council hereby makes a finding of consistency with the
previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of
,2003
Jeff Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\S P A~003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. 03-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the day of ,2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
R:XS P A',2003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
12
ATFACHMENT NO. 4
CURRENT ZONING MAP
R:\S P A~003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
13
J '? ',.j'
EIR
Lennar Communities
-\
EIGHT:-.
-' INDUSTriAL'
f
,>
Source: USGS Murriera Ca]from 7.5 Quad and Gty of Temecula Development Code
~ N.TS May2003 Existing Zoning
ATrACHMENT NO. 5
CURRENT SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
R:\S P A~003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
ATFACHMENT NO. 6
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
R:\S P A~003~PA03*0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
/ ¢" ".--'"
Harvesfon
EIR
Lennar Communities
,INDUSTRIAL
Source: USGS Mumeta California 7.5 Quad and City of Temecula Development Code
~ N. TS May2003 Proposed Zoning
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
R:\S P A~O03\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
ATFACHMENT NO. 8
EIR CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
R:\S P A~2003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
EIR CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The following tables display the total development potential for the area of the Harveston Specific
Plan and the Out-parcels. As indicated, the anticipated number of dwelling units and commercial
square footage is equal to or less than the amounts described in the Final Environmental Impact
Report.
.. .: REsiDENTIAL LAND USES (dwelling units) . . :
~ : ' . i ' Current S~tuabon I Future Situation with·
· Proposed Changes
Harveston Specific Plan 1,921 1,921
Out-Parcels (at target density) 17 0
Total Estimated Dwelling Units 1,938 1,921
Cumulative Project Change ~ -17
; COMMERCIAL LAND USEs (square feet)
· , ·. : Current Situation Futbre Situation with
': ::: : ~: P~dp0sed changes
Harveston Specific Plan 1,960,200 1,960,200
Out-Parcels 0 0
Total Estimated Commercial Sq. Ft. 1,960,200 1,960,200
Cumulative Project Change ~ 0
NOTE: The out-parcels are currently zoned Low Medium Density Residential and
commercial land uses are not allowed in this zone.
R:\S P A~2003\PA03-0249 Harveston\STAFFRPT PC.doc
18
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OFTEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 6, 2003
Planning Application No. PA03-0254 (Extension Of Time)
Prepared by: Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission:
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA03-0245 (Development Plan)
pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA03-0254, A REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME
(THE FIRST ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 29643, TO SUBDIVIDE 4.72 ACRES OF
VACANT LAND INTO THREE (3) PARCELS WITHIN THE LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET
SOUTH OF THE BUSINESS PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY
INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
921-020-068
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
SITE AND SURROUNDING
ZONING:
Armstrong & Brooks, 1530 Consumer Cimle Unit B, Corona, CA
92880
A request for a one-year Extension of Time for Tentative Pamel Map
29643 to subdivide 4.72 acres of vacant industrial land into three
pamels.
West side of Business Park Drive approximately 600 feet south of the
Business Park Drive/Rancho Way intersection.
Site: Light Industrial (LI)
North: Light Industrial (LI)
South: Light Industrial (LI)
East: Light Industrial (LI)
West: Light Industrial (LI)
R:\E O T~2.003\03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Business Park (BP)
SITE AND SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
Site: Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Chemicon
East: Industrial User
West: International Rectifier
BACKGROUND
This map was first approved on May 3, 2000, in conjunction with a Development Plan (PA99-0478)
to build three industrial buildings. The Development Plan was valid for two years from its approval
date. No request for a time extension was received last year and the Development Plan has
expired. The tentative map was valid for three years and an application for a time extension was
submitted to the Planning Department for review on May 2, 2003. The Development Review
Committee (DRC) reviewed the map and it's original conditions of approval for conformance with
current standards prior to setting the public hearing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Application No. PA03-0254 is a request by Armstrong & Brooks for a one-year extension
of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643. The tentative map proposes to subdivide 4.72-acres
of vacant industrial land into three (3) parcels (2.35 acres, 1.30 acres, and 1.06 acres). The three
lots all have frontage along Business Park Drive, however, only lots 1 and 3 are permitted to have
direct access to the street.
ANALYSIS
Although the configuration of the map's lots was designed around a now expired site plan, the map
still conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance and Development Code.
As a part of the processing of this application the City is amending or adding the following
conditions to address current requirements:
Planning Department
· Updated the current $64 County Clerk filing fee. (COA# 1)
· Updated the indemnification condition. (COA# 3)
Updated the notes to be placed on the Environmental Constraint Sheet for consistency
with Public Work's (COA# 18) and to include the fault zone and require that County
Geologist and City Engineer review the future development plan and placement of
buildings. (Revised by the Planning Commission, August 6, 2003 (COA# 6. b.)
· Added a condition to require reciprocal access for all three lots prior to recordation.
(COA# 6.b.ii - vi and 6.c.)
R:~E O T~2.003\03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
2
Building and Safety Department
· All conditions have been deleted. They are not relevant to a map.
Fire Department
· Added a condition to require a digital version of the map prior to recordation. (COA# 79)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The original map was deemed exempt from environmental review based on Section 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances,
standards, guidelines, and policies. The project creates lots that are compatible with surrounding
developments in terms of size and as conditioned, therefore, staff is recommending approval.
FINDINGS (Tentative Map 16.09.070):
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code, General Plan, and the City
of Temecula Municipal Code;
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643 is consistent
with the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal
Code. Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643 proposes to divide 4.72 acres into one 2.35 acre
parcel, one 1.30 acre and one 1.06 acre parcel, which exceeds the 40,000 square foot
minimum lot area required by the Development Code.
The tentative map does not divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant
to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land
conservation Act contract but the resulting pamels following division of the land will not be
too small to sustain their agricultural use;
The proposed land division is not land designated for conservation or agricultural use.
The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed
by the tentative map;
The project consists of a Parcel Map on property designated for industrial use, which is
consistent with the General Plan, as well as, the development standards for the Light
Industrial zoning designation. The site does not have any serious topographical or
environmental constraints, which would inhibit the type of development permitted by the
Development Code or the General Plan.
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval,
are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidable
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
R:\E O T~2003\03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
3
The site is within the vicinity of in-fill development and is considered an in-fill site. The
project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resoumes, as
defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems;
Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. The City's Traffic Engineer,
Public Works Department and Fire Department have reviewed the project. These
departments have conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
There are solar possibilities available to this property when development is proposed.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided;
The map proposes access from Business Park Drive. The proposed access points will not
obstruct any easements.
