HomeMy WebLinkAbout042104 PC Agenda
..
~
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, .if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444.
Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
APRIL 21 ,2004 - 6:00 P.M.
********
Next in Order:
Resolution No. 2004-018
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Chiniaeff
Roll Call:
Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Telesio
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 not 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 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 21, 2004
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\04-21-04.doc
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 3, 2004
3 Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for March 2004
COMMISSION BUSINESS
4 Request to approve an interim policy addressinq development proposals in the Chaparral
Special Study Area while the General Plan is beinq updated. The interim policy further
refines how the Chaparral criteria will be implemented and is expected to be consistent with
the General Plan after it is updated. David Hoqan. Principal Planner.
RECOMMENDATION
4.1 Recommend City Council Approval of the Chaparral Interim Policy
5 Public Necessity and Convenience Findinqs 29676 Rancho California Road. Tarqet Retail
Buildinq. Dan Lonq Associate Planner.
RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Approve Findings of Public Convenience
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 April 7, 2004
6 Planninq Application No. PA02-0717 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to
construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility to include a 56-foot hiqh
artificial palm tree with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of the tree and four
outdoor equipment cabinets within a 310 square foot block screen wall enclosure. located at
315754 Enfield Lane. Stuart Fisk. Associate Planner.
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\04-21-04.doc
2
New Items
7 Planninq Application No. PA03-0726 a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the sales of
beer and wine (Type 20 License) in an existinq Tarqet Buildinq. located at 29676 Rancho
California Road. Dan Lonq. Associate Planner.
8 Planninq Application No. PA03-0443. a Development Plan to construct a 29.516 square foot
office buildinq on 5:69 acres. located on the south side of County Center Drive.
approximately 1.500 feet east of Ynez Road. Stuart Fisk. Associate Planner.
9 Planninq Application No. PA03-0725 a Development Plan and Product Review for the
desiqn of 99 sinqle-family residences. includinq three floor plans and three architectural
styles. located on the south side of Murrieta Hot Sprinqs and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Staqe Road within the Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan. Planninq Area 2. Dan
Lonq Associate Planner.
10 Planninq Application No. PA03-0634 a Development Plan and Product Review for the
desiqnof 113 sinqle-family residences. includinq four floor plans and three architectural
styles. located on the south side of Murrieta Hot Sprinqs and west of the future extension of
Butterfieid Staqe Road within the Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan. Planninq Area 4B. Dan
Lonq. Associate Planner.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: May 5, 2004
Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\04-21-04.doc
3
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
. MARCH 3, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Cornmission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on
Wednesday, March 3, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Ternecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Cornmissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Corn missioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Chiniaeff, and Chairman
Telesio.
Absent:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 3, 2004.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of February 4,2004.
3 Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for February 2004.
R:IMinutesPCI030304
1
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioners Mathewson and Guerriero who both abstained.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
New Items
4 Planninq Application No. PA01-0605 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to
construct a 103-unit self storaqe facility totalinq 29,780 square feet with 64 outdoor
recreational vehicle spaces on a 173.440 square foot lot. located alonq the south side of
Overland Drive and east of Cornmerce Center Drive
Associate Planner presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following:
. That the proposed project will be for two separate parcels, one will be zoned service
commercial and the other light industrial;
. That the service commercial parcel will be located along Overland Drive and the light
industrial will have access to Cornmerce Center Drive;
. That ingress for the storage facility will be off Commerce Center Drive and egress will be
off Overland Drive;
. That the project will be designed to tie into an existing storage facility across the way on
Overland Drive;
. That originally the project was proposed to have access on Overland Drive; that because
of conflict and traffic issues, staff recommended that the access point be moved over to
Commerce Center Drive;
. That 170 feet of the project will be located along Overland Drive;
. That since the writing of the staff report, the applicant and staff have reviewed the
Conditions of Approval and the applicant has requested to modify Condition of Approval
No. 10 a standard Condition of Approval, requiring internalization of all downspouts and
is put on all projects; and that the applicant requested to modify the condition to only
require internalization of downspouts on the front elevation and not the elevation into the
site that will not be visible from the public view;
. That the applicant also requested a modification to Condition of Approval No. 101, but
that staff would be recommending that Condition of Approval NO.1 01 be deleted versus
modified;
. That staff would be recomrnending approval of the project with the attached Conditions
of Approval and resolution.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Rush relayed that the GIS map indicated that
the property is located outside the flood plain; however, it was not checked against the FEMMA
map.
R:IMinutesPCI030304
2
Deputy Director Parks relayed that the Murrieta Creek has been lowered from it previous
elevation; that the silt at Empire Creek has been removed; that the responsibility for maintaining
Empire Creek falls on the property owners association; and that the Murrieta Creek renovations
are a joint venture by the Army Corps and is maintained by Riverside County Flood Control
District.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Ken High, 1000 Town Center, owner of Rancho Self Storage, commented on the following:
. That the proposed project will primarily be an RV/Storage facility;
. That the proposed project has been through architectural review by the Rancho Owners
Association and has been approved;
. That if downspouts were put inside the walls, a wall would have to be built around the
downspout; that the partitions between units are metal; that there will be no place inside
the units to put the downspouts in the conventional way; that there are double walls on
the front; and that the downspouts need to be outside the units and should not be seen
by the public;
. That there will be video cameras throughout the facility, individually alarmed units which
will be recorded real-time;
. That a wrought iron fence along the creek will be eight feet tall with spikes;
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
For clarification, Associate Planner Rush relayed that staff conditioned a previous storage
facility to internalize the downspouts and that the issue of damage was not raised by the
applicant.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt PC Resolution No. 2004-011, subject to the
previously noted changes per Mr. Rush deleting Condition of Approval NO.1 01. Commissioner
Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-011
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA01-0605 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 103 UNIT SELF
STORAGE FACILITY TOTALIZING 29,780 SQUARE' FEET
WITH A64 OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SPACES ON
A 173,440 SQUARE FOOT LOT, LOCATED ALONG THE
SOUTH SIDE OF OVERLAND DRIE AND EAST OF
COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR
PARCEL NO. S 921-48~44 AND 921-480-045
R:IMinutesPCI030304
3
5 Planninq Application No. PA03-0551. submitted by Shea Homes, is a Product Review for 99
detached sinqle-family residences within Planninq Area 3 of the Roripauqh Ranch Specific
Plan, located south of Murrieta Hot Sprinqs Road and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Staqe Road (Tract 29661-3)
Associate Pianner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following:
. That Shea Hornes is proposing four architectural floor plans and three architectural
styles within the area;
. That the architectural styles include Mission, Mediterranean, and French;
. That staff reviewed the project and determined that the project will with the four-sided
architectural requirements;
. That each style will include a varied roof pitch;
. That each style will maintain various arches and different window type; and that the
various styles have wrought iron details in key locations;
. That the applicant has proposed plan 2 and plan 3 for all corner lots; that both plans
carry significant detail to the exterior elevations such as arched windows, wrought iron
detail, decorative window sills, stone, and decorative roof treatments as well as
numerous windows which break up the wall plane;
. That plan 3 will include a courtyard with decorative walls including a gate and wrought
iron detail; that the courtyard and walls will not be visible; however, staff has included as
a Condition of Approval, that the fence be pulled back for corner lots to expose the
courtyard from the street; that staff is of the opinion that this will open up the exterior
elevations and beautify the street scene;
. That careful plotting of setbacks. and single-story elements on two-story products will
avoid the can effect, as required in the Specific Plan (SP); that there is no style or plan
located side by side rnore than 3 in a row with the exception of lots 23, 70, 60, and 53;
. That staff would recornmends that two additional single-story products be added on lots
69 or 70 (corner lots) and one other lot; that there are a total of four plans, three plotted
in a row; lots 23, 70, 69, and 53; that staff would be of the opinion that by replacing lot 69
or 70 with a plan one, it would provide a single story on a corner lot and break up the
number of plans three in a row to no more than two;
. That staff included a packet sample of the excerpts from the design guidelines which
includes the Mediterranean, Mission, and French style;
. That staff would be of the opinion that the proposed project will be consistent with the
Design Guidelines and would recornmend approval as conditioned;
. That staff would request to modify Condition of Approval No. 17 to read: A plan one shall
be plotted on lot 69 or 70 and one other corner location as determined by the Planninq
Director:
R:IMinutesPCI030304
4
. That staff would be requesting to omit the language pavinq stones and f1aq stone in
Condition of Approval No. 13;
For the Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted 'that there is no language in the
Specific Plan (SP) that calls out a specific percentage or number; that the language states as
determined by staff for the market, that staff will be looking at each tract that comes through;
that on the smaller lots, staff will be looking at variation in roof heights, styles, and details in the
front; that earlier designs presented with definitive numbers, but this will no longer be the case.
Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested having a performance standard.
For Comrnissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she is not aware of the
status of the Assessment District.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mike O'Melvany, 2280 Wardlow Circle, representing Shea Homes, noted the following:
. That the applicant is appreciative of staff's efforts;
. That the applicant will be complying with the Conditions of Approval;
. That the applicant would be willing to locate a single story on one of the lots as
requested by staff;
Mr. Manny Gonzalez, 17992 Mitchell South, echoed Mr. O'Melvany's comments.
Mr. Kevin Everett, 3553 Hollyberry Drive, representing Ashby USA, noted the following:
. That the first Community Facilities District (CFD) will be for the panhandle only;
. That the panhandle will include the first 509 units in the first five neighborhoods;
. That the applicant was stalled in getting the JCFAs through the county;
. That Ashby USA has agreed to two CFDs one for panhandle and one for the pan and
that the county will not be involved in the first phase of the first CFD;
. That in the meantime, Ashby has funded the CFD through the first phase and on into the
second;
. That most of the improvements have started under construction;
. That before any lots are sold, the first CFD will have been formed and funded;
. That the first CFD will be for the panhandle only;
. That the development agreement states "Formed and funded prior to the first building
perrnit".
R:IMinutesPCI030304
5
At this time, ihe public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Guerriero comrnended Shea Homes on a great job.
Associate Planner clarified the conditions of approval:
. Modify Condition of Approval No. 17 to read: A plan one shall be plotted on lot 69 2! 70
and one other corner location as determined by the Planning Director;
. That the Asphalt shingle will be chanaed to concrete shingle;
. That Condition of Approval No. 12 states that "All mission style products shall provide a
barrel type roof tile as determined acceptable by the Planning Director".
. That the language pavina stones and flaQ stone from Condition of Approval No. 13 will
be deleted.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt PC Resolution No. 2004-012, subject to the
above stated conditions. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0551, A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 3 OF
THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH
OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT
29661-3
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
The Commission thanked Associate Planner Rush for all his hard work and wished him the best
in his future endeavors.
Comrnissioner Mathewson requested that staff place staff's concerns in the beginning of staff's
report, making it easier to locate.
Cornmissioner Guerriero thanked the Public Works Department for addressing the landscaping
issues on Margarita Road and noted that the traffic control problem is under control.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the gas station problem
has been forwarded to the City Attorney.
Chairman Telesio noted that he had attended his first General Plan meeting and relayed that
the Commission may submit any concerns to him and that he will forward it to the committee.
For Chairman Telesio, Commissioner Olhasso relayed concern with SR 79 South.
R:IMinutesPCI030304
6
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the two-story housing issue for Roripaugh will be
agendized for the next meeting.
Ms. Ubnoske also noted that there will be a meeting scheduled between Mr. Bill Storm and the
City Manager to address signage at Harveston; that although the City Manager understands the
Planning Commission's concerns, it is not under the purview of the Planning Cornmission and it
is not in the Specific Plan.
Suggesting that Ms. Ubnoske review the conceptual plan, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that
Harveston represented to the Planning Commission that signs different then the standard street
signs wouid be installed.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she did not recall any standard with respect to height,
rnaterials, etc. but will confirm with the Specific Plan (SP).
Commissioner Mathewson queried whether the Planning Commission may address the meeting
with Mr. Bill Storm and the City Manager to which Commissioner Olhasso suggested that two
Planning Commissioners attend in on the meeting.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if there were standards in the Specific Plan, it will not
be necessary for any Commissioners to attend the rneeting.
Deputy of Public Works Parks commented on the following:
. That if these roads were private, the concern of street signs could have been resolved;
. That there is a liability and maintenance responsibility when roads are accepted by the
public; that these types of issues are standardized so that there are no major liabilities;
. That the request would be of significant cost which would be a concern for the Public
Works Department.
Commissioner Olhasso relayed the following:
. That although she understands the risk and the cost, the City had accepted these types
of signs for Meadowview, Los Ranchitos, and Santiago estates along with the cost of
maintenance and that a precedent has been set;
. That Harveston will be a special community like Meadowview, Los Ranchitos, and
Santiago estates;
. That the City can afford to pay for the maintenance of signage;
. That the property values will be higher and the community as a whole will benefit;
For clarification, Mr. Parks relayed the following:
R:IMinutesPCI030304
7
. That the Public Works Department has been trying to work with Harveston in regard to
street signs;
. That the Public Works Department has requested a sample of a post, but that Harveston
noted that it would cost $10,000.
For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Parks relayed that the type of signs placed in the public right of
way will fall under the purview of Public Works Department.
Understanding the concern with the departments associated costs, Chairman Telesio noted that
an equitable solution must be found.
/
Although understanding the concerns of the Public Works Department, Commissioner
Mathewson relayed that if the will were to make the City of Temecula a unique place to live, a
price will be associated with that; that an effort must be made to achieve that goal; also noting
that Director of Public Works Hughes had relayed to him that the Public Works Department will
be exploring the matter in an effort to find a resolution.
For the Commission, Mr. Parks relayed that there will be separated side walks; that there will be
Sycamore trees in the parkway; that street widths have been reduced in the Harveston project;
and that Public Works Department has been trying to accommodate the Planning Commission
and the developer.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the General Plan Design (standards rnust be raised); that
the goal of the Planning Cornmission would be to continuously set a higher standard; and that it
would be disheartening that if a proposed project were not of the high caliber standard as
originally proposed.
Commissioner Olhasso stated that she would be desirous of an equitable resolution to find
some middle ground that would work for both the developer and the City and reiterated that
precedence has already been set by the placement of similar signs in Meadowview, Los
Ranchitos, and Santiago Estates.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Meadowview and Los Ranchitos were created before
the City incorporated and before there was a Public Works Department.
Comrnissioner Mathewson reiterated that two Planning Commissioners should be at the
meeting with Mr. Bill Strom and the City Manager.
Ms. Ubnoske will review the Specific Plan (SP) to determine a level of detail that would support
what the Planning Commission is requesting and that if necessary, she will contact two Planning
Commissioners to be at the meeting.
Commissioner Guerriero noted that if necessary, the Planning Commission could refer to the
tapes when the project was originally proposed.
Planning Director Ubnoske thanked Mr. Rush for a great job and wished him good luck with his
new endeavors and noted that he will be missed.
R:IMinutesPCI030304
8
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:20 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetina to
be held on Wednesday. March 17. 2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula.
John Telesio
Chairman
R:IMinutesPCI030304
9
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
ITEM #3
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
DATE: April 21 ,2004
SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for March 2004
.
Date Case No. Proposal .. . .... 'Applicant Action
March 25, 2004 PA03-0636 Tentative Parcel Map for condominium Bay West Approved
purposes for an existing 202,000 square Equities
foot manufacturing, distribution and office
facility on 11.06 acres, located at 42301
Zevo Drive, generally located on the east
side of Winchester Road between Zevo
Drive and Remington Avenue.
March 25, 2004 PA030458 Development Plan and Conditional Use VRA Approved
Permit for a 4,774 square foot financial Architects
institution, including two drive-up lanes,
located at the southwest corner of Highway
79 South and Avenida De Missiones.
Attachment:
1. Action Agenda - Blue Page 2
R.IDIRHEARIMEM0\200410J-2004.doc
R, IDlRHEAR IMEM0\2004103-2004.doc
ATTACHMENT NO.1
ACTION AGENDA
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 25, 2004 1 :30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO 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" forrn 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:
Project Number:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
PA03-0636
Tentative Parcel Map
Bay West Equities
A request for a Tentative Parcel Map for condominium purposes for
an existing 202,000 square foot manufacturing/distribution and office
facility on 11.06 acres.
42301 Zevo Drive, generally located on the east side of Winchester
Road between Zevo Drive and Remington Avenue.
Exempt per Section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
909-370-017
Stuart Fisk
APPROVED
Location:
Environmental Action:
APN:
Project Planner:
ACTION:
Item No.2
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
Location:
Environmental Action:
APN:
Project Planner:
ACTION:
PA03-0458
Conditional Use Permit
Riverside County Credit Union
VRA Architects, Brian Reno
A Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a 4,774 square
foot financial institution including two drive-up lanes.
Southwest corner of Highway 79 South and Avenida De Missiones.
Categorically Exempt from CEQA under Section 15332 (In-fill)
961-290-001
Dan Long
APPROVED
R:\DIRHEAR\Agendas\2004\03-25-04 Action Agenda.doc
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
April 21, 2004
Prepared by: David Hogan
Title: Principal Planner
Application Type: N/A
File Number None
Project Description: Chaparral Area Interim Policy
Recommendation:
(Check One)
A request to approve' an interim policy addressing development
proposals in the Chaparral Special Study Area while the General Plan
is being updated. The interim policy further refines how the Chaparral
criteria will be implemented and is expected to be consistent with the
General Plan after it is updated.
o Approve with Conditions
o Deny
o Continue for Redesign
~ Continue to: Allow the Planning Commission to provide direction
o Recommend Approval of the Interim Policy to the City Council
o Recommend Denial
CEQA:
(Check One)
o Categorically Exempt
(Class)
o Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
~ Make a Finding of Consistency with a Previously Certified EIR
R:IGeneral PlanlStaff Report Chaparral Area Policy PC.doc
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
In the process of updating its General Plan, the City has had to wait for the County of Riverside to
rectify major inconsistencies within its own General Plan. These delays have created application
processing challenges for the City. Some of these pressing challenges facing the City are in the
Chaparral Area which is located between Pauba and Santiago Roads, and Ynez and Margarita
Roads. The purpose of this item is to have the Planning Commission consider and rnake a
formal recommendation to the City Council on a proposed Interim Policy for the Chaparral Area.
ANAL YSIS
The Chaparral Special Study Area was first identified in the City's initial General Plan in the early
1990's. The Chaparral Area is characterized by hillsides and dry washes with a varied pattern of
development and a wide range of lot sizes. To create a sensitive pattern of development and a
land use transition with larger lots to the south, the General Plan established a series of
standards for development in this area. The General Plan envisioned a range of lot sizes from a
% acre in level areas with infrastructure to 1 % acres adjacent to Santiago Road. The sensitivity
areas used in the General Plan to determine final allowable densities are areas with steep
slopes, natural drainage courses, and/or sensitive biologic resources. An excerpt from the
Community Design Element on the Chaparral Area is contained in Attachrnent NO.1. A map of
the Chaparral Area is contained in Attachment NO.2.
Two recent planning applications have brought this issue into the spot light. The first is a seven-
lot subdivision (Tentative Tract Map 30169) on Ynez Road that was considered by the City
Council on August 12, 2003. The second is an active application for a 30-lot subdivision
(Tentative Tract Map 30434) in the middle part of the Chaparral area. Both applications
represent potentially significant projects in key locations within the Chaparral Area while the City
is updating its General Plan. Staff's assessment is that this interim policy direction is consistent
with the adopted City General Plan. Based upon the current draft of the Updated General Plan,
the Interim Policy is expected to be consistent with the Updated General Plan when it is
adopted.
In developing this policy staff had discussions with an ad hoc City Council Subcommittee
consisting of Councilmembers Naggar and Comerchero, as well as the General Plan Community
Advisory Committee (CAC). Both groups felt that development proposals that protect sensitive
open space areas and provide local trail connections are desirable and have the highest
potential for cornmunitywide benefits. The proposed Interim Policy is as follows:
1. Lirnit the gross density in the Chaparral Area to one dwelling unit per acre, except for
the tier of lots adjacent to Ynez Road where a density of two dwelling units per acre is
more appropriate.
2.. Retain a one unit per acre density but allow half-acre sized lots to help preserve
sensitive open space and habitat areas.
3. Require that all future developrnents provide trail dedications for the citywide trail
network when possible. The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan shows
several trails through this area. An enlargement of the Trails Master Plan network
exhibit is contained in Attachment NO.3.
R:\General Plan\Staff Report Chaparral Area Policy PC.doc
2
At the March 23, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council reviewed the policy direction received
from the Subcomrnittee and the Community Advisory Committee and referred the matter to the
Planning Commission for a formal recommendation. At that meeting, the Council had questions
on who would construct and/or maintain the trails that are proposed to run through this area and
who could be responsible for the potential liability.
According to the City Risk Manager, liability issues associated with streets, slopes, recreation
program, and trails are all addressed through the City's General Liability Insurance Policy. The
key operational aspects affecting the City's potential liability are safe design and ongoing
maintenance. The Community Services Departrnent is responsible for both the safe design and
maintenance of all City trail and park facilities. According to CSD, once the needs of the facility
users have been identified, designing safety into those facilities is a major part of the design
process.
The other important aspect of managing risk and liability is proper maintenance. For City-owned
trails, proper maintenance includes: regular inspections, repairs and resurfacing as needed,
weed control, safety signage, and stripping (if hard surfaced). When City trail facilities are
constructed in easement areas, City liability for the trail is still covered through the General
Liability Policy. However, non-trail related liability will still remain the responsibility of the
underlying property owner(s).
At this time, staff is still investigating this issue and is requesting direction frorn the Planning
Commission on the rnaintenance and liability issues. The TCSD, at this point, is not willing to
assume maintenance and liabiiity for these trails as they have not been shown where any new
proposed trails rnay be located, nor has it been demonstrated that there will be a significant
public benefit. One thought that staff has is to create a Master Homeowner's Association and
Agreement which future subdividers who are providing trails would sign.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Interim Policy represents a further clarification on the how to implement the
current General Plan provisions in this area. The specific clarifications included here will be
considered for incorporation into the ongoing General Plan Update. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission provide direction on the maintenance and liability issues associated with
future trails that might be provided as properties subdivide in the Chaparral area.
ATTACHMENTS
1. General Plan Excerpts of the Chaparral Area - Blue Page 4
2. Map of the Chaparral Area - Blue Page 5
3. Trail Master Plan routes in the Chaparral Area - Blue Page 6
R:IGeneral PlanlStaff Report Chaparral Area Policy PC.doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO.1
GENERAL PLAN EXCERPTS OF THE CHAPARRAL AREA
R:\General Plan\Staff Report Chaparral Area Policy PC.doc
4
Excerpt of the Community Design Element
"Chaparral Area
The Chaparral Area is characterized by moderately sloped hillsides above dry
washbeds. Existing development consists of segmented lot patterns of varying
sizes. This area provides an opportunity to transition down from the larger lots
found in the Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates areas to the south and west.
Special development considerations are necessary to assure development does
not exceed the canying capacity of the area, while still providing appropriate
transition of density.
The methods identified below should be refined and incorporated within the
Development Code and other regulations and ordinances.
1. Constraint Areas are recognized as having the following characteristics:
a. Areas with natural slopes of 25% or greater.
b. Areas within natural drainage courses.
c. Areas with sensitive biological resources as identified or referenced in
the General Plan or site specific study.
Encroachment of grading, constIuction or surface alteration activities
(including leach fields) shall not exceed 15% of the Constraint Area.
Notwithstanding this guideline, said activities shall be avoided unless
specific mitigations can be implemented to reduce potential impacts to a
level of insignificance.
2. Proposed building pads, driveways and septic-leach field locations shall be
shown on the tentative map.
3. A written statement (Form SAN 53) from the Health Officer of Riverside
County Department of Environmental Health shall be provided stating the
type of sewage disposal that will be permitted for the proposed lots.
4. All drainage areas will remain natural [no undergrounding or placement in
v-ditches). Use of energy dissipators, retention basins or desilting basins,
will be permitted as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works.
5. Joint access and driveways shall be required' to the greatest extent
possible to reduce impacts.
6. Residences should be designed using alternative foundation techniques to
maintain the existing topography to the greatest extent possible. Rather
than using extensive grading to create flat building areas, stepped and pier
and beam foundations shall be encouraged. Retaining walls interior to the
stIucture are encouraged over stem walls along the exterior face of the
stIucture.
7. No graded slopes shall exceed a 2: 1 gradient. The maximum vertical
height of graded slopes over a 3: 1 gradient shall be 10 feet.
R:\General Plan\Staff Report Chaparral Area Policy PC.doc
14
8. Where grading occurs. finished slopes should be contoured with land form
grading. rather than a formal engineered look.
9. Retaining walls shall be discouraged to the greatest extent possible,
particularly between a structure and the public view. Crib walls or similar
structures, shall be used in-lieu of retaining walls when possible and
planted with appropriate shrubs and vines. Where retaining walls are
used and visible from the public view, the wall shall be colored block or
color coated to match the natural earth tone of the area or planted with
appropriate vines.
10. To assure a better transition from adjacent areas, lots adjacent to Santiago
Road shall have a minimum lot size of 1.75 acres.
11. Roadways and driveways shall be limited to a maximum grade of 15%.
The Land Use Element designates the Chaparral Area as Low Residential,
however, much of the Chaparral Area is inappropriate for development of half-
acre lots. The Development Code will implement the Low Residential
designation through two zoning districts. These districts will have different
development standards, such as half-acre and one-acre minimum lot sizes.
Based upon the above policies, it can be anticipated that much of the
Chaparral Area will be zoned for the larger one-acre lot sizes."
R:\General Plan\Staff Report Chaparral Area Policy PC.doc
15
ATTACHMENT NO.2
MAP OF THE CHAPARRAL AREA
R:\GeneraJ Plan\Staff Report Chaparral Area Policy PC.doc
5
.<
li
~
'0
c
CD
ell
CD
....l
:1
:;
.5:~
#:~
.:;~i::~::
ro
Q)
s....
~~
ro ...
s....-
s....~
ro i!
a.-"l
ro
..c
()
ATTACHMENT NO.3
TRAIL MASTER PLAN ROUTES IN THE CHAPARRAL AREA
R:\General Plan\Staff Report Chaparral Area Policy PC.doc
6
PJ '.-J o=j tc:i!!JJt: I 'I.LJ~ 1"-< ~
>0.\;;:~Vx0 ~ ~
.l^\v/~~nr't ~ ~\ ~
~ L~" rtrlN)-~ ~ J
l-J-h ~ ~~~ ~ =
I- ....., s or ....). :-\' =
~:: W~ ~7/ r7 ~""'~
""~~;:: ;:: =
~~~T I "" eRe Sports P.i6rk~
'~t! .I\l'U'" ') M4 j ~
I--DY ~ I ~~~ =
1.-10_ ~ ""mllllll""~ 5
J1-ll~7J/..$' =
iI" \. ~ S
~~'\
I [T \ \ I t ~J C::U
Teme
High S
;::
'"
~IIIII r~ nAUB
III 1"" t::/J I--,----<-.U I
'-::hH'---, I.
8~
I~ r" T - I
~ /W
Vr
u
C':_;~~"~ ;::1
- -- - ~
- --,.---:;; S
1 (} - ·
\ ,/~
- \. / --" -~
~f-j
::
::
r-
~
\ JJ
/
.......-....:
~
~ / ::--. 1___
i \ l'-- L__ ---, f.-.-.
.Y /
s '--/; 1\ \
:--
--...:
r---
J
Legend
M1 Tl8IlTypes
. CIP Segments
f'lopoaed Trail. and Blkaways
~ung Multi-Use Trail.
.:f.<::- Proposed MultJ.Use Trails
~ng CIaaa 2 Bike Lan..
~ed Claaa 2 Blk8 Lanes
~ Cl... 3 Blk8 Routea
....<.<::- Propoaed Claaa 3 Blk8 Routea
400
,
o
400 ~ Feet (l)
lNa___bylho CIl)'oIT_Oo<_,.lI...
~Syotsm. ""'mopls_frcrn__
JlftlClJCed by the RIYeraIde County A a~ Dep...h._1t
end tho TnIns~ end UncI MlIl.....,_4f1on;t
of RIver8Ide County. The cay or TemecuIa asunea no
warranty or IeaaI reepoIl tbII\1 for the b ~...A,.,I oonIaIned
an thta map. Data... b.h....;..doI, ........... ..-ua map
...ouIljedlD~end_. 1I1oCJeoy...,A'"
hllo."...tl.. 8)ot8m and _....... _ IlelJlOrlocll'orlhe
rnaetourrent.,'...,.ocdk..." 1Ne map Is rpforrepdntorrwale.
I
~\tJ1IIIs__-'-"'"
-
~
.J:
~
0-
GJ
-
"0
.-
lI.
m
lI.
o
-
.-
ns
~
0.0
C
.-
~
.-
:t
QI.....
..:!!
~.fI
;2.!!e
allil:l.
t:u t
.eallf
~U
II.~
.folICl
wee
~ ~t5
B.Q=
6uJl
...~
I~
s
j!
Oils
u",-
~ ~Ji
::IS"'='
Iil~~
~rz'
eue
'cM
"-If
...
~
Oi
1: iE~g
l:l.iii .. z,:s
._ QI e
a:~I~O=
, "uJl
,0
~
I: ~
8
cf I
)41.....
U1.'
;..21a.
-;:~i
.0 ~
...c
--::J -S=
.f~
]
~=
VI..Cl
... .. Ii! .
"C c~
41..
ns il
0 c(,f
a: '2
.tl
.(1) nI'
(I)
Q)
u ~ ,. 6
U c VIa. e
<C B ~
X E g
Q) -! ;El~
(I) - ~~
:J 1 0
~
I ii,8
.-
.... . ~l
- .. w
::s Jia
J: . ,. e
08
.s::.
.~
Q.
-
ns
:s
Q
N
I:a
ell
.~~
.!! 0
.:l1lC
1ft elIGI
-acu
E'D.-\!
a;-~ a
QI:: ..,
Ii'" ..
_";'0
JI'O"
iii5
..
GI GI
5 ~
. ..J "
.... GI ';I;
. ... "I:
iii "
u
~/
~~
C ~
~ j!
-J :0
i>
~ ~~
-- 61r
._ u ""I:
m ~ It
'-"081
M j~c
~ 2! 0
en :g.lll 9
en .<;: j! ~
.....:ol;l
.~iilil'i'
U ~~~
. .
elI.ll
c'i
~~
, .:l:2
I ell
I
ITEM #5
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commissioners
Dan Long, Associate Planner
April 21,2004
SUBJECT:
Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity, Target, PA03-0726
ANALYSIS
Staff has verified through the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control that the project site is
within Census Tract 0432.16. Currently a total of 12 Type 20 licenses exist in said Tract and a
total of 5 are allowed. Since this Census Tract is over-concentrated with Type 20 licenses,
Public Convenience or Necessity Findings are required. Staff feels that the findings of Public
Convenience or Necessity can be made.
FINDINGS
Criteria to iustify makinq a findinq of Public Convenience or Necessity:
1. Does the proposed establishment have any unique features, which are not found in
other similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, or other special
services)?
Target offers a broad range of products (including clothing, food & beverage, kitchen and
household items, home decor, toys, electronics, sporting goods, stationary, supplies,
garden center) and services (pharmacy, film processing) all in one location. While other
businesses sell some of the same products, Target offers customers the convenience
of one-stop shopping for a variety 01 products.
2. Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons of a
different socio-economic class)?
Target offers many items and offers convenient and affordable shopping for all income
levels. Target does not cater to an under-served population.
3. Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales in
conjunction with gasoline sales, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other
establishments in the area?
The proposed operation would not be unique or different from that of other
establishments in the area.
R:IM C U P\2003103.0726 Target CorplPC SR memo. PCN 4-21-04.doc
1
4. Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e.
freeways, major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from
other establishments?
There are not any geographical boundaries or traffic barriers separating the
establishment from other establishments. However, in addition to providing shoppers the
convenience of one-stop shopping, adding wine sales will compliment the food and
beverage items that Target sells now, and provide a convenience to Target's customers
by eliminating the need for additional shopping trips. Target also plans to offer
customers the opportunity to learn about the wines that Target sells through education
events, led by professionals and wine industry members.
5. Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of
population during certain seasonal periods?
During the various holiday seasons there is a significant influx of persons visiting the
establishment because of the wide range of items offered.
6. Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within the Census Tract of the
proposed establishment?
There are a total of 12 Type 20 licenses in Census Tract 0432.16, and a total of 5 are
allowed in said tract.
7. Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity
(500 feet) to the proposed establishment?
There are not any sensitive uses within 500 feet of the Target building entry.
8. Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive areas?
The proposed use would not interfere with any sensitive uses because it is more than
500 feet away from the entry of Target.
9. Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by
the residents of the area?
There are no residents within 100' of the property, and fewer than 30 residences within
600' of the property. Because of the physical separation factors between the Target
store and the closest residences, and because the operations of the store will remain
essentially the same as they are now; the proposed operations will not interfere with the
quiet enjoyment of residents. Target prides itself in being a good neighbor and is
committed to serving the community in a positive and responsible manner. We
anticipate no adverse impact on the residents or general public by the issuance of the
license.
10. Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcernent problems in the area?
The Police Department has not provided any statistics or information indicating that the
Target store is in a high crime or problem area for law enforcement. The Police
Department was notified of Target's license application by staff and the ABC, and had no
objections to or concerns regarding the issuance of the license.
R:IM C U P\2003103.0726 Target CorplPC SR memo, PCN 4-21.04.doc
2
SUMMARY
Staff feels that Findings of Public Convenience can be made. Staff recomrnends the Planning
Commission make the finding of Public Convenience, which will allow Target to sell beer and
wine (Type 20 license).
R:IM C U P\2003103-0726 Target CorplPC SR memo, PCN 4.21.04.doc
3
ITEM #6
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commissioners
Stuart Fisk, Associate Planner
April 21, 2004
SUBJECT:
Item continued from April 7, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing (PA02-0717)
Cingular Wireless Cell Site at Enfield Lane
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on April 7, 2004 and approved a
motion to continue the project to the April 21, 2004 hearing. The purpose of this continuance
was to allow the applicant to collect information requested by the Planning Commission in
regards to the propagation maps prepared for the site and information regarding property
owners who had rejected Cingular's request to pursue a facility on their property.
At the time this memo was written staff had not received the additional propagation maps or
property owner inforrnation from the applicant and therefore is not able to provide an analysis of
the additional information in this memo. Staff will provide an analysis of the additional
information at the April 21, 2004 Planning Comrnission hearing. Additionally, the applicant has
indicated that Cingular's Radio Frequency Engineer will be present at the hearing to answer any
questions the Planning Commission may have.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Resolution No. 2004-_ - Blue Page 2
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
2. April 7, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 3
R:IC U P\2002102-0717 Cingula, Wireless Mono-PalmlPC SR memo 4-21 .04.doc
1
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-_
R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC SR memo 4-Z1-04.doc
2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA02-0717, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT!
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH THREE
(3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A
PROPOSED FIFTY-SIX FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE
AND FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310
SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575
ENFIELD LANE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF ENFIELD LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST
OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012)
WHEREAS, Doug Kearney, representing Cingular Wireless, filed Planning Application
No. PA02-0717, in a rnanner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA02-0717 was processed including, but not
limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA02-0717 on April 21, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify
either in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA02-0717 subject to the
conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA02-0717
conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. 02-0717 (Conditional Use PermiVDeveloprnent Plan) hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.04.01 O.E and Section 17.05.01 O.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
Conditional Use Perrnit (17.04.010E)
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
development code.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed
conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the
applicable sections of the Development Code. The project as proposed meets the
general requirements as outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna
Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of all yard and street setbacks. The
R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
1
monopalm as proposed has been designed to blend in with the surrounding
environment. The support facility has been located and designed to minimize its
visibility Irom the public right of way.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will
not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as a monopalm with the
antennas mounted within the bulb 01 the tree so that the antennas will not be visible.
The proposed monopalm is fifty-six feet high and has been designed to blend with the
natural setting. This design and height is consistent with the existing built and natural
environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings.
C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping
and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the
Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards
delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections
of the Development Code. As a result, the Planning Commission has determined that
the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for projects located within
the Very Low Density Residential zoning district.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of the cornrnunity.
Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Deve/opment Code, and Building and Fire
Salety Codes to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The
project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable
requirements. In addition, wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas are not
known to emit hazardous substances or emit amounts of radiofrequency energy (RF)
above permitted levels as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.
E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on
substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City
Council.
The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable
codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission.
Development Plan (17.05.010Fl
F. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with
all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City.
The proposed wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment screen design is
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and
R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
2
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance goals and policies, as well as with
all applicable requirements of state law.
G. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the City
of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined the City of
Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and
found to be physically suitable for the proposed fifty-six foot high-unmanned wireless
telecommunication facility designed as a monopalm.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application No. PA02-0717,
which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Comrnission hereby
conditionally . approves Planning Application No. PA02-0717 (Conditional Use
Perrnit/Development Plan) to construct a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3)
antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed fifty-six foot high artificial palm tree and
lour outdoor equipment cabinets within a block wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield Lane.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Comrnission this 21st ay of April 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
3
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. 2004-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of April, 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
4
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
5
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA02-0717
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to
construct and operate a wireless telecommunications
facility with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb
portion of a proposed 56-foot high artificial palm tree
and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a 310
square foot block wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield
Lane, generally located on the south side of Enfield
Lane, approximately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane.
DIF Category:
Exempt
Assessor's Parcel No:
957-170-012
Expiration Date:
April 21, 2004
April 21, 2006
Approval Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicanVdeveloper 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
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. . If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not deliyered 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
2. 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
R:\C U P\20D2\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
6
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.
3. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
.conditional use permit.
4. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA02-0717.
5. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
6. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval oj this Conditional Use Permit.
7. 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.
8. The development of the prernises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits G
(Site Plan), H (Enlarged Site Plan), J (Elevations), K (Landscape Plan) and L (Color and
Materials) contained on file with the Planning Department.
9. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously rnaintained 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.
10. If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of
cultural or archaeological resource 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 imrnediately 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.
R:\C U P\2002\02.0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
7 .
11. Excavation shall be monitored during all earthmoving associated with construction in
areas identified by a qualified paleontologic monitor as likely to contain paleontologic
resources per the recommendations contained in the Paleontological Resources
Assessment for the project titled Paleontological Resource Assessment; Proposed
"Foley Land'; Cingular Wireless Facility Number sa 216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane,
Temecula California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental Assessment
Specialists, Inc. dated May 7,2003.
Condition of approval No. 11 is also Mitigation Monitoring Measures of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
15. A maintenance/facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease
that will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will
be complied with, shall be signed by the applicant shall be submitted to the Planning
Director. The agreement shall comply with all proYisions set forth in Section 17.40.210
of the Ordinance.
16. 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 "F", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus,
species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent
with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following
items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
subrnittal).
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 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.
R:\C U 1'\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
8
Prior to Release of Power
17. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant
shall schedule an inspection with the Planning Department to insure that the mono palm
and antennas were installed in accordance with the approved plans.
18. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, all required
landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
abovernentioned landscape plans (see Condition of Approval No. 15 above). The plants
shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests and the irrigation system shall be
properly constructed and in good working order.
19. The property owner shall 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
release of power or first occupancy permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
20. All design cornponents shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plurnbing 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.
21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All 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. If Applicable.
22. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
23. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
24. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April
1,1998)
25. Provide appropriate starnp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
prior to permit issuance.
26. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
27. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
28. 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.
R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Clngular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
9
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 Goyernment Holidays
FIRE DEPARTMENT
29. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau
reviews building plans. 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.
30. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall maintain 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)
31. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
32. 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)
33. During construction, all locations where structures are to be built or altered shall
maintain 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 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
34. During construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS will be maintained in
working order and up to their original design and perforrnance specifications.
35. 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)
36. Provide a 2A: 10BC fire extinguisher inside each building or temporary structure on the
site.
37. 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)
38. 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:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
to
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
39. 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.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
40. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated March 2, 2003 from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
41. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated February 24, 2003 from the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
42. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 16, 2003 from the
Rancho California Water District.
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 Printed Name
Date
Applicant's Signature
R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COAdoc
It
A
!,
I
I
, ,I.
IUVEp.sIDE COUNTY fLOOD CONjIROL
AND WATER CONSERY ATION DISrCT
I
I
1995 MARKET STREE1
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
GcncraJ ~er..OtierEngineer
('"
51180.1
~~@~OW~~
lill MAR 4 2002 ~
,
.
.
----
.
....
City of Ternecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-11033 .
AllentiOn:,R IlLFt &r=.rSISNDAN 7_ I
Ladles and GenUemen: Re: P A 0,2 - 01/7
. :1
The District does not norrnaiiY reCommend con<flliolls for land divisions Or other land use cases in illCQlllOl3ted
cities. The District also. dOBl!. notlllari check citylanduseCBSeS,.or provide Slate Division of Real Estate letters er
other t\oocl hazanI reDOrls for such"Cal;es. Olstiic\comment$lrecornmendatiDl'iSfor sUch cases are nonn!IIIY Dmited
\0 items of s~c Interest \0 the Di.Strictlncludlnli. OIslricl Mast. . erDrill. . nag. Plan facilities, .other- regional tIood
control and drainage facllitietl Which could be Consldered'al~ConIllOI\l!nf,cir extenslonofa inaster plan system,
. and District Area Drainage Flan feeS (development mltlgatIoii fees).rn additIOn; Information of a general nalw\l is
provided. ! i . . . \. .
The District has not revieweclthe Pf1)JlOsed project In delatl and the followl~'cIieck~ COmments do not in any way
constitute or Imply District approI!a! or eIldOrsement of thei proposed proJedlwith respect to. tIood hazard, public
health and safety or any other sucl).lssue: . i .
:' . , ! -
...iL This Pl'9lect would not b8 impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regioilal tnterest proposed! ,I .
This projecllnvolve!; Dlstk Master Plan facililies.:The Districl will~tOWl'lershlpof such facilities on
'written ~st. of thl! City! Facilities must be c:onstiucted \0 0Islricl standards, and ClSlrlcl plan check and
i~on wiD be reljulred for Dislricl acceptance. 'Plan cheCk, I.nsi*tion and administrative fees win be
required. ,f .
This project pro.~s chah.nels. storm drains 38 inche. s,er I~ i.n'd.llime. ter, or other facilities \hat could be
considered regional In nature and/or a logical extlll1Slon.ot.lhe adoJlle!!
Master D~a Plan. The District woulaconsider a<:ce\lti!l9 .ClWI1ilrSl)Ip OTSUCl1laauues on wnuen ~uest
of the City. Ficllitle~ must be consb'UCled to Districtstandalds, andDislricl Plan chilck B/ldin5p!lCtion will
'__ be required for District acCeptance. . Plan check, inspection and edrnllll,strative.fees will be reqUired.
L This proJectls located.wilhlnthe.limitsoftheDlstilcr~s .... ~~Q~~itNT~ if"T~
Drainage .P1an for which drainage .~.eeshave been...: ado.. ,a .. tea.e ees.. DB paid aiihier's
check or money orller only to !fie Flood ControlDisprior IsSQance of bu' dil!!l or gradif.lll permits
,whichever comes fir.3t. Fees to be paid shoUld be at.the r8te In effect at \hetirile of Issuance of tile iidii8I
pennit. . . \
GENERAL INFORMAnON i
, . 1 . .
This projectrnay requlre,s Nation8l. Pollutant p!scharge ElImination Sys!em.(NP.DDEESS) llBtnlit from the Slate Water
Resources ConIrOl Board. Clearance for grading, recOIdatlon,or othIir final approvallihould not be given until the
City has determined that the :project has belln granted a pej1i1it or is shown to l!8 exempt.
If this prglect involveS a F~llral ~erq Man!IlIement A~ (FEMAl mkl!.ed flood p1ain,then the CitY should
require Ilie applicant \0 provide 'all studies calCUlations,ijllans imdolherIriformation ~Ired to meel FEMA
l'B<luireme.nts, and shOuld further require thai the apj)llca.nt' obtain a Conditional'Leller of Map Revision (CLOMR)
priOr 10 grading, recordation or other final approval of the proJ<lcl, and S Le\ler of Map Revision (LOMR) prior \0
occupancy.
If a nalural watercourse or mapped flood plain Is impacted. ,by. thiS. P prorol' ecl,. the. City. Sh.OUld reqyire the applicant \0
obtaill a Section f601/1603 Agreeme.nt from the CaJjfomia.trepartJnem,of FlShandGame ani:! a Clean Water Ad
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wrIiten CDrreSJlO!19e.nce from these as.enc!es
ind1catlng the protect is exempt from these reQ!llremenls; A Clean Water AdS. eclion 401 Water Qualitv Certilicalion
may be required lrom the io<:aJ Cillifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404
pennit. . . '.
By
c:
Very truly you. rs, \j
~\\~.
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior C.ivil Engineer
Date: 3-Z.Zco:7
5K.H.
811
Executive Office
,
m.r, re f~ ~ [! \'inr: OO~\
\ L~ itf-. , .".1 ,- _.1
\~ FEB 24 2003
lBY
I'
Your Case No. P A02-0717
,
MWD San Eliego Pipeline No.3
,
Sta. 1332-K>O to 1344+00
,
MWD San Diego Pipeline No.4
,
Sta. 1336+00 to 1343-K>O
MWD San I!>iego Pipeline No.5
Sta. 1336+00 to 1343+00
R/W ~arcels SDA-P-3-13,
142-3-1 (Fee) and -4
Substr. Job No. 2029-03-001
f
MWD
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
February 24, 2003
Mr. Rolfe Preisendanz
. Case Planner
City ofTemecula
Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Preisendanz:
Enfield Lane - Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Facilitv
We received your project transmittal notice on January 22, 2003, and prints of the
plans (T-l, A-O through A-3, C-I and C-2) for the proposed Cingular Wireless
Telecommunications facility improvement project (Case No. P A02-07I7) located
at 31515 Enfield Lane, east ofRiverton Lane and north of Humbolt Court, in the
city ofTemecula.
The location of Metropolitan's partially delineated 50-foot-wide slope easement
within the subject property, as shown on Sheets A-O, A-I, C-I and C-2, is
generally in agreement with our records. Metropolitan's 70-foot-wide fee prop-
erty and San Diego Pipelines 3, 4 and 5 are adjacent to the subject property,
abutting and paralleling the eastern boundary.
There appear to be no conflicts with our facilities and rights-of-way since
Metropoiitan's pipelines and rights-of-way are located outside the construction
700 N. A1ameda'SIIee~ Los Angeles. Cafilllmla90012 o Maiing Address: Box 54153. Los Angeles. CaIifomia 90054-0153. Telephone (213) 217-6000
'.'i
.
.
.
.
.
.
//
.<
/
THE 1lETH0000000AN WATER DlST1IICTOF SOUT/!E1IN CAUfDRNJA
However, we request that a stipulation be added to the plans o,r specifications
to notitY Mr. John Martinez of our Water System Operations ?roup, telephone
(909) 776-2616, alleast two working days prior to starting any work in the
vicinity of our facilities. .
,
We are returning prints of Sheet T-I. stamped "REVIEWED +-- CORRECTIONS
NOTED - NO RESUBMITIAL REQUIRED," and Sheets A-o, A-I, C-l and
C-2, stamped "REVIEWED - NO CORRECTIONS NOTE!:?"
r.
For any further cOlTespondence with Metropolitan relating to this project, please
,
make reference to the Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right-hand
comer of the first page of this letter. Should you require any additional infonna-
tion, please contact Mr. Ken ChWlg, telephone (213) 217-7670.
Very truly yours,
6~~.~
Susan M. Walters
Engineering Technician m
Substructures Team
KC:ly
OOC#: 2029-03-OOJ
Enclosures (5)
@
RahD
IaI8r
Boud olDindawa
.....0._
.........
JdIre1 t. Mb*Ia'
Sr. VM.l're8i__
Slop...... c-a
_0._
_0.",",",
Job B..........
CaMP.JUt
-
oIoIuIP.~
8._...du epo'
PblIHp L 1'__
.Ditedorof~
......."'"
B.P."Boh"~
Dindl1r1ll~
~c.~
DiNctor"~
.,,-'-
,..". B. ...... '
""""""'"
LboIoM._
m.trkts.:r.taQi~
--
co........---
......... _ u.P
"-" c.m-I
"8
,
,.
~ E002 1.. I N\1f \1n
W~ t~ U ill W 5JW
January 16, 2003
RolfePreisendanz, Case Planner
City of Temecu]a
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: ClNGULAR WIRELESS ANTENNA ARRAY
I
PARCEL NO.2 OF PARCEL MAP 13530
APN 957-170-012
. I
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717
I
FOLEY SITE - ENFIELD LANE
Dear Mr. Preisendanz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced project is located within the
I
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWDlDistrict). RCWiD
operates an existing two-way radio system in the immediate vicinity of 1$s
site. The District requests that the developer assure RCWD that there will
not be any interference between the proposed project and the District's
operation of its equipment. I
If you should have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
lL.?-- /?
.--A1 ~ '~...........' ~
Steve Brannon, P .E.
Development Engineering Manager
o3isB;atOI2IFOI2-TIIFCF
c: Craig Elitharp, Water Operations Manager
Paul Gonzalez, General Services Manager
RaDcbo CalifOl'Dia Wat.er Distrid
421SCiW"~RolMl . Pa.lome. BoK 9017 . TemKUla,CaUtonUa 92589-9011 . (909)29$-6800. 'AX.(909)~
ATTACHMENT NO.2
APRIL 7,2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC SR memo 4-21-04.doc
3
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting: April 7, 2004
Title: Assistant Planner
Prepared by: Stuart Fisk
File Number PA02-Q717
Application Type: Conditional Use Permit
Project Description:
Recommendation:
(Check One)
CEQA:
(Check One)
." Conditional Use PermltlDevelopment Plan to construct and
I)perate a wireless telecommunications facility to Include a 56-foot
I,igh artificial palm tree with three (3) antennas housed within the
bulb portion of the tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets
within a 310 square foot block screen wall enclosure at 31575
IEnfleld Lane, generally located on the south side of Enfield Lane,
i!pproxlmately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane (APN 957-170-012).
181 Approve with Conditions
IJ Deny
IJ Continue for Redesign
IJ Continue to:
IJ Recommend Approval with Conditions
IJ Recommend Denial
IJ Categorically Exempt
IJ Negative Declaration
181 Mitigated Negatiye Declaration with Monitoring Plan
(Class)
IJEIR
R:\C U N002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Pabn\STAFF REPORT.doc
I
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
Cin ular Wireless
.
Completion Date: Au ust 25 2003
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
A ril7 2004
General Plan Designation:
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
I-
I
Zoning Designation:
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site: Residential
Lot Area:
3.16 acres
i
I
I
I
i-
,-
I
I
I
I
.
Residential
Residential
. Residential
Residential
North:
South:
East:
West:
Total Floor Area/Ratio N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage 320 square feet
Parking Required/Provided N/A
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
t8l1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. I
t8l2. Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, City-
wide Design Guidelines and the Development Code. I
~~~ I
I
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of
three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot high artificial palm tree
and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a block screen wall enclosure. I
I
Cingular Wireless has been experiencing dropped calls in the area of the proposed facility,
requiring the proposed facility to provide seamless coverage within the network. The prope~ies
reviewed prior to the selection of the proposed project site were not selected due to the irregfJlar
topography and elevation changes of the search ring area and site location problems. fhe
proposed location is the only candidate site that meets technical, zoning and landowner
requirements. The following properties were not chosen because of the site location issUes .
listed below:
R:\C U 1'.2002\02-0717 Ci.gulaJ Wuelcss Mo.o-PalmISTAFPREI'ORT.doc
2
.
.
.
1.
Riverton Park - The elevation of the property is not high enough to provide for proper
signal propagation of the Monopalm at a height of 55 feet or lower. Cingular's Radio
Frequency Enginl3er determined that for proper signal penetration the minimum height
required at this IOt::ation is 75 feet or greater.
2, San Dieao Aaueduct Vents - The venting stacks for the San Diego Aqueduct were
located outside 0': the search ring. The site would not meet the coverage objectives of
providing service .In La Serena Way.
3.. Residential ProDe,rties east of Butterfield Staae Road - The Site Acquisition Specialist
made numerous attempts to find a willing landowner and property for a location east of
Butterfield Stage Road. There were no interested property owners.
The project site selected by Cingular Wireless is located at 31575 Enfield Lane, generally
located on the south side, on Enfield Lane, approximately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane. Tl)e
project site consists of a lease area of 532 square feet within a 3.16 acre residential parcel that
contains an existing single-family home. Section 17.40.110 of the Telecommunications Facility
and Antenna OrdinanCE' requires that telecommunications facilities and antennas shall be
located no closer than 75 feet from any residential dwelling unit. The proposed facility is situated
approximately 85 feet frcom the nearest residential unit, which is the single-family home located
on the project site. The site would be leased from the property owner, Julie Foley. Access to
the site will be obtained from an existing 19 foot 3 inch wide dirt driveway off Enfield Lane.
The proposed monopalm will be designed to resemble existing and proposed living Mexican Fan
palms located on the project site. The exterior surface of the monopalm will be a brown rubber
cladding material that simulates a palm tree trunk. The monopalm will feature three antenna
panels placed inside the bulb portion of the monopalm so that the antennas will not be visible.
The fronds of the monopalm will be a medium-green colored plastic material shaped to simulate
the fronds of a live palm "tree. A 310 square foot screened equipment area consisting of a 6 foot
split face block wall and 11 wooden access gate will screen the four proposed outdoor equipment
cabinets. Five-gallon Silverberry shrubs will surround the equipment screen wall to soften its
appearance and to minimize its visibility. The addition of two 35 foot high Mexican Fan palms at
the south side of the equipment screen wall is also proposed to help to tie the proposed
monopalm to the existin9 palm tress located on the project site. Condition no. 16 requires t~at
staff field inspect the final antenna facility design for compliance with the approved plans prior to
final Building Departmenl inspection.
The elevation of the proj.:lct site is approximately 1,319 feet above sea level, which is below the
ridgeline elevation limit .)f 1,350 for new telecommunication facilities as described in Section
17.40.110 of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The proposed height of
the monopalm is fifty-six feet as measured from the natural undisturbed ground surface below
the center of the base of the tower to the top of the simulated palm fronds. It has been
determined by the appli(:ant's engineer that fifty-six feet is the minimum height to achieve the
technical coverage nece:;sary to send and receive signals from and to mobile telephones. The
site was tested at 45 feer. and failed the requirements of the Cingular Wireless Radio Frequency
Engineer. The height as proposed will permit the monopalm to achieve the objective of sending
and receiving cellular telephone transmissions to provide coverage along and between
Butterfield Stage Road end Calle Medusa, toward the northem City boundary. Staff does not
believe that the proposed height will create any undesirable aesthetic impacts.
R:\C U P\2OO2\02-0717 Cingular Wm:1c:ss Mooo-Palm\STAfF h.EPORT.doc
3
Staff has determined that the proposed monopalm meets the intent of the general requireme s
for visual compatibility as defined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinanpe. .
Staff can make the required findings necessary to approve a fifty-six foot high-unman ed
wireless telecommunication facility at the proposed location.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
1211.
An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following
potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are includedl as
conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption
of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. I
I
1.
-- -, -. ,"" ,n"= [Oiltltl''''
._~_,' "'"'-~i~.~.,
Excavation shall be monitored during all
earthmoving associated with construction in areas
identified by a qualified paleontologic monitor as
likely to contain paleontologic resources per thel
recommendations contained in the Paleontologic
Resource Assessment for the project titled I
Paleontological Resource Assessment; Proposed
"Foley Land"; Cingular Wireless Facility Number
58216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula I
California by Michael Brandman Associates for
Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated
Ma 7 2003. I
"'"''j!1fI1'''
"u..l"'!.- ..
+~!~.ioh"rf,.
2. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries
.
CONCLUSIONlRECOMMENDATlON
Staff has determined that the project is consistent with all applicable City ordinances, standafds,
guidelines, and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of
design and quality, and staff is recommending approval. !
FINDINGS I
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010El
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development
code. I
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is
consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of It he
Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements I as
outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antenna is
located outside of all yard and street setbacks. The monopalm as proposed has ~en
designed to blend in with Ihe surrounding environment. The support facility has ~en
located and designed to minimize its visibility from the public right of way. I
.
R,\C U P\2OO2\02-ID11 ODgulll Wm:1ess Mono-l'almlSTAFF REPORT.doc
4
.
.
.
2.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development
of adjacent uses. buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings. or structures.
As proposed the tl!/ecommunication facility is designed as a monopalm with the antennas
mounted within thl! bulb of the tree so that the antennas will not be visible. The proposed
monopalm is fifty-six feet high and has been designed to blend with the natural setting.
This design and height is consistent with the existing built and natural environment and
will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings.
3. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the yards, walls, fllnces, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other
development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in
the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the
Development Coc'e. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use
meets the zonin,rJ requirements lor projects located within the Vel}' Low Density
Residential zonin~, district.
4.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
Provisions are mElde in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Building and Fire
Safety Codes to E1nsure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The
project is consistElnt with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable
requirements. In addition, wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas are not
known to emit hclZardous substances or emit amounts of radiofrequency energy (RF)
above permitted "1ve/s as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.
5.
The decision to o:)nditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City
Council.
The project has .been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable
codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission.
Develooment Plan (17.0S.010F)
1. The proposed use is in conforrnante with the general plan for Temecula and with all
applicable require-ments of state law and other ordinances of the city. .
The proposed wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment screen design is
in conformanCE- with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance goals and policies, as well as with
all applicable requirements of state law.
R:\C U 1'12002I02-11717 Clogular W'uelcss Mooo-Palm\STAFP REPORT.doc
5
2.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public hea h,
safety, and general welfare.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the 'ity
of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined the CitJj,,.?f
Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned ~lId
found to be physically suitable for the proposed fifty-six foot high-unmanned Wire/jSS
telecommunication facility designed as a- monopalm.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 7
2. PC Resolution - Blue Page 8
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
3. Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 9
R,\C U P\2OO2'D2-0117 Cingular Wm:tess Mooo-Pa!mISTAFF REPORT.doc
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:\C U P\200roZ-0717 Cingular Wir::less Mooo-Palm'STAFFREPORT.doc
',7
~~=~~;:;-.~.i!~"';-'."'''''.:':'~---
-,;;t;'.Y;.?~'"-t-. ::::~'~'>-:~:~~J~i~
SBA
I))))
frQPosed Cell Site
Submitted to:
CITY OFTEMECULA
Planning Deparbnent
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589
Submitted by:
SBA Network Services, Inc.
150 Paularino Avenue, Ste. A-166
Costa Mesa, CA. 92626
Proiect
SB-216-01
Foley land
31575 Enfield Lane
Temecula, California 92592
APN: 957-170-012
Submitted:
February 25, 2004
Case Number: "
.PA02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit)
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. VICINITY MAP
2. PROUECTPROPOSAL
3. RADIO FREQUENCY PROPAGATION MAPS
4. RADIO FREQUENCY STUDY
5. PHOTO SIMULATIONS
6. PROJECT PLANS
J
A
~29
c
D
E
~\\ 4
,
.;;~.
t.-:
.~. .
\
~., \
\,
'5
,
\
. -~.
'-......
6
7
'\_.~
1
,.,.,.
. ,"." r.,~ :;"
',.,.
2
.... ," .
iXJ'.')< 4
\~);'~-~ -':
.',
\,~
'1 './"
".._ _<',..,..... 5
., '.." , ~,
\..' /'.
~.,<...
-\ ".J" -' /
\..>:;C'.I'"
"",,,~\'
'. . \
!
..+
'~: 6
J
f
i
I
,~ 7
o 31575 Enfield Ln: remecu/a. CA 1'2591. 959Dl
c 0 E F G H J A B C D E F G H J A B C
3 898 899 900
4
5 .." .
, /
'j
6 l.'
'.
7
I
J
J
I:.,
3
I
4
5
6
7 ,
1
3
4
'!
5 ~:" .
6
3
4
,'0-
5
G
I
I
I
,
@2003 Thomas Bno~. Map
ABC ID E
.
;;
,;.~ :
.,''''
0 E F G H J
A
B
C
o
E
F
H
J
o 31575 Enffeld In: Temecu/a. CA 92591, 95901
.
.
.
SBA
I))))
Proposal for a Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Facility
58-216-01: 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula, California 92592
Z-ene: Very Law Dem',~y Re3ioonlia: ('IL) . -- . - . - --
APN: 957-170-012
Project Description
Cingular Wireless j,; proposing to construct, operate, and maintain a wireless
telecommunications f;3Cilily at the rear of 31575 Enfield Lane. The un-staffed facility will
consist of three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of the proposed 55.foot
artificial palm tree. Two .Iive palms will be planted, in' addition there are 12 palms
existing. The propos'3d and existing palms will create a grove effect. The proposed
equipment shelter will be localed adjacent to the proposed monopalm, and will be set
into the hillside to reduce the profile. The shelter will mimic the style of the existing
house. Cingular Wimless is experiencin9 dropped calls in the area of the proposed
facilny, requiring this lacility to provide seamless coverage within the network.
Zoning Consistency & Justification
. The properties re,viewed prior to the selection of Foley Land were not selected due
to the irregular topography and elevation changes of the search ring area and site
location problems. (Please refer to attached Se8n:h Ring Map) The proposed location is the
only candidate that meets the technical, zoning and landowner requirements.
Furthermore the proposed location is approximately a half-mile outside of the area
originally requested by the Radio Frequency Engineer. The following properties
were nol chosen because of the site location issues listed below:
1. Riverton Park- The elevation of the property is not high enough to provide for
proper signal propagation of the Monopalm at a height of 55 feet or lower.
Cingular's Radio Frequency Engineer determined that for proper signal
penetration the minimum height required at this location is 75 feet or greater.
2. San DieClc' Aqueduct Vents- The venting stacks for the San Diego Aqueduct
were located outside of the search ring. The site would not meet the
coverage objectives of providing selVice on La Serena Way.
3. Residential Properties east of ButterField StaQe Road- The Site Acquisition
Specialist made numerous attempts to find a willing landowner and property
for a location east of ButterField Stage Road_ There were no interested
property O'Nners.
2
SBA
)J)))
.
Justification for the Proposed Facility at Enfield Lane
. The site is suitable and adequate for the proposed use. The antennas will be
housed within the bulb portion of the trunk of the artificial palm, which completely
mitigates any visual impacts to the surrounding residences. In addition, the height of
the proposed facility is comparable with the height of live palms in the area.
. The proposed facility will have no impact on traffic circulation or the street system.
. The proposed telecommunications facility will not result in conditions or
circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and Ihe general welfare. The
facility will operate in full compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements
of the FCC, FAA, and CPUC as govemed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
. The proposed height is the minimum required for the facility to propagate the signal
properly. The site was tested at 45 feet and failed the requirements needed by the
Radio Frequency Engineer. (Please refer to drive test results).
. Two facililies at a lower height are not feasible due to the hilly topography of the
area and adjacent operational facilities. Proximity to other Cingular facilities can
cause radio interference. (Please refer to Radio Fnequency Propagation Map)
. Per the recommendation of the ORC staff, the site has been relocated to the rear of
the properti The proposed facility is now more than 75 feet away from any
residential structure.
.
. The adjacent neighbor has provided a letter statin9 they are not opposed to the
proposed monopalm. (Please refer to attached letter)
. The operating characteristics of the proposed telecommunications faCility will create
no impact on circulation systems; generate no noise, odor or smoke. Furthermore,
the facility will not create any adverse impacts that are detrimental or incompatible
with other permitted uses in the vicinity.
. The equipment associated with the faCility operates virtually noise-free, does not
emit fumes, smoke, dust, or odors. The proposed facility will be in operation 24
hours per day; 7 days a week and will only require routine maintenance only every 4
to 6 weeks.
Unlike other land uses, which can be spatially determined through the General Plan
the location of wireless telecommunication facilities is based on technical
requirements which include service area, geographical elevations, alignment with
surrounding sites and customer demand components. Placement within the urban
geography is dependent on these requirements. Consequently, wireless
telecommunication facilities have been located adjacent to and within all major land
use categories including residential, commercial, industrial, open space, etc. proving
to be compatible in all locations.
.
,
J
.
.
.
SBA
)))))
. Wireless telec:ommunication networks enhance the general welfare of
communities by providing a resilient communications system in the event of
emergencies (earthquakes, fires, traffic accidents, etc.) whereas landline
communications systems are often disrupted during and after a major incident. In
addition, wirel'3SS telecommunication networks add an additional layer of
communications infrastructure with little to no construction disruption to the
community.
Network Design
The proposed communications facility will transmit at a frequency range of between
1850 MHz and 1990 MHz. A typical PCS facility operates at 200 watts. Depending on
the unique characteri!,tics of the site, the actual power requirements may vary. When
operational, the radio signals from the site will consist of non-ionizing waves generated
at less than 1 uW/cm:!, which is significantly lower than the maximum allowable public
exposure of 1,000 microwatts as set by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).
The distance between antenna sites will normally range from Yo mile to 9 miles,
depending on the population density, consumer usage, existing vertical elements, and
the geographical terrain. In order to have a clear line-of-site; antennas must be mounted
high enough to overcome challenges posed by local topography and development.
Telephone calls can originate or be received from a wireless facility because antennas
share a fixed number of frequencies across the network grid. As the caller is traveling
through the network the call ;s continuously being handed-off between wireless facilities
to provide an uninterrupted telephone conversation. The following are some of the basic
types of cell sites:
Coverage sites serve to expand coverage in large areas or in areas with difficult terrain
and to enhance coverage for portable systems. Coverage sites allow users to make and
maintain calls as they travel between cells.
Capacity sites serve to increase the capacity when surrounding sites have reached
their practical channel limits. As the years pass, the number or subscribers increases
exponentially creating a strain on the existing network. In order to alleviate this strain,
capacity sites are implemented into the systems network to accommodate the increase
in customer demand.
4
r-
t
r
.,
":0'"
, ...j!
"'
,~ u,
",,,
.- ".
" "." ~ ~ \.r\
~. ., " .~; ~~ ':' --l-
::mrlH ~
L~III~~_
Cl'"
," ;,,~:
"'''':';
::I
~
\J
,J,
~
r-
-
---,
--.
r-
---.
--.
--.
.
\.~
-'t-
,-<'
.
---.
--.
. f
f '.
."...
>:,-:
~ .....-.
-0
~s.
..,I'
. ~';: f
',j 1)
1+
'j)
:':.:;"
" <1, 40"
.
, '.':;;
: ~.t.;~:;H;\
~,~-, J.I,~_
",r;
-1.
J
--'
;.:;::'--="'-
,
,
,
\
\. ~_.,
1__
_"",<,"1.~,_.
"
~, ~
...
,
, ~..- / \
...", \
\
.... \.
~-'~:1~'Y~:' . ,:'
..:f 1:7.~.' <, '
i. !;'\\\,...,.......
.. ~. \{::~~~ " . /.'
r'\.~(Cj/..~ .'
'<)~'~;;/~;
\ "....."
'~:)'~I';;'
.~<i1~!> :-:
.
--
~
-
.--
......,
---,
--,
.-,
---,
.-,
,......,
--,
.-,
Cingular Wireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB.216-01)
31575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of I inguIar
Wireless, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SB- 16-01)
proposed to be located at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, for compliance with appropriate
guidelines limiting human exposme to radio frequency ("RF') eb;ctromagnetic fields. I
I
Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions
for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1~97, the
I
FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in :Report
No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic ~ields,"
published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protecti,on and
Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conilitions,
with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electribm and
Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to kuman
I
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, " includes nearly identical
exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limi~ apply
,
for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons,
. I
regardless of age, gender, SlZe, or health. I
The most restrictive U:esholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency enck for
I
several personal wireless services are as follows: 'I
Personal Wireless Service Anmnx Fret;;luencv C'lc.cuvationaI Limit Public Limit
Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00mW/cm2 l.OOmw/cm1
Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 I
Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57
[most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 tOO 0.20
General Facility Requirements
".':-.-.-':-
I
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or
"cabinets'') that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive anten4s that
send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber unit4. The
transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cableJ about
1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for 1ireless
services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed
at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy towJrd the
I
I
CG02 I 6579
Pagb 1 00
I
HAMMElT 8< EDISON, INC.
~, CONSUL1'n\IG ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
. ..-,....:.._..~
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cingular Wireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB.216-o1)
~;1575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
horizon, with very little eDl:rgy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of
such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the
maximum permissible expDlrure limits without being physically very near the antennas.
Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluati:ng Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August ] 997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation
methodologies, reflecting thl~ facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at
locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source
decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature
of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests, .
Site and Facility Description
Based upon information provided by Cingular, including <hawings by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc.,
dated August 20,2003, it is proposed to mount three EMS Model DR8517-02DPL2Q directional
panel antennas on a new 56-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a palm tree, to be located at 31575
Enfield Lane in Temecula. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 48 feet
above ground and would be oriented at 120. spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum
effective radiated power ui any direction would be 3,200 watts, representing sixteen channels operati,ng
simultaneously at 200 wat.ts each. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base
stations installed nearby.
Study Results
The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground level due to the Cingular operation is calculated to
be 0.0036 m W/cm2, which is 0.36% of the applicable public limit The maximum calculated level at the
second troor elevation of the nearby home is 1.5% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that
these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual
power density levels.
No Recommended Mitigation Measures
Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the Cingular antennas are not accessible to the general
public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure
guidelines. It is presumed that Cingular will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its
employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is
required near the antennas themselves.
HAMME'IT 8< EDISON, INC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS CG0216S79
SAN FIlAl'OSCO Page 2 00
Cingular Wireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. 58.216-01)
31575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that Je base
station proposed by Cingular Wireless at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, will comp~ with
the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, +11 not
for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly
accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited dJration.
lbis finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other oJ.erating
base stations. I
I
Authorship I
I
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
,
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. lbis work has been !carried
I
out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except,
where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. I'
,
December 23, 2003
I
,
. ,
"~'.:.X]l
".:::~. ',-:'_.O"l.
I
I
CGq2 J 6579
130f3
HAMME1T &: EDISON, INC.
CONSUl..TING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANOSCO
.
.
.
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
.
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have
a significant impact on th,~ environmenL The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are
nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard
C95.l-l999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are
intended to provide a pr.!dent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table an.d chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
.
Frequency
Applicable
Range
(MHz)
0.3 - 1.34
1.34 - 3.0
3.0 - 30
30- 300
300- 1,500
1,500 - 100,000
Electromalmetic Fields (fis freouencv of emission in MHz)
Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field
Field Strength Field Strength Power Density
01/m) (Afm) (mW/cm')
614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100
614 823.8/[ 1.63 2.19/[ 100 180/1
18421f 823.8/[ 4.891 f 2.19/[ 9001 f 180/1
61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
3.54Vr 1.59'1j Vr/l06 VJ1238 fl300 [11500
137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
1000
100
0.1
./ Occupational Exposure
/" PCS
" PM Cell .
,
~
/'- -
Public E osure
____I
~
_ >"Ne
".". <J 10
~ ~-
oii~
g,. Cl E 1
~
0.1
1
\0 100 \03
Frequency (MHz)
10'
10'
Higher levels are allowed for short periods oftime, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher
levels also are allowed fc,r exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not
exceed the limits. Howev':T, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Oflice of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven
. terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections.
~ "-"' - ~--
" ":'...';.
HAMMETT &: EDISON, INe.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANOSCO
FCC Guidelines
Figure I
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to .
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumu1ativel~, have a
significant impact on the environment The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a ~rudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are all,'Wed for
short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty min tes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field. I
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) m;.d whip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is the
distance from an antenna before which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterhs have
formed; the near field is assumed to be in effect for increasing D until three conditions have beeIl. met:
I
1) D>~ 2) D>5h 3) D> 1.6^- I
where h ... aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and I
^- ... wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. I
,
The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this fonhula for
calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: I
. S 180 0.1 x Pnet . W 2
power density = tIiiW x It X D x h' 10 m lern, i
I
where flaw = half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and,
Pnel... net power input to the antenna, in watts. I
I
The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This forniula has
been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits.
I
~~ . . :
OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
I
d . S 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP . mW, 2 I'
power enslty = ~" 10 ,em ,
4xltxlr' I
where ERP ... total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, I
RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and I
D = distance from the center of mdiation to the point of calculation, in meters. I
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wav~ dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired tptits of
power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicihity, to
obtain more accurate projections. !
I
I
Metljodology
!Figure 2
I
I
RFRCALC 1M Calculation Methodology
,..-~ ::...,
:'?~~'" .'.
HAMME'IT &. EDISON, INC.
CONSUl.1lNG ENGINEERS
SAN FRANClSCO
...,-.-....
.
.
.
.
.
"".~.._,
~:~:< ..";.~.:;:.]],
CingularWireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. 58-216-01)
31575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
Statemerlt of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Cingu\ar
Wireless, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SB-216-01)
proposed to be located at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, for compliance with appropriate
guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF') electromagnetic fields.
Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC'') evaluate its actions
for possible significant impact on the environment In Docket 93-62, effective October IS, 1997, the
FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report
No. 86, "Biological Effe<:ts and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,"
published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions,
with the latter limits genemlly five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers ("mEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical
exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply
for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons,
regardless of age, gender, size, or health.