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby);
This map is for industrial property and is not subject to the City's parkland dedication
requirements.
Attachments
1. PC Resolution No. 2003-
__- Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Exhibits - Blue Page 21
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Tentative Parcel Map
R:~E O T'~2003\03~0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
R:\E 0 T~2.003~03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254,doc
5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA03-0254, A REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME
(THE FIRST ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 29643, TO SUBDIVIDE 4.72 ACRES OF
VACANT LAND INTO THREE (3) PARCELS WITHIN THE LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET
SOUTH OF THE BUSINESS PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY
INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
921-020-068.
WHEREAS, Armstrong & Brooks, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0254, in a manner in
accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0254 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 regularly scheduled meeting, considered
Planning Application No. PA03-0254 on August 6, 2003, 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 Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-
0254 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No.
PA03-0254 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, and Subdivision
Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
03-0254 (Extension of Time) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.070
of the Temecuta Municipal Code:
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code, General Plan, and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code;
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643 is consistent
with the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal
Code. Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643 proposes to divide 4.72 acres into one 2.35 acre
parcel, one 1.30 acre and one 1.06 acre parcel, which exceeds the 40,000 square foot
minimum lot area required by the Development Code.
R:\E O T~2003\03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
6
B. The tentative map does not divide land which is subject to a contract entered into
pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land
conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small
to sustain their agricultural use;
The proposed land division is not land designated for consen/ation or agricultural use.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map;
The project consists of a Pamel Map on property designated for industrial use, which is
consistent with the General Plan, as well as, the development standards for the Light
Industrial zoning designation. The site does not have any serious topographical or
environmental constraints, which would inhibit the type of development permitted by the
Development Code or the General Plan.
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidable
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
The site is within the vicinity of in-fiff development and is considered an in-riff site. The project
will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined
in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. The City's Traffic Engineer,
Public Works Department and Fire Department have reviewed the project. These
departments have conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
There are solar possibilities available to this property when development is proposed.
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent
to those previously acquired by the public will be provided;
The map proposes access from Business Park Ddve. The proposed access points will not
obstruct any easements.
(Quimby);
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
This map is for industrial property and is not subject to the City's parkland dedication
requirements.
R:\E O T~2003~03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
7
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. PA03-0254 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332
(In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act. There are no potentially
significant environmental constraints on the site; 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.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA03-0254 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643) for the subdivision of 4.72
gross acres into three (3) parcels, located on the west side of Business Park Drive, south of the
Business Park Drive/Rancho Way intersection, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 920-020-068
subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Director of
Planning this 6~h day of August 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
City of Temecula
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of August, 2003, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\E O T~2003~03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Repor10254.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\E O T~2003\03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA03-0254 EXTENSION OF TIME
Planning Application No: PA03-0254 - Extension of Time (First)
Project Description:
Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643 to
subdivide 4.72 acres of vacant industrial land into three
(3) parcels
Assessor's Parcel No: 921-020-068
Approval Date:
August 6, 2003
Expiration Date:
May 3, 2005
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashier s check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of ....... ~
c!ght dc!!cm ($78.00) sixty-four dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code
Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development
Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project
granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c)). (Revised by the Planning Commission, August 6, 2003)
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
R:\E O T~2003\03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Repor10254.doc
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby
agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of
the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or
proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or 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. 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.
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 the 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.
(Revised by the Planning Commission, August 6, 2003)
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
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 Recordation of the Final Map
The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes and/or
the map delineated with identified environmental concerns:
i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
ii. This project is within a liquefaction and fault hazard zone and the
placement of future buildings shall be subject to review and approval
by the County Geologist and City Engineer. (Revised by the Planning
Commission, August 6, 2003)
iii. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
iv. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
R:\E O T~2_003\O3-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Reporl 0254.doc
11
Special Study Zones.
Archeological resources found on the site.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a copy of a recorded
Reciprocal Use Agreement, which provides mutual ingress/egress and cross-
lot access for the three lots utilizing the two points of access to Business Park
Drive, and establishes mutual responsibility for all commonly accessed areas
and street front landscaping. (Added by the Planning Commission, August 6,
2003)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency.
General Requirements
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works pdor to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
10.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for
consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
11.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
Planning Department
Depar/ment of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
R:\E O T~2003~03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
12
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Cable TV Franchise
Community Services District
Southern California Edison Company
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
a. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207A.
b. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
c. All concentrated drainage shall be directed towards an open channel along the
tentative parcel map frontage via over side drain per City Standard No. 300.
d. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Business Park Drive on the Parcel Map
with the exception of two openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision, which is part of an
existing Assessment District, must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to
City Council approval of the Parcel Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A
copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
Special Study Zones.
Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
Archeological resources found on the site.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject
property.
R:'~E O T~2003~03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
20.
The Developer shall record a written offer to padicipate in, and wave 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" or "Medians in accordance with the General Plan". The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
21.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the final map.
22.
An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided among the three proposed parcels
prior to approval of the Parcel Map.
23.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the
final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shallbe kept
free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
24.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Planning Department
b. Depadment of Public Works
c. Riverside County Health Department
d. Community Services District
e. Southern California Edison Company
25.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
26.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all
soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered
structures and preliminary pavement sections.
27.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site
including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
28.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the
site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage
R:\E O T~2003~3-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254,doc
14
facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall
capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property.
The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any
upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall
be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall
be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
29.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
30.
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.
31.
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.
32.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
33. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded.
34.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The buitding pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
35.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the
approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and
accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
36.
The Developer shall obtain a reciprocal access agreement for joint use of driveways and
parking and shall be specified in the CCR's.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
38.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
R:\E O T~2003\03-0254 TPM 29643~Staff Report 0254,doc
15
39.
c. Department of Public Works
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
40.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the
construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works.
BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION
-!!.
,.var,U..
R:\E O 'rx2003x03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
16
51.
52.
53.
54.
56.
57.
50.
Ccdc. (Deleted by the Planning Commission, August 6, 2003)
FIRE SAFETY DIVISION
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
62.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in
force at the time of building, plan submittal.
63.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division
per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water
system capable of delivering 1500 G PM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure 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)
R:\E o'r~2003~D3-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
17
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade
of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A~1. The developer shall provide for this project,
a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a
4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to
reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into
account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade
of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
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 902.2.2.3)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved bythe Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
R:\E O T~2003~03-0254 TPM 29643~Staff Report 0254.doc
74.
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 )
75.
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)
76.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Special Conditions
77.
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-
vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A)
78.
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)
79.
Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a
georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including
parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in an ESRI
Amlnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone
VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and
format prior to satisfaction of this condition. (Revised by the Planning Commission,
August 6, 2003)
OTHER AGENCIES
80.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's transmittal Mamh 30, 2000, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable
to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money
order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the
District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
81.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March ~10, 2000, a copy of which is
attached.
82.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
transmittal dated March 14, 2000 a copy of which is attached.
R:\E O T~.003~D3-O254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
19
83. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Historical
Resources Information System transmittal dated March 23, 2000
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Name printed
Date
R:\E O T~2003~3-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
2O
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STREET
RJVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/955-1200
909/'/88-9965 FAX
51180.!
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecela, California 92589-9033
Attention: _~F-/qlC E "~Orl/~ .5
Ladies and GenUemen: Re:
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood, hazar.d, reports for su ,ch cases. Distnct comments/racommeedations for such cases ara normally limited
to items or sPecinc ~nterest to me District includ ng D strct Master Drainage P an fac ties, other regional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical camponentor extens on of a mastor plan system,
and .D. is.t/ict Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). Ih addition, information of a general nature is
prmnaee.
~nest~uS~Cto h.as n. ot~m. v. ie.w. ed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
co t r ~p~y u~smct approv, ai or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and saraty or any other such issue:
~/" This pr.oject would not be impacted by District Master DraJnege Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written requesl of the City. Facilities must be constructed to D strict standards, and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance P an check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other faci ties that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting oweershJ[~ Or suc~ taC~litses on written request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and D strict plan check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. P an check, inspection and adm n sbative fees will be required.
I/ This. project is located within the limits of the District's H~,~u~/' ~ ~0,£ E~./"['~.~£CUL~q ~/'~'L.~r'~a
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopma; applicable tees st~ula be pain by cashier's
ch.e..ck or money order only to ~.e Flood Con~rol DJsbJct prior t0 issuance of bbilding or gradin~perm ts
wn~onever comes first. Fees to De paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance office actaa
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge El m nation System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Controt Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should net be given until the
Ci[y has aetermined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to b~ exempt.
~.SrePr.oj~ct Ln_v,..o~ves. a. ~eUem. ! Em..erg.en..cy Man.age.m? ^ge..cy (~ .E~ mapp? find plain, U~eo ~e C~y should
~1 .re m~. appa,can.[ ~o..p. ro.v!ae a, s. tua!.es~ .,ca~cu~a~..ons,. pla. ns. ana_ om.e.r ~nmrmanon re_quoted to meet FEMA
re.qu~r, ernem.s., ana enom.a, mrmer require rna~ me a. pp~care on,am a ~;ona~tienal Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
poor to graamg, racardation or other final approva of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to
occupancy.
Ifa. .natu~l w..aterc, o_u_.rs.e.~o..r_m, apped fi .o.o~. plai.n, is J..mp..acte. d b~y this. proj. ect~ the. City should require the applicant to
oora!n a ~ecaon ~uuln~u~s Agreement ~rom me ual~torn~a ueparm~em of Fisn and Game and a Clean Water Act
S .ect. ion 404 Permit..from the U.S. Army Co~ps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies
inaicatieg the projec~ rs exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certitication
may .b.e required from the local CalJforaia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to esuanca of the Corps 404
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: ~.~-~O ~7_..~Od_~
TO:
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF EN¥[RONMENTAL ttEALTlt
DATE: March 10, 2000
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Denice Thomas
~r~GREGOR DELLENBACH, Interim Supervisor
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643 / PA00-0084
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643 and
WSll'}eqmre i e~'o-flh-~:i~g'ii-e~is PRIO-R'TO-S~Iq-STSUBi~'Ii'I'I'h,L: ........
a) A "will-serve" letter for potable water t¥om the appropriate agency providing water service.
GD:dr
(909) 955-8980
March 14, 2000
Denice Thomas, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
MAR 1 5 ZOO0
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 11 OF PARCEL MAP 19580
APN 921-020-068
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0084
Dear Ms. Thomas:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
,~,~s,~/^~,~,~,~,,~ Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
c. M~¢~,~ Co~,~,, Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if/my, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative
at this office.
Sihcerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
99~SB:bs021 \F012-T6\FCF
SENT BY:U~ ; 3-24-00 ;10:26AN ; ARCH RESEARr. A.I UNIT....
90969484??;# 2
(~AUFORNIA
HISTORICAL
~ESOURCES
INFORMATION
~YSTEM
DATI~: Maxch 23, 2000
cl~m~l ms~,~c~(s). A l~i~ I stady is me~m~d~
-- A Fla~ l cl~lUn] ~ ~'-/(}JF I )
pAf10-0084~entafiw Pm~el g2~6~3
~lffomla ~ ~ I~adon
ect ~ adversely affect pre~ham~e c~
If you havc m~y qmmi0~, please conl~t
m
m
m
lff~ikm lit Ibm, m* a ~ olthe nl~.]
nl rc~m~es nd ~mtahm or ia ad'T,~:c~ to known
ATrACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\E O T~2003\03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254,doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
/k
CASE NO. - PA03-0254
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 6, 2003
VICINITY MAP
R:\E O T~2003~03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Repod 0254.doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION -(LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
EXHIBIT C -
DESIGNATION - (LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
ZONING
CASE NO. - PA03-0254
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 6, 2003
R:\E O T~2003~03-0254 TPM 29643\Stafl Report 0254.doc
23
CITY OF TEMECULA
TENTATIVE ?At~CEL MA? NO. 2~G4Z
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
.... / PAO0-O084 .... ~ ...... ~
L
PARK DRIVE ' ~ .....
/
~ /
/ I '"" /
I
I ~.. I I
I -, I I
~ I I
SCALE I~= 30'
CASE NO. - PA03-0254
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 6, 2003
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643
R:\E O T~003\03-0254 TPM 29643\Staff Report 0254.doc
24
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 6, 2003
Planning Application No. PA03-0323 (Sign Program Revision)
Prepared By: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-
0323, TO REVISE AN APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE
ETCO PLAZA DEVELOPMENT GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
TERMINUS OF SANBORN DRIVE AT MADISON AVENUE ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 910-272-005 AND
006.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Etco Investments LLC
PROPOSAL: To revise an approved sign program for Etco Plaza, a shopping
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
center consisting of two buildings.