The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for
several personal wireless SI:rviCes are as follows:
Personal Wirele.c;s Service
Personal Communication ("PCS")
Cellular Telephone
Specialized Mobile R2.dio
[most restrictive frequency range]
Ckcunational Limit
5.00mW/cm2
2.90
2.85
1.00
Public Limit
1.00 mW/cm2
0.58
0.57
0.20
Anomx Freqpencv
1,950 MHz
870
855
30-300
General Facility Requirements
Base stations typically consist oflwo distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or
"cabinets") that are conne.;ted to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that
send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The
transceivers are often locatt:d at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about
I inch thick. Because of lne short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless
services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed
at some height above grolmd. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the
HAMMETf &: EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
CG0216579
Page 1 on
Clngular Wireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. S8-216-o1)
31575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low Pfwer of .
such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to appro ch the
maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas.
Computer MOdeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Ex+e to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calF'ation
methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully fared at
locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energyl source
decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law''). The conservative nature
of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. I
. Site and Facility Description I
Based upon information provided by Cingular, including drawings by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc.,
dated August 20,2003, it is proposed to mount three EMS Model DR8517-02DPL2Q dirdctionaJ
I
panel antennas on a new 56-fool steel pole, configured to resemble a palm tree, 10 be located at 31575
,
Enfield Lane in Temecula. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about ~8 feet .
above ground and would be oriented at 1200 spacing, to provide service in all directions. The mkmum
effective radiated power in any direction would be 3,200 watts, representing sixteen channels oJerating
I
simultaneously at 200 watts each. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base
stalions installed nearby.
Study Results
The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground level due to the Cingular operation is calculated to
I
be 0.0036 mW/cm2, which is 0.36% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated level al the
second floor elevation of the nearby home is 1.5% of the public exposure limit. It should be not~d that
these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate: actual
power density levels. ,
I
No Recommended Mitigation Measures
.'.', ":::Xi
'.;.:,~:~ ':: :.~~~
I
Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the Cingular antennas are not accessible to the general
public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public ~osure
I
guidelines. It is presumed that Cingular will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its
I
employees or contractors comply with FCC Occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is
required near the antennas themselves.
HAMMEtT &: EDISON.INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN fRANctSCO
.
....._4.'",-.:.
CG02 I 6579
I
Page 2 on
I
.
.
.
- -',,~. _..~
,'~:-; .~:: ~~~:~:;
,".'-'.H.
Cingular Wireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-(1)
31575 Enfield Lane. Temecuia, California
Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base .
station proposed by Cingular Wireless at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, will comply with
the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not
for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly
accessible areas is much I.;:ss than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration.
This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating
base stations.
Authorship
The undersigned author o)f this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried
out by him or under his dilection, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except,
where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
December 23, 2003
HAMME'IT & EDISON. INC..
CONSULTING ENClNEERS
SAN FRANOSCO
CG0216579
Page 3 00
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ( CC") .
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulative y, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Bi~OgiCal
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 198 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, w 'ch are
nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers S andard
C95.l-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electrollflgnetic
Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources ~d are
intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, rize, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public e~posure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
Fr~encv
Applicable
Range
(MHz)
0.3 - 1.34
1.34 - 3.0
3.0- 30
30 - 300
300- 1,500
1,500 - 100,000
~
1-0 >.,....S
II,) .-=: 0
~.,~
oaE;<
tl.c:lE
~
1000
100
10
1
0.1
Electromaenetic Fields (f is freouencv of emission in MHz)
Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field
Field Strength Field Strength Power Density
('{1m) (AIm) (mW/cm')
614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100
614 813.8/f 1.63 1.19/f 100 180/1
18421f 823.8/f 4.89/f 2. 19/f 900/r 180/1
61.4 . 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
3.5ffl 1.5* Vr/l06 {j1238 17300 f/1500
137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
./ Occupational Exposure
/ pes
FM Cell
,
/' ." ----.
/' ,--
Public Ex osure
.
0.1 1 10 100 103 10' 105 I
Frequency (MHz) II
Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and Ihigher
levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels ~do not
exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calcj1lation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 19~7) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas intq a proprietary progra,m that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density fr6m any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and tbeven .
terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. I
HAMMEn" &: EDISON, INC.
.. ..". CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
FCC Guidelines
figure I
I
.
.
.
.,.;.\-,....,"';
RFRCALC no Calculation Methodology
Assessment bll Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for
short periods of time, sllch that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for
occupational or public seb.ings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field.
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antellIl8l:, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is the
distance from an antenna before which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns have
formed; the near field is assumed t.o be in effect for increasing D until three conditions have been met:
I) :0 > ~ 2) D > 5h 3) D > 1.6^-
where h = apertw'e height of the antenna, in meters, and
^- = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters.
The FCC Office of Engirn:ering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for
calculating power density :in the near field zone about an individual RF source:
180 0.1 x Pnel m 2
power density S = llBW x It X D x h' in m /em,
where 6mv = half-pc-wer beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and
P net = net power input to the antenna, in watts.
The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has
been built into a propriewy program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits.
Far Field.
o ET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
d . S 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2x ERP . mW, 2
power enmty = ~" m ,em ,
4 x 1t X LP'"
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,
RFF = relatiVE' field factor at the direction to the actul!1 point of calculation, and
D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
HAMME'IT &< EDISON, INC
CONSULTING ENC1NEERS
SAN FRANOSCO
Methodology
Figure 2
N
'"
on
N
'"
<
U
j
,
U
"
.
I!
"
~
~
Q
"
"
;;:
Z
W
on
~
..
PI
o
z
0(
..J
~
tal
.J
~
....
0
.
\0
....
N
.
m
In
.
~-
co; z
-.
:::I~ 0
m 5
Q
C ~
.-
u
~
.,1
>!
...i
~li
a
I
,
.
I
.
!
,
.
:
.
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
!
.
.
.
.
,
I
!
.
.
!
i
l
I
.
~
~
.
.
.
.
t
,
.
.
i
~
.
.
j
.
.
.
.
I
!
.
.
N
~
~
N
~
~
o
.
~
,
S
.
"
...
.
j
o
~
.
;;
~
~
~
~
M
.
c
z
j
>-
IaI
.J
~
.
...
0
.
10
...
N
.
m
Ul
.
L-~
ro~
. l
-"
:J~ 0
o. ~
rn .
c ..
.-
U
~
" ~. .
~'-.~:,:/~'
~~':. ~{:;),c.;',
~~
~I'
~n
.. .~<Il
1..' .;~
,
I
>
.
,
,
:
I
,
,
i
,
~
,
.
,
\
!
,
.
>
i
I
>
I
Q
~
.
"
l
W
.
o
.
.
"
.
.
w
%
"
.
o
.
.
l
i
Q
o
"
.
,
~
I
.
i
I
i
,
I
I
.
,
~
l
i
,
&
I
.
i
,
/
~
.
I
!
,
.
i
"
l
,
.
,
i
~
<
N
~
..
N
~
<
o
(
J
,
U
w
I
I!
w
z
(
~
Q
J
"
<
Z
"
..
l'
..
"
c
z
j
>-
Id
..J
~
.....
0
I
10
.....
N
I
m
Ul
.
L .
CO: z
_w Q
::Ji ~
m u
c ~
.-
u
?<
I
Q
<
Q
~
.
o
.
Q
Z
j
Z
Q
f
z
..
.
o
z
.
z
i
Q
Q
~
<1,\
"
'I
Z:L
~-!;
~a
I
I
,
,
i
e
!
,
,
,
,
,
=
<
.
!
.
I
!
i
I
.
.
!
.
!
!
<
,
,
j
,
,
.
,
~
,
.
.
,
,
\
!
.
,
!
,
.
.
.
~
l
<
.
N
~
"
N
~
<
o
j
,
.
W
.
W
~
w
Z
<
~
o
"
w
~
Z
W
"
~
"
"
.
Q
z
<(
-l
>-
t&I
..J
~
...
0
.
III
...
N
.
m
Ul
L.
CO:
. ,
. --
::J! l
. i
rn "
c ~l
.-
U
~
L-
'I
\\
II
\\\
) I
',j
!I
Ii'
ii
I'
J1
~!
~,(
I'
1',1
:(
iil .
,,'
,--:- -';- :.~~~
, '-' 'mr~~1f)l
I {...-
, r /~~?
, .; 'l-,~1
,t," _..:,:iLl>ti{ .~
f,l.f. ';l1;~:',' I
',- _,,:',-:.;9 .
!I,,~~~
'It ' ,<v;.'fI
'i::':1M1\~Jj " .'
. "' . "_~Itti. -.<f,""
:f ~~':,;/:",:~~'~:~i:~f I, i!
:L-=~ . _.~::~-~~.~~i.~
i
.'
1\
"
II
i
i
I
L
~~j
_-:H
"'"' l~li
o'"i
.
.
,
I
i
,
,
i
.
.
1
,
,
,
.
,
.
=
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
!
!
:
!
I
!
.
.
.
\
I
.
;
I
.
i
,
,
i
.
l
.
,
I
I
.
,
.
I
I
l'liB '
'II
i l. a I
Ill!; :'I~I
h~'~.
.:1.11 ~ hi:
Z'l8~6 'tIPn1OJ1'1~ ']NWU
00. 311ns 'JAlHa MO$13Hom s..tt
SS313UIM
JBlnBup >.(
a
~CI)
CU~
.I.L.J
:J~
.0)
C
--
o
.~
..- 0
02Z
1-1<(
1O<(...J
CL
NO>-
,Zw
mO-l
(f)20
lL..
I~" W, _ . ~"'" _..: ~
-
=::::U;:8...:: 'r.~ l!~"" S a
-___ -~I- I
----., .'.:\'='-'"'= 0 "J
lmIV'8'~ v~; It~ ,~i~ ~ ~
. .~ .~ e ~a .11
I
'I. I
!,g
II~
"i!
fl..
I'U
~ dl:
t HY
I
II Jnl
~ ~~lInllhln
it t:dUlit'::S j
t t t
i'i i ' I . . ,
I Ii' I
I I I h "I!..I
I i "11, iI .. .
I I I I I ,! i '. 1,11111
I I I , ~!IIII !ij f,l:!li: ~ ~ ~
'1111 ; , ~, . I t t I ~ dl la.hlll ~ . I I
II I I I , T h! ;!i!i!!!lf ~ 1 II II
f ~~~~'0~i !! ~ m! III1!idi 1 I . , ,
i I I " I I I I
i
1 S r,
I I i 1//1 Ii ! I
II I ! I I Ii i I" I"
Inn811 idlJlIJl
11
II
u
n
II
il
; III
I ,~~ I ,I 'Iii
. ~ i '~ ~ I i .~ ijli
~ "I;d, i'II;"i tit,
{.flaih a I iilfl >>1'1
I 1),1
~. II . . I'
I l! .. II flllJ
~i11~ !~fi~q a S
t Ii," ~h. ,~, t
~ i:.!li t~: ~,hj: l. .:1
I
~ ~ I; S !
~ I ;lll g I 1m'; IW
~ r (II ~ h!'lul.~ ~hil
~ .i.IM ~ lihllJ ~ filii
i . ~
~ I Itl- I I
i rilL p h dn,
" !iWH e Ilsull :j.fH1
I 9a.illll ~ HrI", ~ UU','
I
,
r .......... I ~
'" '. \:i
"-', II' .-
"r .... '"
J .. ...-\'1 ~
'" I' ''''\~l 6
-- ,.!\f~~~tr~ ~
.- J.t. '\\'-
. I -::;.\ ..l:- '0.; \.. --I
j J........ \1\) f \,\ Ii
. ...... \~r-~ I ~I ~
L -.--:::- ,~I\il! ~ \ I ~I
~ ;, I '--'~ 'zED
._.___ ____L
----~--I
~
~
~.
-', .
- --
.. .
- -
~
_...._.RIJ,,...........,,...
.
'"1111 .
"jil .
!I;~P.::II
~51 ~hl :,
Z:~RZ:I YlNtlDJI'1't:) 'DlIAHI
001 1UfIS "3MIQ NOS1lH:)ln lim
SS3l3HIM
JBln5up >.:
-~s.:~ '~- I g
-- -,...
-- ---
.,....---... ...--- ... - 'I
lmis......~ -'-, a~l 0
yij ~~! ~ 311 ~ 1-<
lor", 11:j& .~ .
1= 1:31 ~.:; .'iiIi I
~.-
~~:
.
zEe n
riB
. "I,
!iI
Ig Glq
II I III! I
--__If ! !19Bi
11------1-_ III, e
---
--
--
--
---
.
---
,
,
-_ I
-~-
, --
, -
i~ I"
Ie I~
I
I
i
I
I
f I
5 I
I I
_ l
- I ' .
'--,- . I'
-, ,
-r--,-- . /
'-- I'
'-
............... "
~ ----..J
I
I
i
.
5
0-
W
....
iJj
-
- -
l~~_.~"N_~~
l'lj~ '
'Iilll .
~i~1 :~I~II
11~lj. I-Ii Ii
iil9h Ii ;
nez. YIfrQI(l:UlY:) '3HWa
00 ~ :wns '3ARIO HOnJII:)fft Sttt
SS3l3lflM
JBln5up ~
::::::t~...:::: n_i::J -, S
__:.:=Ii_ _~~.::::: I
lmiw.:.-;=~w ~.-= ~
un ...-.-- I
_v~ ~eI""I1i!
. I~ I
~ ;
I , I.
. !
r I U
It I 'I (
Ii ~ I
I! I I b
z
----
..---'
f
T
I
I
i
I
1
'. ":'
...--
----
.-----....
~--_.._.-.~
~ ~-.'>
~-..~
\,
'~
!'f
~Il'l!
"'1,,1,1
I.ti ; III
".: I ;! I
I~ I II It
\
\
\
,
. I
\1
\1
Ii
"
'I
1'1 'I
!
/ /: I ,.
/ ./ I ! !
/ // : : /
/ I / /
'X" 1//.'
'>t 1//:
/ ,
'i . ( i'!y', /' .'
j. / ./ -1. ...-
i " /' / ./ ;"; /Y"
, . I . v
/;/ /' /.///i .
I
I
,
, .
, .
I \ \0
I \
! \ ,
\ \
\.
i
f
i
I
~
3 I
· it I
I . I
Is JPf
e I! n
z
:5
a.
w
>-
u;
z
w
=
i
1;1l11 '
1.111
lelli! '~I~Bi
1II'Ie I Ii I
Will ~iil :.
.
.
,
z
I !
~ I
I .
.
:=:ClfI..::J '--1:::1"'::: &1 .
---- -=-' ~ .....
----- -_____ 0 \f .
-,- - 3
I S Jt.IO... ,. 0 'r"
II\JCI~ ..-.-- f ~ ~ ~ I,-d:
V C "o"'~r 1~li I~.ij
I~n ~.31 i
zEB ~ ~
~~:
~
Z'lIZI't'JNHOJ[1Y:)':DI1NII
001 1lItlS 'lARICI HOSl]H:)Jft nE"
SS3l3HIM
lBln6up >.<
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I I
I
!
I
,,'
/
/
..-,01
!I ~ '~I
I I
(I I
t~ I
. n I
II
il
..
-
.-....-.......,...........'"'
I
I
I
\
\
\
\.
\
\
o~
"J-
\
\.
~~
...
,
'.
,
\
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
\...
\
,
;
\
\
\
<t" d
...~/ .//
i
, /'
/ /
/ /
/ /
r
/
/
/
,/
~
a.
<:J
z
Ci
~
<:J
.....:-.. ::::::::!
h1lH .
II!I~ . .. II
I,~a ~g
!I.I ilil :
@
.11
~
. I'
~~
l3f'
:d
n.z. WQllUnY:l "lNWII
001 3.11nS"lARla ~ eKr
SS313ijlM
JBln6up ~
I
I
.
i I
.
I J
I I
f
I
f
l
~a
~"
~ . . .
- -
-...._......1__.....11I..
=Fi1- =1::1-- ~ I
_'Illl='''':''~ _'='=-"';:l;.."S ~ ~
III ~~~ -,- t D
..-.-- I ~ ~ ~
V9 "o"~ r !~ II ~~L~
.....
-""".........:lO.,~
-W-"". ...'lii';; ,...
~~.~~~~ .
.'
.....
~:
~:
a
~
a~
I
I
z
o
~
~ f
w I
i'=
'"
o
z
f
~
"
......."
i'=
:>
o
'"
---',
,~
::- 1-
,
-..... .....
- -
.
!FIII. .
I~.!;I :-.:11
H~I' .PI I
.1 His s
. lu
~~
mi !
. .
g . I i
III I I !
I I
~
.
I
f
I
.
=-=r:a..::: ==:::: 1::1...::: 1:
--=--~ -=.::::.,~-;: J, "I ,.."...
-.- r ~i "'"
ltIV9~ ~~~ !1~11:~i ,Il<l:
M"-
*[
& t .ze 't'JNWJrl'r.) '1NWII
001 111M '1Al1O HOS13HOl" vtt:lL
SS3l3tilM
JBlnBup ~
T""
~:
f
:
I
.
6 I I
~ I ·
G:i 1
-'
w
.
~
.-....-.-,.....-.-
, .,
....."..b
tl t~~-~-.~:'..'-r
,....:. ". - '.
!e ~ '-'-.C:. ''':C-C.':
~r. \
-~ ?it~~,.~,-
~Ii '"
~~~
~..'-"~~~
~
f
i
!
~
-....=.
z
o
;::
~
..J
W
...
!:l
;0
e I I ~
~ ,I kl ~ IIU :hl :
J!HIB 1:1r.I!J~ ~
0000000 00 :E
. . UJ
.....~.
a ~'~iJ .
III~m~. 'oi.11
" is' g
m.ii ~lil :
~
>
~ ,~ ~
,~ i
,~ : ~ ~
.~ ..;
. i~ iJ ~
;B ~ ~ ~
a e~. ' ; ·
H il! s S
~ iipif
~ i ~ :I~ !I s
...J H 8~,
~ ! I !!
C3 I 1- !
0: . I I
0:: I :
-------~----------- ----~
T .
u'*
I
I
I
". ,
III
:UU Y1KH04ll'Q 'JNWlI
OOt :wns ')N~O NOS13H:mt ~u
SS3l3~1M
lBln6up >.<
~.
z
I I ~ ·
I'll l Ii
!!III!1IiI~
, z
<(
-'
a.
CD
~
0::
:I:
VJ
, ...._.'....'/80.......10
=~I...::s :c;:-t::J..::::,
---- --~.:...
"-9___.., ___::;....;;1.:ii. C)
-.--
ul .5)!J M,_ ~
cr<<<<<<<< va ;';;-~r I~ I
IU
);
~
VI
o
z
:5
ill
I
o
~
I
lD
X
" I: ill
II! ili II. ill 0
g~: I ml9JII ~
l. I ::s
a.
r ii' " . I d
. " . " < I , " ., I I ~
i ! Ii ..a !;i~Ii/~1 lh iil~l! . ~'I' It :~ I~ i i Q 1 ~ f ~
Ilif;lisiBi;iINI~UI;h '1,1,,;; i Iii! Iii ~i 1;11 !: d! ~ I:: I'll! ii h Ii
i!!I!!iflil:=I:tl!;i;i:;~! ild~C; !.l~11 il il !eli 1..li I ti;!I, is i !dhl~ n
~ iI~~i~ t~! 11 dUil ~al~ ;1. ~.i I I~ :Ut I !r i :':~';; r! 5 ~.iE ~ 3.::
!1~1~':ft;iiUi!IMMid;~ii!;'-ihl!~il! !lin4JiIIUi:!ltii! ~f!i ~.I. i S~.'II ..
. - I
. . , . . 4 ..... _ ~ ___ ____ __ == ~ ::::
..... - o. . ._ . _.._ __._ _ __ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ ---'
---._--------
.
!~~I h .. ..
~m;i':lI.~
!I.III Ii I :
08LU Y1Nt1OJrTt:) 'Nusnl
UOO'1J puz "JA'f' nl3H:)Il'l IlCZ
SS313ijlM
JBln6up >.<
:;r:I_ts...:: ~... - !if
......_~=.': =:..-===- ? ijU ~
~ _ON <0 I "i ..> ~
N ~ <C:~ i1
(1<<<<<<<< va ~.ll'ffl"'."!) i ~ . ~ g~ ; 0
\,1;. mmr..... Ii N ~~ i
II I. · ;'1
.1 II I II b
sin J I'll
II I' I I I:
'I Ii " h
: '" '111 .1 1111
:" I i~ · 'I -
$11 I! 11'f 1;;lI'~ !
Illlllli: I; ! Ii III~~!
---
--
---
---
, " II; .
~I IjJ Ir-I.i i (D
!= 'i'll ;~I.~i_.i .~
II · = hili' I', ."
.! I I; I ~:IIfII;111 ,I;!'
I i I b Iii ~ 12 1~!li!31 911
Ii ! I pin I;!; :ljlil!1I ~hl II ! i
II f ~ i i II! I ~ i,;! illi!i~li ; ~ ! Il~ I ~~~:~!~::~ ili;
lJJJ1l1 "~I
.
---
~ JI' ---, ~
::?N"
~ NO'" X
rJZ.......!::
~..'
I~~ ~:z":;: .~
"g" ~
.:~
!1i
.. . !JJ
II
I.~ I -...
J ... J
4~/ " I
-x
J!;~J a~
..
J J !l!=
{-...~ ..~
rni ~ I .
.
. J -''Gai
'---.. J
-... /
_. _ h..' ....___
- ---
. . - ~ .... .
- --
I" ....
. II ;;! ot I
S ~:..",
"~'Islii:
OIlZl YlNHOJIl'r:) 'HUSru
ttOOlJ IIUt .~,. JTJJH::lI" n;~z
S53l3HIM
JBlnBup >.c
=Qftta;oS ==.~_ 5
.l"'~:::;'_ _____ ,
~
N
"""'tIIlNSlIlt1 i I
D1iii.... m
. Ii
fil ~>- N
~I g~ = I
n- ~oq()
d~~ 0
~
,h;~
....1
[~----------- ~---~r~l
1/ >---------_ !:
I ------ r- --./ . I
......-i.::.'. I . I
I :'"i--,-___ '- 0 0 I
. , l-
I / I \ ----- /I~ I
I / I II \ I.' -~--J
I .it J '----- ; '\ I
I I ~. -,J
I ,
I, f ..__,-,
I // _ f_..
I / /1"../ .
I ./ . :>; "-;n;;.'J\ './'
1/ , .' / . '''/'~ .9,\ i;f
r ".~\.~ I'
I'~ ~ ~
I '~. ~ /\. .
I~. ~ :<.
~1') i
I!Q);-; , I\.
i
flj1
I, ~
\.
-0(
,
b ria i d
~ ~!~~~:!:~~
4",
I
~ .:
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
. I'ClDi I
----------~-.J
f ..: i'.
,
I
I
,
L~______
--=,-
.
I
I
.
.
I
1
i
I
I
I
i
I
,
I
I
!
1
I
I
I _'_.__
----
-~_..
-----
--'
--'
<(
3:
~
()
o
--'
CO
o
W
(f)
o
a.
o
a:
n.
o
z
~,
0..,
c..
~
~
Z
:J
a:
I--
~
--'
<(
a.
o
w
(f)
o
n.
o
a:
n.
:-:l
Wo
-.Jcr:
0...<(
~O
~CO
ii~l
"'
u!
'f ;~h"
"'I J".,.
. <( ::\ 1m
I t;i -!:.;:
cO "1'1'.'
i.' J't
(/) :%, ?!3H
__.d__
!.-'"
m~
-w
:J~
0)
C
.-
()
~
~~
N ~.
u.~
"
~.
. 0 2
o I ~
'.........'" 0.
I ~l 'M .;10
i ~ ~ l !:S
I;:.., l'!~ ;:::1
;1.0 ;:\
,-,
:-::l
o
o
~
:5
,,~ '"';
w~
~;;:
~
o.
--::
P,rr
;, <::
~...
~:
x-
u,
;;
"
~.
. ~
~~
>
~:~~
.. ,-
~ ; ~::::,
II!I~
~
~
00
z;:
j~
.~
~~ <
~ 6 ~
.... .
,......,
---,
....--.
. .
ATTACHMl:NT NO.2
PC RESOLUTIONS NO. 2004-_
.
.
R,IC U I'\2OO2102-l17J7 CinguJar Win,t... Mono-PalmIST AFF RE!'?R.T.doc
'F' :8
:_.-:',:~;~~t~.~_ .
~r_:-::;:.:~~,;,o.~-'i - :l '_"''',-;::.,~~.,-,....._-. .';':<::~~.~}.,:~ 1~'-"
,
! .
. '.~......
.' .-".':!~.::~-"':..~;~''''v.!:: 'l"/ ..:~
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATlON
NO. . PJl.02-0717, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT!
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH THREE
(3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A
PROPOSE,D FIFTY-SIX FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE
AND FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310
SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575
ENFIELD LANE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF ENFIELD LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST
OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-(12)
WHEREAS, Dou!l Kearney, representing Cingular Wireless, filed Planning Application
No. PA02-0717, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. I?A02-0717 was processed including, but not
limited to a public notice, in the time and manher prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA02-07t7 on April 7, 2004, 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 th'3 conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Comrnission approved Planning Application No. PA02-0717 subject 10 the
conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA02-0717
conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by referenCll.
Section 2. Rndinos. The Planning Commission. in approving Planning Application
No. 02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 1 j'.04.01O.E and Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
Conditional Use Permit ("I 7.04.01 OE)
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
development code.
.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed
conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the
applicable sections of the Development Code. The project as proposed meets the
general requirements as outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna
Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of all yard and street setbacks. The
R:\C U P\2OO2\02-G117 Cingular Wir:1ess Mono-Palm.\SfAFP REPORT.doc::
~
monopalmas proposed has been designed to blend in with the surroun g
. environment. The support facility has been located and designed to minimize its
visibility from the public right of way.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use ~i11
not adyersely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. I
As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as a monopalm with ~e
antennas mounted within the bulb of the Iree so that the antennas will not be visit3le.
The proposed monopalm is fifty-six feet high and has been designed to blend with the
natural setting. This design and height is consistent with the existing built and natJral
environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings. I
C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape i to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscap\ng
and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by !,he
Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood. :
,
,
The Planning Commission has reviewed the requirements of the performance standatds
delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sectiqns
of the Development Code. As a result, Ihe Planning Commission has determined t~at
the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for projects located within
the V8IY Low Density Residential zoning district. i
I
I
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of the community. I
Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and BUilding and F,ire
Safety Codes to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. Tfle
project is consistent with Ihese documents and will be conditioned to meet all app'ica/;"e
requirements. In addition, wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas are T,lot
known to emit hazardous substances or emit amounts of radiofrequency energy (FfF)
above permitted levels as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. i
E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based bn
substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or qity
Council. :
I
The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applic.l1e
codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission.
Develooment Plan (17.05.010Fl
F. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for TemecuJa and with
all applicable requirements of slate law and other ordinances of the city. I
The proposed wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment screen desig~ is
. in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and
R:\C U P\2l101\02-O'Jl1 a.gul.. WUdess M.....l'almISTAFF REPORT. de<:
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance goals and pol/cies, as well as with
all applicable reqL'irements of slate law.
G. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and geneml welfare.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the City
of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined the City of
Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and
found to be physically suitable for the proposed fifty-six foot high-unmanned wireless
telecommunicatioi1 facility designed as a monopalm.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application No. PA02-0717,
which was prepared pUI'S'Jant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA02-0717 (Conditional Use
PermiVDevelopment Plan) to construct a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3)
antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed fifty-six foot high artificial palm tree and
four outdoor equipment c3binets within a block wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield Lane.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission thiil 7th day of April 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske.. Secretary
[SEAL]
R,IC U 1'12002102-07 17 Cingutar W'u>:les, MODo-Pabn\S1'AFF REPORT.doc
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby ce~ify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning commisslpn
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7"' day of April, 2004, by the
following vote: ,
I
I
I
,
i
i
I
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\C U P\2OO2\()2-0117 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\STAFF REPORT.doc
12
.
.
.
'..."
.,
.
. EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
.
RX U P\2002\02.Q717 Ciuguw Win:1css MOlIo-Pa1mISTAFFRJ;POJ<'l'.doc
',. ' ':. ':~~,r~
~',:';:.;p:!~:t:'.:['~~:h,~ 0"' .,::-' ~.,..~-~~ . _
~.:1:~f:. 'T;:'_<~
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA02-0717
Project Descrlptl.on:
A Conditional Use Permlt/Development Plan to
construct and operate a wireless, telecommunications
facility with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb
portion of a proposed 56-foot high artificial palm tree
and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a 310
square foot block wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield
Lane, generally located on the south side of Enfield
Lane, approximately 3,200 feet east of Rlverton Lane.
DIF Category:
Exempt
957-170-012
Assessor's Parclll No:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
April 7, 2004
April 7, 2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Iiours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty Four Dollars
($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination w~h a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicantldevelopl3r 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
2.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protllct, 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 te, attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in lurtherance 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, conceming 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, consLlllants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify
R;\C U N002\02-0717 C'mgular WiR,less Mono-Pabn\STAFF REPORT.doc:
14
3.
both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which t, is
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 inte~Jst
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. I
All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by t~is
conditional use permit.
4. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planni g
Application No. PA02-Q717.
5. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the CItY's
Development Code.
6. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to t e
approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
7.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it sliall
become null and void. By use' is meant the beginning of substantial constructibn
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligeritly
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval. I
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit~ G
(Site Plan), H (Enlarged Site Plan), J (Elevations), K (Landscape Plan) and L (Color ar' d
Materials) contained on file with the Planning Department. !
I
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasona~le
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 ow~er
to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Tile
continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the
developer or any successors in interest. i
If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaVcultural
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidenceiof
cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately
advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or ot~er
disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning i at
his/ller 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, f~lfy
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 ~n
archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property oWr)er
of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining
that the discovery is an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning s~all
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 Directorlof
Planning.
I
8.
9.
10.
R:\C U NOO2\02.(J111 CiDgularWudcss Mon(;PaIm'STAFPREPORT.doc
IS
.
.
.
.
11.
Excavation shall be monitored during all earthmoving associated with construction in
areas identified by a qualified paleontologic monitor as likely to contain paleontologic
resources per the recommendations contained In the Paleontological Resources
Assessment for the project titled Paleontological Resource Assessment; Proposed
"Foley Land"; Cingular Wireless Facility Number S8 216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane,
Temecula California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental Assessment
Specialists, Inc. dated May 7, 2003.
Condition of approval No. 11 is also Mitigation Monitoring Measures of the Mitigated
Negative Declara'Uon.
Prior to the Issuance 01 Grading Permits
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
Prior to the Issuance oj' Building Permits
14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
.
15. A maintenancelfacilify removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease
that will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will
be complied with, shall be signed by the applicant shall be submitted to the Planning
Director. The agreement shall comply with all provisions set forth in Section 17.40.210
of the Ordinance.
16. 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 "F", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus,
species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent
with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following
items:
b.
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
One (1) o>py of the approved grading plan.
Water us;~ge calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan).
A landsca.pe maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, whiCh details
the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth
and landllcape 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.
a.
c.
d.
e.
.
R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 C'mgular Wheless Mo~PaIm\STAFFREPORT,doc
17
Prior to Release of Power
Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit,' the apPli1nt
shall schedule an inspection with the Planning Department to insure that the monopa m
and antennas were installed in accordance with the approved plans.
Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, all required
landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
abovementioned landscape plans (see Condition of Approval No. 15 above). The plaf)ts
shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests and the irrigation system shall be
properly constructed and in good working order. I
19. The property owner shall submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amoJnt
approved by the Planning Department for a period of one year from the date of tr' e
release of power or first occupimcy permit.
. I
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT J
20. All design components shall cort:lPly with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of t e
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 Califomia Electrical C e;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabl~d
Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. i
21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing complianpe
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and otller
outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department lof
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. If Applicable. I
22. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
17.
18.
23. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
24.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulatio~s.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regutatlons effective April
P1. 1~9d8) . t I' ed f . I ith .. I' t I I
rovl e appropna e stamp 0 a register pro esslona w orlglOa signa ure on pans
prior to permit issuance. I
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, Plumbinl g
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
I
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate apjlfovals and permits. I
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates ~e
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 ahy
site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. I
25.
26.
27.
28.
R:\C U NOO2\02-0117 Cmgular Wireless Mmo-Pa1m\ST AFF REPORT.doc
17
.
.
.
.
.
.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
"lo work is permitted on Sunday or Govemment Holidays
FIRE DEPARTMENT
29. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau
reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California
Building Code (CI3C), Califomia Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force
at the time of building, plan submittal.
30. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall maintain an unobstructed width of not less
than twenty-four (24) leet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than
thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
31. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
32. Prior to issuanco of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, 'Blue Reflective
Markers' shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
33. During construction, all locations where structures are to be built or altered shall
maintain 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 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
34. During construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS will be maintained in
working order ancl up to their original design and performance specifications.
35. All manual and E!lectronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emerg'3ncy access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
36. Provide a 2A: 1013C fire extinguisher inside each building or temporary structure on the
site.
37. The applicant shull comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any chan.~es 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)
38. The applicant sh~lll submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statemllnt 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)
RolC U P\2002\02.Q717 Ciuguw Wi.:I... Mooo-Pa1mISTAFF REPORT.due
18
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
,
39. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal lof
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
40. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated March 2, 2003 from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I
41. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated February 24, 2003 from l~e
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California I
42. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 16, 2003 from t~e
Rancho California Water District. I
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 ~n
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to tI"e
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. I
Applicant's Printed Name
Date
Applicant's Signature
Role U P\200Z\02.Q717 CiDguW Wuelcss Mooo-PabnISTAFF REPORT.doc
19
.
.
.
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
Gcne~er.chiefEngineer
.
.
------
.
~
!'
r\
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
51180.1
IfV~@~OW~~
~J MAR 4 2002 ~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISlRICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-0033
Attentionj~ nL/ze; fk!=:1 SEN DAN Z.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re:
The Olstrict does not nonnally recommend con<fllions for land divisions or other land use cases in il1Cl1fllOl'lted
cities. The District also d~, not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reJl<?rls for such cases. Disliict comments/recommendations lor such cases are nonnaUy limited
to items of specific Interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional, flood
control and drainage facllitle!, which could be considered a logical componenf or extension of a master plan system,
and District Area Drainage Flan fees (development mltlgatloii fees). In addition, In/ormation of a general nalure is
pno~ded. .
The District has not re~ewecl the pnoposed project in detail and the followl(19 c1iecked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endOrsement of the pnoposed pnojeclwith resped to flood hazard, public
health and safely or any other Such issue;
...IL This pnoject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional Interest pnoposed.
This pnoject involve!, District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of thl~ City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and
i~on wiD be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required. .
This project proposes channels, stonn cIralns 38 inches or larger in'diameter, or other facilities that could be
conSIdered regional In nature and/or a logical extension 01 the adople!l
Masler Drai~e Plan. The District woula consider accepting ownilrshlp Of sucn taalltles on written ~uest
of the City. Facllitle, must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and in5p!lction will
'.. be required for District acceptance.. Plan check, inspection and adrnlnistralivefees will be required.
.L This project is located within the Umits of the District's k. ~
Drainage Plan lor which drainage fees have been ado ; a lca e ees 0 pa CliShier's
, check or money orner only to !fie Flood Control Di . prior issuance of bU'dil!9 or grading pennits
whichever comes Iir.,l. Fees to be paid should be at'the rate in effect at the time of iSsuance of lh8 adiiaI
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This projeclmay reguirea National Pollutant pischalge EHmlnallon Sys!em (NPDESl pern)it from the State Water
Resources Control BoaId. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approvaf Should not be given until the
City has determined that the 1lroject has been granted a pennlt or is shown to be exempt
If this project involves a Federal Ernergern;y ~ent Agency (FEMAl map~ flood p1ain,then the Citv should
require Ifle applicant to prc~de all studies, calculations, Plans and ofher lrilonnallon fllgUired to meal FEMA
re<juirements, and should further require that the aPDI/can1 obtain a Conditional Letter of M"P. Revision (ClOMR)
prior to grading, recordation or other Iinal approval Of the project. and a Letter of Map Re~sion (lOMR) prior to
occupancy.
It a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is Impacted l>y this project. the City should require the allollC<lnt to
obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from the California Departrilerit of FIsh and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies
indicating the project is exempt from these ~lrements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certitication
may !le required from the 1o<:aJ California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404
pennit
By
PA 02 -01n
c:
Very tru, Iy yours, V
~\ ,<--
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Ci~1 Engineer
Dall,: 3 - z. Zo:f;;,
5K.H.