27270 Madison Avenue
Service Commercial (SC)
North: Service Commercial (SC)
South: Service Commercial (SC)
East: Service Commemial (SC)
West: Service Commercial (SC)
Service Commercial (SC)
Building Under Construction
North: Commercial
South: Commercial
East: Interstate 15
West: Vacant
R:~Signs~2003't03-0323 Etco Plaza Sign Program Revision\PC Staff Report .doc
BACKGROUND
On April 9, 2003, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA02-0426 a
Comprehensive Sign Program for the Etco Plaza development. The project consists of two
office/retail buildings consisting of throe stories. Citing potential leasing hardships, the property
owner/developer has now applied to revise the Sign Program whereby the approved number and
location of second-story signs on each building would be changed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS
In association with the approved Sign Program, the Commission required that the Program limit the
amount of second-story signage on each building to the following:
Building One - one sign on the North elevation.
Building Two - one sign on the South elevation.
Moreover, the Commission only allowed these signs for a single second-story tenant that occupies
at least 50% of the second floor of each building. No other second-story signage is permitted.
The property owner/developer has now applied to revise the Sign Program whereby the second-
story signs identified above would be replaced with two second-story signs on each building. The
signs would be located below the secondary arched roof elements on both the east and west sides
of the buildings. The proposed signs would still only be allowed for a single second-story tenant that
occupies at least 50% of the second-floor.
The applicant had proposed these same second-story signs in association with the original Sign
Program submittal. At that time, staff felt that allowing the second-floor signs on the east and west
building elevations would result in excessive signage and serve to diminish the building architecture.
The Commission concurred with staff and requirod that the second-story signage be limited to the
north side of Building One and the south side of Building Two. Staff continues to believe that
allowing additional signage on the east and west building elevations would be detrimental to the
aesthetics of the building.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the proposed Sign Program revisions for the Etco Plaza development do
not comply with the purpose and intent of the sign standards of the Development Code. Moreover,
staff does not believe the proposed sign program rovisions serve to more fully enhance the
development and more fully accomplish the adopted sign standards. Subsequently, staff
rocommends that the proposed sign program rovisions be denied.
FINDINGS
SIGN PROGRAM (Section 17.28.080.B)
The proposed sign program revisions do not satisfy the intent or objectives of the
Development Code nor enhance the development. The proposed revisions result in
excessive signage on the north and south building elevations thereby detracting from the
building architecture and aesthetics.
R~Signs~2.003\~)3-0323 Etco Plaza Sign Program Revision~PC Staff Report .doc
The proposed sign program will not preserve and improve the appearance of the City as
viewed from the Interstate 15 freeway, and the allowable signage exceeds that which is
considered necessary for effective business signage.
Attachments
2.
3.
4.
5.
PC Resolution No. 2003- - Blue Page 4
Proposed Sign Program Revision Document - Blue Page 7
Correspondence from Afshin Etebar dated June 27, 2003 - Blue Page 8
Approved Sign Program Document- Blue Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes from March 19, 2003 and April 9, 2003 - Blue Page 9
R:\Signs~2003~03-0323 Etco pla~a Sign Program Revision~PC Staff Report ,doc
3
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION 2003-
R:\Signs~2003\03-0323 Etco Plaza Sign Program Revision~PC Staff Report .doc
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-
0323 TO REVISE AN APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE
ETCO PLAZA DEVELOPMENT GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
TERMINUS OF SANBORN DRIVE AT MADISON AVENUE ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 910-272-005 AND
006.
WHEREAS, Etco Investments LLC, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0323 Sign Program
Revision "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
August 6, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an oppodunity 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 denial 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.
reference.
The above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in denying the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.28.080.B of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed sign program revisions do not satisfy the intent or objectives of the
Development Code nor enhance the development. The proposed revisions result in excessive
signage on the north and south building elevations thereby detracting from the building architecture
and aesthetics.
B. The proposed sign program will not preserve and improve the appearance of the City
as viewed from the Interstate 15 freeway, and the allowable signage exceeds that which is
considered necessary for effective business signage.
R:\Signs~003~3-0323 Etco Plaza Sign Program Revision\PC Staff Report .doc
5
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 6th day of August 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of August 2003, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\Signs~2003\03-0323 Etco Plaza Sign Program Revision\PC Staff Report .doc
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
PROPOSED REVISED SIGN PROGRAM DOCUMENT
R:\Signs~003\03-0323 Etco Plaza Sign Program Revision\PC Staff Report .doc
7
E
0
I,M
o o =
~ .... - - ~ o~ oG G~
~ ~ ~ E 8 ~ o
0
Z
E
o 6-8
~ ~o
_do~~-
~='c o~
o o -d .
· c o E
~-~ ~ E
c
C
0
E
oO
Z
~E-~
.Ec~OoC~O~
Z
SIGN PROGRAM
'1
L
Location:
Madison Avenue and
Sanborn Road
Temecula, CA
Date:
April 11, 2002
Revisions:
....... ApriJ 25, 2002 ........
,May 13, 2002
May 22, 2002
.June 14, 2002
June 20, 2002
June 27, 2002
January 23, 2003
March 24, 2003
April 24, 2003
June 10, 2003
June 26, 2003
SIGN METHODS INC.
1749 E. 28th St.
Signal Hill, CA 90755
(562) 989-5755
(800) 655-4336
Fax: (562) 427.6875
www. signmethods.com
LU
Exhibit A
z
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AFSHIN ETEBAR DATED JUNE 27, 2003
R:\Signs~003\03-0323 Etco Plaza Sign Program Revision\PC Staff Report .doc
8
ETCO Investments LLC
Mr. matt Harris
City 'of Temecula
Planning department
Re: ETCO PLAZA - Sign Program
Mr. Harris:
Enclosed, please find the newly revised sign program for our project located on Madison
Avenue in the North Jefferson Business Park. As I stated in our meeting, our project
was, from the beginning, looked at as a very "high end" project; a project that both the
city and the owners could be proud off. Therefore, throughout the design phase we
focused tremendously on the exterior elevation of the buildings.
The signs and more importantly the location of the signs were part of that process. It was
in the early design stage that we planned to locate signs under the arches (one for the
second floor tenant and one for the third floor tenant).
ETCO Investments appreciates the time that the city of Temecula has put in to this
project so far but we think it is imperative to get the signs in the precise locations that we
had previously planned on and subsequently requested from the Planning Commission.
Anything short of what we have proposed would be a hardship on us and the project. We
have conunitted and spent a tremendous amount of money and upgraded the buildings to
standards above and beyond industry standards.
The proposed signs are extremely critical to the success of the building. It could mean
getting a tenant or not.
We strongly urge the City planning staff and the members of the planning commission to
give us this desperately needed consideration.
JUL 0 1 ZOO3
540 Westminster Mall * Westminster, California 92683 * Phone: (714) 379-3279 * Fax: (714) 379-9223
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM DOCUMENT
R:'vSigns~2003\03-0323 Etco Plaza Sign Program Revision\PC Staff Repoi'l .doc
x
0"5
Ou~ [
O~
~o
o E ;c 3 --
~ c~ E~ u o
x
. o~ ~ '- oo
-0_6'5
-o~§
~o
Em
c o . ~ ~ ~ o ·
~c~ OoO Z
~ ~ m .... ccc
i
u~
SIGN PROGRAM
LAJ
Z
DS :]NOZ
Location:
Madison Avenue and
Sanborn Road
Temecula, CA
Date:
April 11, 2002
.... Revisions:
/~ar~l 25, 2002 y 13, 2002
May 22 2002
June 14, 2002
June 20, 2002
June 27, 2002
January 23, 2003
March 24, 2003
SION METHODS INC.
1749 E. 28th St.
Signal Hill, CA 90755
(562) 989-5755
(800) 655-4336
Fax: (562} 427-6875
www.signmethods.com
Exhibit A
o r.. ~ ,° ~
-,ilo c E
z
=
0~
DO
ATrACHMENT NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FROM MARCH 19, 2003 AND APRIL 9, 2003
R:\Signs~2003\03-0323 Etco Plaza Sign Program Revision\PC Staff Report .doc
10
CALLTO ORDER
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 19, 2003
City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M.,
March 19, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
;iness Park Drive, Temecula, California.
The aL
Chairman
Pena.
ICE
ROLLCALL
Present:
led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff.
welcomed Minute Clerk Norma Childs and Planning Technician Sid
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
nd Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 19, 2003
It was noted by Chairman Chiniaeff that Item No .5
in association with a future retail commemial
southeast and southwest corners of Pechanga
South) would be continued to the April 9, 2003 Planning
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 29, 2003;
2.2 Approve the minutes of February 5, 2003;
2.3 Approve the minutes of February 19, 2003.
)rehensive Land Use Plan
center located on the
State Highway 79
Meeting.
R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 1
3 Director's Hearing Case Update
~MMENDATION:
3.1 )rove the Director's Hearing Case Update for February, 2003.
MOTION:
3. The
unanimous
~missioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-
by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected
CC JESS
4 Conditional Use
uirements for Businesses Sellinq Alcoholic Beveraqes -
~lanner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 File and receive.
Principal Planner Hogan
current Development Code req
~e staff report (of record), highlighting the City's
the recommended changes.
In response to the Commissioners, Princi I Planner Hogan noted the following:
That staff would concur with
create local factors/impacts/problems
Use Permit (CUP);
That a Specialty/Discount Store
Market/Trader Joe's;
Telesio's suggestions for staff to
rmining the need for a Conditional
would ae characterized as a World
· That the Discount Store category (Costco)
Development Code but that the Specialty
be currently defined in the
' is not.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that the wine tastin
restricted to ensure that sales are solely limited to wine tasting.
category should be
Commissioner Mathewson relayed his concurrence with
requesting that additional justification be provided with regard to the
longer require a CUP.
recommendation
would no
With regard to the Convenience Store/Mini Mart and Liquor
Commissioner Telesio expressed his preference to regulate on an
with proper justification versus on a general regulation basis.
cries,
basis
In response :to Commissioner Mathewson's comment, Principal Planner Ho sed
that from staff's perspective the need for a CUP would be easier regulated throu(
use versus (he success/quality of the business but that staff could analyze i
such as percentage of total sales and determining which percentage is alcohol related.
R: PianComm/minutes/031903 2
Because checks and balances are in place through the CUP process,
Chiniaeff voiced his opinion for no change and concurred with Commission~
comment relative to regulation.
Speaking in support ef staff's recommendation as it
various categories, Commissioner Olhasso
through the CUP.
differentiation among the
existing checks and balances
Commissioner Guerrie the number of Convenience Stores/Mini
Marts/Lk gas stations necessary in the City that sell alcohol.
~g the existing procedures in place, Commissioner Telesio spoke in support of
ge.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planninq Application No. PA02-0340 To establish a Comprehensive Land Use Plan
association with a future retail commercial shoppinq center located on the
,nd southwest corners of Pechanqa Parkway and State Highway 79 South
3N:
5.1 Adopt
of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No.
)ment Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California
!uality Act;
5.2 Adopt a resoluti~
PC NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0340, A CE LAND USE PLAN TO
ESTABLISH GUIDELINES AND ~IA FOR THE FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT OF A -'RClAL SHOPPING
COMPLEX ON A 14.3 ACRE SITE. THE IS GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST ..... SOUTHWEST
CORNERS OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AN'D~ECHANGA
PARKWAY ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS.
961-O10-001,004 &O05. ~
Planning Director Ubnoske advised that staff would recommend that th'~public hearing
be continued to the meeting of April 9, 2003. Having met with the applic~t and staff,
Commissioner Telesio noted that the project is progressing and should be re"ad,[y for the
Commission's review by April 9, 2003. ~
It w.a.s the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue the--item to the meeting"e~-
April 9, 2003. ~
R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 3
dication No. PA03-017 An application for a seasonal strawberry stand
40240 Winchester Road,
ENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a ~lution entitled
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-013
A RESOLI.
OF TEMECULA
DIRECTOR'S
03-017, A TEMPORARY
TEMPORARY FRESH
NORTHEAST CORNER OF
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
~ENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
LOCATED ON THE
ROAD AND WINCHESTER
L NO. APN 920-100-013
Planning Technician Pena referenced the staff report per agenda material), noting
that the applicant was not in attendance; that the site would solely be for
selling and not for growing purposes; that the applicant was 'ous of attaining access
off Winchester Road to ensure marketability of his business; that the existing
driveway has not been properly designed for public use and does"~t meet Caltrans
design standards.
There being no public input, the public hearing was closed. ~
Chairman Chiniaeff voiced no objection to permitting access off Nicolas' -Road.'