-
UlI
Executive Office
MWO
MHROPOLlTAN WATER OISmlCT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
':;.\ ~ " ,... ~ r'l
J .1. I: I r;::;: ! ~ ' \: J ! C I ; \
~,. ~ I:., IP \' \'1 lPW'i!
\1,l J'-~" ;"'.1 ,- _., 1\
m FEB 2 4 2003 ~
.
Ely
Your Case No. PA02-0717
MWD San Diego Pipeline No.3
Sta. 1332+00 to 1344+00
MWD San Diego Pipeline No.4
Sta. 1336+00 to 1343+00
MWD San Diego Pipeline No.5
Sta. 1336+00 to 1343+00
R/W Parcels SDA-P-3-13,
142-3-1 (Fee) and -4
Substr. Job No. 2029-03-001
February 24, 2003
Mr. Rolfe Preisendanz
Case Planner
City ofTemecula
Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
.
Dear Mr. Preisendanz:
Enfield Lane - Cinl!Ular Wireless Telecommunications Facilitv
We received your project transmittal notice on January 22, 2003; and prints ofthe
plans (T -I, A-O through A-3, C-l and C-2) for the proposed Cingular Wireless
Telecommunications facility improvement project (Case No. P A02-0717) located
at 31575 Enfield Lane, east ofRiverton Lane and north of Humbolt Court, in the
city ofTemecula.
The location of Metropolitan's partially delineated 50-foot-wide slope easement
within the subject property, as shown on Sheets A-O, A-I, C-l and C-2, is
generally in agreement with our records. Metropolitan's 70-foot-wide fee prop-
erty and San Diego Pipelines 3, 4 and 5 are adjacent to the subject property,
abutting and paralleling the eastern boundary.
There appear to be no conflicts with our facilities and rights-of-way since
Metropolitan'S pipelines and rights-of-way are located outside the construction
.
700 N. Alameda Slmet, losAngeles, California 90012 .Matling Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 9tJ054.0153. Telephone (213) 217-6000
.
.
.
/
/
.-
/
THE METROPOUTAN WATER DJST1IICT OF SOun,'ERN CAUFORNIA
Mr. Rolfe Preisentlanz
Page 2
February 24, 2003
limits of the proje<:t, and should not be affected by the proposed telecommuni-
cations facilities.
However, we request that a stipulation be added to the plans or specifications
to notify Mr. John Martinez of our Water System Operations Group, telephone
(909) 776-2616, at least two working days prior to starting any work in the
vicinity of our facilities.
Weare returning prints of Sheet T-I, stamped "REVIEWED - CORRECTIONS
NOTED - NO RESUBMITI AL REQUIRED," and Sheets A-O, A-I, C-I and
C-2, stamped "REVIEWED - NO CORRECTIONS NOTED."
For any further cOlTespondence with Metropolitan relating to this project, please
make reference to the Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right-hand
comer of the first page of this letter. Should you require any additional infonna-
tion, please contact Mr. Ken Chung, telephone (213) 217-7670.
Very truly yours,
~U-A~' ~
Susan M. Walters
Engineering Teclmician III
Substructures Team
KC:ly
DOC#: 2029-03-001
Enclosures (5)
@
RwhD
Water
Board cloa.ctan
Usa .. ........
..........
"dInf LMlDlJer
Sr. vx. Preelaent
Stepha J. eor-..
_8.,,",,>
_8."'"'"
lob E. BoePmd
c.aba P.Ko
-
IohaP.~
----
PbiWp L J'one.
.DireetDraf~
...........
&.P. -&ob" I-.
Diml:torof~
:&emaeth c. Deal7
_.l()p..'-
.,,-'-
Petr7&Loack
""""""'"'
......M._
Oiwtrid.~~...
--
c.......... c...u
Bat Best;.. Kricer UP
""""''''"'''''''
AS
January 16, 2003
~,~ E~~2;~;~ :~r~J~
W2.i ~LJ !J d.; .j" aJ~
Rolfe Preisendanz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: CINGULAR WIRELESS ANTENNA ARRAY
PARCEL NO.2 OF PARCEL MAP 13530
APN 957-170-012
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717
FOLEY SITE - ENFIELD LANE
Dear Mr. Preisendanz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced project is located within the
I
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWDlDistrict). RCWiD
operates an existing two-way radio system in the inunediate vicinity of 1$s
site. The District requests that the developer assure RCWD that there will
not be any interference between the proposed project and the District's
operation of its equipment. I
If you should have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
O-.?-' /?
~ ~ 'J/Z.4--1.. '-
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
o3isB:atOI2IFOI2-TIIFCF
c: Craig Elitharp, Water Operations Manager
Paul Gonzalez, General Services Manager
BaDebo California Water District
42136W~Road. Podomte8o&9017 -1'emeeuIa.c.Jit'ornia925B9-9017. (909)298-6900-FAX(909)29tH>860
.'
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
II~ITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R:\C U N002\02:0717 Cmgular :Wm~less Mooo-Pahn\STAFP REPORT.doc
'9
~~j~~:S==t-A...
.'
_...-..., ~~.--~_. .
,.
':i'
.,---;..-,-.._1..:....
'-'J.7'-'!",."i.;
CIty of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula. CA 92589-9033
environmental Checklist
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Des nation
Zonin
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
Is r uired
Planni ication No. PA02.{)717
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula CA 92589-9033
Stuart Fisk, Asslstant Planner
909 694-6400 .
Located at 31575 Enfield Lane, east of Riverlon Lane and north of
Humbolt Lane A.P.N.957-170-012
Mark Rivera
Cingular Wireless
2521 Michelle Drive
~ Aoor
Tustin CA 92780
Ve Low L
Ve Low Dens' ResIdential VL
A Conditional Use Permit to construct. operate, establish and
maintain a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3)
antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot
artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a
block wall enclosure.
The project site is located on a 3.17 acre residential site that
contains a single-family custom home. The property is generally
surrounded by similar larger acreage residenUaLrural property, with
some Low Medium (LM) zoned residential property (minimum 7,200
square foot lots) located south of the site. The project site is
separated from homes in the area by no less than approximately 300
feel
The project will require a building permit from the Building and Safety
D ant
~.~~,.~',.:-. .
~
R:\C U PI2Olll'm-G717 CInguIar Wireless Ma1O-l'alm~nltiaJ Study.doc
I
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
Impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this Initial evaluation:
I
, I
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEG1\.TIVE
DECLARATION will be re ared i
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, the~ will not
x be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the ro'ect nent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be r ared. l
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is r uired
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially signifiCant
unless mitigated" Impact on the environment, but a11east one effect 1) has been adequately an8lyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier anatysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a .poteirtially
significant impact" or .potentially signiflC8nt unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTIREPORT
is r uired but it must anal e onl the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, becjl.use all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately In an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE;:
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursiJant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that ~re
im ed u on the ro osed ~. eel nothi further is r uired. I
~
It.lf ( (tJ3
Date 1
s-+u-r -\- t=fS{L
Printed name
For
.
R:\C U P\2OO2\D2-1l717 Clngular WIreless Mono-PamVnIIIaI Study.doc
2
1.b.
.
1.c.
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a.
b.
;'")>'.,.:'~i:\'~'~;C;'!9'
X
c.
is>lues...fs'' ,,'. . '~'SO 'h:eli.
Ph sicall divide an established commun'
Conflict with applicable land. use plan, policy, or
regulation 01 an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental
e1fect?
Conflict with any applil:able habitat conservation plan or
natural communi conllervation Ian?
x
X
Comments:
1.a.
The project site consists of 532 square feet within a 3.17-acre residential parcel that contains an
existing single-family culltom home. The proposed project would add a wireless telecommunications
facility to the site. The f~lcility would be an un-staffed facility consisting of three (3) antennas housed
within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets
within a block wall enciollure. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project since locating the
proposed telecommunicution facility on a single-family lot, developed with a single family home, would
not divide an established community.
The proposed project Is c:onsistent with the Goals. Objectives, Programs and PoliCies of the General
Plan and meets the requirements of Chapters 17.06 (Residential Districts) and 17.40
(Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance) of the Development Code. Because the
proposed facility is consistent with Chapters 17.06 and 17.40 of the Development Code, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. The site has been graded for the construction of the existing single-
family home and is not within any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. Therofore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a.
b.
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectl)' (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastlUcture ?
Displace substantial nurnbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial nurnbers of people, necessitating the
construction of r Iacement housin elsewhere?M
x
x
x
R~C U PI2OO2I02-ll717 Clngular WIreless M"fIO.PalmVnltlaJ Study.doc
3
Comments:
2.a. The project involves the installation and operation of an un-staffed wireless telecommunicatiqns facility.
which is not anticipated to induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The projec
is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations of Very Low (Vl) and Very Low
Density Residential (VL) and Chapter 17.40 of the Zoning Ordinance (Telecommunications Facility and
Antenna Ordinance). No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I
2.b, c. The project, which involves the addition of a wireless telecommunications facility to a residen~allot with
an existing single-family home, will not displace any people or existing housing. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project. I
I
I
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
;,.-, ., ", ., . . -,' '-~: ~t,;.;' ",': ,...,....
.., ..
".,--",.-. ,.,Jt.
_and' -' -,' .. :_.:'J.'~-:r"
" ". .. ,. , ~ .'" '-.."
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial ,
I
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death I X
involvino: ,
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on ,
i
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning :
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based I X
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to ,
I
Division of Mines and Geoloav Soecial Publication 42. I
ii Strano seismic around shakina? X I
Iii Seismic-related around failure, includina liauefaction? , X
I
iv Landslides? X i
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of tODsoil? , x
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or I
that would become unstable as a result of the project, X I
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral I
spreaclina, subsidence. Iiauefaction or collapse? I
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined In Table 1801-B I
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial i X
risks to life or Dr . !
e. Have soil Incapable of adequately supporting the use of ~
septic tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems i X
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste ,
,
water? I
I
Comments:
3.a.i. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo fault zone area nor Is their substantial evide~ce of a
known fault on or in the vicinity of the project site (Source 1, Figure 7-1, page 7-6 and Sourcel4,
Section 3.3, page 3-2). Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.a.ii. There may be a potentially significant' impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or ~xpansive .
soils. Although there are no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is located i"
Southem Califomla, which is an area that is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will
be mitigated through builcling construction, which will be consistent with engineered and Unifdrm
R.'\C U l'\2l102'D2.()717 C1ng\JIarW_. Mono-Palm\lnltllll Study.doc I
4
Building Code standards. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project (Source 4, Section 3.3, Page 3-2).
The project site is not located within an area delineated as a liquefaction hazard (Source 1, Figure 7-2,
page 7-8). Because of Ule lack of shallow groUndwater and relatively dense soils, the potential for
liquefaction at the site is considered low (Source 4, Section 4.2, page 4-1). Furthermore, any
potentially significant Impacts associated with the development of this site will be mitigated during
building construction, which will be consistent with engineered and Uniform Building Code standards.
Therefore, no impacts arB anticipated as a result of this project.
3.a.iv. Based on the relatively fI.!It topography of the specific location for the wireless telecommunications
facirlty within the subject property and based on the nature of the facilities to be installed, the potential
for landslides related to lile project is considered low. The project will be conditioned to follow the
recommendations described in Section 4 of the geotechnical report prepared for the project (Source 4,
Section 4, pages 4-1 to 4-8) to mitigate for any potential impacts involving landslides. After mitigation
measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
_a.iIi.
3.b.
3.c.
.
3.d.
3.e.
.
Based on the topograph)' and soils of the specific location for the wireless telecommunications facility,
and based on the nature of the facilities to be installed, the potential for substantial soil erosion is
considered low. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
There may be a potentially signifICant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or expansive
soils. Although the projeo::t site is not located within an area delineated as a liquelaction hazard (Source
1, Agure 7-2, page 7-8) IInd there are no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is
located In Southem Calif,)mia, which is an area that is seismically active. As wireless
telecommunications facilities are generally located at elevated sites, the project site is situated on a
hilltop. While slopes do !:tlITound the project site, the project site itself is situa1ed on a relatively flat
area, so the risk of an on. or off-site landslide is considered low. Any potentially significant impacts will
be mitigated through building construction, which will be consisten1 with engineered and Uniform
Building Code standards. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project (Source 4, Section 3.3, page 3-2).
There is a potential for impacts from expansive soils unless mitigation is incorporated. The project will
be conditioned to follow the recommendations described in the geotechnical report prepared for the
project (Source 4, Section 4, pages 4-1 to 4-8) to mitigate for any potential impacts Involving landslides.
After mitigation measure!; are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this projeCt as the project application involves the
construction, operation, establishment and maintenance of an un-staffed wireless telecommunications
facility. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\C U P12OO2I02-1l717 ClngutarW"reIess McflOoPalm~nltlaJ Study.doc
5
-, -- -- -- , ---- --~---~.-
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAUTY. Would the project:
-c- - , . "Co::. .{ ',",'~~;-'
. . ' - , .'- ..~.,~ 'i,-':: -:~~i_.'
,,':,,'," " 1','-' ,.~-,.
';""'~iiort<" No
,"""""'JUlit' , - ,_~-. t ~~".'_. ....-.... ." .'::,.j..:,r, ;;.t".. ;,-,~-j~; '.._:'_'~ ...,..... ~.i:... ,_,:;0;.;;;;;, , < ".nDact '. '
.....-.. .. -' ~
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
reouirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate X
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land ui~s or planned uses for
which oermits have been oranted ?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site I
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially Increase the rate or X I
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result I
in floodino on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the I
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage I X
systems or provide substantial adclitional sources of
DOOuted runoff? I
f. Otherwise substantiallv dearade water Quality? ! X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Aood Hazard Boundary or Flood X
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
mao?
h. Place within a 1oo-year flood hazard area structures I X
which would imoede or redirect flood flows? !
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, I
injury or death InvoMng flooding, including flooding as a i
i X
result of the failure of a levee or dam? i
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I X
i
Comments:
4.a. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. ~velopment
will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complyi*g with the
NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than sign,icant. No
Impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.b, f. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere sUbsta~tially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering pf the loca.
groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and qualityi of groun
waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
R:\C U PI2OO:!'<J2.()717 CInguIar Wkel... Mooo-PelmVni1l8I Study.doc
6
excavations or through ~;ubstantialloss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the
site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No
Impacts are anticipated liS a result of this project.
ec, d. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 01 the site or area,
inclucling through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on-site or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates,
drainage pattems and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs
on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of the wireless telecommunication facility. While absorption rates and surface runoff will
change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. No significant Impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
4.e. The project will not Cr83te or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or prOvide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The
project will be required tl) comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. The project will be
conditioned to accommeodate the drainage created as a result of development of the subject site. In
addition, the project will be conartioned and designed so that drainage will not impact surrounding
properties. Therelore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ,
4.g-i. The project will not place. people, housing, or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. The
project site is located outside of the 10o-year floodway and the dam inundation area as identified in the
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
4.j. The project site will not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow as these events are not
known to occur in this rBtlion. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
.
.
R:\C U PI2OO2I02-o717 CInguIar WIreless Mo..,.PaJm~n\IIul Study.doc
7
5. AIR QUAUTY. Where available, the significance cr"erla established by the appllcablll quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the ,ollowlng
determinations. . Would the project: I
. ,,__sirili .";K~'~oit~.:. ..., '.',~.::-'_i'c.~E:::"j:":
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air uali Ian?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existin or ro ected air ual" violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of eo Ie?
a.
b.
c.
x
x
x
x I
X I
I
I
Comments: I
5.a-o. The project, which proposes an un-staffed wireless telecommunications facility consisting of kn artificial
palm tree, three (3) antennas and four (4) equipment panels, will not conflict with applicabl~ air quality
plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards. The project will be within the threshold fOflpotentiallY.
significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District a
depicted in SCAQMD's CEOA PJr Quality Handbook (Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6.2. No irN>acts are
anticipated as a result of this project. I
S.d. There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicihity of the
project site. The development of a wireless telecommunications facility may create mlnorl pollutants
during the construction phase of the project emanating from fugitive dust and small qyantities of
construction equipment pollutants. These impacts will be 01 short duration and are not considered
significant. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not anticipated to generate pollutants.
Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of this project.
d.
e.
5.e.
The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not anticipated to create objectionable odors.
However, some objectionable odors may be produced during the construction of the pro~ lacilities.
These potential impacts, however, are anticipated to be of short duration and would not affecl a
substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than signnicant ~s a result
of this project. I
I
.
R:1e U P\2OO2'D2.o717 CInguIar WlnlIess Mono-PaJm~nllIuI Study.doc
8
a.
TRANSPORTATlONITRAFFIC. Would the project:
b.
. . - .
,~1IndS; . '~SOJite$ ,'.'
Cause an increase in tr.3ffic which is sUbstantial in
relation to the existing t-affic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads or con e,stion at intersections?
Exceed, either indMdufll1y or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
mana ement a for desi nated roads or hi hwa s?
Result in a change in air traffIC patterns, Including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safe risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
Incom tible uses e. . fami ui ment?
Result In inad uate eme en access?
Result in Inad uate arkln
Conflict with adopted p<J1lcles, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bi c1e racks?
. .. ,.j-- '-. .
,~ ..~~._~.;':::!!>" t'!>."
x
x
c.
x
d.
e.
f.
g.
x
X
X
X
~ments: .' '
6.a, b. Development of a wireless telecommunications facility will create a slight increase traffic in the vicinity
of the project during construction of the facility. These impacts will be of short duration and are not
considered significant Once construction of the facility is complete, only occasional traffic for
maintenance vehicles will result from this project. Because the project would generate very few vehicle
trips and because the existing roadways have been developed consistent with the City's General Plan,
no further traffic studies IVere required. No significant impacts are antictpated.
6.c Development of this pmperty will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase In traffic levels or a change In location that results in substantial safely risks. As stated by
Keith Downs of the Airport Land Use Commission In an April 17, 2003 response to a request for
comments on the project, this site is outside 01 the French Valley Airport's Area of Influence. Therefore,
no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G.d The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current
City and building code standards and does not propose any hazards. No impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
6.e. The project will not resutt in Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The
project is designed to culTent City standards and has adequate emergency access and will not interfere
with access to nearby U&3S. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.1. The proposed project '11111 not impact parking for the existing home on site and will only require a
parking area for a maintllnance vehicle, which can be accommodated within the existing private on-site
tum around area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
eg. As an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility, altematlve transportation Is not applicabie to the
project. The project will not interfere with designed adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:IO u 1'12002I02-0717 CingularW1reless "lI1l>-Pulm~niliaI Study.doc
9
...., .~,:. . .
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES; Would the project:
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or i ede the use of native wildlife nur sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation Ian? I
Comments: I
7.a-d. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded for constructlon of the existing si~gle family
home on the property. There Is currently no indication that any unique, rare, threatened or erdangered
species of plants on the site. Therefore, the proposed wireless telecommunication facility is not
anticipated to reduce the number of species. The sne has been developed with a single-f~ily home
and the addition of an artificial palm tree and four equipment cabinets will not create a signifK!ant barrier
to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project. I
7.e. The project will not result in an impact to l0ca1Iy designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewl1ere in the
City. Since this project is nollocated in Old Town, there are no locally designated specirs on site.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I
7.f. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project Y4iIl be
conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat .
Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee. No impacts are ahticipated
as a result of this project. r
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
.- .:,:;,:
'!.:."':::-:
,~iM'; :' <".tio;;iiol;liii;;,,_,...<,
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califomia
Department of Fish and Game or US FISh and Wndlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
x
x
x
x
x
x
R:1e U PI2OO2'02.o717 CIn9uIar Wireless Moro-Palmlllll1lal Sludy.doc
10
B. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project
.,.>.
b.
,,~~. '~~,.,:",,";,;
Result In the loss of aVEulability of a known mineral
resource tha1 would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of av.:ulability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovllry site delineated on a local
eneral lan, ecffic Ian or other land use Ian?
x
a.
x
Comments:
a.a, b. The project will not resulit in the loss of available known mineral resources nor in the loss of an available
locally Important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified areas into Mineral
Resource Zones (MRZ) to identify statewide or regional significance of mineral deposits based on the
economic value of the dElpDSits and accessibility. Within the City of Temecula the zoning classifICation
of MRZ-3a has been applied by the state. The MRZ-3 areas contain areas of sedimentary deposits,
which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate.
However, these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based
upon available data in reports prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA) of 1975. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
.
.
.
R:1e U PI2OO2\02.()717 Cingula. W1JllIess Mono-PamIInlUaI Study.doc
11
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
a;
.~;' - ...'~;SO"rod...
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disnosal of hazardous materials?
Crate a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions Involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environmant?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workinCl in the Droiect area?
For a project within 1he vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workinn In the oroiect area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation clan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
b.
" . .
,::~.,.:.~-~
;;i;#ni,. , .'. .,," ~".,,-.: ' .
..:!~~~.,.: -~:
x
i
I
t
I
I
i
I
i
!
x
x
x
x
x
I X
I
x
i
I
I
I
The proposed wireless communication facility will not create a hazard to the public through the routine
transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed facility will operlate in full
compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements of the FCC, FAA and CPUC a~ govemed
by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this proj~
Comments:
9.a.
,
9.b. Since the proposed wireless communication facility is not intended to utilize hazardous materials, it is
not anticipated that the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the e~vironment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this projett.
9.c. This site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, ~o ImpactA
are anticipated. I .
R:\C U l'I2OO2IOZ-0717 CIngula. WIreless Mono-Palm~nJtla/ Study.doc
12
9.d.
.,f.
9.g.
9.h.
.
.
The project site is not located near a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private
airstrip. Furthermore, a'3 stated by Keith Downs of the Airport Land Use Commission in an April 17,
2003 response to a request for comments on the project, this site is outside of the French Valley
Airport's Area of Influern:e. Therefore, no impacts upon airport uses are anticipated as a result of the
project.
The proposed un-staffed wireless telecommunication facility would take access from maintained public
streets and will therefore not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
This project site is not ao'jacent to wildlands and is not susceptible to wildland fire danger. Therefore,
no Impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R~C U PI2OO2I02'()717 CinguIar Wireless MoncH'a1m\ln1Ual Sludy.doc
13
-----1.
c.
J..~:S " ... .... ., .. ." , .,",;..',. .
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance or a Iicable standards of other a encles?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
roundbome vibration or roundbome noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
~ . ect?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the ~. ect?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people resilfmg or worRing in the
~ 'ect area to excessive noise levels?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a.
b.
x
d.
x
e.
,
,
I
I
I
x
f.
x
Comments:
i .
1 O.a-<:l. The equipment associated with the proposed wireless communication facility operates virtually vibration
and noise-free. Increases to noise levels will likely occur during the construction phase of tile project.
These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Upon con:tPIetion of
construction of the future wireless telecommunication facility, it is not anticipated that the facirlty would
result in significant increases to noise levels. Therefore, no significant impacts are antlclpat6d to result
~~~ect. I
,
10.e, f. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport. TherefOr~, people
working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airpprt.
,
,
I
i
I
I
I
.
R:'C U P\2OO2'4l2.(J717 CIngu1ar Wireless Mono-PaIm~nitial SIudy.doc
14
11. PUBUC SERVICES: Would the proposal have a substantial adverse physical impacts associates
the provisions of new 01' physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
ered governmental facllltiE!S, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
pacts, In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the publl,: services:
'..t" '-'.,
" ,"
lo_
'-"III;"W;,,'-,,;;C!\' ,>'
'.- ,"
. - "
~ ,:. - . . , . "-,'
.....,:;;.-;.;:...l....,..-. .1
~.0 _~r!:::.~'.~~.~
< /.,~
a.
b.
c
d.
e
'. ".." ,...',..,..,,,"'*
Rre rotect1on?
Police rotect1on?
Schools?
Parks?
Other ublic facilities?
"I.IOiinaIiOQ,~
x
X
x
X
x
Comments:
11.a, b, e.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire,
police, recreation or othllr public facilities. While the need for such services are not anticipated, the
addition of a wireless communication facility at the site does have the potential to increase the need for
these services. Therefor'3, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
II.c, d.
The proposed unmanned wireless telecommunication facility itself is not creating residential use and
therefore will have no impact upon, or result In a need for new or altered school facilities, nor will it
. result in impacts to parks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
.
R:1e U P\2OO2\02-0717 CInguIar Wireless M<<1O-PaJm~niIlaJ Study.doc
15
b.
c.
d.
e.
I.
g.
------1
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the proJect:
a.
'__~'il"''''':;':';'';''''m, ...;._'.... ..
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
a Iicable R ional Water Qual' Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or e anded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commnments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste di sal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local staMes and
r ulations related to solid waste?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
Comments:
,
12.a-g. The proposed wireless telecommunication facility will not Impact water, wastewater, landfill 0,1 solid
waste facilities as the facility only consists of an unmanned wireless telecommunication facilitY
composed of a three (3) antennas housed within an artificial palm tree and four (4) equipmenticabinets.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. t
i
I
I
I
I
I
.
1\:'1:: U PIZOO2\02.o717 C\ngUIar W1reI.... Mono-Pulm~ntIl8I Study.doc
16
.
.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project
.'.'." .;.
a.
b.
!I~'n.i" -.,. ro..'c.: '_
Have a substantial advllrse e1fect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock olltcropping, and historic builcling
within a state scenic hiclhwa ?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
ual" of the site and it:s surroundin s?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
x
x
c.
x
d.
Comments:
13.a, c.
Any potential impacts to scenic vistas created by the proposed wireless communication facility will be
mitigated through the USl3 of building materials to make the equipment enclosure complimentary to the
existing single-family horne. Additionally, the proposed artificial palm tree will be of a similar size and
type as the palm trees eldsting on site and additional live palm trees will be incorporated into the project
site. Less than significant Impacts are anticipated.
The proposed project will not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway as the project is not located in the
vicinity of a state scenic highway. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
13.b.
13.d.
Since outdoor lighting is not proposed for the project, the project is not anticipated to increase the
potential for significant impacts from light and glare. However, since all light and glare has the potential
to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory, the project will be conditioned to comply with Ordinance No.
655 Ordinance Regulating Ught Pollution. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
R:\C U PI2OO2I02-0117 CIngula. WlreI.... MolflO-Palmllnilial Study.doc
17
- ----- -----1
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
. __,.t~,-,'",~,. '. ",:,>_,",:~:::'E~;,'i-fl":'~.',-J:1.:{f:>~J'
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeo ical resource ursuant to Section 1506.5?-
Directly or indi rectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or uni ue eol ic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of fonnal cemeteries?
,..' _::/i~;-~'
I X
I X
I
I
b.
c.
X
d.
x
Comments:
14.a, b.
The project site is located in a developed/disturbed area that is not located in an area of arctjaeological
sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure 5-6). A records search performed by Michael
Brandman Associates (Source 5, pages 1 & 2) indicated that there are no recorded cultural properties
(prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic buildings, structures, objects, or district~) within
0.25 miles of the project site and that the historical sensitivity of the project area is considered to be
'1ow". No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
14.c, d.
As discussed in a Paleontological Resource Assessment prepared for the project (Source 6, page 1), a
records search (by the Division of Geological Sciences located at the San Bemardino CountY Museum.
of geological maps and the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory (RPlI) for the project area
showed that there are numerous fossil localities within 0-4 miles from the project site. A SU~ey of the
project site conducted by Michael Brandman Associates (Source 6, page 2) indicated that th~ project
site has been recently impacted as a result of housing construction and that most of the topsoil near the
house and in the drive area (leading to the project site) consist of freshly tumed earth. Whil~ no
paleontological resources were observed during the survey, this finding does not preclude the
possibility that resources will be uncovered at depth once construction begins. The site is I~ted in an
area that has high paleontological sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure 5-7).
Therefore, !he project will be conditioned to follow the recommendations of the Paleontologid Resource
Assessment, which Includes monitoring of excavation areas by a qualified paleontological m6nitor.
This mitigation measure will be adopted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iproject.
With mitigation measures In place the potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than
significant level of impact.
.
R:1e U P\2OO:Nl2-0717 Clngular W1nlless MoI'lo-PBlrn~nltial Study.doc
18
15. RECREATION. Would thl! project:
b.
.' ....' .
. . - -
,_.. ~~~:' :~a~::'(;>:,,r":';-~"'-;"";'So.i~J;"::~'
Would the project incre.ase the use of existing
neighborhood and regbnal parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facll' would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
. .
a.
x
x
Comments:
15.a, b.
The proposed un-staffecl wireless telecommunication facility will have no impact on the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, nor will it effect existing recreational
opportunities. No impacts are enticipated as a result of the project.
16. Agricultural Resources. Would the project:
."'" ....',:.,;iL;~~.~<:];:!,:.;,~~;..;;X'9i~L~~1~h~{;~~~}ifu~{~~t~{;i~~~~~ :~Ccl::,,~i~"..
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursua.nt to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency,
to non-a ricultural use1
b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of farmland to non-a r1cultural use?
x
x
x
Comments:
16.a, b.
The project site is not currently in agricultural production and is not known to have been used for
agricultural purposes in the past. Furthermore, this property is not considered prime or unique farmland
of statewide importance pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency or tho City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project. .
16.c. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the Cify of Temecula, and the site
is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, will be no impacts as a result of this project.
.
R:\C U P'I2OO2ID2.()717C1ngu1arW~... M:>no-Palm~nllIaJ Sludy.doc
19
17. MANDATORY RNDINGS OF SIGNIRCANCE.
a.
b.
c.
-.' :-'::....,.,'.:.,.".,:.-._....,'~:'.:,'.:;".:.:-..
',. '.. '1lO~'S~~' ~ ,. ,
.. . ..'~.fuct .:-..~.~: .. ,.' " ( ':t l~ .. ~_' }~~:~. ~.\.-__,L.,L~{~,~~ f:~!,~~:-~~i ;.'::~~t>.~ : ..~{~_; (~:,;~i.n ~~ _~ }~ ~:!-~t'~.- ') '.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fISh or wilcllife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
Califomia histo or rehisto
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
ro'ects, and the effects of robable Mure . ects?
Does the project have environmental e1fects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directl or indir
x
x
x
,
i
I
This site has been developed with a single family home and the surrouncling area consists of properties.
zoned Very Low (VL) and Low Medium (LM) thaI do not contain significantly viable habitat fori fish or
wildlife species. The project site Is not located in an area designated by the General Plan as sensitive
habitat (Source 1; Figure 5-3). It is not anticipated that the addition of an artificial mono palm 'and
equipment cabinets for the wireless telecommunication facility, or the proposed live palm tree~, would
have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, thre~ten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en~angered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or pr\ehistory.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
I
It is not anticipated that the addition an artificial mono palm and equipment cabinets for the u~manned
wireless telecommunication facility, or the proposed live palm trees, would have impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable. No impacts are anticipated as a result of thll project.
I
Wireless telecommunIcation facilities are subject 10 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules
for compliance with Radio Frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. The Telecommunications Aclt of 1996
contains provisions relating to federal jurisdiction to regulate human exposure to RF emissions from
certain transmitting devices and states that "No State or local government or instrumentality tt)ereof
may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilitiels comply
with the Commission's regulations conceming such emissions". This facility will be reviewed ~y the
FCC for compliance with their regulations and, according to the FCC, compliance with their rEljlulations
concerning limits for RF exposure will result In human exposure that is well within safety margins.
Therefore, based on FCC rules, no environmentaJ e1fects that will cause substantial adverse etfects on .
human beings, either directly or indirectly, are anticipated as a result of this project.
Comments:
17.a.
17.b.
17.c.
R;\C U PI2O<l2'D2-0717 CInguIar Wireless Mono-PalmVnftIaJ SbJdy.doc
20
1.
2.
-
.
18. EARUER ANALYSES. earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEaA process, one c,r more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EfR or
atlve declaration. SectIon 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
attached sheets.
a. Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier ana ses and state where the are avallable for review.
b. impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the
scope 01 and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state Whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal is.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,'
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which th ' address site-s ific conditions for the ro' aCt.
18.a. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in
preparing this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning
Department located at 4:l2oo BUSiness Park Drive.
1S.b. There were earlier impac:ts, which affected this project, however it was difficult to assess Whether they
were adequately addressed as mitigation measures.
1S.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which Is attached.
SOURCES
5.
City of Temecula Genen:ll Plan.
City 01 Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CECA Air Quality Handbook.
A geotechnical report tith3d Cingular Wireless Proposed Communications Facility; FoIy Land Site No.
58-216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecu/a, California by URS Corporation dated January 30,2003.
Cultural Resource Assessment; Proposed "Foley Land"; Cingular Wireless Facility Number 58 216-01;
31575 Enfield Lane, Temecu/a California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental
Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated April 21, 2003.
Paleontological ResoUI'C<3 Assessment; Proposed "Foley Land"; Cingular Wireless Facility Number S8
216-01; 31575 Enfield UIIIB, Temecu/a C8Jifomia by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental
Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated May 7, 2003.
6.
R:\C U l'I2llO:ro2.o717 ClnguIar w,""oss MoJnOoPalm~nI1iaI Study.doc
21
MItigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA02-Q717
(Conditional Use Permit)
CULTURAL RESOURCES
I
i
1. Directly or inclirectly destroying any unique paleontological
or archaeological resources. I
,
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
SpecifIC Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
2. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
Excavation shall be monitored during all earthmoving I
associated with construction In areas identified by a I
qualified paleontologic monitor as likely to contain ,
paleontologic resources per the recommendations I
contained in the Paleontologic Resource Assessment fqr
the project titled PaJeontofogicaJ Resource Assessment[
Proposed MFoIey Land"; Cingular Wirefess Facifity NumjJer
S8 216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula Cafjfomia by
Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental :
Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated May 7, 2003. I
Place the above condition of approval on this project so,
that if palentologicaJ resources are encountered during I
excavation, work shall be halted or diverted in the
immediate area while a quaftfled paleontologist evaluates
the finds and makes recommendations. \
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during the
gracling process.
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Planning and Public Works Departments
R:1e U f'I2OO2Ill2o(l717 CingularWlrDlass Mono-PalmlM'rtlgatlon Monltoring Program.doc
1
.
.
.
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting: April 21, 2004
Prepared by: Dan Long
Title: Associate Planner
File Number PA03-0726
Application Type: MCUP
Project Description: A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale of beer and wine
(Type 20 license, off-site) within an existing 101,909 square foot Target
retail building, located at 29676 Rancho California Road (APN: 921-
320-053).
Recommenda1ion: [8J Approve with Conditions
o Deny
o Continue for Redesign
o Continue to:
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
o Recommend Denial
CEQA:
[8J Categorically Exempt
(Class) 15301
o Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
R:\M C U P\2003\03-0726 Target Corp\STAFF REPORT-l.doc
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
Target Corporation, Beth Aboulafia
Completion Date:
March 2, 2003
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
June 2, 2004
General Plan Desig:,ation:
Community Commercial (CC)
Zoning Designation:
Community Commercial (CC)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Commercial Center
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial/Residential
Commercial/Church/Park
Residential/Commercial
Commercial
Lot Area:
7.03 acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage N/A
Parking Required/Provided N/A
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
[8J 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project is a request to sell beer and wine (Type 20 license, off-sale beer and wine)
in an existing retail commercial store, Target. The Development Code (Section 17.10) requires
all uses not serving beer and wine at a restaurant to obtain a conditional use perrnit. The
Development Code also states that any business selling beer and wine shall be no closer than
500 feet from any public park, religious institution or school. Staff's policy for measuring the 500
foot separation from religious institutions and school, is from the nearest door of either use.
Parks are measures from the nearest door of the proposed use to the closest property line of the
park. The GIS department has provided the necessary maps and staff has verified that the
proposed use is not closer than 500 feet from any religious institution, school or public park.
There are two parks in the vicinity, the Duck Pond (approximately 800 feet from door to property
line) and the Margarita Community Park (approximately 800 feet from door to property line).
There is one religious institution located on the south side of Rancho California Road; however it
is approximately 700 feet from the entrance of Target to the entrance of the religious institution.
R:\M C U P\2003\03-0726 Target Corp\ST AFF REPORT-l.doc
2
The Police Department has reviewed the proposed project and has provided conditions of
approval.
Staff has verified through the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control that the project site is
within census tract 0432.16. Currently a total of 12 Type 20 licenses exist in said tract; 5 are
allowed. Since this census tract is over-concentrated with Type 20 licenses, Public Convenience
or Necessity Findings are required.
The proposed project is consistent with Section 17.10 of the Development Code. Staff feels that
the findings for a Minor Conditional Use Permit can be made.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
~ 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has
been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Class
15301, existing facilities, no expansion of facilities)
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is consistent with
the General Plan and Development Code. Staff recommends the Planning Commission make
the findings for a Minor Conditional Use Permit. In addition, staff recommends the Planning
Commission determine that the project is exempt from CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301,
existing facilities
FINDINGS
Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E\
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development
Code.
The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (Community Commercial) and
Zoning (Community Commercial designation), as well as, the standards within the
Development Code. The project is not less than 500 feet from a religious institution,
school or a public park.
2. The proposed minor conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures because the proposed project will provide
additional convenience for the community, and allow Target to be competitive with other
businesses selling beer and wine.
3. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community.
The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general
R,\M C U 1'\2003\03-0726 Target Corp\STAFF REPORT-1.doc
3
welfare to the community because the project will provide an additional convenience to
the community, which will reduce vehicle trips and the site consistent with the city policies
regarding separation of sensitive uses. In addition, the City Police Department has
reviewed the proposed project and has issued conditions for approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Plan Reductions - Blue Page 5
2. PC Resolution No. 2004-_ - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A: - Conditions of Approval
3. Statement of Operation - Blue Page 7
R:\M C U P\2003\03-0726 Target Corp\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:\M C U P\2003\03-0726 Target Corp\ST AFF REPORT-I.doc
5
City of T emecula PA03-0726
Tar at, MCUP
N Highways
/\/ Streets
D Parcels
o Parks
Deity
N
A
200
o
200
400 Feet
--
TNI",,"__IIr"CilJrJT~~
Wanadon""" lhtllllp......_....
-....-.....--
n..T~..,Lnt.........."
oI......CaIrfr. TheOlJIlfT...............
.....Cf_,......,.....~alI'IIINI
G'l HI... Creta nI ra.ndln...... en" ~
..&tPdIil.....radc:IIcn. TN~
WDllrdn8ylllrlw..._......,bI....,......
lllDItCUlll'tWollr.rm lHItrllpllllOlt:rltpktlll....
......
City of TemecUla PA03-0726
Tar et, MCUP
-~,.,-" .
"
'""
'~
/"."''-.
'w;v /:"i:t:~j1.~-:g:' '}l~ . ..'~ I
;;:'.~' ~'iJ~~~; ,'. ,.\ . . '};;~~ -';~~~- .:-. !
'1",;.'...'. /'>,...i,!:.....
,f~;;~r~Jr':tt;
'1--- : -
,I I '",
I I !"
I I II --~...,.~
.1.----- ,.I. .. l : ~-.....
/ "-,1 / I
/ ~--:"t~ / ! "'" /
\---~"::::.-J.({\. "-1..)"'/,__
/-' <:'\ )... ,,::.-----::::
)" ) ~/;::'/"
. '\ /-."
s \ )/>---/
/ ".~
i
i
I
'\
\
\
\
i
\
\
\
\
\
\.
~
N Highways
/\I Streets
o Parcels
_ Parks
Deity
N
A
200
o
200
400 Feet
e
null'llp_...llrhClrcfT....~
1rIlirmIIan"'" n. ..,1I.w..d hIllIIIM MIl
ptOLtMcI ty..RwnldIautr.......~
nhlT~....l..:Iunonnk/IItC/
flltllnkttCwt,. "'~ofTWIlIeDa""'no
-....-....--
..1iI_ O'trdlllla:alb......llltDll'IIp
..upctlo"nlllllk6\. h",
lItlrmaIon___doN..............bh
IIDICCUNltWawlkn'l1*/YWIII..IdIr............
. J FrOUm..
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-_
)<,IM C U 1'\2003103-0726 Target CorplSTAFF REPORT-1.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
PA NO. 03-0726, A REQUEST FOR MINOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A TYPE 20 (OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE)
ALCOHOL LICENSE FOR TARGET LOCATED AT 29676
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 921-320-053.
WHEREAS, Beth Aboulafia, representing Target Corporation filed Planning Application
No. PA03-0726, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0726 was processed including, but not
limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA03-0726 on April 21, 2004, 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's Hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No.
PA03-0726 subject to the conditions of approval after finding that the project proposed in
Planning Application No. PA03-0726 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That' the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA03-0726 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required
by Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (Community Commercial)
and Zoning (Community Commercial) designation as well as the standards within the
Development within the Development Code. The proposed project is not within 500 feet of a
public park, religious institution or school
B. The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition and development
of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures because the proposed project will provide additional
convenience for the community and allow the business to be competitive with other businesses
selling beer and wine.
C. The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community because the project will provide an additional convenience to
the community, which will reduce vehicle trips and the site consistent with the city policies
R:\M C U P\2003\03-0726 Target Corp\Draft PC Reso w~ conditions.doc
I
regarding separation of sensitive uses. In addition, the City Police Department has reviewed
the proposed project and has issued conditions for approval.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. PA03-0726 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities, Class 1). The proposed project will not add square footage
to an existing commercial building, located at 29676 Rancho California Rd. (APN: 921-320-
053).
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit allow the
sales of beer and wine (Type 20 license) in an existing Target building., attached hereto on
Exhibit A, 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 on this 21st day of April 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of April 2004, by the
101l0wing vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
, NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\
\
R:\M C U P\2003\03-0726 Target Corp\Draft PC Reso w- conditions.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\M C U P\20Q3\03-0726 Target Corp\Draft PC Reso w- conditions.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0726
Project Description:
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the
sale of beer and wine (Type 20 license) in an
existing commercial Target building, located at
29676 Rancho California Rd. (APN: 921-320-053)
Assessor's Parcel No.:
921-320-053
Expiration Date:
April 21, 2004
April 21, 2006
Approval Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of 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 211 08(b) and California
Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required
above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition
(Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
2. The applicant shall comply with the statement of operations (attached) dated December
15,2003, for PA03-0726 on file with the Planning Division, unless superceded by these
Conditions of Approval.
3. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
5. 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.
6. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
R\M C U P\2003\03~0726 Target Corp\Draft PC Reso w- conditions.doc
4
7. Prior to the commencement of any alcohol sales, the applicant shall submit verification
the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control has issued the necessary Type 20 license
(beer and wine permits).
POLICE DEPARTMENT
8. The Temecula Police Department concurs with the hours of operation for the store
facility. However, if any recurring problems should occur where the need for police
response is needed due to the current hours of operations, or for any other reasons, the
Temecula Police Department, at it's discretion, reserve the right to approach the City's
Planning Commission and request the hours of operation be amended.
9. No distilled spirits may be on the premises at any time.
10. All retailing businesses shall contact the California Retailers Association for their booklet
on the California Retail Theft Law at: California Retailers Association 1127-11'h Street,
Suite 1030, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-1975. Penal Code 490.5 affords
merchants the opportunity to recover their losses through a civil demand program.
11. Business desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the crime
prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department.
12. Employee training regarding retail theft, credit card prevention, citizen's arrest
procedures, personal safety, business security or any other related crime prevention
training procedures are also available through the crime prevention unit.
13. Any business that serves or sell any alcoholic beverages will comply with all guidelines
within the Business and Profession Codes and all other guidelines associated with the
State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. Contact the Temecula Police
Department for inspections and training for both employees and owners. This includes
special events held at business location where alcohol will be serviced for a fee and the
event is open to the general public.
14. The Temecula Police Department affords all retailers the opportunity to participate in the
"Inkless Ink Program." At a minimal cost of less than $40.00 for inkless inkpads,
retailers can take a thurnbprint of every customer using a personal check to pay for
services. A decal is also posted on the front entry of the business-advising customers of
the "Inkless Ink program in use". If the business becomes a victim of check fraud, the
police department will be able to track the suspect with the thumbprint.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the
above-mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be
maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish
to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Printed Name
Date
Applicant's Signature
R:\M C U P\2003\03~0726 Target Corp\Draft PC Reso w- conditions.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO.3
STATEMENT OF OPERATION
R:\M C U P\2003\03~0726 Target Corp\STAFF REPORT.I.doc
7
260 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1001 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111 TEL: 415.362.1215 FAX: 415.362.1494
December 15,2003
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
Knute Nowland
Senior Planner
Planning Department
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Re: Application for Conditional Use Permit/Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
Target Corporation, dba Target, 29676 Rancho California Rd., Temecula 92591
Dear Mr. Nowland:
Enclosed is Target Corporation's application for a conditional use permit to add package
sales of alcoholic beverages to its existing store operations at 29676 Rancho California
Road, in Temecula. Because the store is located in a census tract that has an "undue
concentration" of off-sale licenses undefSection,23958.4 of the Business and Professions
Code, Target is also requesting a determination that public'convenience and necessity will
be served by issuance of the license. The following is an explanation of Target's intended
operations. .<
Target Corporation has applied to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for a Type
20 off-sale beer and wine license. While the license applied for permits sales of beer and
wine, Target will begin initial operations with sales of wine only, perhaps adding beer at a
later date. The wine will be displayed in the grocery section of the store, along with the
other food and beverage products that Target sells. < '
The operations of the store will remain essentially the same as they are now, without the
sale of alcoholic beverages. The hours of operation, types of vehicular traffic, number of
people involved (both as employees and as customers), outdoor activities and other
operational aspects of ttie store will be unchanged. Alcoholic beverage sales will account
for a small part of overall sales revenues at the store. Target projects that sales of alcoholic
beverages will account for approximately 3-5% of sales at the licensed premises.
Target plans to offer consumers an assortment of moderately priced wines, including wines
from Northern California vineyards. Adding wine sales will provide a convenience to
Target's customers by eliminating the need for an additional shopping trip. Target also
plans to offer customers the opportunity to learn about the wines that Target sells through
educational events, led by professionals and wine industry members.
Knute Nowland
Senior Planner
December 15, 2003
Page 2
If you have questions about Target's proposed operations or need any add~ional
documentation, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
3~AtJ~
Beth Aboulafia
Encl.
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT-PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting: April 21. 2004
Prepared by: Stuart Fisk
Title: Associate Planner
File Number PA03-0443
Application Type: Development Plan
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct a 29,516 square foot office
building on 5.69 acres located on the south side of County Center
Drive, approximately 1,500 feet east of Ynez Road.
Recommendation:
(Check One)
C8l Approve with Conditions
D Deny
D Continue for Redesign
D Continue to:
D Recommend Approval with Conditions
D Recommend Denial
CECA:
(Check One)
D Categorically Exempt
(Class)
D Negative Declaration
C8l Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant: McArdle Associates Architects; Ed McArdle
Completion Date: August 13. 2003
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
April 21. 2004
General Plan Designation:
Business Park (BP)
Zoning Designation:
Light Industrial (L1)
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Office
North:
South:
East:
West:
Office/Light Industrial
Commercial
Office/Light Industrial
Office
Lot Area:
5.69 acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio 70,668 (29,516 sq ft proposed; 41,152 sq ft existing)/0.29 FAR
Landscape Area/Coverage 24.3%
Parking Required/Provided 98 spaces required/99 spaces provided
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
[8J 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recornmended Conditions of Approval.
[8J 2. The attached "Project Review Worksheet" (Attachment A) has been completed and
staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, City-
wide Design Guidelines, and the Development Code.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Development Plan for the construction of a 29,516 square foot
office building on 5.69 acres located on the south side of County Center Drive, approximately
1,500 feet east of Ynez Road. The proposed building would be located at the northern portion of
the project site, fronting County Center Drive. An existing 41,152 square foot office building
located on the project site is situated toward the southern end of the site. The applicant has
submitted a Tentative Parcel Map application for the site that would create a separate parcel for
the proposed building. Staff is currently working with the applicant to ensure that the required
parking ratio, percent landscaping and Floor Area Ratio are met for each of the two lots
proposed by the Tentative Parcel Map.
The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of Business Park and zoning
designation of Light Industrial. The building meets the minimum setback requirernents of the
Development Code and the proposed lot coverage of 28.5% (based on the overall lot acreage of
5.69 acres) is well below the maxirnum allowed percent of lot coverage of 40 percent. Staff has
determined that 98 parking spaces are required to serve the proposed building, while 99 spaces
will be provided. Additionally, staff believes the distribution of parking is functional, providing
access to all building entry points.
Access to the site will be provided from two existing drive aisles off County Center Drive. A new
drive aisle behind the proposed building will provide a connection between the two existing drive
aisles for a looped drive around the proposed building. The Public Works Department has
analyzed the projected traffic impact of the project and determined that the impacts are
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\STAFF REPORTdoc
2
i )
consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the General Plan EIR. The Fire
Department has also reviewed the plan and determined that there is proper access and
circulation to provide emergency services to the site.
The proposed office building design is consistent with the Development Code and Design
Guidelines, and is compatible with the industrial and office buildings in the surrounding area.
The proposed two-story building features glass end treatments at the elevation facing County
Center Drive, with the western side of this elevation being arched and providing the main entry
into the building. These glass elements provide relief on either side of the building and the large
arched glass element on the western side of the building, in combination with a three foot deep
metal overhang, provides a focal point and entry recognition. Offsets in the concrete panel and
varied parapet heights at the front elevation serve to break up building massing and avoid a box-
like appearance. The main body of the concrete building panels will be painted Frazee
"Bauhaus Buff" with Frazee "Aria Ivory" accents, and Travertine tiles will be placed on the
columns between and on either side of the windows within the concrete panels, further breaking
up building mass and providing significant accents on the concrete panels on all four sides of the
building. The scale and colors of the building are in proportion and compatible with the
surrounding area.
The landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Development Code and
Design Guidelines. Tree and shrub placement will serve to effectively screen onsite parking
areas and effectively soften building elevations. The project proposes to landscape 14,902
square feet or approximately 24.5 percent of the undeveloped portion of the site, which exceeds
the minimum requirement of 20 percent in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. The project provides
landscaping around the perimeter of the site, with a 20 foot landscaped setback along County
Center Drive and varied landscape setbacks of five to seven around the building footprint.
Proposed trees include Strawberry, Mediterranean Palm, Chinese Pistache, London Plane,
Bradford Pear, and evergreen Pear trees. A total of forty-eight trees in either 24" or 36" box
sizes are proposed. Proposed shrubs include Lily of the Nile, Bougainvillea, Fortnight Lily,
Escallonia, New Zealand Flax, Shrubby Yew Pine, Indian Hawthorn and Compact Xylosam.
Shrub sizes are 5 gallon except for the Shrubby Yew Pine, which is proposed in the 15 gallon
size. A total of 482 shrubs are proposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
[8J 1. An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following
potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as
conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption
of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
1. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5
2. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5
If at any time during excavation/construction of the
site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any
artifacts or other objects which reasonably
appears to be evidence of cultural or
archaeological resource 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 immediatel cease. The Director of
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 TemecuJa Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
3
j
,
)
3. Directly or indirectly destroying any
unique paleontological or
archaeological resources.
4. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.
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 discovery 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.
This mitigation measure shall be placed on the
grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a
aradina permit.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has determined that the proposed office building is consistent with the City's General Plan,
Design Guidelines and Development Code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
Development Plan with the attached conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F)
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for T emecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for
Business Park (BP) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General
Plan has listed the proposed use, including office, as a typical use in the Business Park
designation. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the
Development Code for the Light Industrial zoning district. The project has been
conditioned by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with a/l
applicable Building and Fire Codes.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in the City of
Temecula Development Code. The proposed architecture and site layout for the project
has been reviewed utilizing the Industrial Development Performance Standards of the
Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in
regards to circulation, architectural design and site plan design.
R:\D P\2003\03-Q443 Temecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT. doc
4
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 6
2. Project Review Worksheet - Blue Page 7
3. PC Resolution No. 2004- _ - Blue Page 8
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
4. Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Plan- Blue Page 9
R:\D P\2003\Q3-0443 Temecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:\D P\20D3\03-0443 Tcmccula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
6
~.ll'"
, 1 =.~
j '"
. :,,~
-,.
:"r:
of :;:
, }~ m
(J
NOIDn~lSNo) ~Oj LON
'IIN!OJIlYJ 'VlroJI'IJ1
SONVlH~IH VlnJ3W31
( )
,ii, l~~ I b
lH,j 18", I <(
, ~n ~ ~ I ~ <~~
I r~ ,~hE,~' I !~. E .r ~ ~ i I~ l~ , :!~iij:~
.- !i'!~!!' < ih' lu I~ ! h ~~ I. ~~~!.~~.
I 'z;l~ g ~h ~ I ~~ ~ h ~ 'l~ ~ "Ii' i~ l ~I~"~~~
h 1111111111 I! illl 11 ill!!l!ll I! illl ill 1!11I1!1
II~U i. Ii! i~ ifl~!! IH;UIIII~ ~ II !I d d! ~!Im;i
llll~ I! I~I ~I ~~ihl it idn.)I! Iii I' U ~111';iUd
~h!n h .;1 ~I !i,~~.~!!~ ~,~ d r= lr ~ ;hnmi
lJ
Z
-
0 ~
......J
- l:
::) z
Ci
CO '>
LJ...J
U
-
U-
U- <(
,O~
) u...
(.f) :::;
025
Z :5'
-<~
......J~
I~
lJl-
-
I
-<
......J
::)
U
LJ...J
~
LJ...J
r-
II l ~~
~ l Ulli I UI i ~
~ll ~ Ihll ~ II ~. ~ ~~i ~l~lmnm m
D ~~ll. I--~-~ ~~~l!~i; ii~~~ ~~~!11111111 !~~
~ I d~~ ~mh h~uh~iim hut IUmmm h~
, ~ I m,~.m. I.~.mmm Lm I.mi~mm tzz
'I, ': ~. . ~ ~,~ ~ ~! i!!ll~
" " .1 . I III " !h..
~~! ~ i i. ' '. ",.-.
~ ~ <~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~. a 'I~f'
~I ~I ~II h11q IP liiiiir
n n n 111~h I~ P Jilin!!
f~r i i Iml "'Im~ i aa i
~il I liil ~ ~ i It
;0; ~iii ~ ~ ~ IH~~~ ~ I II ~ ~!
ti ~'i{:; ~ ~I . d ~~ _ ~!.! II'
t>e!~ ~~ l'~1 ~ii~l~
~ ~l~b I !" a I. Idil!U !~ii~! ~U
'"
~
;=
, ;0; ~
~ i I~ I. j~; I 'i Ii
>- i~d li~! lid Id li~lll~r~ lIlt
~ ~dld Idfi! ~llid IfIll! Idfd 111M iI!ll~ '
- ,
1St 1! . ,".,
I::I~ "
l )
-NOIDil~lSNQ) ~O:llON
VIN~OJIlY.J 'vUDlWll
SONVlH~IH VlnJ3V\131
-
, i
..... II
:H
~ii~1
i.~~I.
~;
i
,
~I
r~"" ~!
~ ~i. tt.~
~~l ;::
~ I
~I I
IU \
\.i 1lo
WI
,
;,:.
~;
~l
'"
.~, ......._l_"""'U"
-_. -
"'-t'
." I 'I II'! n ,II
Ijill' ~ III I I pl. ! Pl'lll:,!
,1111 ! !I:I I, i I ! I!il! mil II il Ilr! 1ft Iii
'.j!ll!1 Ip I ill il I '1'1 . 111'!iIH II I !.... I it
I'!' '-III! III I!! I! . 'I! llll!ll'l Hh II
I!!llli I!i. IUlI!l!:! "j1111hPIl:lli 11 i llllU I'll S I III
! !illl!I'jlllldlil il!!lljijll!I!1 jil!l!! !III '11,I!!t 'lli/llI! ~ II!~ I! 1111:1!'I!!
~lidl eUl~li~ Si~ ~ ~I~r~!.. ~~MI.'~h::l ~DDUULjU I~:I
! i
~I!
, I
"< L.i
~ . I I
! I
;' )
z
:S
I;:
I'"
r-:
~
1<(
!
(,
',Jim
." 1 :;~
) <
i
~ ~
i
i
i ~ B
i
i <9>
i
l
~.
; ; i <9>
" ..
/ i
) i <9>
i
l
i <9>
i
,,---<ill>
i <9>
-'~
i <9>
i <9>
1
i
i
~ ~
i
I
! ,I IJ
11'1 '
./1 ; 1I
l.l~ I'll'
;:~~ I'll'll;' j
, '" .
;1 p,. I
I ill I!!'! I
11'1111, !
I ~.. ~
eeseei;lee@ '*'
-,
fJ
NO'Dn~lSNQ) ~O~ lON
VIN~OJIlY.l 'vlfD3raL ,
SONVlH:)IH Vlm31^J31
.
~-<"
.....1 ,0-.> ....~ ...... ....... ...... ...... Jr'> ...... I ....... ..."...~
<9>
.
j
.
1
~ ~
l
~ ~-
1
! ~! ~
0 --
:i) N
1!ii3 1<(
,I I
, , !i:i:CL.
. ~~i~
z
.
!
. r
!
~
---G
,
i
g,
----jl--
<9> i
~ s
i---e
.<II .-~,
,
~
\------
I
, r
I
1 ~ ~
I
I ~ ~
I
@ <9> i
!b
~.
."
i! I" ill I III ~I !
J, II; Ll:!j 1 'II,. !!'
,I ~' 'I! '. Ii' II I~I
1'1 I IlJli I!, . l'/Ii I,I'~;
, Hi'd: I, I .', il' ~Il'
. il,i!5il!j: ii: !!ll!ii! !'! ~nl
!!!~~~!i!I~I~ I !!!~!!!! !!!!~~~
~
~
---e
i
z
12
""
o
0,
O::~
I--~
v, .
~l
i
I '
I ~~ i ~l ~I . ,I
Il>\.' 'I ' l! 'E,l, 'I i
i r 1~~~ah!l~fB~,~i.ni
I ! /I · : li'l!~~" il ~!l~1 ~I, 11, 1,
II ,I ~ I ~I B ,'1, ~!I;lli 'I~ 'It: ,~:l!I~1 i I!',!!h
I II j~ ~ I j~' , ""II, a ,,~, .'- I Iii! III
Ij!ii~llli~! IU UU! 111~im!
ill j!
NOIDnlllSNOJ ~O:llON
VIN~OJnv:J 'vlrDlMl
SONVlH91H VlnJ3W31
<
....,,,
...... ..... ....... ....... .......
.0-,0 .....~ ....... ...."
<& "<&
<&
i
4.
~ i
i
i
i 0
~
,
~
~ <&
~
0-- ,-"
i
~ $>
,
,
,
i
"
i <&
0--~'ti_~
i
l.
j!
-,
2:i
~
.-
<&
i <&
,. .-------$
~,-li
<& i
i
i <&
0-
i
i '0 ~
i .~
i
i
i <&
i
;
,
~ 0
~ ~
....."
....,..
I <
I I I
. ;1 ,
11'1 .
,II ; 1I
I!~' !HI! j
J . · ~I I ( I
II 1"1" I
. i" II. '! !
iI~:d!l: !
6GIlelliJee €lee III
, ,
" ~
fY i-
<& I
"
<& I
-l
)
I
Ii!
!I,l
N
~c:.: N
1883 I -<(
1~~.... !
1",
. I
~~i~
<
,
I
,
I
r
,
I
--0
i
i ,
~ ~
. --0
i
i
i
.
~
--0
i
I
~
~
'"
o
o
no
~
o
~
'"
~ ~
I
i
i
I.
il II! II I
I l i "'II
I'llllll' i':
I "II I' .!
',11" Illq I! .
i .I~:'j': ~ ,
, hl!1 ~il.il 11_:
','II,r,.tl,I,lljll
I ,:111 I 'I'ij n
~dalll :11.1111.
, III J 1
! Ii. 1:~1
. l'li!uhl
. i~ I'l' nk.
!! Illq 1.1 ~RI
! pl"1l 'I .~l
illlil! I ',:lnOi!
lib...! i .11306
u ,
'., I
I CCi ii ~~ ~I . ~'l
I ,~. " " ~ , .'
="'h I " ~. I'
I '111!~~:ir.il~ilel'!
I, I, ~ ,I a IJ 101/'111.2 'I! il Lll
! II! ; 1~1 !I~~~ i ~rl ~ ~T r r
'I I
ia II !
"I "
-, "I
I" b
!liH ii!
"l!d!lm
II , I ,I'
(
'--
. . . " . ~ . . .
gr-
) ,,,
,~ ;
'" , ~m
t'\ m
( )
()
NOIDn~lSNo) ~O:llON
. VIN~OJIlVJ 'vlfDlWl.l
SONVlH~IH VlnJ3W31
,\
r-- i ~
CJ C J: '"
, ,
:: \
Ir, r II \
:LJ LJ: / \ \
e_____J ./ ~_+'
./ I \
./ \ I
"-. 1./ I I
- = --~=>J~ -"~- I:
./ \ '...
./ ./ ./ 'II ."- '...
./ "-
./ I '...
/ ru---, ,-----, ""'-
:or ,i: I :" ,':
:L.J L.J: i :LJ L..!: ""
, "" "
, '" "
Irl "I ~ ill ,11
~ :LJ LJ: ~i ~ ~I :LJ L-.I:
"- L_____...1 i1 L._____.J
"-,,- I
"- ./
"- .1 ./
~ = -~~J:~,.~-
./ I "-.
./
./
./
./
./
I
!1 II
./
/' rr-~-~-~
ILJ LJI
, ,
, .,
, ,
Ir I "I
~ :L.J L-.J:
~ L_____J
"-.
"-.
"-.
II
I
.'
~
~
.'
"-.
./
"-.
"-.
./
./
/' r-----i
/' rl III
ILJ L.J1
, ,
, ,
, ,
Irl "I
-........ :LJ LJ:
~_____.J
"-.
81 ! rc-~-~-j
i' ED: :
, ,
Ir 1 ",
iLl L.Ji
l.-T_J
./
---..
---
III III' ii" I
dill'! j: ;!;Jiil
:1 ", ! 0 II ,d i ,j .
l'! li'1!1- II Z i hi' i,lll:i,
~ I'!! 1111l!1 i i ll~ IH~ill' I ;11 !l!',
" ,11I"'1l< c> ,'II ',!PIII1l! c .1 \ 011
Z I 'Il.., II z ,I' h II "I: 11: ", ~,
~ hilllli"1l ~ II!!. "1 "fl.l ~ ", .. I
8 II! I! ill IIi! 8 ,!i;i 11:il!,lllh 8 [;J [gI ~ l
<>c: 00 e 0 e e <>c: ~ ~ " .. ~ ~.. . ~ <l(
I
,
!
,
",l
z. .
~ ~ i
>:s hi"
~ I ,!!~l
~ H....
I
.I
::!Il'
~ iil
g II~
~ ~.Q
~t
~~
I
'Ii
~ u I
~!iii
r
<:
~!
Cs !
2~
/')
~3
~~
I~O
I~o
o~
L.Il
IN
1<(
.' jm .,"
.N ,,,
J :.::;
,. i! -.-
. ~.,
.J>-."
.......
I j
NOIDn~lSNOJ ~O:llON
YJN~OJJlY.) 'yJID3Wll
SONVlH91H VlnJ3V\131
~~
II,
!uJ
,0-.'"
....."
"".
0;
;::.
~l
ttJ
f-
~
.'
0---
.(j- -
(;)-_. -
',"
(~-~- -- ,~-
,
I I II I
I, ~ ~ ,I I
'I if 13 01 11",.i!
l:J i II ~l 0 ~ I I ill ::) Ii II 'Ji
2nll~! ~ l ~Il I!L~!l! ~!nl!lllll!
nu:~i ~lll ~!!!HIHlih ~llhlhlll
t:I..""" \j ~~~ "'000000000@0 '-'eeeeee
)
~
z
o
"
:~
I",
or:
rr)
1<(
I
II
"",
Oi
;::,
~l
""
ttJ
f-
~
~~
c).
i=::l
~
<.q
~
cs
;:,!
::s
""
[
In
l I Ii
'"
::) ill
fa ~ ~ ~
i5 I ~ ~ ~
v,
5: Iii
0
a ...
'" 1,1
~ ;;':'\ii
1.1
~ ~ ~
.
ill
()
()
NOIDn~lSNQ) ~O:llON
VIN~OJnVJ 'VIrOlW31
SONV1H~IH Vlm3W31
~~
d
l,j
(~)
~
z
o
"
I~
1m
('.j
1M
1-<(
~.
!
! i ! i
I, II lfl I I
hil>"' c! ll/'~l!l
~! !!I~ ~ ~ I ! 1 i In ~ l!llll .
"i '!"l! ~ ! "Ii ,Illl d!l 15 1'1 1.11 II !! !l! !
~ I !"9, ~ I · I g II I . ! 'i ~ 'I I I
i~~;~~1 ~ ~~J ~MllJlllJ~l ~~~~~~~
~. ""l "" \ z\
......1 o. 0,
""; "'" 0;
~! ~I r::1
i:;j i:;j ~.
'f!; ""
~ .t!j
'" ~
0 ~
v,
:::!
:::>
CQ
<~)--,,~..-
~"
r
III
I I II
""
:) ill
fil III
~ ~ ~ ~
$ ill
0
!i l,l
~ I ~ ~ ~
! 1,1
!(':'1I
I -- .
,
Jh
II
'h
JIi I
Ji!
~I
llj l
Il!l~, I
hil" I '
! .
I, ! I
191il!!1 II
I'o!! ~
M!~
i;I'11 !
NII,l
ij"ii2
, )
1 )
I~I ii'llilil;1 I- · I
;1 I Ii I. Id.fi;~j'-I!.:j ii II II U i 1 III II ; ; H..
r I ..lll il'~."~ III1 <l. ! II lill U II II I ..!!.. II
II ~ i !I~il ~!ib;!!l;j!~!il Ii il ;mlhlmlu n n, I III. lit II
II i II ~~:~ i!I!le'I!ljlli!;!i Ii 'I I ""..ms"'T 8@t n $II~~ II TT
I'll : II It:. .11'11' li-I~lh! I I I . , \ \
l ;" I I! li~1 11.1;l!~r..i.,I, II ! . "fs~
. III .! II !~:I' -'llil'Glllmll ~K s i I I ' I'! I
HI, I: I :1 !,!!i! ;;iiRlilflm:~ 1~1 I! II I! i~~ !!~!il
~ :~l ~ i II 1.1:;: ~lll,1 hl!I~;II" I III :11 ill.l.
i ~ !~I !i ~ ~i ; !ifti! li:lU!U!i!nlsli I! Ii i ~!Iil!;:!il
x
~ 0
0-.
25 I I i
u
w
U
LL-
LL~
0:::
UK.')
OZ
z-
<(g
-.J-
I~
C)a:l
I
B
<(
-.J
~
U
w
2
w
I-
i ~.~ I
. .
~ ~i~~
~ !S!~
\'; ~~~~
n~~
;)
I
/l
~
ffi I
i! ~~
"',.
aa fu
Q ~.
w ~i
I!;
I .
II
1'1
:11
;!!
. llllj
,
J n.
::11
.. ~!i
~
. I
D .
I )
.---~--
LI"llIIDllllXJ
x
W
-.J
(l
2
o
u
w
U
LL-
LL::r
.0::
EWO'.GlCi
C'j
I
I
()
-,~
I I
I I
I ..-------J
Ii " !
I . . "
I ~ I
,
i -, I
i
I .,::~
II "<:' ...':.:::~ ~~
~l -"'...... .."
tLWO'llLllJ ~l
,/: ~I
__'\lX> ~I
11.,.lll
L""""",lCi
__'ll.iD
("C)
i )z:
z-
<(0
-.J-.J
I~
C)CD
I
<(
-.J
~
U
W
:2
W
I-'-
~-
, I
.......,
---
WIICIlllLD
!
I
I N ~!
.
t
~ !I;~
~ ii~j
" ~~
I
J!J
II
'11
JI' I
J"
I'
(is!
i ~
I I
I I
~
I
!
,
Ii
Ilal
.11
5 :1
'" , Ild~
g · Ill',
'" J ' .
.~
~. ~~II
~ 9~i
g L
o
-.l
-.l
Q'
:::,
o
Cl:::
~
I--
I--
l.J.J
Cl:::
Cl:::
"'C'
~
l.J.J
j:I::
V)
Cl
<:
S
:r:
\.9
:;:
S
:::J
'-'
~
~
<:
a
;::
:g;
ll.J
Ld
i-
<:
a
[
!
\
"r \
1 )
~ i"
u....F:.:
~o '
.'!;:'l\r(;:;
~~~
<( 0 K
~~~
-.0
-tL~ljJ
~ ~.~
ltl D ~
<:("'~
lOi30
ULLhoi
~",'
~~~
~ ~'),]
n
( )
Cf) :c:
Cl C)
:c: i:::
~ :g;
L.u
~ ijj
:t:
, .-~, :5 I:t:
\ :::;, L;5
'-' I:t:
L.u
as
I-
1
,
\..)
-.J
-.J
Q-
:::J
C)
0::
C!)
I--
I--
ltJ
0::
0::
o
ltJ
~
~ ~
t),...l::.:
:~~;;,
~,~~
<(O~
~'"
ll:! Qi~
OJ <.J.",
D!!O>
o Q .!l;
V,~E
V}(j,8
"<: "'~
Q)'OU
'2~~
c; C", ~
2:?lJ
,~.
"
/j
'.'
U
-.l
-.l
Q'
:::J
o
Q::
c..')
t:
lJ.J
Q::
Q::
o
~
I-':
V)
~
~
~
'i:
:5
:;,
'-'
~
~
)
<:
o
;:::
~
Lu
~
Lu
~
U3
~ 1''':
Y~I'
~~;;:;
t!~~
<:(:1,....
.,",
~ .~
'" 0
'O.E2
QQ,
~c:E
<:(~~
lU'5U
~;:;~
"iSM",
~"'.
<'"U
'!'
";,
',i
}
c!
V)' .
Cl :c:
o
:c: f:::
:s :J:
:J:: lJ.J
>2 ~
:J:: lJ.J
;:;j ~
(.) V)
~
i':
o
-..J
-..J
0:
:::J
o
Q::
c.9
l-
I-
lLJ
Q::
Q::
o
lLJ
~
. Y.! 1'2
:,;,-,:
E R~
O<lJ"
~~f?
.~1~
!H
~lll..'..,
~R~
. ,l,
; :;
11 !:
!
I J1
.
i Ii
Ij
. i;
. "
@l:iiiliiilli!
,
I
~~lY
YIi\:}jOJlh') 'Vln):W'al
50NV1HJIH VlnJ3VV31
fl
ii
"
.,
~~.
~t
s~
"''''
,.
~i
~
i
j
,
I
~
i
,
,
,
I::l-l
f2
>:(i
- "
"'
lj
D
"
"
,
.?
~
'1
,)
,
<
~~
~E
4.. ~
~~r
Iii
L_
~
:'--.........
'- ,
'-I~
is ~
U~
r
..n
~ H
~ ;: \0;
'.', ~ ~
i il
g ~~
i'~
~~
~
~ -
, ! "
a ,
,! ~::~ ;
~~~ I
,I ~~ ~
i H ~!i
~h
, g5 ~~i
~ ~~ ;~~
~~ 0,
~$(~
F~-)'
Ijt 'I:;
'I" 'I'"
~ ~:<> g~)
~ <'I,' I~!~',
o,: I ~'i:d
".:I.ll,'I'
~,~,~, kl ;of
IHdH
:', ~.. ~ ~;;
"!S
~ ~~~! t;
~~Hg~
,
~~ !!~~
i;lB~~
11,,0,!
~H~B~
~ ~ ,-. ~ ~
~
,
i,
i ~ ~??~??
j"HH~H
~"i;'l
~<!:~~H~~
~ ~e~.!t;
'W'-'!
~giUL
z
:S
~~
jt:
~t!
,ClZ
~ZO
_l::5u
-.
~L
~ ,.;:
l. ~:
,I,
; ;0~
~ i ~:n
~ ~~ !~ ~~!;~
~;~~~~t ~~.;;;~i
~~~~~;~ ~~~~;~g~
~~~~~~; ~!~~i~~~
. !~t~~ir ;i~~l.i~
,~g
H tt:M ~....... ~ I
~"f
.. ,
q
~
-..J
,
::~!
~~."
liH
r:
r
Z
"'C
0::
t!
tJ:
Zl
a!
v'
1
it' ; ~
:"C!
u-
CS!
:%:
::5!
~1i
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Tcmecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
7
( ~ROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
, ,
\ I
(
Planning Application Number:
PA03-0443
1. General Plan Designation:
Business Park (BP)
Consistent?
Yes
2. Zoning Designation:
Light Industrial (L1)
Consistent?