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff recom..m~nd, afion.. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner euerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0426 to establish a siqn proqram for Etco Plaza, a
shoppinq center consistinq of two buildinqs located at 27270 Madison Avenue
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Continue this item for Modification/Revisions.
Associate Planner Harris reviewed the staff report (of record), highlighting the sign
standards as per the Development Code and noting that the applicant will be deviating
from these standards. Mr. Harris referenced staff's recommendation to revise the sign
program whereby all the non-conforming sign regulations are modified to comply with all
existing applicable sign standards within the Development Code; to limit Wall Mounted
Signage to the east and west sides of the buildings on Madison Avenue and freeway
side; to prohibit signage on the north and south ends of the two buildings, noting there
would be sufficient visibility on the east and west sides; and to continue the item for
further review.
R: PianComm/minutes/031903 4
Staff clarified that it would be within the Planning Commission's purview to amend the
Sign Standards if determined it would enhance the development.
Having worked with the Planning Department with regard to the sign program, Mr. Afshin
Etebar, applicant, 540 Westminster Mall, Westminster, described the proposed sign
program, noting the following:
Freestandinq Multi-Tenant Identification Si.qns
That the intent of the proposed sign program would be to enhance the freeway
side of the building and that possibly a variation of the sign standards be
considered;
· That commercial users/office users (ground floor) would prefer signage on the
building facing the freeway as well as Madison Avenue;
· That, in his opinion, the ordinance does not reflect clear guidelines with regard to
mixed-use buildings;
That with regard to the Freestanding Signs standards, he would not view his
project as a shopping center which has a standard of one sign per 300 lineal feet
of street frontage per shopping center (applicant proposing two signs per 458
lineal feet of street frontage);
· That because of the project location within the master planned area, there would
be no flexibility as to sign location because of landscaping;
· That he would be willing to work with staff with regard to amhitectural elements of
the Freestanding Multi-Tenant Identification Signs (2) proposed;
· That address standards for the Freestanding Signs could be accommodated.
Wall Mounted Siqns
· That five primary signs are being proposed versus four as was indicated in the
staff report;
· That there will be two primary tenants (1st & 2nd floor.); that currently there is no
tenant for the third floor of the first building;
· That the second building currently has one tenant for the first floor;
· That at maximum occupancy, he would propose to locate three signs on the
freeway side and three signs on the Madison Avenue side;
That some tenants may request doubled-lined signs; that the articulation of the
proposed buildings has limited signage area; therefore, some flexibility would be
requested.
R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 5
Secondary Tenant Si.qns
· That the color scheme of the secondary signs will be matching the primary signs;
· That in his opinion, the proposed sign program would meet the requirements of
Development Code 17.28.240.
In response to the Commissioners, Mr. Eteban noted the following:
· That each building would accommodate four tenants on the first floor, four
tenants on the second floor, and two tenants on the third floor.
For the Planning Commissioners, Assistant City Attorney Curley, clarified that, as per
case law, there are parameters with regard to corporate Iogos, noting that the City may
prohibit Iogos; that it may control the size of them; but that it may not change/alter a
corporate logo.
Mr. James P. Bras, 1749 E. 28th Street Signal Hill, representing the applicant, Sign
Methods, Inc., concurred with Assistant Attorney Curley's comment regarding corporate
Iogos.
Commissioner Guerriero commended the applicant on the proposed sign program and
voiced a willingness to be flexible.
Commending the applicant on the architectural elements of the project, Commissioner
Mathewson relayed his desire for less signage to limit the possibility of detracting from
these elements; expressed concern with regard to the size of the letters and number of
signs of each building; and noted no concern with the number of lines (single or double);
Commending the applicant as well on the design of the project, Commissioner Telesio
clarified his understanding of the sign request (one sign per building on the west side
[freeway side] and one sign per building on the east side [Madison Avenue] per major
tenant). In closing, Mr. Telesio relayed his preference to not utilize corporate Iogos.
To eliminate staff/applicant confusion as it relates to corporate Iogos, Commissioner
Olhasso suggested that staff and the applicant work together; recommended staff
flexibility to ensure quality tenants; and voiced no concern with changing the font as long
as there be adherence to the color scheme.
Chairman C~iniaeff expressed concern with the proposed number of signs; stated that in
his opinion, signage would not be necessary on the ends of the buildings on the east
and west sides for the major tenants considering there will be signage for the major
tenants on the freeway side (west side); and voiced no objection to the monument sign.
Additional Commission discussion and clarification ensued as to Iogos and maximum
number of signs per building per primary, secondary, and ground tenants with the
following comments:
R: PlanComm/m!nutes/031903 6
· Commissioner Mathewson emphasized his desire to permit one primary tenant
identified per building with one sign per elevation (two signs maximum);
Commissioner Guerriero voiced no objection to placing a secondary sign on the
north and south sides but expressed concern with the placement of a secondary
sign on the east and west sides.
By way of an exhibit, the Commission clarified its recommendation with the applicant
voicing no objection as follows:
· One primary sign per building on the east and west elevations (freeway and
Madison Avenue sides);
One secondary sign for another major tenant on the second floor on either the
north or south ends of the buildings. If there were four tenants on the second
floor, no signage would be permitted on the north and south ends;
· Two monument signs on the east elevation;
· Provide a revised site plan to reflect the Planning Commission sign
recommendation;
· That no Iogos be granted.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this matter to the Planning
Commission Meeting of April 9, 2003. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
Planninq Application No. PA02-0689 An Extension of Time for Planninq Application
No. PA00-0276 a Development Plan to desiqn and construct a 15,833 square foot
office buildinq on a .64-acre lot located at the southwest knuckle of Enterprise Cir,
North (the empty buildinq pad north of 41582 Enterprise Circle North'
Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application PA02-0689 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Act;
8.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC
A RESOLUTION OF THE
OF TEMECULA
0689 (THE
PLANNING
TO DESIGI'
BUILDll~
AT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR
:ATION NO. 00-0276 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
CONSTRUCT A 15,883 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
BUILDING), ON A .64 ACRE LOT LOCATED
SOUTHWEST KNUCKLE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-282-013
R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 7
Planner Rush reviewed the staff report (of record), advising that the
icant's representative was in attendance and voicing no opposition to the six added
approval as well as one amended condition of approval (added condition
nos. 11,70, 71,72, and 73 and the amended condition no. 18).
A1
the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Larry
reiterated
condition.