Yes
3. Environmental Documents Referred to in Making Determination:
IZI General Plan EIR
IZI Sensitive Biological Habitat Map
IZI Sensitive Archeological Area Map
IZI Sensitive Paleontological Area Map
IZI Fault Hazard Zone Map
IZI Subsidence/Liquefaction Hazard Map
IZI 100 Year Flood Map
o Future Roadway Noise Contour Map
o Other (Specify)
o Previous EIR/N.D. (Specify Project Name & Approval Date):
IZI Submitted Technical Studies (Specify Name, Author & Date):
"Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Proposed 30,000 Square Foot
Commercial Building Located at 40880 County Center Drive City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California"; Lawson & Associated, September 12, 2003.
o Other:
4. Environmental Determination:
o Exempt
IZI Mitigated Negative Declaration
o Negative Declaration
o EIR
o 10 Day Review
IZI 20 Day Review
o 30 Day Review
5. General Plan Goais Consistency:
Consistent
Inconsistent
o
o
o
o
Land Use
Circulation
Housing
Growth Management/Public Facilities
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEETdoc
I
I (-)
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Consistent
Inconsistent
o
o
o
o
o
Public Safety
Noise
Air Quality
Community Design
Economic Development
j
\
t:8J
t:8J
t:8J
t:8J
t:8J
6. City-wide Design Guideline Consistency:
[gI
Site Planninq:
A. How does the placement of building(s) consider the surrounding area
character?
The proposed building is centrally located on the site, with circulation aisles
and parking looping around the rear of the building. The circulation for the
site allows two points of ingress/egrees to an existing office building located
behind the proposed building. Placement of the proposed building will not
impact surrounding properties.
B. How do the structures interface with adjoining properties to avoid creating
nuisances and hazards?
The proposed building is an office building and is not anticipated to create
nuisances or hazards. Similar to the site design of surrouding properties,
the setback area along County Center Drive is landscaped and drive aisles
and parking loop around the rear of the building. Parking for the proposed
project will be place adjacent to parking for surrounding properties.
C. How does the building placement allow buildings rather than parking lots
to define the street edge?
Parking is not placed in front of the proposed building. The building is set
back 20 feet from County Center Drive and, with the exception of an ADA
path of travel from the sidewalk along County Center Drive to the front
building entry, the entire setback area is landscaped. Parking areas are set
back 25 to 30 feet from County Center Drive, with substantial landscaping
(including Chinese Pistace trees, Bradford Pear trees, London Plane trees,
and Lily of the Nile and Compact Xylosma shrubs) to screen the parking
areas.
t:8J
Parkinq and Circulation:
A. How does the parking lot design allow customers and deliveries to reach
the site, circulate through the parking lot, and exit the site easily?
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Tcmecula Highlands\PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET.lIoc
2
(~ROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET ( ,f
Development Plan
.....'
1
,
Circulation aisles and parking looping around the rear of the building. The
circulation for the site allows two points of ingress/egress to an existing
office building located behind the proposed building. Two loading spaces
are provided, including one near the southwest corner of the building and
one near the northeast corner of the building.
B. How does the parking lot design provide safe and convenient access to
pedestrians and bicyclists?
An ADA path of travel is provided from County Center Drive to the front
door of the building and continues on past the rear of the site to an existing
building located behind the proposed building. Walkways are provided
parellel to the north and south ends of the building, and 24 foot wide drive
aisles also allow for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
C. How are the service facilities within the parking lot screened or buffered
from public view?
The proposed building is a two story office building for which service areas
are not proposed.
D Buildino Architecture:
A. How does the building design provide articulation of the building mass?
Four distinct building planes at the front elevation break up the building
mass. Glass elements accent the ends of the building. The central portion
of the building is comprised of concrete panels with generous window area
and Travertine tiles cover the potions of the exterior wall between and at the
ends of the window areas.
B. How is each building "stylistically" consistent with all buildings in a
complex. and on all elevations to achieve design harmony and continuity
within itself?
The proposed building is not a part of a complex. All elevations incorporate
the same colors and materials, including limestone and glass.
C. How does the placement of buildings create a more functional or useful
open space between the buildings and/or the street?
The building meets the setback requirement for the LI Zone, thereby
allowing for a landscaped buffer between the building and the street.
R;\D P\2003\03-0443 Tcmccula Highlands\PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc
3
( \ROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET ( -'I
Development Plan
D. How do each of the architectural elements (building base, windows,
doors and openings, cornice and parapet, roolline, and finish materials
meet the intent of the design gLlidelines?
)
The building has a defined base, generous window area, a defined
entryway, a parapet wall with cornice that will adequately screen rooftop
equipment, and a varied rooffine with glass end treatments rising 2 feet
above the concrete/limestone central portion of the building. Building
materials, including extensive use of tinted glass and limestone tiles, and
colors are balanced and enhance the character of the building.
o Landscapinq:
A. Does the plan provide the following ratio of plantings?
I:8J Yes 0 No, why?
Trees
10% 36" Box
30% 24" Box
60% 15 Gallon
Groundcover
100% Coverage
In One Year
Shrubs
100% 5 Gallon
B. Does the landscaped area, ratio, spacing, and size conform with the
design guidelines? I:8J Yes 0 No
C. How does the internal site landscaping frame the building(s) and
separate them from the surrounding pavements?
The building is surrounded by a 5 to 12 foot wide area of landscaping that
includes Strawberry trees and Shrubby Yew Pine, Lily of the Nile,
Bougainvillea, Escallonia, New Zealand Flax, Indian Hawthorn and
Compact Xylosam shrubs. Additionally, landscaping in the parking lot area
adjacent to the building ties into the landscaping surrounding the building,
as does the landscaping in front setback area, thereby providing substantial
landscaping adjacent to and surrounding the building and providing for a
separation of the building from the surrounding pavements.
D. How does the patio and street' furniture, fixtures, walls and fences integrate
with of the architecture and landscaping?
The project does not propose patio and street furniture, walls or fences.
7. Development Code Consistency:
A. How does the plan achieve the performance standards specified in Code
Section 17.08.070?
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 TemecuJa Highlands\PROJECT REVIEW WORKSIIEETdoc
4
)
Net Lot Area:
Total Floor Area:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
C~ROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET f
Development Plan
Circulation:
Vehicular access is oriented from side streets rather than from a major
arterial. Where possible, separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation
systems have been provided. Pedestrian linkages between the proposed
building and the existing building at the rear of the project site have been
provided. A looped circulation system is proposed to provide easy access to
and from the proposed project, as well as the existing building at the rear of
the site. The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project and
determined that the proposed circulation is adequate to provide access for
emergency vehicles.
Architectural Desiqn:
The building has been designed to avoid excessive mass and bulk. This
has been accomplished with the provision of various building planes, varying
roof heights and the use of various building materials, including substantial
use of glass and limestone tiles, that provide visual breaks in the building
and emphasize building articuiation.
Site Planninq and Desiqn:
Conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic have been minimized with
the provision of sidewalks and drive aisles with a minimum width of 24 feet.
One loading space is provide at the rear of the site and a second loading
space is provided near the front of the site. Landscaping and berming will
be provided to screen the loading space near the front of the site.
Compatibilitv:
The proposed building is not situated adjacent to residential uses. The
project site is surrounded by other office and light industrial uses that will be
compatable with the proposed building.
B. Does the application and submitted plans on file conform with all of the
applicable minimum development standards?
~ Yes, with conditions
o No
5.69 acres
29,516 square feet proposed; 41,152 square feet existing
0.29
28.5%
R\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc
5
)PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET C)
Development Plan
,
"
Front 20 feet 20 feet
Side o feet 75 feet
Side o feet 78 feet
Rear 10 feet 65 feet
Parkin 20 feet 26 feet
Hillside/Slope
Arch./Paleo
Fault Zone
Flood
Noise
Traffic
Habitat
Subs./Liqfctn
Stream/Creek
Air Quality
North
Office/Light
Industrial
Office/Light
Industrial
Office
Commercial
Light Industrial (L1)
Business Park (BP)
East
Light Industrial (L1)
Business Park (BP)
West
South
Li ht Industrial LI
Community
Commercial CC
Business Park BP
Community Commercial (CC)
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 TemccuJa Highlands\PROJECTREVlEW WORKSHEET.doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTIONS NO. 2004 -_
R:\D 1"\2003\03-0443 Temccula Highlands\STAFFREPORT.doc
8
( )
(')
,-
I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0443, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A
29,516 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON 5.69 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY CENTER DRIVE,
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET EAST OF YNEZ ROAD (APN
910-110-045)
WHEREAS, Ed McArdle, representing McArdle Associates Architects, filed Planning
Application No. PA03-0443, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0443 was processed including, but not
limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA03-0443 on April 21, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify
either in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-0443 subject to the
conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA03-0443
conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
)
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. 03-0443 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section
17.05.01 O.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for.Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for
Business Park (BP) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General
Plan has listed the proposed use, including office, as a typical use in the Business Park
designation. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the
Development Code for the Light Industrial zoning district. The project has been
conditioned by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all
applicable Building and Fire Codes.
R:\D P\2003\03~0443 Tcmccula Highlands\STAPF REPORT. doc
10
l )
I )
\. ,
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
)
The project is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the City
of T emecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined the City of
Temecula Development Code. The architecture and site layout for the project has been
reviewed utilizing the Industrial Development Performance Standards of the
Development Code. The project has met the performance standards in regards to
circulation, architectural design and site plan design.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application No. PA03-0443,
which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0443 (Development Plan) to construct a
29,516 square foot office building with conditions of approval as set forth on Exhibit A, attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions
that may be deemed necessary.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 21st day of April 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
)
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
11
()
,--- STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
I COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I~'
\ )
I Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of April, 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
12
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
'.-',
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Tcmecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
12
c)
c)
('I
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0443
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct a 29,516 square foot
office building on 5.69 acres located on the south side
of County Center Drive, approximately 1,500 feet east
of Ynez Road.
DIF Category:
MSHCP Category:
Office
Commercial
Assessor's Parcel No:
910-110-045
Expiration Date:
April 21, 2004
April 21, 2006
Approval Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicanVdeveloper 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
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicanVdeveloper 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
2. 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
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Tcmecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
13
/)
\
t -',
\ )
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.
\ )
3. The applicant shall sign two copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and
return one signed copy to the Community Dev~lopment Department - Planning Division
for their files.
4. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
Development Plan.
5. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA03-0443.
6. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this Development Plan.
7. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
8.
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.
9. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration, and for good cause, grant a tirne extension of up to three one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
.
10. The development of the prernises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits B
(Site Plan), C (Elevations), D (Landscape Plan) and F (Color and Materials) contained
on file with the Planning Department.
11. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being
placed below the surrounding parapet wall.
12. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site.
13. Lighting shall be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
14. r 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.
15. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conforrn to those noted
directly below and with Exhibit "F" (Color and Materials Board), contained on file with the
Cornmunity Development Department - Planning Division.
Concrete (walls) - Main Body Frazee 8692W (Bauhaus Buff)
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\STAFF REPORTdoc
14
(-
, )
c)
/- ......
( )
Concrete (walls) - Accent Panels
Mullions and Metal Doors
Storefront Glazing - Main
Storefront Glazing - Accent
Tile (walls) - Main Body
Frazee 8680W (Aria Ivory)
Paint to match Frazee 8680W (Aria Ivory)
PPG Azurlite "Green Reflective"
"Clear Reflective"
Travertine (Noce Travertine)
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
16. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and
electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector
check prior to final agreement with the utility companies.
17. 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.
18. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works
Department and Planning Department.
19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the T emecula
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.
/
)
20. * If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of
cultural or archaeological resource 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. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
* The above condition of approval is also Mitigation Monitoring Measures of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
21. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Tcmccula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
15
22.
{)
(l
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 "0", 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 plans shall be accompanied by the following
items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with 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.
)
23. All utilities and light poles shall be shown and labeled on the landscape plans and
appropriate screening shall be provided. A three-foot (3.0') clear zone shall be provided
around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the
screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion.
24. 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.
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. 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-inches 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.
27. The construction plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International
Orange".
Prior to Release of Power
28. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, all required
landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved
landscape plan (Exhibit "0"). The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or
pests and the irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
29. The property owner shall 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
release of power or first occupancy permit.
R:\[) P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\ST AFf REPORT.doc
16
c)
(l
r'j
30.
Prior to release of power, all site improvements including but not limited to parking areas
and striping shall be installed.
31. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
32. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
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 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.
/-
)
35. The Developer shall construct public improvements in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and drive approach.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
36. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
R:\D 1'\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\ST AFF REPORTdoc
17
('J
-)
( .
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
)
41. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
d. Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
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
46. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of TemecLlla Standards subject to
approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design
criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
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.
47. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department
of Public Works.
48. The building 'pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil
Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
18
C)
/-,
I J
('}
49.
The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent
property.
50. 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.
51. 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
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. 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.
/
'I
54.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Department of Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
55. 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.
56. The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County
area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this
ordinance on March 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.
57. SLlbmit 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.
58. 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.
R:\D P\2003\03~0443 Temecula Higblands\STAFF REPORT.doc
19
('j
~)
( ,
59.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
l
60. Obtain street ad,dressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
61. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April
1,1998)
62. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
63. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. .
64. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
prior to permit issuance.
65. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
66. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal.
67. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons
with disabilities.
68. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
69. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
70. Show all building setbacks.
71. 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
FIRE DEPARTMENT
72. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which
are in force at the time of building plan submittal.
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Tcmecula Highlands\STAFF REPORTdoc
20
r)
Cl
./ ,
I )
73.
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 2375 GPM
at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM
for a total fire flow of 2775 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be
adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or
automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire
Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2,
Appendix III-A)
74. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and
off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department acce-ss roads and
adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart, at each intersection
and shall be located no more than 225 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 III-B)
75. 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)
)
76.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any bLlilding construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
77. 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 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
78. 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 Ibs. GVW with a minimLlm AC thickness of
.25 feet. (CFC sec 902)
79. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via
all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
80. 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 reqLlired 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)
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temccula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
21
(')
(~)
81.
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)
)
82. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be
of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi,family residential and
industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite
numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6)
inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family
residences and multi,family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor
numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
83. 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)
84. 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)
85. 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)
86. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid
entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
87. 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.
Special Conditions
88. 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.
89. 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)
90. 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
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
22
r--
( )
n
( )
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)
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
General Conditions
91. 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.
92. All perimeter landscaping, fencing, parkways including areas within the ROWand on site
lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or private maintenance association.
Prior to Issuance of Buildinq Permit
93. Prior to building permit the developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements
made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
94. If additional streetlights are to be installed, as a result of this project, then prior to the first
building permit or installation of additional street lighting whichever occurs first, the
developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an approved Edison
Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street
lighting into the TCSD maintenance program
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
95.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated August 27, 2003 from the
Rancho California Water District.
96. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated August 25, 2003 from Sempra
Energy.
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 Printed Name
Date
Applicant's Signature
R:\D 1'\2003\03-0443 Temccula Highlands\STAFF REPORT.doc
24
,)
{)
)
)
Cfl2)
(~
ILanchD
later
BoardorDireclors
John E. Hoagland
Sr. Vice President
Stephen J. Corona
Ralph H. Daily
Ben R. Drake
Usa D. Hennan
C..b. F. Ko
Officers:
Phillip L. Forbes
Interim General Mpnager
Direct.or of Finance-Treasurer
E.P. "Bob" Lemons
Director of Engineering
Kenneth C. Dealy
DirectororOperati..ms
& Maintenance
.- )
I Perry R. Louck
, Controller
Linda M. Fregoso
District Secretary/Administrative
Services Manager
C. Michael Cowett
Dest Dest '" Krieger LLP
General CDunsel
.-
-
c)
()
August 27, 2003
Stuart Fisk, Case Planner
City of Temeeula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
TemecuJa, CA 92589-9033
1>1-\0'; - 0443
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
A PORTION OF PARCELS NO.2 AND NO.3 OF
PARCEL MAP NO. 21361; APN 910-110-045
Dear Mr. Fisk:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees
and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you should have any questions, pleaSe contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
j2-L~~
Steve Brannon, P;E.
Development Engineering Manager
\lDilE ~ lE lJ \TI if\il\
\\ ~\AUG 2 8 2003 \~\
\LJ ,
\ _i
@Y --=--- ;::..-----:::...----'
OJ\SB :atl99\FO 12- T6\FCF
Rancho California Water District
42135 Winchester Road. Post Office Box 9017 . Temecula. CaHrornia 92589-9017 . (909) 296-6900 . FAX (909) 296-6860
c)
C)
The
Gas
[ompany
()
)
A ~ Sempra Energy utility.
File # 03-072 thru 03-077
8-25-2003
City of Temecula
Planning Dept.
PO Box 9033
Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033
Attn: T.Thorusley, Rick Rush, S. Fisk
Re: Projects: PA03458, PA03-0427, PA03-0429, PA03-0443, PA03-0444, PA03-0447
Pla~ers,
Thauk you for Iuquiring about our active under undergrouud facilities. As you requested we are enclosing a
copy of our atlas prints covering the project area as highlighted on your map. Our Main lines are by Size
and Location dimensioned from existing Property Lines or Center Line of Street. These are approximate
locations only. Depths of these lines vary in as much as these facilities were installed some time ago aud
subsequent street improvements may have altered the grade considerably.
{
It is the responsibility of the City, Utility, Developer, or Engineering Firm to detennine if a conflict exists
between the proposed development and our facilities. If a conflict is identified and can only be resolved by
relocating our facilities, please be advised that the projected timetable for the completion could be six
months. TIlls includes Planning, Design, Material procurements, Construction, and Reconciliation. We will
also require' Signed Finalized" Plans of Construction profiles prior to the start of the relocation.
Upon request, at least (48) hours prior to the start of Construction The ,Southern California Gas
Company will locate and mark OUf active underground facilities at no cost. Please have your contractor call
Underground Service Alert@ (800) 422-4133,
If you need any more information, please call me at (909) 335-7582
~,a~
Planning Associate
Teclmical Services Department
re, 1
il ~) a: @ a: u m ~ ~I
jI " "I'
1)"1 ,I I
I! /11 AUG 2 8 2003 u I
'!uL,1 jf
1 .!
@L===--
\
!
-
.,
ATTACHMENT NO.4
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Tcmecula Highlands\STAFF REPORT-doc
9
(
1- City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
) - Environmental Checklist
/
Project Title PA03-0443, Development Plan
Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Number Stuart Fisk, Assistant Planner
(909) 694-6400
Project Location The project is located at 40880 County Center Drive, generally
located on the south side of County Center Drive, approximately
1,500 feet east of Ynez Road (APN 910-110-045\.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address Ed McArdle
McArdle Associates
5838 Edison Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
General Plan Desianation Business Park (BP)
Zoning Liaht Industrial Ill)
Description of Project A Development Plan to construct a 29,516 square foot office building
on 5.69 acres.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is surrounded by. office/light industrial development.
The property to the east consists primarily of light industrial use. The
sites to the north contain both office and light industrial uses, and the
site to the west consists of an office building. A flood channel is
- located on the south side of the project site, with commercial uses
jJher public agencies whose approval situated between the flood channel and Winchester Road.
None.
is reauired
()
(J
I.
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
{-)
()
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
{
,
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Mineral Resources
Amiculture Resources Noise
Air Qualitv PODulation and Housina
Bioloaical Resources Public Services
X Cultural Resources Recreation
Geoloav and Soils T ransDortation/T raffic
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Svstems
HVdroloovand Water Qualitv Mandatorv Findinos of Sionificance
Land Use and Plannina None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be DreDared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
X be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by C
the Droiect DrODonent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be DreDared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reauired.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is reauired, but it must analvze onlv the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imDosed UDon the DroDosed Droiect, nothina further is reauired.
)
~~~
s~e
3/7- ~/n~
Date'
Stuart Fisk
Printed name
Assistant Planner
Title
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study. doc
2
()
()
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
( )
a.
b.
c.
d.
. iss'ue$:arid,Su
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic hi hwa ?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
ualit of the site and its surroundin s?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
x
x
x
Comments:
1.a.
Lb.
1.c.
()
../
l.d.
The project site is located on County Center Drive and does not involve scenic vistas. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No major tree resources, rock outcroppings or historic buildings exist on the site. The project site is not
located on a scenic highway, but will be required to meet the City of Temecula's General Plan and the
Development Code standards. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project site and the surrounding topography is relatively flat and all of the surrounding properties
have been developed with office, light industrial or commercial uses. The proposed office building is
compatible with the surrounding development. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Although the proposed project will result in a new source of light, it will not create a new source of
substantial light or glare to adversely affect the day or nighttime views within the project area. The
project will be conditioned to comply with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of. light pollution.
Therefore, impacts as a result of this project are anticipated to be less than significant.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
. .:PQtentia!ry.' '::,'; --~. - - I . -
.: p9tMti,al,ly; . ,?ignmcCirrt-ljnless,: LeSs'Thari . I
" Si9,ni.fic,ant "Mitigation:. . S_igr,liff~~nt' :No
Issues andSunnorfina Inf6rmationSourees :Iih';;acl ,. "Ji1oo';;'orated Imt:>acL hiiL:ract
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and I- X
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-aaricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion X
j of Farmland, to non-aqricultural use?
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
3
Comments:
c)
()
2.a, c. The project site is not currently in agricultural production. Although the City of Temecula General Plan
designates the project site as "Farmland of Local Importance", this property is not considered prime or (---)
unique Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula General Plan. The project site has been
graded as part of the mass grading for the existing building on site, is surrounded by urban
development, and is designated by the General Plan for commercial development. Therefore, there are
no impacts related to this issue.
2.b. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and the site
is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence, there are no impacts related to this
issue.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
:~~;};~~~:~ij~'~!Yi,J,,:':: I~~!~~~J;R~~qi($~~~l;~:
."' :9rgf':!lfJ?anl:' '~i ','::::"AMIJlgatlon::-,,'
~ :,';Ifn "acE, ~}: ~;"dnco:'.'6ratedt-:"
~. ",~ _:;',:;;:r,:,'{,:C-~ ~.,:
;,.f~'e_ss'<Th'ahi,:
L;!:~jl~i'w~~t:~:
Jssuesiand'Su
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air ualit Ian?
Violate any air quality standard or con.tribute substantially
to an existin or ro'ected air uali violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of eo Ie?
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
3.a.-c. The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards.
The project proposes to construct a 29,516 square foot office building in conformance with the City of
Temecula General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.d. There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. Therefore,
no impacts to sensitive receptors are anticipated to occur as a result of this project.
3.e. The proposed office building will not create any significantly objectionable odors and will not create an
impact to the surrounding community. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project
l
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
4
()
(')
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
()
. ./
a.
b.
c.
d_
e.
)
f.
o .,',',g9Ien,tia,Hy>,--< ,<
0' sig~9ifip~rt'W nl~~S)
:;_+,M,it!~~fiQ::~>, .;
':lriCO 'or~t~d>
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interru tion, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting .
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation Ian?
x
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
4.a, e-f.
The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project will be
conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat
Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee prior to the issuance of a
grading permit. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.b, c. The project does not contain any waters of the United States, riparian or wetland resources. Therefore,
development of the proposed project cannot adversely impact such resources.
4.d. The project site is surrounded by urban/suburban development and is essentially an infill parcel.
Therefore, its development has no potential to adversely impact wildlife movement and no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
(
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
5
(J
(j
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
rj
b_
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeolo ical resource ursuant to Section 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
x
x
c_
x
d.
x
Comments:
5.a, b, d.
The General Plan does not designate the site as an area of archaeological sensitivity. However,
should any archaeological resources be encountered during project development, a qualified
archaeologist will be retained to investigate and consult with the developer regarding appropriate
treatment of any such resources found. Although the site has been previously graded, the project will
be conditioned for all grading activity and any substantial subsurface excavation, such as building
footing and trenching for utilities, to be closely monitored. Mitigation measures will require continuous
on site monitoring during any activities that would bring about substantial subsurface excavation. This
mitigation measures will be adopted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. With
this mitigation measure in place any potential impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level of
impact.
(
5.c. The site is designated as a sensitive paleontological area by the City of Temecula General. Plan. The "
site has already been rough graded. However, a mitigation measure has been added to mitigate the
impact to insignificant levels. The mitigation measure states that if at any time during
excavation/construction of the site, paleontological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects
which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource 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 discovery is
not a paleontological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notity the property owner of such
determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is a
paleontological/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. This mitigation measures will be adopted as part of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. With appropriate mitigation measures placed on the
project, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
6
(')
()
-'
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
~~
(')
( )
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
i.
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involvin :
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42.
Stron seismic round shakin ?
Seismic-related round failure, includin Ii uefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
s read in , subsidence, Ii uefaction or colla se?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or ro ert ?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
x
x
ii.
iii.
iv.
x
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
6.a.i, ii. The project site is not located within an area designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since active faults are not know to
cross the site and lurching due to ground shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a
significant hazard. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.a.iii., c, d.
The project site, which has been previously graded, is not located within an area delineated as a
liquefaction hazard. However, the project will be conditioned to submit a soil report which will be
reviewed as part of the precise grading plan submittal and recommendations contained in this report
will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and
building permits. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will be utilized in the
development of this site, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from
liquefaction. After mitigation measures are implemented, any impacts will be reduced to a less than
significant level of impact.
6.a.iv. Based on the relatively flallopographic conditions at the site, the potential for hazards associated with
on- or off-site landslides is considered low. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
6.b. Based on the relatively flat topographic conditions at the site, the potential for substantial soil erosion or
loss of topsoil is considered low. During grading the project will be required to comply with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements which will mitigate any potential erosion
during grading, and once development of the site is completed the site will be fully developed with
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\initial Study.doc
7
6.e.
buildings, pavement and la(~caPing, thereby making erosion and ~~~ of topsoil unlikely. No impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be required to
connect to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this (-)
project.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
rSSl)es~arid;StJ
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
dis osal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
uarter mile of an existin or ro osed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation Ian?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
x
x
x
x
( )
"---
x
x
x
x
Comments:
7a. Because the proposed project is an office building, it is not anticipated that the project would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials. However, future tenants may include businesses that require the delivery of
hazardous materials. When an application is made for future tenant improvements, a Statement of
Operations and a Business Plan will be required for review by the City's Fire Department to identify the
likelihood of hazardous impacts and to assess the appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore, less I
than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Hlghlands\lnitial Study.doc
8
7.b.
(-)
, . .c.
7.d.
7.e, f.
7.g.
7.h.
Activities of future tenants () be addressed during tenant improve(Jnts as noted in 7.a. above. It is
not anticipated that the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the. environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
This site is within one-quarter mile of an existing school. However, because the proposed project is an
office building it is not anticipated that the project would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
This project site is not located near a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private
airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
The project will take access from maintained public streets and therefore will not impede emergency
response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
This project site is not adjacent to wildlands and is not susceptible to wildland fire danger. Therefore,
no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
... . . . .:. .. : ~tit~ht!~I!y"" .. ... ....
:.'-:P,otentially . Slgnincant Unless Less:Than
, :...S_lgnificant . _Mililiation~' Significaht No,.
.Isslles :and, SUDoo-rtina,kiforrilation-'Sources . .. Imoact IncorPorated: -' . ; Imoact Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
, requirements?
) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate X
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been oranted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flood in a on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water qualitv? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X
I Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
r ti. Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures X
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnltial Study.doc
9
which would imDede or reclIrect flood flows? ' j
I. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
I. Inundation bv seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
/-'."
; .
- t
/ '\
, I
Comments;
8.a. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Development
will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the
NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b, f. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground
waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Furthermore, construction
on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer
volume. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.c, d. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on-site or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates,
drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs
on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface,
runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will'
be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.e. The project will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The
project will be conditioned and designed to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the
subject site. In addition, the project will be conditioned and designed so that the drainage will not
impact surrounding properties. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.g. The project proposes an office building and will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map. Furthermore, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.h. The project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
8.1. The project is not located within a dam inundation area identified in the City of Temecula General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.j. The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these events are not
known to occur in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
10
,'" ~-,.
,
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
Ph sicall divide an established communit ?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
x
x
Comments:
9.a.
9.b.
9.c.
The project site is currently vacant but is designated for business park (I.e., office, light industrial, etc.)
development. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. .
i
)
The project will not conflict with the applicable General Plan designation, environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's
General Plan land use designation of Business Park (BP) as well as the zoning of Light Industrial (L1).
Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the
analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation
measures approved with the EIR have been applied to this project where necessary. Furthermore, all
agencies with jurisdiction over the project are being given the opportunity to comment on the project,
and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their
specific environmental plans or policies. The project site has been previously graded and services are
available into the area. There will be no impacts on adopted environmental plans or policies.
The proposed project will not conflict with any currently applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. The site has been graded and is not within any currently applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The project site is a part of the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and will be required to
pay mitigation fees per the MSHCP. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the MSHCP as
approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003. Therefore, no impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
. . . Potentially .
Potentially Sjgnjfican~.Unl~ss . LesS,Than
Significant Milig*ion :: Significant No
Issues and Sunnortinn'lnfortnatlon Sources / Ihlnact . Inco~orated ' Irnnact 'lmnact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
oeneral clan, sDecific Dlan or other land use plan?
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
11
Comments:
-j
, .
10.a, b.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource nor in the loss of an
available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City ,
of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the
potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these
areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based upon available
data in reports prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
c.
, " '_'0'
, """"-',"
',',-':' ,..::',::
. . .-- ..
. . -'.- " ....
',',- -,
Issues'and'Su ~"ortih' :tnforfualjon:s6urb~s':
Exposure of persons to or generation of Iiloise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
a encies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
roundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
ro'ect?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the ro'ect?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
ro'ect area to excessive noise levels?
:Y'..~ ~8t~_dh~ily;:'--:,:
- :,~'S_j~:~jfici:tnt-:'.'
,:lm"~cf.""
,_'.:J?,6wnt!~;IIY~~':,::, ':. ,0 ': : '0,::':'
::;~jQ!Jj.fii~~rt-J:!~r~s~:;: \\~e:~~:-Thah::
;'_ -; ,'Mill~citiorl':";:" '~: ,', :Sig~jfic~~t
. '-Inco' 'Ora'ted . '1m' 'act;;
-;No,'"
",-..'lrTi"act<. ;
a.
x
b.
x
x
d.
x
e.
x
f.
x
Comments:
11.a The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels
during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, noise
levels will be required to be within established noise level standards. Therefore, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.b. No activities anticipated within the proposed project would result in exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
11.c. The project will create some noise levels over that currently emanating from the vacant land. However,
those noises are not anticipated to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
12
11.d.
,~'. . ,.-)
The project may result in t~hlJorary or periodic increases in ambien\ nbise levels during construction.
Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is
considered very annoying. However, noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and'
therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City
ordinances regulating the hours of activity to Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and
Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. in industrial areas. No significant impacts are anticipated.
11.e, f. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport. Therefore, people
working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport and no
impacts will result from this project.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere?
x
x
x
Comments:
i
,2.a. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Business Park (BP) and zoning designation
of Light Industrial (L1). The proposed project may cause some people to relocate to (or near) Temecula
to be closer to their place of employment. However, the project will not induce substantial growth
beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
12.b, c.
The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is vacant
property zoned for office/light industrial development. Therefore, the project will not necessitate the
construction of replacement housing due to displacement of housing or people. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
13
,~~ . -\
~ ) \ '
13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a Fire rotection?
b Police rotection?
c Schools?
d Parks?
e Other ublic facilities?
x
x
X
Comments:
13.a, b, d, e.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire,
police, recreation or other public facilities. The development of the site will increase the need for these
services, however, the project will contribute its fair share through the City's Development Impact Fees
to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated.
13.c. The project itself is not creating residential use and therefore will have no impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to
relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the
payment of applicable School Fees at the time the parcels are developed. No impacts are anticipated ~
as a result of this project.
14. RECREATION.
. I" .' J:lotentially'
Pote'ntially Sig~ificant,Unress , L~$sThan .: I., No
Sigl')iftq~nt . ': Mitigation Signjfjc~ilt'
Issues,and Sunnnrtinn.lnfonnalion-Sources linnact lnco;';;orated. .Irnnact .'Imtlacl
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Comments:
14.a, b.
Because the proposed project involves an office building, the project is not anticipated to have an
impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect
existing recreational opportunities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
14
i-I
I j
,
i
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
)
IssUes'ahd:Su'
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (I.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ration on roads, or con estion at intersections ?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
mana ement a enc for desi nated roads or hi hwa s?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safet risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incom atible uses e. ., farm e ui ment?
Result in inade uate emer enc access?
Result in inade uate arkin ca acit ?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bic cle racks ?
~___::;,:,:;Bl)!~r-l_taIlY,<::<: :
'-,Sig:QIfi~~n,t9jlJe_s~_(;
: '_ ::~ltlQ~fjQ~~< ' "
},;)ifieo '~oi'atea>_'~';
Comments:
'5.a, b.
J
15.c.
15.d.
15.e.
15.f.
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
There will be an increase in vehicle trips on adjacent streets once the proposed project is developed.
However, the City's Traffic Engineer has indicated that the project would have a less than significant
impact to the existing road system because the existing roadways have been developed consistent with
the City's General Plan in anticipation of the area's proposed development. Due to the project's
consistency with the General Plan, no further traffic studies were required for this project. The project
will be required to contribute to the Traffic Signal and Street Improvement components of the
Development Impact Fees prior to the issuance of any building permits. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
Development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. This site is not
within the French Valley Airport influence area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the
project.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current
City standards and does not propose any hazards. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The
project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access and will not interfere
with access to nearby uses. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposed project meets office use parking requirements per Chapter 17.24 of the City of Temecula
Development Code. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project has been designed consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation. Therefore, no impacts will result from this project.
~.g.
,
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnllial Study.doc
15
)
,
; )
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
. . ..
:lssues "andsu' ortln'-iriform'ation sou~h~~:'.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
a Iicable Re ional Water Qualit Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or ex anded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dis osal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
re ulations related to solid waste?
x
x
x
x
x
x
I
x
Comments:
16.a, b, e.
The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new
treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental
effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's
General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact
wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply with the
Regional Water Quaiity Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public
Works. No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.c. The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The project will require or
result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will connect to the existing
system currently in place along County Center Drive. The design of the existing system is sufficient to
handle the runoff from this project and will not require the expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Drainage fees are required by the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to reimburse the county for the
Murrieta CreeklTemecula Valley Area Drainage Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.d. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements.
While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated a:
ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states:
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study. doc
16
I. ) )
, .
"implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p.
40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
,
o.f,g. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste
created by future development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and
Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
CO:;' ')F_ot,et1IiallY-',
\ t?i~~jfiqan( ~'~I,~~S' ',~
'<rv1itigali?;fl"<:. "
~{! InCar"orated;:
Issues andSu ortir';:I~fcirri;aiiCin-Sourc~s<'<
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quaiity
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popuiation
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important exampies of the major periods of
California histor or rehisto ?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
iimited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
ro'ects, and the effects of robable future ro'ects?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directl or indirectl ?
x
x
x
Comments:
17.a. This site, which has been previously graded and is surrounded by commercial, light industrial and office
development, does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is essentially an in-fill
development and it does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eiiminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17.b. The cumulative effects from the project are not considered significant because the subject site is being
developed in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. All
cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site, as well as the surrounding
developments. were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the projects
consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the
development of the project site will not have a significant impact.
17.c. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, directly or indirectly. The project has been designed and will be developed consistent with the
Development Code and Generai Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\D P\2003\03-Q443 Temecula Hfghfands\lnitial Study. doc
17
,""."',
i )
)
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a. Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the roo ect.
Comments:
18.a. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in
preparing this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning
Department located at 43200 Business Park Drive.
18.b. There were earlier impacts, which affected this project, however it was difficult to assess whether they
were adequately addressed as mitigation measures. . I
18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is attached.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environrnentallmpact Report, adopted July 2,1993
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study. doc
18
.I
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA03-0443
(Development Plan)
CULTURAL RESOURCES
General Impact:
1_ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
3. Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or
archaeological resources.
4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries. .
Mitigation Measure:
If at any time during excavation/construction of the site,
archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which
reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource
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 discovery 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.
This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note
prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Specific Process:
Place the above condition of approval on this project so that if cultural
resources are encountered during grading, work shali be halted or
diverted in the immediate area while a qualified
archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the finds and makes
recommendations.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during the grading process.
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Planning and Public Works Departments
R:\D P\2003\03-0443 Temecula Highlands\lnitial Study.doc
19
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
April 21, 2004
Prepared by: Dan Long
Title: Associate Planner
Application Type: Product Review
File Number PA03-0725
Project Description: Planning Application No. PA03-0725, submitted by Davidson
Communities, is a product review for 99 detached single-family
residences within Pianning Area 2 in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific
Plan, located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future
extension of Butterfield Stage Road (Tract 29661-2).
Plan 1, two story 2,840 square feet (30 units)
Spanish Revival (7 units)
East Coast Traditional (13 units)
Monterey (10 units)
Plan 2, two story 3,178 square feet (33 units)
Spanish Revival (9 units)
East Coast Traditional (13 units)
Monterey (11 units)
Plan 3, two story 3,362 square feet (36 units)
Spanish Revivai (12 units)
East Coast Traditional (11 units)
Monterey (13 units)
Recommendation:
~ Approve with Conditions
D Deny
D Continue for Redesign
D Continue to:
D Recommend Approval with Conditions
D Recommend Denial
CEQA:
~ Categorically Exempt
(Class) 15161
o Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
R:\ProduCI Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
t
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
Paula Lombardi, Davidson Communities
Completion Date:
February 20, 2004
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
May 20, 2004
General Plan Designation:
Low Medium Residential (LM)
Zoning Designation:
Low Medium Residential (LM)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-family Residential (Riverside County)
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
Vacant
Vacant
5,000 square foot minimum (range: 5,025 sq. ft - 13,080 sq ft.)
Total Floor Area/Ratio N/A
Lot Area:
Landscape Area/Coverage N/A
Parking Required/Provided 2 covered enclosed spaces (20' x 20')
. BACKGROUND SUMMARY
~ 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
however, various issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction of staff. See
Attachment "4" (letter to applicant dated January 21, 2004), requesting revisions.
On January 22, 2003, staff met with the applicant to discuss staff's comment letter. Staff
discussed the requirements within the Roripaugh Ranch Design Guidelines, including
the single story, stucco finishes, additional materials such as stone or brick, the
possibility of adding an additional floor plan and choosing a different style in order to
distinguish between the styles and focal points to show importance. It was also
discussed that the Design Guidelines require four sided architecture, two front
elevations on corner lots and variation in the roof plan and silhouette. The applicant
feels the proposed design is consistent with the Specific Plan and has requested a
public hearing before the Planning Commission.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-l.doc
2
ANALYSIS
The applicant has proposed three (3) floor plans and three (3) architectural styles. The applicant
has chosen the option of Design Group E (pg. 4-97) from the Specific Plan, which allows the use
of one style from the Design Groups A-D (Attachment 2).
The applicant has provided many features encouraged in the Design Guidelines such as a
variation in garage locations and Porte Cocheres. Each plan includes a varied garage setback
ranging from 14 feet to 21 feet (Plan 1). and 33 feet (Plan 2). Plan 3 is not considered an
architectural forward product, even though the garage is slightly recessed (4 feet proposed, 8
feet minimum is required to be considered architectural forward) behind the living space. Plan 2
also includes a Porte Cochere in conjunction with the deep recessed garage, which provides
additional articulation as well as a single story element along the street scene. A trellis is
proposed over the garage on Plan 1, which functions as an accent element for the East Coast
Traditional style.
Staff feels that the project does not entirely meet the Design Guidelines, however, if
enhancements are provided, the project could be found to be consistent with the Design
Guidelines within Specific Plan. Staff has broken down the comments into the following
categories: The architecture (single story, corner lots, variation between styles, materials,
roofing, entries, doors, four sided architecture, windows, and stucco finish), fencing, and
landscaping.
Architecture
Sinale Story: A single story product has not been proposed. The Specific Plan is not clear
whether single story products are required in all planning areas. The language in the Specific
Plan allows the issue to be resolved by staff. Staff feels that the project provides various single
story elements, which break up the street scene, as well as, the overall silhouette of the planning
area. Plans 1 and 2 include mid to deep recessed garages which break up the massing along
the front elevation. Said plans also step the second story back away from the recessed garage
as well as from the first floor wall plane on the side elevations. By stepping the second story
back from the wall plane of the first floor, it will open up the side yards to additional light and
provide single story massing along the street.
Corner Lots: The corner lots do not appear to create a second front elevation. The Design
Guidelines require corner lots to create '~wo front elevations". Staff feels that the side elevations
do not appear as a second front elevation. Staff has recommended that the applicant pull the
fence and pilasters back towards the rear of the site to open up the side elevations, which would
display the architecture, however the applicant does not agree with staff. By pulling the fence
and pilaster back, it would open up the courtyard on Plan 3. Staff has used this technique on
other projects along with the use of decorative walls with wrought iron fencing, trellises, and
other decorative features to produce a second front elevation. As proposed, the applicant has all
three floor plans on corner lots. Staff has recommended that the applicant provide a side
elevation specifically for corner lots or provide an additional floor plan plotted on corner lots.
Each side elevation of each floor plan, exposed to the street needs additional enhancement to
satisfy the second front elevation standard.
Variations of Stvle: The applicant has not provided sufficient variation between the proposed'
architectural styles. Staff recommended that the applicant propose a different architectural style,
which will allow the styles to offer greater variation, however the applicant has decided to
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
3
maintain the proposed styles. Staff feels that the Monterey and Spanish Revival offer too many
similarities in shape, form and materials that create a difficulty for providing variety between the
styles. Staff suggested that alternative materials such as stone or brick be used to offer variation
between the styles, however, the applicant has not proposed any additional materials. As
proposed, staff feels there is too much stucco on the Monterey and Spanish Revival. While
stucco is a typical element of these styles, staff feels that these styles are too complimentary and
an alternative style should be used or alternative materials and forms should be incorporated to
clearly distinguish between the styles.
Roof & Silhouette: In order to provide a varied street scene, variety in each roof plan needs to be
provided. Staff feels that the applicant has proposed roof plans and silhouettes that are too
similar for each plan. While there are variations between the plans, the primary silhouette has
not changed. Staff recommended significantly changing one roof plan of each plan in order to
provide variation. The applicant has provided a good example of a variation in the roof plan that
satisfies this concern on Plan 3; however Plans 1 and 2 do not include a significant amount of
variation. The Plan 3 Monterey style includes a lateral roof as opposed to vertical (Spanish
Revival and East Coast Traditional), which is the type of variation staff feels is necessary for
each plan. In addition, the Monterrey and Spanish Revival proposed the same S roof tile style.
The Design Guidelines require Spanish tile roof for Monterey and Barrel tile clay roofing for
Spanish Revival. Staff recommends the roofing to be changed as mentioned in the Design
Guidelines along with changing one roof plan of each floor plan to significantly vary from the
other plans in order to provide variety for the street scene.
Focal Points: The Design Guidelines encourage focal points to show interest for entries and
doors. Staff has requested the use of double doors, glass sidelights, surrounding frames and
molding around the door as mentioned in the Design Guidelines. The applicant has not provided
any double doors, doors with glass, or glass sidelights. The applicant has proposed a foam trim
frame around the entry door for each East Coast Traditional Plan, however staff feels that
additional enhancement is required for all plans and styles. The Design Guidelines state the
following "Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as
the major introduction to the introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given
on the image it creates."
Four-Sided Architecture: Staff has interpreted the four sided architecture requirement to mean
that the architectural style is evident from any side of the residence. Staff feels that the applicant
has not completeiy satisfied this standard. Staff recommends additional arched windows to be
carried over where necessary. variation in the window trim and sills should be provided as well
as, a variation in the materials. Staff feels the similarities of Spanish Revival and Monterey
compound this issue. However, staff also feels that the East Coast Traditional style could
enhance the side and rear elevations by adding and wrapping additional siding to the sides and
rears. In addition, staff recommends that the applicant provide decorative windows sills on each
elevation for each style to reflect the architectural theme and further satisfy the four sided
architecture requirement.
Stucco Finish: The Design Guidelines state that smooth plaster walls are a typical feature for
Spanish Revival. While the Design Guidelines do not mention a specific stucco finish for
Monterrey, staff's research has shown that typical Monterrey stucco finish is a light to smooth
finish. The applicant is proposing a light to medium sand finish. Staff feels that a light sand finish
provides the smooth appearance typical for Spanish Revival and Monterey. The stucco finish for
East Coast Traditional style is not as specific; staff feels a light finish is adequate, however,
typical East Coast styles primarily utilize siding material.
R:\Product Rcview\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
4
Fencing
The applicant has complied with the standards set forth in the Specific Plan; however there are
some minor inconsistencies that need to be addressed. In addition, there is one element that
the applicant and staff do not agree upon. The legend on the fence plan appears to show low
slump stone walls between units. After speaking with the applicant, staff feels this is an error and
that solid wood fencing was intended between units. The project has been conditioned
accordingly. The paseo trail along lot one should include a low slumpstone wall for the first 20
feet and transition into a solid 6-foot slumpstone wall. The project has been conditioned
accordingly. The primary issue that has not been agreed upon is the location of fencing on
corner lots. Staff feels that fencing on corner lots should be pulled back towards the rear of the
lot in order to open up the side yard and expose the architecture and provide the second front
elevation as required in the Specific Plan. Staff has found this to be a success on previous
projects, primarily where a courtyard is proposed because it adds a feature similar to a porch,
albeit on the side elevation. The applicant has proposed a solid wall along the side elevation up
to the front portion of the residence, thus blocking the majority of the architecture/residence.
Staff feels the intent of the Design Guidelines is to open up the side yards to portray the
architecture and appear as a second front elevation. A solid wall will close off the architecture
and will not portray a front elevation.
Landscaping
The applicant has provided front yard landscaping consistent with the Specific Plan. In addition,
the applicant has proposed decorative pavers along with colored concrete for the driveway. Staff
feels this is a positive feature which will add variety to the street scene and add to the overall
ambiance of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
~ 1. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously
approved (Negative Declaration) (EIR) and is exempt from further Environmental
Review (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations).
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff feels that the project needs to be enhanced in order to be found consistent with the Design
Guidelines and the Specific Plan. While the applicant has complied with many of the standards
and recommended guidelines, staff feels that additional enhancement is required in order to
recommend approval. Staff feels that appropriate Conditions of Approval could be applied in
order to make the findings for approval. Based on the analysis summarized in this report, staff
has determined that the findings required for approval can be made with the appropriate
Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
R\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
5
The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development
proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking,
circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to
protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has
been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure fhat the
development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with fhe public
health, safety and welfare.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 7
2. Roripaugh Ranch Design Guidelines Excerpt - Blue Page 8
3. PC Resolution No. 2004-_ - Blue Page 9
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
4. Letter to applicant dated January 21, 2004 - Blue Page 10
5. Response letter from applicant dated January 29, 2004 - Blue Page 11
.R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:\Produc:t Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Duvidson Communities Tr 29661-2. PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
7
.
.
.
wm~=
~ ~)l ~l
u~.... ~,
~...
[fJ
Z
eJ
Vl
l;;
~
a:
Lii
a:
<03
I-<
Z
o
a:
u..
:r:
u
zia
<t:-
~l::
:r:5
CJ~
;:>0
<:u
o..Z
......0
Vl
0::0
-
0>
~i5
A-
(1::
.."'IIL______
W~""'~~
~;,V)J ~~ .
~""'O"'o::
U
Z"'"
OZ
f:;j
<C Q..'
>
l.!.l
-l
l.!.l
;...
Ul
~
~
.
:c
u
ZUl
<f!:l
o:::t:
z
:r:~
c..?;:E
:JO
-<u
0..8
......<1)
0:::8.
o~
0:::0
.
WMJ ~-
""' -
; ~)J ~1
U~.... ~t
,,~
.
zr-l
oz
~<
S;:....l
>0..
UJ
....l
UJ
>-
UJ
e<:
~
o
~
.
:r:
u
ZUl
-<~
ci!::
:r:~
O~
:JO
-<u
c...Z
,.....,0
Ul
cia
~
0>
cic5
-:-::?=-:::-
:1 ?Oli I ~~ .
~.AI C'-.;
V
Z"'"
oz
f::j
-<0-
Gi
.....!
Ul
~
~
o
~
.
:c
u
~~
ciz
:c::>
c~
:;'0
<u
p..~
.......t/}
0::0
o~
ciO
.
.
~1~)j1 ~~
U ~.A . ~
,,~
.
z.....
oz
-<
1-.....)
<0..
>
5
lLl
.....)
<(
>
.....
>
lLl
"
:c
VJ
.....
z
<(
0..
Vl
~i---------
~~:~------ [
___________________J___
:r;
u
Z
<C~
ci!:::
Z
:r;:J
lJ~
::10
<cU
o..Z
o
-Vl
ciO
-
0>
ciC5
.
:1~)j1 H .
~~~-..::
U
ZN
S3
<(p..
>
~
--i
~
--i
~
~
>
~
cG
::c
~
~
.
~.............,
~.....:.i...........i
~"'.'f
1--]
-
:r:
u
~~
o::~
:r:::J
CJ~
:JO
-.:t:U
0.6
>-<(J)
~~ .
0<(
0::0
.
wm~=
~ ~)l ~~
u :At,,~
.
J :'"jl'
}--,...---,..-------11iJt.c ~----II
~,;I .)1.1-.1
,;(1S _____- 11; [l~ ,'-
[~'il ~lo;;:;;]~"' 2. 1 i.
'_.:H "lSC' r '"J:.
l::..i:Y ~l ::J!
::':/iL 2.[1.
t~';?}~,~.-="l-Jl ~~2-.'~~1
;""-1':.- :. ~' - . r- , "ii.
~!'''.C'~I' ~~"l' .. I' -'1."'"
.J~ff-_.oj::l\. . i..-J_! II ~..-; I-
C:..:::nr.:1II. .!llllI!lIlII' 1'"'1.'1.
p~..:;, ):'1 8' ~ . '~~i;"
I,___".i\ lZiioo/ImlI I"'" 'I
':~6'.1 :,:,?" (llIfllilt!il!l I' (i"'1
:"'J':l','<-r;?r'J})~""'I:,';~'
,UL ....-,____~-_.m.l '.
'ir~f~r--- };'~:I
'~~;:},~ ~~;!r ___, j~;~(j_ I
r..'!'.".-j'D"l"'- '-'.':
-r-~'" .o.d: ' 1_'-''"'-,; )0, ..},.l .. _
~"-;rJ I Uill!I,r ' --'~:'~ - --I
:~~~1:'-~= . ..---L~~f--;~~~___:-:j
: v!,) J~ffi: '... i-;.~J 1
, .!:.?~~ l~pr :;: -ffAj ~
!/,:"'~.)l, .'~'.}2~~'_~1
",J ""t ~-b!: ~ )'-;r \,.=-- ---;
J""!~f-~~~. . '_'_, ~'}'~;~~~I~~~~~~I
I.,' "'1' ~m:iJ....J='ljl " .1""~ltJi"'_""'11 I
p:o~~r? l "11:IIiiIii!il ~;:j~(~~ -'1_ --.'' I
.LI '-:::Ul =====" 11-""",:-1'~' _~(I J
l(l~i:\~~' ---~-'. r ~~.~~\="-_"=~:_~.-=--1_-,---
'C~':'")I ., '/ 'of JI
',tFtr ,.. ,:-~~: ~ 1,J~(~~- ~-,-:>-- .~r=-1
~- J" (Gflio:::I:l'l '" "." ;"ltijlil!llliRUI'
'.i';. ~~. 1:<:('~! -1111_..'"
\~:h- __ll :: '" 11\\ ',- ____,
. __ _ -!';'il~_:'_j~~i~7C~1
;~!~~~;stb~____ ....,-:Ei.:J1
2rY"\
02
~-<
~-l
>""
u:l
-l
u:l
-l
~
$'
L.Ll
c:::
3i
~
2
~
"l
.
:r::
u
ZUl
-..::~
o:::t:
2
:r;:J
CJ::E
:::J~
-..::U
0..2
....,0
CI)
0:::0
0>
0:::23
o
o
~1?O)j1 H .
~~C)~
u
z....
Q~
I-<..J
<p..
Gi
..J
t.L1
..J
~
o
E
g
~
o
u
~
t.L1
.
'r--
--1\
L_~___~_____________
:r::
u
~~
~~
:r:;:)
c.?~
::J8
-<z
0..0
-VJ
~~ .
0<
~Cl
.
WmJ ~ =
: ~)l ~i
u~.... ~t
""
.
ZN
OZ
~<C
1;;:0-1
>""
Ul
0-1
Ul
0-1
<C
Z
o
~
I-<
~
Cl
<C
~
~
U
~
Ul
.
:c
u
Z[fl
-<~
~I-<
Z
:c::J
tJ~
::JO
-<U
p..Z
......0
VJ
~9
0>
~CS
W~""~~
: .;'0)1 ~1
~... ""
u
z"'"
oz
(:::5
..:""
>
5
J.ll
....J
..:
~
-
C
g
~
o
u
~
.
.
I.'
I.
:r:
u
Z~
"'::c
0::5
:r:;:s
c.:J;:s
~8
...::z
0..0
>-<(1')
0::0
:>
0..:
0::0
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
RORIPAUGH RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES EXCERPT
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-1.doc
8
.
'.
..
ASHBY USA. ue
FIGURE 4-53
EAST COAST TRADITIONAL
Inspiration Photo:
Design features:
. Covered front porch entry
- Multi-pal1<l windows
- Stucco trim detailing
- Flat arch openings
- Hiplgable combination roof shapes
. Exterior plaster walls
- Boxed overhangs
The Keith comp4niesln<.C
NOT TO SCALE
I I
-r
ro~
~I
"01
CO
L..!o1
I-~
--~
Clh
ro~
O~'
~
()~
--~
Clr
ro~
II
WJ
H () (if );ulgll/<:: H;/f wI )
ASHBY USA. UC
FIGURE 4-58
./ -.
MONTEREY
(..)
Inspiration Photo:
c)
'-
The I(e~th comptltliesln<:.C
NO' TOll C " I. E
I I
u'" ut'~1
..
Design features:
- Arched focal poinl
- Deep recessed openings
- Multi-pane windows
. - Exposed rafter tails
- Wood pickel railings
- Wrought iron detailing
- SpaniSh tile roof
I? ( ) l"i 1 );t II L;11":.
J{;UlC"/1
o
~~
x
~
i
Iii
~,
~
~
m
2
~
I
~
s
I
.
.
.
.
.
AS1-I8YUSA., UC
FIGURE 4-60
SPANISH REVIVAL
.~
Inspiration Photo:
Design features:
. Arched focal point
- Exposed beam headers
- Recessed window
- Wrought iron accent details
- Alcoved entry
- Barrel tile day roofing
- Exterior smooth plaster walls
- Ceramic tile accents
The Keith comoeniellllT'J.<.C
MOT T Q $ C A l.. E
I J
~
H()]'jJ>all~h-
Ctl!
~~i
&1
.r::.~
C/)~
._~
C
Ctl~
~
l
B
~
!
I
Hnllcl1
-~
\
.I
,,--....
I )
"J
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Provide two color sets of the above at the scales indicated including a duplicate sel of the color
and materials board. In addttion. provide six (6) sets of the above in reduced. 11" x 17" black and
white format.
4.10.3.3 Architecture Forward and Garage Standards
The following standards shall apply 10 all residential Planning Areas. except as specified:
. "Architectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into 1 00% of the homes in Planning
Areas10. 19, 20, 21, and 33A. "Archttectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into at
least 50% ofthe homes in each of Planning Areas 1A, 2. 3, 4A, 46,12.14.15.16,17.18.22,
23, 24. and 31. This concept includes advancing the architecture of the living space forward
on the lot while concurrentJy, the garage is held in place or further recessed. Residential
dwelling unils shall be designed 10 allow the living portion of lhe dwelling unil 10 be
"posttioned" forward on tI1e lot so that the architecture of the garage will not dominate the
street scene.
. A variety of garage placement solutions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the
homes. Minimum driveway length from the property line to the garage door shall be eighteen
feel (f8') for front-entry garages in all Planning Areas and len feet (10') from the property line
to the garage edge for side entry garages in the Land LM Districts. Garage solutions that
should be incorporated into the overall design are as follows:
Shallow Recessed Garaoes (See Figure 4-62)
Setting the garage back a minimum of eight feel (8') in relationship 10 the front of
the house.
Mid to DeeD Recessed GaraQes (See Figure 4-63)
Setting the garage back to the middle or rear of the lot.
Third Car Side Loaded (See Figure 4-64)
Setting for garage with side-loaded entry. This plan can only occur on larger lols.
Side Entry Garaaes (See Ftgure 4-65)
The use of side entry garages on 10lS alleast 52 feet wide in order to break the
continuous view 01 garage doors along the street scene.
Third Car Tandem (See Figure 4-66)
Setting for third car tandem garage.
Sinole Width Drivewavs (See Figure 4-(7)
This setting provides a maximum driveway width of twelve (12) feet for adjacent
two-car garage.
Porte Cochere (See Figure 4-68)
Setting provides lor the incorporation of a porte cochere.
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan
N:131367_000IdodlSPSect44CCAdopled.doc
4-98
Man:h, 2003
.
.
.
.
.
.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations
There is a tendency to have "build out" planes maximized on side and rear yards without
articulated treatment of those planes. This results in a two-story stucco effect with no vertical or
horizontal relief. Utilize the following techniques or other acceptable techniques to avoid this
effect:
. Create a single-story plane at the rear by recessing the second story.
. Utilize other similar arcMectural treatments and designs such as balconies or pop out
staircases to encourage relief on potential large arcMeclural planes.
. Side and rear elevations shall have articulation with modulated facades, window treatment,
second story projections and balconies.
. Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ("Four-sided Archftecture").
Front Elevations
. Architectural projections shall be utilized to emphasize entrances, balconies, and porches.
Fronls of houses shall utilize several architectural features. Ground floor windows shall have
significant trim or relief, second floor overhangs or buin in planters. Second story windows
shall have similar treatment to emphasize them.
. All residences shall incorporate entry courtyards, covered entries or covered porches at the
entry into the design. (See Figure 4,71 and 4-72).
. Details shall be concentrated around entrances. Materials used for the Ironl entry shall be
distinctive.
. Building elemenls that reflect the arcMeclural style should be incorporated into building
entries, windows, front porches, and living areas direclly adjacent to the street.
. Omamental features including wrought iron and exterior light features shall be combined with
other features 10 create interest in the front of the house with architecturally compatible
elements.
Rorioauoh Ranch Soecific ptan
N:\31357.000\d0d\SPSect44CCAdopled.doc
4.125
March. 2003
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.6 Architectural Elements
A successful project design achieves a proper visual balance and sense 01 cohesiveness. The .
differences between the plans and elevation must be readily discernable and create variety, yet al
the same time elements, styles and materials should not contrast 10 such an extent as to resu~ in
visual chaos. Architectural elements will play a sign~icant role in the establishment. of the
architectural style. These elements include architectural detailing. colors and materials. and other
site structures. The required Architectural and design elements techniques are as follows:
Unit Entries (See Figures 4-71 and 4-72)
The entry serves several important architectural and psychOlogical functions: it identifies and
frames the front doorway; it acts as an interface between Ihe public and private spaces; and it
acts as an intrOduction to the structure while creating an inilial impression.
. The entry shall be designed and located so as to readily emphasize its prime functions.
Accent materials are encouraged to be used to further emphasize the entries.
. If the front door location is not obvious or visible because of building configuration, the entry
shall direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry area in
merchant-built housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact of the garage on the
facade.
. Entry doors and doorways shall be proportional to the architectural style of the structure.
. Covered entries, courtyards and porches shall be provided as entry elements.
Doors
Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major
introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given on the image it creates.
.
. Either single or double doors are appropriate.
. The door shall be covered by an overhead element or recessed a minimum of 3 ft into the wall
plane.
. The entire door assembly shall be treated as a single design element including surrounding
frame, molding and glass sidelights.
. Recessed doors may be used to convey \he appearance of thick exterior doors.
. Wood may be used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels
contribute to the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in
order to be acceptable, they shall possess the same residential "feer provided by the wood
grain and panels.
. Doorways shall be typically rectangular or round-headed and fully recessed. Spiral columns,
arches, pilaster, stonework, decorative tiles, or other sculptural details shall be integrated !oto
the doorway design to enhance the visual importance of the entry door.
RoriDauah Ranch Soeciflc Plan
N:\31367.000\dod\SPSect44CCAdopled.doc
4-127
March. 2\lO3
.
.
.
.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
. The use of glass in the door and overall assembly is encouraged. It expresses a sense of
welcome and human scale. It can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as
single sidelights, double sidelights, transom glass or fan windows.
. Flexibility is allowed conceming the color of the door. It may match or contrast the accent
trim, but should be differentiated from the wall color.
Windows
. Typically, the location of windows is determined by the practical consideration of room layout,
possible furniture placement, view opportunities and concem for privacy. Greater design
emphasis should be directed to ensure that window placement and organization will pos~ively
con!r;bu/e 10 the ex/erior architectural character. Windows grea/Iy enhance the elevation
through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination w~h other design elements. This
relationship to one another and the walVroof plane creates a composition and sense of order.
. All windows in a specific plan elevation shall be in/egra/ed into the arch~ecture of the building.
This should not be interpreted that they are alllhe same shape, size or type but rather thai a
hierarchy of windows exists that visually relates and complements one window to another.
,
. Windows shall be recessed to convey the appearance 01 thick exterior walls. Non-recessed
windows shall be surrounded With articula/ed arcMectural elements such as wood trim,
stucco surrounds, shutters or recessed openings, shutters, pot shelves, ledges, sills plantons,
and rails that compliment the architecture. .
. Merchant-built housing occasionally fails to adequately address proper window design and
placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritization, maintenance and
cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible,
greater design effort and budget prior~ization need to be given.
GaraQe Doors (See Figure 4-73)
. Utilizing garage types thai complimentlhe arch~ecture, door designs, and plotting /echniques
will do much to lessen the repetitious garage doors marching down both sides of a residential
street Variations include:
o Employment of second-story feature windows above the garage.
o Strong architectural entry elements.
o Designs with a mix of 2 and 3 car garages, incorporating three single doors in some
three car garage plans not facing the street
o Allowance for a 10-foot setback between adjacent garages.
o The use of tandem garages may also be incorporated into the building design.
o Garage plans with a double door and a single door plan shall not be placed next to
each other.
. If applicable, where lot wid1h permits plans should include swing-in or side entry garages With
reduced fronl yard setbacks of ten (t 0) feet
RorioauCJh Ranch SoeciUc Plan
N:\31367.000\d0d\SPSect44CCAdcpted.doc
4.128
March, 2003
DESIGN GUIDELINES
. The design of the garage door shall relate to the overall architectural design 01 the residence.
Colors shall be from the same paint palette.
. Ornamentation of garage doors shall be provided to add visual interest from the street scene.
. The use of the sectional, wood or metal, rolling garage door is required since ~ maximizes the
availability of useable driveway length.
. Several different panel designs shall be utilized for any project proposed by each merchant
builder. Metal doors shall only be used when they include either texture or raised panels of a
"residentiar nature. The use of window elements is encouraged.
. The design of the door face shall result in a treatment which breaks up the expanse of the
door plane while being complimentary to the architectural elevation of the residence.
Architectural detail consisting of cornices, applied molding or trim or applied headers shall be
used. There shall be an 6" recess. (See Exhibit 4--73).
Rorioauah Ranch Soeeilic Plan
N:1313S7.000\d00\SPSect44CCAdopled.cloc
4-129
March, 2003
.
.
.
.
.
.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.7 Residential Roof Form
Allowable Roof P~ch (See Figure 4-74)
. Allowable roof pitches of 3:12 to 4:12 shall be used. Allowable roof pUches over balconies
and/or porches may be 2:12.
. A single roof pitch should be used on opposite sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches tend to
lessen the apparent building mass.
Roof Tvoos
The use of dijferent roof types will add variety and interest to the street scene. Changing the roof
form on a given plan is the best method of creating alternative elevations. However, the roof
characteristics should be consistent with the historical style that is chosen.
. Hip, gable and shake-like material shall be used separately or together on the same rool.
Avoid a canyon effect in side yards when both buildings have front-to-rear gables, by
providing dormer or hip elements.
. Repetitious gable ends along rear elevations shall be avoided. Roof forms wilh pitch changes
at a porch or projection are preferable.
. Roof forms having dual pitches such as Gambrel or Mansard shall not be used.
. Maximize variations in roollines by offsetting roof planes and combining single.story elements
with two-story elemenls. Long uninterrupted roollines should be avoided. Mechanical
equipment is not permitted on roofs.
Desion of Rakes and Eaves
. The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave types based on climatic and
stylistic considerations.
. Moderate or extended overhangs are acceptable if property designed. Tight fascia with
appropriate style are acceptable.
. Single or double fascia boards, exposed rafters, or fascias with planscias when adequately
scaled, are acceptable.
. Care shall be laken to ensure that material sizes avoid a weak or flimsy appearance.
Overhana Proiections and Covered Porches
. Substantial overhangs are required as a response to solar and climatic conditions.
. The inclusion of covered porches and entries are required as part of the product mix. They
expand shellered living space, create entry statements and provide elevation/relief.
. Rear covered porches may differ from the roof in both pilch and material, but front porches
should retain at least one of these two characteristics.
Rorioauoh Ranch Soecffic Plan
N:131367.OOOIdod\SPSe<I44CCAdopled.doc
4.133
March. 2003
,
..
ASHBY USA. u.c
FIGURE 4-70
miotJ~~~cr
I ~ -z.. - 0/ \"trJMV'7'
.c MiX1V~~ ~I~!?
f>tJy) M4~Iru;.'fFeNl~
VJrfZl t;;D
.
W~
z..
'7tzf9'
2 '2-
~wy "71W't
t
~y
. . . '.
'. -.
." .'
~
V~~6P ftCF~~~.
{v'Ii;< Cf CNB~1WO 9fliF-l~.
-f
00.
<Di
~
o~
~i
I
"'C .'
~
Cl
(Oi
Q>B
c~
oj
Of-
o
><
--
E
""'-""
00
Q)
a..
~
Of-
o
o
c::
"'0
<D
.C
(0
>
.
;;5~
Rorjpaugll~ Ranell
The Keith cornP41nielllT1<.C .
TO. C A L IE
I
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION NO 2004
R:\ProduCl Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-1.doc
9
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0725 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 99 DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF
THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH
OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT
MAP 2'9661-2.
WHEREAS, Davidson Communities, filed Planning Application No.PA03-0725, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0725 was processed including, but not
limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA03-0725
on April 21, 2004 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony,the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-0725;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA03-0725 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the
Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with ali applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential
development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and
building codes.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking,
circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04.doc
1
protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has
been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all
applicable policies, gUidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure thaf the
development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. PA03-0725 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
certified and there are not substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0725 for a Product Review for detached
single family residences within Planning Area 2 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located
south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road,
Tract Map 29661-2. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Pianning Commission this 21st day of April 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
(SEAL)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of April 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03.0725\Draft Resolution w CofAM4-21-04.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0725
Project Description:
A Product Review for 99 detached single family
residences within Planning Area 2 of the Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Stage Road, Tract Map 29661-2.
Tentative Tract No.:
29661-2
DIF Category:
Per Development Agreement
Approval Date:
April 21, 2004
April 21, 2006
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. 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 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 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
2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any
agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from
any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside,
void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the
way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the
permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time
period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall
deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover
anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit
once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or
cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify,
R\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661.2, PA03-Q725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04.doc
4
defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any
of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required
deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the
applicant.
3. 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.
4. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits, including
elevations, floor plans, landscaping plans, hardscape plans, and plotting plan, contained
on file with the Planning Department or as amended by these Conditions of Approval.
5. The coiors and materials (including lighting) for this project shall substantially conform to
the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department. Any
deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of
Planning.
6. This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other
regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions
consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building
and other necessary permits and approvals for the project.
7. The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior
dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance
of building permits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of
garage wall to the opposite wall, steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any
similar type feature. When the top of the stem wall is more than 8" above the garage
floor, the required dimension is measured from the inside edge of the stem wall.
8. Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment
Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and
Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department.
9. Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site.
10. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards.
In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited
to 24' maximum.
11. All Spanish Revival and Monterey styles shall utilize a smooth to light texture stucco
finish (20/30 aggregate or smoother) as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
East Coast Traditional styles shall utilize a light-medium (16/20 aggregate) finish.
12. Monterey and Spanish Revival shall include arched focal points. Each focal point shall
be unique for the appropriate style. Focal points may include arched doors, windows, or
other forms as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
13. All Monterey styles shall utilize a Spanish style tile roof.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Oavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03.0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04.doc
5
,0..,
14. All Spanish Revival styles shall include a Barrel tile clay roof.
15. One style of each plan shall provide a roof plan that is clearly different than the other
styles in order to provide variation along the front and rear street scene.
16. Corner lots shall be appear as a second front elevation and include elements from the
front elevation, such as materials, arched focal points, courtyards, patios as approved by
the Planning Director.
17. Each style shall include decorative garage doors that provide a variation in style and
shall include windows as appropriate, as approved by the Planning Director.
18. Each style and style shall enhance the side a rear elevations to include elements from
the front elevation to satisfy the four-sided architecture requirement. This can be
accomplished with additional arched windows, siding and/or materials, window sill
treatment, or as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
19. The Spanish Revival and/or Monterey shall include an additional material(s) such as
brick or stone to differentiate between the styles.
20. All materials such as stone, brick and siding shaH wrap around the side yard to the fence
return or as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
21. Fencing on corner lots shall be pulled back towards the rear on exterior corner lots to
open up the exposed elevation to the street as determined acceptable by the Planning
Director.
22. Fencing between units (on interior side yards and rear yards, but excluding view fencing)
where not visible from the street shall be wood fence as shown in figure 2-15 (privacy
fencing) or as approved by the Planning Director.
23. Fencing along lot 1, adjacent to the paseo trail shall include a low slumpstone wall for
the first 20 feet and transition into a 6-foot project wall as shown in figure 4-38 (Paseo
entry).
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
24. The applicant shall submit a Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
25. 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.
26. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Materials Boards and of the colored
version of the approved colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department for
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable
on the photographic prints.
27. A street tree master plan indicating what tree species will be planted on each street shall
be submitted. The plan should graphically show the locations of all trees. One tree
species per street shall be provided.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4~21-04.doc
6
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
28. The applicant shall comply with standards conditions and requirements set forth in the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval
for Tract Map 29353 (PA01-0230, A-Map), Tract Map 29661 (PA01-0253, B-Map), and
Ordinance No. 02-14, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Ashby USA, LLC for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to
attachment "5", which requires various on and off-site improvements.
29. The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for
final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the Specific Plan, Riverside County Mt.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall
comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install
hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights
must be downward facing).
30. The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the
location of each mailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval
of the Postmaster and Planning Director.
3t. Prior to issuance of any residential building permit within Planning Area 4A, the
construction landscape and architectural plans for Paseos (including hardscaping,
landscaping, fencing, lights and gates), Paseo gates Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card
Key Entry, fuel modification zones shall be submitted and approved
32. Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model
Home complex permit.
33. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of
one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan
shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from the completion of the
landscaping. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been
maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be
released.
34. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans, plotting plan,
structural setback measurements shall be submitted and approved.
35. The developer shall demonstrate to the Planning Director that all homes will have double
paned windows with at least a 25 STC rating installed to reduce noise from occasional
aircraft over flights.
36. The developer shall provide proof that construction debris, including but not limited to
"Iumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper and metal is recycled through the City's solid
waste hauler, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department.
37. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical
Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations
and the Temecuia Municipal Code.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04.doc
7
38. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
39. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to
commencement of any construction or inspections.
40. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
and structurai calculations submitted for plan review.
41. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
42. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original
signed by an appropriate registered professional.
43. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan
review.
44. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-
21, 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
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
45. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with
the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The
irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
46. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved
construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for
one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and
irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of
Planning, the applicant shall release the bond upon request.
47. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
48. Front yard and slope landscaping. hardscaping and fencing within individual lots shall be
completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model
home complex structures).
49. The developer shall submit proof that all local refuse generators have been provided
with written information about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e.
buyback centers, curbside availability), subject to the approval of the Public Works and
Community Services Departments.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04.doc
8
50. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Name Printed
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21~04.doc
9
ATTACHMENT NO.4
LETTER TO APPLICANT DATED JANUARY 21, 2004
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661 ~2, PA03-Q725\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
10
.
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula - California 92589-9033-
(909) 694-6400 - FAX (909) 694-6477
January 21, 2004
Ms. Paula Lombardi
Davidson Communities
1302 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
SUBJECT: Planning Application PA03-Q725 for the product review of the new single-family
homes proposed for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
Dear Paula:
.
Staff has reviewed Planning Application PA03-0725 and has determined that the project cannot be
approved as proposed. Below is a list of. recommended and/or required changes to the above
referenced project.
General Comments
1. Section 4. t 0.3.4 of the specific plan requires single story products as determined by the
market or by staff. Staff has determined that a reasonable number of lots (no less than 20%)
are required to be developed with a single story product. Please provide a single story
product for staff's review. The comments below shall be incorporated into the single story
product.
2. Per our conversation, each style is proposed to utilize a 20/30 sand float stucco finish with
squared corners. Please provide a sample of this stucco finish. The sample provided
appears to be a heavier aggregate.
.
3. Provide clear notes on the elevations indicating depth of recessed doors and windows, width
and depth of borders, overhang length, type of materials, finish etc. Staff has found that a +1-
system is a good method of showing how much a window, door, or plane is recessed or
projected from the wall plane. .