41635 Enterprise Circle North, representing the applicant,
with the revised conditions of approval, including the amended
At this time the
tearing was closed.
MOTION: Cc
added six conditions of
Commissioner Olhasso
approval.
Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation with the
,roval, including the one amended conditions (see page 7).
the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous
Planninq Application No.
followinR: define what a
clarify the application process
conditional use permit, authorize
Development
Residential Develc
proqrams as well as the
update the approval authority table in
chanqes, Dave Hoqan, Principal Planner
To amend the Development Code to do the
~nd minor modification to a development plan is,
" both a development plan and
reference of complicated Planned
standards and prooedures for Planned
;ion concerninq the approval of siqn
~nd duration of used for ambient balloons,
17.03 to conform to the other
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CID ,N OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED IINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA IPAL
CODE TO CLARIFY THE PROCEDURES FOR NG
APPROVED PERMITS, TO CREATE PROVISIONS TO
FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, TO
OTHER MINOR CHANGES AND PROVIDE FOR
READOPTION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NOS. 5
AND 6" (PLANNING APPLICATION 03-0109)
Principal Planner Ho§an clarified the staff report (as per agenda material),
the following:
R: PtanComm/mi'nutes/031903 8
CUP noticing requirements increased from 300' to 600';
of minor and major modifications for Development Plans and CUPs;
fee schedule will be developed reviewing the various elements of each
cation;
· That
were
and major modifications be administratively approved unless there
ntial changes which would require Planning Commission's approval;
· Creation
st~
Planned Residential Development Element - varying zone
· Planned
PDO) - adopted by specific reference;
With regard to the
recommendation to
Modification as follows:
footprint; ~nd to
Planning Cc
information, it was the Planning Commission's
ge the verbiage of the first bullet under Minor
increase of less than 10% of the building
all Major Modifications be forwarded to the
~ment Plan for a new building less than
his opposition with this section if it were
With regard to Section 2 A.2
10,000 square feet), Chairman
to relate to the Liquor Store category incipal Planner Hogan advising that this
would not be a change of the current
noting that the Planning Commission would
convenience.
with Planning Director Ubnoske
;w the need for public necessity or
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to
amended:
rove staff recommendation as
· Minor Modifications- an increase of less than
· Major Modifications - to be forwarded for Plannin¢
.j footprint;
~ission review.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso
unanimous approval.
vote reflected
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
A. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske that Code
Enforcement is addressing the storage of sofas in the parking lot
B. Assistant Attorney Curley provided clarification with regard to Conflict oNterest
as it relates to the Commissioners' voting abilities. ~
C. Referencing the Commissioners Handbook, Commissioner Telesio comment~
on ExPade communications. ~
R: P[anComm/minutes/031903 9
For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided clarification
regard to the Building and Safety Code pertaining to all-weather (asphalt) road
,ments.
Road at
concern with
Building
apprised staff of a flooding issue at General Kearney
L. Day Middle School. Commissioner Mathewson also expressed
PVC and vinyl sign functioning as a monument sign at La Masters
Rent-a-Car.
F. For (~ iniaeff, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that staff is working
on resolving the car lot on Ynez Road (located on the North Plaza property).
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S )RTS
A. Because of the lack of
2003, it was the consensus of
Commission meeting to April 9, 2003
for the regularly scheduled meeting for April 2,
members to reschedule the April Planning
~ri123, 2003.
B. Planning Department re
of the Form 700 deadline.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:00 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally
re,qular meetin.q to be held on
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
the next adiourned
at 6:00 P.M., in the City
Dennis W. Chiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie
Director of Plannin(
R: PtanComm/minutesJ031903 10
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 9, 2003
ALL. TO ORDER
Th~City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:06
P.M.,~on Wednesday, April 9, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City
Hall, 4~00 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
\
ALLEGIAI~ICE
The audienc"~was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff.
ROLL CALL ~
~resent: X Commissioners Mathe~son, Yelesio, and Chairman
Chiniaelf.
Absent: Guerriero and Olhasso.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 9,
(Item No. 5 was continued to May 7, 2003,
April 23, 2003.)
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
3
6, 7, and 8 were continued to
2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 19, 2003.
Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for Mamh
R: PlanningCommlsslon~n~inutes~040903
~:
~issioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. - 1
3 (----~mending ~ee page 1). The motion was seconded by Commissioner
T~~~'~ed~aEE[~val with the exception of Commissioners
~lhasso who were absent~
COMMISSION BUSINESS ~
There was no Commission Business.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4 Planninq Application No. PA02-0426 To establish a si.qn proqram for Etco Plaza, a
shoppin.q center consistin.q of two buildin.qs located at 27270 Madison Avenue
(Continued from March 19, 2003)
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0426, TO ESTABLISH A
SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE ETCO PLAZA
DEVELOPMENT GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
TERMINUS OF SANBORN DRIVE AT MADISON
AVENUE ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBERS 910-272-005 & 006
Highlighting the Planning Commission's previous modifications (March 19, 2003) to the
requested sign program, Associate Planner Harris reviewed the staff report (as per
agenda material). It was noted that since that time, the applicant has revised the sign
program, however, not all the recommendations or determinations of the Commission
have been made. The following is a summary of the sign program modifications
requested by the Commission versus what the applicant has provided (noting the
applicant was not in attendance).
· That, as per the Commission, there be one sign on the east and
west sides of each building;
The applicant's request--modified the sign program
accordingly, however, requesting three location options
for the primary tenant sign;
O
Staff would recommend that the signs be located
underneath the prominent arched roof elements of the
buildings which represents the most appropriate location
based on lhe buildings architectutural features.
Therefore, staff would recommend that the two permitted
R: Plan nin g Co rnrnlsslon~ninutes~tOg 03 2
primary tenant signs be limited to these locations on each
building and that the sign program be modified
accordingly.
SECOND FLOOR SIGNS
The Commission determined that one secondary tenant sized
sign may be allowed on the north and south side of each building
provided there was one second-story tenant; if there were more
than one second-story tenant, no second-story signs would be
permitted.
The applicant's request--one secondary tenant sign on
the east and west elevations, not the north and south
elevations. If the tenant were to occupy at least 50% of
the second floor.
O
Staff stated that the applicant's request would result in an
excessive amount of signage on the east and west
elevations and would detract from the amhitectural
features. Therefore, staff would recommend that the
second-story signage provisions, outlined by the Planning
Commission, be maintained and that the sign program be
revised accordingly.
GROUND FLOOR SIGNS
The Commission determined that there be one ground floor sign
for each secondary tenant on the east and west elevation for
each building per tenant (maximum 4);
· That if a tenant were to occupy two spaces or more, only one
ground floor sign may be granted;
That the applicant concurred with the proposed recommendation
as it relates to ground floor sign for each secondary tenant on the
east and west elevation; but with regard to the multiple space
issue, the applicant would be requesting, in lieu of a ground floor
sign, another sign on the second-story.
LOGO SIGNS
· The Planning Commission determined that no logo sign should
be allowed on the building;
o The applicant's request to permit Iogos;
o Staff would recommend that the sign program be modified
to reflect the Commission's decision.
R: P la nnlngC ommls slon~m Inu tes~)40903 3
MONUMENT SIGNS
· The Commission determined that two proposed freestanding
monument signs along the Madison Avenue frontage were
appropriate as proposed;
o The applicant's requestJto relocate the originally
proposed Freestanding Multi-Tenant Identification Signs
adjacent to the two site driveways;
o Staff has no objection to the revised sign locations
provided the signs comply with the sight visibility
requirements;
o Staff has determined that the proposed sign program for
Etco Plaza Development, as conditioned, does comply
with all applicable sign standards identified in the
Development Code. Subsequently, staff would
recommend that the sign program be approved as
conditioned.
Mr. James P. Brass, 1749 E. 28a Street Signal Hill, representing the applicant, Sign
Methods, Inc., reiterated the multi-space issue, requesting one secondary tenant sign
be located on the second-story of both the east and west elevations of each building to
identify a second-story tenant that occupies at least 50% of the second floor space.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that significant changes are being proposed by the
applicant, stating that the proposed changes would result in more signage on the west
and east sides of the building, that he would support staff's recommendation, and
reiterating his desire to follow the proposed font style.
Addressing the multiple-space issue on the second floor, it was noted by Commissioner
Telesio that the intent of the signs on the north and south ends of the building was for a
tenant occupying the entire second floor (100%) that there would be no aesthetic
impact or a change in total number of signs per building if such signs were granted to
tenant occupying 51% or more.
Recapitulating the Planning Commission's decision, Commissioner Mathewson clarified
the total number of allowable signs per building: one primary sign on the west and east
sides (lwo); ground floor signs (8); and a secondary sign on the north or south side
(one); plus the monument sign.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Harris clarified No. 13 of the design
guidelines (Banners, Pennants and Balloons used for advertising purposes) with the
Planning Commission concurring to not permit such usage.
MOTION:. Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff's recommendation as
amended as follows:
· Secondary signage on the second floor to grant a tenant occupying 51% or
more of the second floor a secondary sign on the north and south ends;
R: planningCo mrni s slon~znl n utes~D40903 4
· Maximum number of signs on each building 11 which would include one
secondary tloor sign on the north and south ends of the building;
· That No. 13 of the design guidelines (Banners, Pennants and Balloons) be
stricken.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Olhasso who were
absent.
6
Planninq Application No. PA02-0340 To establish a Comprehensive Land Use Plan
in association with a future retail commercial shoppinq center located on the
southeast and southwest comers of Pechan.qa Parkway and State Hiqhway 79
South
(Continued from March 19, 2003)
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Requesting a continuance to April 23, 2003
(Continued to May 7, 2003; see page 1 .)
Planninq Application No. PA02-0334 To
square foot two-stow office buildinq located on Jefferson
Montezuma
north of Via
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Plannin
to Section 15332 of the California Environr
No. PA02-0334 pursuant
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY OF
APPLIGATION
27,706 SQl
VACANT
JEFFE
MO~
PLANNING COMMISSION OF
ILA APPROVING PLANNING
PA02-0334, A DEVELOPMENT
ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A
FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON 1.67
GENERALLY LOCATED ON
AVENUE AND NORTH OF VIA
IMA KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.
23, 2003; see page 1 .)
R: PlannlngCommls$i0n~mlnutes~)40903 5
Plannin No. PA02-0652 A Vestinq Tentative Parcel Map located on the
side of Rancho California Road, west of Cosmic Read and east of Ihe Ranchu
~mia Road / Moraqa Intersection
MENDATION:
7.1
Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No.
(Vesting Tentative Parcel Map) pursuant to Section 15162 of the
r Act;
7.2 Adopt a
entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION
THE CITY OF
COUNCIL
NO. PA02-0652, AN
PARCEL MAP,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD AND EAST OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
ILA RECOMMENDING CITY
PLANNING APPLICATION
LOT VESTING TENTATIVE
LOCATED SOUTH OF
WEST OF COSMIC
MORAGA ROAD
INTERSECTION OF RANCHO -'ORNIA ROAD
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS \NO(S). 944-290-
012, 013,014.
(Continued to April 23, 2003; see page 1 .) ~
8 Planninq Application No. PA02-0620 To construct, establish a~ld operate an 8,100
square foot multi-tenant retail buildinq on 1.01 acres located wit'h~n the Bel Villaqiu
shoppinq center, west of Margarita Road, 470 linear feet south of~qe Mall Acces~
Road and North General Keame¥ Road intersection ~
RECOMMENDATION: _ ....~ ..
8.1 Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Appiicatiort~?.
PA02-0620 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the Califorhia~
Environmental Quality Act ~
8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
~LICATION NO. PA02-0620, A DEVELOPMENT
TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE
8,100 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-TENANT RETAIL
ON 1.01 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED
OF MARGARITA ROAD, 470 LINEAR FEET
-' THE MALL ACCESS ROAD AND NORTH
INEY ROAD INTERSECTION AND
ALSO AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-
09O-063
(Continued to April 23,
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
A. Having ;~ttended the American
Denver, Colorado, Chairman
next years will be in Washington, D.C.
Association (APA) Conference in
that it was applicant productive and that
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the
Planner position have been scheduled and noted
has tendered his resignation and that staff has
design guidelines.
Commissioner Telesio readdressed Ex-Parte Commu
Attorney Curley providing an updated version of the Planning
Planning Director Ubnoske noted that the Ex-Part(
Be placed on a future Planning Commission Agenda.
rviews tor the Associate
istant Planner Preisendanz
consultants to prepare
Assistant City
ADJOURNMENT.
Cha rman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the ~ t.~
held on Wednesday, April 23~ 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 432%
Business Park Drive, and Temecula.
~.._~D~nnis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R: PlannlngComrnlsslon~lnutes~O40903 7