Staff has reviewed the plot plan and has determined that many of the setbacks have not
been met. Lots 31 , 50, 59, 81, and 100 do not meet the 10-foot exterior side yard setback.
Lot 78 does not meet the 18-foot garage face setback. Lot 81 does not meet the 20-foot rear
yard setback. Also, while the remainder of the lots appear to meet the setbacks, staff
strongly recommends the front setbacks vary in order to provide interest from the street
4.
R:\Product Revicw\R.oripaugb Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2. PA03.Q725\couunenl leIIer-1.doc
I
scene. As proposed many lots utilize a 1D-foot setback with little variation from lot to lot.
Please revise where possible to provide. interest. .
5. Elements from the front elevation of each plan should be carried over to the sides and rear
so the architectural style is clearly evident from all sides. This can be accomplished with
varied roof pitches, additional exposed beams, variations in the window type such as arched
windows, vertical or horizontal windows, chimney design, etc. The specific plan requires four
sided architecture, which has been interpreted that the architectural style shall be clearly
evident from each side of the residence. As proposed, the sides and rears offer little
variation from each other.
6. Monterey and Spanish architecture utilize many of the same features, Which creates difficulty
when trying to distinguish the two styles from each other. Staff recommends either a fourth
architectural style or choosing an alternative style, as approved by staff in order to clearly
distinguish between the styles. If this recommendation is not taken, please note that in order
to recommend approval, there must be clear differences in each style including materials,
colors and overall design.
7. Staff has reviewed the color variations proposed and while Spanish and Monterey may have
utilized similar color palettes historically, the specific plan requires that the colors vary for
each style. The specific plan requires a minimum of four color variations for each style in
each planning area (Section 4.10.3.1). Said color variations must not be the same as
another style within the same planning area.
8.
Staff recommends including additional materials into the products as necessary. Staff feels
the use of brick on the Monterey style could help distinguish itself from Spanish.
9.
All supplemental materials such as shingle siding, stone, brick etc. should wrap around the
side elevations. Said materials should wrap to the side yard fence or to point it is no longer
visible from the street
10. The specific plan requires all corner lots to provide a second front elevation. As proposed,
none of the corner lots provide a second front elevation as required. One option that could
be considered is providing one or two plans designed specifically for corner lots. Another
option is to provide a special side corner lot elevation for each plan. Staff has also accepted
wrap around porches and low walls wrapping around the side to create a courtyard effect. It
is important to note that fencing on the corner lots shall be pulled back to display the
elevation as opposed to shielding it from the street
11. Please provide staff with altemative types of front doors and garage doors related to the
particular architectural style proposed. The specific plan encourages single or double doors,
glass sidelights, surrounding frames, and molding around the door. The specific plan slates
"Emphasis should be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the
major introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given on the image it
creates."
12. The City recommends that all accent relief elements installed below eight feet of ground
level be constructed of dense, durable material (not soft foam) to assure long term durability.
Please indicate materials to be used on the elevations.
R:\Product Rcvic:w\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davicbon Communities Tr 29661-2. PA03-0725\commcnt letter.l.doc
2
.
.
.
.
.
13.
Please revise summary table sheet for the project. The lot coverage shall be recalculated to
show the footprint divided by the lot area. The architectural style should also be shown on
the summary sheet. Also, please show the correct setbacks as required for the lots
mentioned in comment No.4 above as well as the adjusted front setbacks.
14. Please note that garages are required to be 20' by 20' measured from the interior wall or
drywall and from the interior of the garage door to any barrier (stem wall or pole) greater than
8-inches in height. The floor plans should provide interior dimensions for the garage. While
the floor plans indicate the garages measure 20' x 20', they do not measure 20' x 20'.
Please revise the plans so all garages scale to the 20' x 20' interior dimensions.
15. Please keep in mind that the specific plan requires 50% of the residences to include
architecture forward. Make sure that when the single story product is introduced into the
plotting, no less than 50% of the lots shall maintain the architectural forward concept.
16. Please show the roof pitch on the plans. One way to differentiate between the styles is by
varying the roof pitch and design. While there are slight differences in the roof design, staff
feels the variations do not go far enough to clearly distingUiSh between the styles. Staff
recommends a steeper roof pitch for East Coast Traditional. Spanish and Monterey typically
have similar roof styles. Please see comment NO.6 above. If a different architectural style is
not provided, it is your responsibility to provide creative differences between each plan.
17. As proposed, the plot plan shows lots 16, 31, and 60 with the side of the garage facing the
street. Since all comer lots are required to maintain two front elevations, staff feels that
these floor plans should be flipped in order to expose the more decorative side elevation.
18.
Staff has reviewed the proposed decks and will not recommend approval as shown. Decks
must appear as a structural component of the residence and be decorative. Please revise all
decks for each plan.
19. Staff acknowledges that there are strict setbacks and small lots. In order to avoid setback
problems, staff requires that you pre-plot all decks in order to determine what lots can
accommodate a rear yard deck. .
20. The specific plan requires omamental features including decorative light features combined
with other features to create visual interest in the front of the house with architectural
compatible elements. Please provide spec sheets for the proposed lighting for each
architectural style. Ughting should reflect the architecture of each unit. Please note that
changes in lighting may be approved administratively by staff, if requested.
21. Please provide specification sheets for the proposed street light fixtures, street name signs
and traffic signs. These will be used throughout the project; therefore, it needs to be
requested by Ashby USA.
22. Please show an approximate location of the address for each unit and the method of posting
and lighting the address. For example, will the addresses be backlit or be solid metal painted
black. Please specify the type of addressing proposed for each typical residence.
23. Please plot the location and show a detail of the type of mailboxes proposed. This will also
be used project wide and must be requested by Ashby USA and the U.S. Postmaster.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Raucb SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\c:ommeot Ietter-I.doc
3
24.
Please plot the location of all AC units on the plot plan. AC units shall be provided in the rear
yard to allow. clear access on the side yards.
25. Fencing should be revised to meet the specific plan standards. See section 2-15 of the
specific plan for fencing standards. I order to maintain a consistent theme within the entire
specific plan, walls and pilasters between residences are to be slump.stone (stucco walls
and pilasters will not be accepted). Also, wrought iron view fencing shall be either dark
green, aged copper or bronze. Staff will accept any color, however you must coordinate with
the merchant builders and Ashby USA to determine what color will be utilized project wide.
Ashby USA will be required to amend the specific plan so it applies project wide.
26. Chimney designs should be decorative and reflect each style. The same chimney design
should not be used for two different architecture styles.
27. Elevations should provide a note indicting the room option for all dotted windows and/or
doors.
28. Typical lighting for each architectural style should be provided. Lighting should be provided
in the front entryway and/or at the garage entry.
29. Provide examples of door types to be offered. Doors should include glass and stress the
importance as the focal point of the front elevation. Staff also recommends double doors,
arched doors or other alternatives that will stress the' entry as a focal point.
30.
Provide a detail of each window border proposed for each architecture style. Where
windows are not recessed, a border shall be provided
All front, rear and visible side windows (from the front and rear) should include decorative
borders sills for windows nearest the front and rear elevation and on select side elevations to
show importance.
31.
32. Please provide a written analysis of each floor plan/architectural style indicating how the plan
meets or establishes the necessary architectural theme.
33. Please revise the plot plan so all text is facing the same direction. As shown some of the
language is upside down, which makes it difficult to review.
Plan 1
34. Provide a separate side elevation for all comer lots (Apply to all necessary plans as plotted).
35. The sides and rear elevations are too similar. Please provide unique details for each style in
order to satisfy the four sided architecture requirement.
36. The left elevation includes a long uninterrupted wall with no breaks. Please provide
projections or breaks in the wall.
37.
Windows should be either recessed, projected, include borders, shutters or alternative
decorations to enhance each window. Also, in order to carry around the architecture to each
side, arched or round windows, wrought iron details, etc. shall be provided as necessary
(This applies to all plans).
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davtdson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03..0725\comment letter-I.doc
4
.
.
.
.
38.
The location of the fence should be relocated on the exterior side yard elevation (all plans
plotted on comer lots).
39. Balconies should be functional where possible. Please consider expanding balconies where
necessary to compliment the style. For example, Monterey styles typically include long
covered balconies that run a significant length of the elevation.
40. Please provide unique details for each style. Windows, trim, doors, materials are all the
same or too similar. Each style must provide unique details. Please provide a detail sheet
showing typical details for each style, including doors, borders, sills, windows, lighting,
garage doors, etc. (One sheet shall include details for each plan).
Plan 2
41.
42.
43.
44.
. 45.
Plan 3
46.
47.
48.
The front elevations need to be enhanced with a covered entry or a porch. The entries do
not show importance and shall be enhanced to show importance.
The left elevation includes a long uninterrupted wall with no breaks. Please provide
projections or breaks in the wall.
Windows should be either recessed, projected, include borders, shutters or altemative
decorations to enhance each window.
The sides and rear elevations are too similar. Please revise each provide unique details in
order to satisfy the four sided architecture requirement.
While care must be taken not to make each plan too similar, the balconies should be
addressed as noted in comment No. 38 above.
The right elevation needs to be enhanced to avoid a long uninterrupted wall. As proposed,
there is little inte~est along this wall.
The chimney design for each style must be different for each style. Please revise as
necessary.
Side and rear elevations are all too similar, please ensure each plan elevation includes
unique features of the style.
Fence Comments:
49. Please remove all references to stucco walls and/or pilasters. While the specific plan
indicates stucco may be used, there has been a consensus among builders to provide
slump stone walls and pilasters. In order to maintain a consistent theme throughout the
specific plan, the plans must be revised to show slump stone.
50. Please revise the fence plans to show a 6-foot slump stone project wall between units and to
the point of the rear connection to the unit. The plans show a low stucco wall between units.
.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 2966I:Z. PA03-072S\comment letter.l.doc
5
Please revise the plans 10 show a 6-foot slump stone project wall for lots adjacent to paseos
(Jot 1). The plans show a low stucco wall for the lenglh ofthe paseo.
52. Please revise the fence plans to include a pilaster at the front of the jog in the wall between
units. Also, a break in the wall plane no less than 2 feet is required. .
51.
53. Please revise the view fencing to include the correct color of tubular steel. While the specific
plan allows for dark green, aged copper or bronze, staff wants to ensure there is a
consistent color used throughout the specific plan. Please contact Ashby USA and the
merchant builders to determine the color to be used.
54. Please provide a nole on the plans that all retaining walls will be constructed of slump stone
to match the project walls.
55. Staff has made a determination that pilasters will not be required on interior lots. Since many
of the lot lines do not align, pilaster will not be required for private fencing on the interior lols
only. Pilasters are still required fort exterior side yards, exposed rear yards and view fencing.
56. Please pull the fencing back towards the rear of the lot of comer lots. As noted above,
corner lots must include 2 front elevations and the fencing shall be pulled back to expose the
architecture.
57. Staff feels that connection fence connection for plan 2 should be pulled back behind the
entry (example Lot 20). This will open up the architecture and show the entry, which is
required to be a focal point of the front elevation.
Landscape Comments:
Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. Multiple tree choices are provided for
several plan symbols. There is no indication as to which symbol references each tree and the tree
character may be one of several. Several symbols are used for all shrubs. The list of shrubs varies
greatly in character. Please provide one symbol for each tree and one symbol for each type of
shrub (i.e. large evergreen screen shrubs, small accent, color shrub, etc.). The comments below
are provided for applicant direction. Final comments are reserved until a more complete plan is
provided.
58. Per the specific plan, the minimum size tree is to be 24" box. Please revise accordingly.
59. Per the specific plan, one street tree along with one front yard tree shall be planted per lot.
Please add trees as required and revise note accordingly.
60. Per the specific plan, ground cover shall be planted continuous under all shrubs and trees.
Please provide ground covers as required.
61. Per the specific plan all shrub beds shall be covered with a 2" layer of 1"-3" walk on bark.
Please provide for this requirement.
62. Please clarify that all hardscape within the front yard is to be colored concrete, paving
stones, flag stone or a combination of various textures, shapes and materials.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidsoo Communities Tr 29661-2. PA03-0725\commeolletter-l.doc
6
.
.
.
63.
.
64.
65.
66.
67.
.
.
Side yards outside of the fence have the potential to be forgotten and neglected. Please
provide drought tolerant, maintenance free plantings that will survive if irrigation is tumed off
and plantings are neglected.
Crape Myrtle is subject to powdery mildew in the Temecula area. Please specify mildew
resistant varieties (i.e. Indian Tribe, Faurei).
Melaleuca quinquenervia, Tristania conferta. Metrosideros excelsus, and Bougainvillea are
subject to freeze in the Temecula area. Please provide substitutes.
Please use Liriope in shaded areas only. It is subject to bum in seasonal high temperatures
in the Temecula area.
The applicant is to insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities and traffic sight
lines.
It is critical that you review the design gUidelines in the specific plan before you revise the plans. The
design guidelines includes language that requires window treatment, focal entries, unique details,
windows, materials and features for each style, four-sided architecture. single story products, etc. If
you have any questions regarding the specific plan and/or design guidelines, please feel free to
contact me.
Staff understands there are many comments to be addressed, however staff feels that the
groundwork has been established for a viable project. If you have any questions regarding the
above comments, please feel free to contact me at any time via email at
dan.long@cityoftemecula.org or by phone at (909) 964-6400 extension 198. I look forward to
working with you as this project progresses forward.
Sincerely,
Dan Long
Associate Planner
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 2%61-2, PA03-Q72S\commenlletter-l.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO.5
RESPONSE LETTER FROM APPLICANT DATED JANUARY 29, 2004
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661~2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
11
DAVIDSON
.Ij!JOOl
01/~0/2004 11:58 FAX 8582594644
\ 1301 CAJoONO DU.MA1l
~MA!I.~92D14
(E&) ~ FAA (!SlfI1$'N6M
"""~~
.
\DAVIDSON
COMMUNITIES
Mr. Dan Long
Associate Planner
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92589-9033
January 29, 2004
,',
,
------
..,
p~-i1." Fax Note 7611
To VflN LoNe..
CoJOel>t. p. 1J/lJIN&>
""""".
Subject: PlaIUli.ng AJllllication P A03-0725 for the product review of the new single
family homes proposed for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Planning
Area 2
Dear Mr. Long:
Davidson Project Services, Inc. has reviewed your letter as received on January 21 st, 2004
and subsequently met with you to further our understanding of each item. Our response
is as follows:
1.
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
.
Ai; per our discussion at our meeting on January 2204, Davidson believes that
the market is saturated with one-story homes. Of the 509 homes projected
for the panhandle over 20% will be one story. We respectfully are proceeding
with three two story bomes.
We will submit a "light to medium" sand fmish stucco sample as discussed.
Okay.
Resolved.
Okay.
Davidson will show clear differences in each style including materials. colors,
and overall design.
Okay.
Davidson is adding additional articulation of our existing material pallet.
Oleay.
Davidson feels that all the articulation that has gone into the plans will avail
any elevation to show well plotted on the comers. Further, the market wants
privacy in their yards, particularly their courtyal'ds where they can enjoy
serenity at the end of a long day or play with the children on the weekend.
01/~O/2004 11:58 FAX 8582594644
DAVIDSON
IaJ002
We feel that we meet the requirements of the specific plan and meet the .
dCIllands oflbe market.
\1. Okay.
12.. Okay.
13. Oleay.
\4. All garages measure at least 20 x 20 (interior dimensions).
15. 100% of our Architecture is <<Architecture FotWard". One of our plans
displays a deep-set garage with a porte cachero.
16. Okay.
17. Okay
18. Oleay
19. We will pre-plot all optional decks.
20. Okay .
21. We have requested specification sheets for streetlights, street iwnes and
traffic signs from Ashby USA.
22. Okay
23. Davidson wm plot the mailbox locations and have thCIll approved by the U.S.
postmaster. Further we will request the detail oflbe proposed mailbox design
from Ashby USA.
24. Okay
25. Okay
26. Okay
27. Okay
28. Okay
29. Okay
30. We will provide on the ~ floor as we discussed at the meeting on the 2200. .
"1:::'-'11:...".::;.... 'I.......'........ .... ..... .....
01/30/2004 11:59 FAX 8582594644
DAVIDSON
---
.
31. All windows, all four elevations have trim to match appropriate style. Accent
trim was introduced where appropriate.
32. Okay
33. Our Engineer will do the best they can.
Plan 1
1. Please see response number 10.
2. Okay
3. Okay
4. Okay
s. Please see response number 10.
.
6. We have a functional 8 x 6 balcony over the garage.
7. Okay
PIau 2
1. Per our meeting we pointed out that this plan has a covered porch.
2. Okay
3. Okay
4. Okay
5. The optional deck is at the rear of this plan; the Romea & Juliet balcony is
purely an aesthetic feature.
Plan 3
1. Okay
2. Okay
.
3. The roof was completely redesigned.
taJ003
01/~/2004 11:59 FA! 8582594644
DAVIDSON
-~
141004
--------
-----:.---------
.
Fence Counnents:
L Okay
2. Okay
3. Okay
4. Okay
5. Okay
6. Okay
7. Okay
8. Please refer to item 10.
9. P lease refer to item 10
Landscape COlDJDents: .
First Paragraph: Okay
1. AI; per OllI discussion at our meeting, Davidson meets and exceeds the
requirements.
2. AI; per Olll' discussion at our meeting, Davidson meets and exceeds the
requirements.
All remaining items: Okay
Our consultants are in the process of complying with staff5 coIIlIDents lIS noted in
this coITCSpOndence. The addressed co1lllIlenls will be in your office on Febroary 6111
for your review.
AI; you know, our concern is to get the project ~proved. We would verJ much
appreciate being calendared for the February 18 Plarming Commission Hearing-
Certainly anything Staff can do would be most appreciated.
Sineerely,
.
DAVIDSON COMMUNITIES LETTER
DATED MAY 11, 2004
R:\ProdUct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavldson Communities Tr 29661-2. PAO:l-<l725\pc sr memo 5.19-04.doc
6
RECE:IVEO: b/"ll/U4 ;,,:::<+V,..Mj -........&.,' .......- ..::.....................,.,.~ ............, ...-
85/11/2884 15:28
8582594644
DAVIDSON COMMUNITIES
.
I DAVIDSON
COMMUNlTIES
Il3O'l.CN4lJ'o1QF)tJ.MAR
DIlL MIJI" C,AufOflNtA nIlJ4
(8S9)2S9-:;fSOOPNC(85I)~
_.d..Ivilkorlmrnmullitiet.COIl\
~
May II, 2004
Mr. Dan Long
City ofTemecula
43200 .Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 925&9-9033.
Re: Planning Application P A03-0725, Planning Area 2
Dear Mr. Long:
Davidson PTOject Services has taken into consideration the recommendations the
Planning Commission suggested at the April 21 "hearing. The following
suggestions were made:
.
I. The site plan plotting was changed on the homes backing onto
Murietta Hot Springs Road. Lot 6& became a I A; Lot 60 a 3B,
Lot 73 a I CR, and Lot 74 a 3B. This rear street scene massing study is
shown in the submittal package.
2. The Monterey style homes D.OW have "low profile" roof tile in a lighter
color tone, while the Spanish style has the "S" roof tile in a
darker color tone.
3. We have enhanced all the comer elevations where the Plan 3 occurs on
lots 16, 100.60,41, and &2 with trim.
4. We have enhanced all the comer elevations where the Plan I occurs on
lots 32, & I, SO, and 59. Added window towards fronl at office as well as
trim.
S. We have enhanced the comer elevatiOIl on lot 31 where the 2 plan
occurs. Added window at 2nd floor/master bedroom as well as trim.
6. The site plan, the matrix, lhe color schemes, as well as tb.e landscape
plan have been changed to correlate with all thc plotting and roof color
changes.
7. The garage door styles were changed; the East Coasl Traditional now
has a standard garage door with windows. Two optional upgrades are
also shown in the submittal package. One, a barn style with windows;
another without.
&. The entry door styles were changed, the Spanish Revival now has two
glass panes at the top, and the others are solid. Three optional upgrades
are also shown in the submittal package.
9. The plotting exhibit now illustrates the lower TOofby the color cross-
hatching.
.
PAGE 62/83
RECEXVEC: 5/11/04 2:4UPM; ->U~I. vr ICMC~U~' "~.v. .~-- -
05/11/2664 15:28
8582594644
DAVIDSON Cl:M>\UNITIES
PAGE 63/El3
10. The full-page roof plans also in the submittal package now illustrates the
lower roofby shading.
1bis summarizes our endeavor to fulfill the recommendations of the Planning
Commission. We are hopeful for an approval at the next hearing on May 19,
2004.
Sincerely,
Davidson Roripaugh Ranch 122 LLC
a California limited liablUty company
By: Davidson Project Services, Inc.
a California COIpOration
Manager
Ck~"
Paula Lombardi
Vice President
.
.
.
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
April 21,2004
Prepared by: Dan Long
Title: Associate Planner
File Number PA03-0634
Application Type: Product Review
Project Description: Planning Application No. PA03-0634, submitted by Meeker Companies,
is a product review for 113 detached single-family residences within
Planning Area 4B in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, located south
of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Stage Road (Tract 29661-5).
Plan 1, one-story 2,346 square feet (19 units)
Spanish Revival (8 units)
Prairie (5 units)
East Coast Traditional (6 units)
Plan 2, two-story 2,589 square feet (22 units)
Spanish Revival (7 units)
Prairie (6 units)
East Coast Traditional (9 units)
Plan 3, two-story 2,715 square feet (31 units)
Spanish Revival (10 units)
Prairie (9 units)
East Coast Traditional (12 units)
Plan 4, two-story 2,915 square feet (41 units)
Spanish Revival (13 units)
Prairie (15 units)
East Coast Traditional (13 units)
Recommendation:
D Approve with Conditions
D Deny
[8] Continue for Redesign
D Continue to:
D Recommend Approval with Conditions
D Recommend Denial
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\MeekerCo. Tr 29661-5, PA03~0634\STAFF REPORT-l.doc
I
CEQA:
~ Categorically Exempt
(Class) 15161
o Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring
DEIR
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
George Zeber, Meeker Companies
Completion Date:
March 15, 2004
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
June 15, 2004
General Designation: Low Medium Residential (LM)
Zoning Designation: Low Medium Residential (LM)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residential (Riverside County)
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
Vacant
Vacant
5,000 square foot minimum (range: 5,250 sq. ft. - 15,678 sq. ft.)
Total Floor Area/Ratio N/A
Lot Area:
Landscap~ Area/Coverage N/A
Parking Required/Provided 2 covered enclosed spaces (20' x 20')
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
~ 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed;
however, the following issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction to staff.
The project does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines, however the applicant's
representative insisted that the project be brought before the Planning Commission for a
public hearing. The following is a list of features that have not been provided as required
in the Design Guidelines and/or development standards of the Specific Plan:
. Four sided architecture;
. Detail and/or variation between each style;
. Two front elevations on corner lots;
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co, Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-l.doc
2
. Minimum setback standards (inconsistent dimensions);
. Variation in the placement of garages has not been provided;
. Stucco finish is not consistent with the Design Guidelines;
. Fencing at exposed corners is not consistent with the development standards, and
. Silhouettes/roof do not provide significant variation.
Staff feels that the plans are overall too monotonous and some walls appear as blank
surfaces with little articulation.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has proposed four (4) floor plans and three (3) architectural styles. The applicant
has chosen the option of Design Group E (pg. 4-97) from the Specific Plan, which allows the use
of one style from the design groups A-D (Attachment 4). Staff has reviewed the proposed project
and has design related issues that shall be addressed as well as development standards that do
not meet the minimum standards in the Specific Plan.
The applicant has not provided consistent plans showing that the products meet all of the
development standards, primarily setbacks. As indicated in staff's letter dated January 19, 2004,
staff requested the applicant revised the plot plan to show all setbacks from the same property
line. The applicant uses two different lines to show setbacks. Staff cannot adequately review
plans that do not show the correct setback. However, staff took the initiative to identify the
following lots that do not meet the minimum setbacks:
The required interior side yard setbacks are 5 feet. Lots 108, 47,73, 22, 26, 91 and 87 do not
meet this minimum standard. Lot 23 does not meet the minimum front living space setback of 10
feet or the garage setback of 18 feet (9'-8" and 17'-7" proposed). In addition, lots 27, 28, 29, 30,
31 and 32 do not meet the minimum 25-foot setback along Planning Area 7. Staff would like to
receive direction from the Planning Commission regarding the rear yard setbacks along Planning
Area 7. The Specific Plan requires a 25-foot setback for lots abutting Planning Area 7 along the
southern property line. The above lots abut Planning Area 7; however they do not abut the
existing residences to the south. Staff feels the intent of this setback standard was to provide
additional buffering to the existing residences to the south. Also, the Specific Plan allows for a
reduction of 3 feet in the front setback for lots abutting Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Lot 23
qualifies for this exception, however staff feels the garage setback shall be no less than 18 feet
in order to allow a vehicle to park in the driveway without encroaching into the right-of-way.
Staff feels the plans do not meet the four sided architecture standard in the Design Guidelines.
Staff has determined that in order to satisfy this requirement, the architectural style shall be
identifiable by looking at any side of the residence. Staff feels there are many blank walls with
little articulation to define the architectural style. With little articulation on the rears and sides,
staff cannot determine that there are two front elevations on corner lots. For example, the sides
and rears of Plan 1 are nearly identical with the exception of Spanish Revival, which includes a
decorative detail at the top of the gable of the rear elevation. Staff understands that it is difficult
to meet this requirement for a single story unit; however, the other plans have the same
deficiencies. The applicant has proposed a standard elevation and an enhanced elevation,
however it is not clear which lots are enhanced and which are not. While the enhanced
eievations are a step in the right direction in meeting the four sided requirement, staff still feels
the plans are not to the level that meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. As an example, the
enhanced elevations for Plan 2 include large blank walls with few windows and/or treatment.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
3
Staff feels the applicant has relied on window trim to distinguish the styles as opposed to
materials and forms. The applicant has proposed a variation in the window styles, however they
are not consistent. Spanish Revival is proposing multi-paned windows; however on the
enhanced eievations for Pian 4, many of the second story windows are not multi-paned. While
staff has identified some of the architectural inconsistencies, all of the plans maintain short
comings that do not meet the Design Guidelines.
Staff recommended that the applicant provide rear decks that appear as structural components
of the residence as opposed to plant-on wood decks. While staff agrees that the East Coast
Traditional warrants a wood type deck, staff feels that if wood decks are proposed, they shall be
thick over-sized beams with articulation to portray a quality design. As proposed, the rear decks
for Prairie and East Coast Traditional appear as flimsy attachments as opposed to structural
components of the house.
The Design Guidelines require a variation in garage placement to be incorporated into the
overall design of the homes. As proposed, the applicant has not provided a significant variation
in the piacement of the garage. Staff encouraged the applicant to provide a variation of garage
piacements, including a separate plan with a side entry garage. A total of 13 of the 113 lots are
corner lots and staff felt there were enough corner lots that warrant a side entry garage. While
each plan proposes some living space in front of the garage, there is little variation between
each plan. The deepest recessed garage is Plan 3, which includes an 8-foot setback from the
living space. By providing a deep recessed garage, there is a greater opportunity to propose
Porte Cocheres and/or trellis type features. The Design Guidelines also encourage Porte
Cocheres, trellises, and single width driveways, none of which has been proposed.
The Specific Plan requires fencing to be slumpstone lor all areas visible from the street. The
applicant has proposed wood returns from the pilasters to the residence. Retaining walls shall be
slumpstone block to match the perimeter walls; the applicant has neglected to identify retaining
wall materials.
The Design Guidelines state that Spanish Revival and Prairie shall maintain smooth plaster
walls. The Design Guidelines are not as specific for East Coast Traditional; however staff feels a
light finish is adequate. Typical East Coast styles primarily utilize a siding material. The applicant
has not proposed smooth stucco finish or siding for the proposed s. Staff recommends each plan
be revised as necessary.
The applicant has proposed a similar roof plan and silhouette for each. The primary roof design
as well as the roof pitches are the same for each plan. The applicant has indicated in their
response letter dated February 5, 2004 that variation in the featured elements meets the intent of
the Design Guidelines and that changing the main roof structure is not an option. Plan 2 does
include one style which utilizes a varied roof plan; however staff feels each plan shall be revised
to provide the necessary articulation and variation in order avoid a monotonous street scene and
silhouette.
While staff has identified various inconsistencies between the proposed project and the Design
Guidelines, there are many other aspects of the project that need to be revised in order to be
found consistent with the Design Guidelines. The applicant has submitted a response letter to
staff's initial letter, both of which has been attached.
R:\Proouct Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, P A03-0634\ST AFF REPORT .1.doc
4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
~ 1. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously
approved (Negative Declaration) (EIR) and is exempt from further Environmental
Review (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations).
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has concluded that the proposed project cannot be found consistent with the Design
Guideiines or development standards within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan . Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant and continue the
proposed project for a redesign.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 6
2. Excerpts from the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Design Guidelines - Blue Page 7
3 Staff letter to applicant dated December 11, 2003 - Blue Page 8
4 Applicant response letter dated February 5, 2004 - Blue Page 9
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:\Product Rcview\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-l.doc
6
.
~~i' -.}
;.;,
I~l';
, ;,.--!i:>:.<
'(\~fi?f
~,.
,
.,,~~:~~; .
.
.;
~.
q;~
jri,.
."5
~.
~.
ll..
.~.
:i~;,-.
:~tj
f.",;
. . ..... ",-\>;,
!';?~*"'..
....
~,-
"
"::,,!,
.
r ". ...,'._ .._ """""" .._ ow,.~
.. I
. i
~
~
a
( :
~ ~
~ z
~
~
n
~ ~
~
<
~
E
q
h
8
3
~
=
u
Z Ii
~ ~$~
. ~
1; = =~~
~ : ~gi
~.~
~ p~o
~ ~~u
u~
o~'"
~d
=
m;;
~l'l
= on
YA-
hii
a::n=:li
)..
,..,
'"
~.
I
,...
~
,
. -... ".-._ ""'0 ._>... __ _ --... _ _ _
;.....-. 1..-1
. -
;-"
,.
.'.
'.f
",:.
'/
.
...
. .
j.'
~:" .
. ,,,
.\
.~
. .-
j
.
.~..'
,
!.;
r'.:
~: ',.
".
:-'.~
,"
'. ,~.
:.'j'
.
.'
.,
.'
'.
:... ~ ,
-."
J
" "
',:
.'.
'..
.' :1
)
'~ I"
'.
..
..
<'
,.
',:
J
'..r
.
I."
w
I""
........
;.
""
j
.-'.;-.'
"
,f
""
'J
.~, .
..
;
. ..
J.' ~""_.w. ~
't ::::--=~~; .
.t,=r-~.~
..".......--'
,--
.\IIIiIo_IMo_:
...~_ftIoII
..........11'.I_.
'.11:___-
A.Ipft~.
..::- ..
.:.;::.~::: '
.~::;~:.;~; .
....
'-~~=~';:.~:.'
!. 01..-..........-..... .
..:. ::::.~~. ,
........-....I!"'!' :.,
..-' ~. ..... '.
....~,....
: '.:B:'.;z.-=--~':" .
'. :--,=",--.'
....':;:;:.";;:,~'...
"
,~,IJ~.1,
:.:f
.~ ~ , , .
'{~~~'_:
....-::::::::s::.::r....,.
:=~....'fWto!"
,,". ,--:""llIooj-:
:.<
".
"-.
RORIPAUGH RANCH I
:~~~~~
':1
...
- &.
'.. .,.... ';'.-
~ ~-- .....
. .-~~:i"
.
"-.,,,...'.,'
C-J
.~
!:
\.-.
",::
:..
.-.......
;~> ..:',
..
....
:1 ,,"
,:.
',C"
"."
.,
':.
v..
:'..
.'.
.. i;.'
'. ,
. 'i~: ,
~ ".
;.,
--
......
i
~:.
t'
..",
r
o-Ign F..~:
'_HlPt'OOI..,~
at.<< .-hJ"o_ ~
'_H~lprvporIIon. .
,.J11e muntin ~no;t_ br-.~
Trtmo.nd~
exIerIoo'-pa......_..
\...OWW IOOnln. ~
~. .
;.
}
'~" .
"
.:
.,.:
,,"
'..,'
.' . .
'-,,~_:-:.......:....:...'
'.
",'"
.;.
')
!."
:. !;~=-~~". . ~
...................
...: .::::.~.
: ~e::;..bao
...:~-. ,"
.: ::::r.::.:..'
:'=-~.... _. ,'.I
.-k:..................,;-'
-.f.~~?{:.. ','
,'.
.~: .. .
PlSAN:2-
....
'.
: RORIP.AUGH RANCH-I
.._.,.:......~:~'::,.-....
.~~H:..K.K-C~.
'u
............. .."
~-~"7
-" d.
;~....J.14.r.
; ,"
~. ,.
'j,' ~1IIr"_
~':::-"-"".'
: =-~~
,.......-.
1.....-
&.--....,.
.1_- .
JI._n_
'4."---"__
: .=:--=-
u .............
=~~.:. .
. ::.==:::="
:.U.,"
'-J
---:--'-~r"--.--. "-"1"'
DeaIgn F_,,-,-
.
~
~~W<'
..
@
_3A,.sWusB~AJ,.. .
-".'
I'
~
(j)
.:PI:4\.N ~ .
.'
RORIPAUGHRANCH.I
~~.
_>nlVC~~
.
.--"-
..-.-- ..
i~-"~"'"
~~.::,2C~~ .
---
~...=--
............,-~
'C;~~~
. '1-_~~..-., .
.: l~'-'~:s,....
...........-.. -.'
.1~~-..
~ .. .
.,
.
':0.
:..........,......
-..---
"-~~-.'
....
.. .
,
} ;'-
.@
. ~~_sPANISII"RBVIY~
;'
:..,
..
... .
. l
, .;, ~ PIi.uRiE,
,;
I
"..
_.--
'~L~4
......- . ,-
.,.--.-....... ..
! . .....,A-...-.......
. ........",...--
.~.._-_..."........
.:.~-""'--
.- - '.
.'.--....,.. "
~..:.:IC'::c-..:-~-
c.,'__"__
; : =.~:::=.
...._......:.; . .
r.I'III--- .'
....... ~...,..,.
i''''''''''=_,~
:::===~~,
f.==-=':: }
.- .
0( _"'_.
.-
".....-.....
, --
&_-,...,.-'
...-- ..
lA'_~_
'.u. ~'...,..'
u__
~::..~~:..
.l1_ "."
.Ill ......... . .
.JI......._~
II ~_,..~.
..;.~,Co..\8i.TaADi:rimW.
.. .
.
R.' ORIPAlJGHAANCHl
~...,~ .
'l\tIKKK:IC.N' col\DlUNlTJ::ES
.'~.'...
~
......,....... .
--_._.
.. .-';"::="'"
.34....'
.'
ATTACHMENT NO.2
EXCERPTS FROM THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES
R:\ProduCI Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
7
:-
.
'.
'. FIGURE 4-53
ASHBY USA. LLC
-I
ro
c
o
+:i
.-
EAST COAST TRADITIONAL
""0
roo
L..jj
I-~
-~
c/)ffi
~!
Ul
_I
c/r
rot
WJ
Inspiration Photo:
Design features:
- Covered front porch entry
- Mvlli-pane windows
- Stucco trim detailing
- Flat arch openings
- Hip/gable oombination roof shapes
- ExteriOr plaster walls
. Boxed overhangs
Th. Ke;t;h Compenl..In<.C
MOT TO SCALI!
I I
~.~-
"::> ,--~ ,
l~()l'i/?~!Ilr~'h"~::;::~:: Halll'II
- -
r."
,.
()
(-)
" .
FIGURE 4-59
ASHBY USA. lie
~~
PRAIRIE STYLE
Inspiration Photo: .
The J(lIIith Comp.fl.i..In<.C
MOT TO SCALI;
I I
Design features:
- Hip roof shapes
- Lower rooOine accents
- Prairie mulUon window breakups
- Flat tile or shingle roofs
- Horizontal proportiof\$
- Smooth exterior plaster walls
- Trim band accent
/,. .r
~
"Cl
"-
<<h
'- -
a.;
~
Ii
l
I
B
!i
I
.
.
'./." ....'
HorjJ>;lllc~11';:;'~_:~~:" Ranch
.- .;
(',. .1
.
('j
.
~
ASHBY UsA.llC
FIGURE 4-60
SPANISH REVIVAL
Inspiration Photo:
Design features:
- Arched focal point
. Exposed beam headers
. Recessed window
- Wrought iron accent details
- Alcoved enlJy
- Barrel tile day roofing
- Exterior smooth plaster walls
- Ceramic lile accenls
rot
.~i
~I
..c~
00-
.-1
Cg
~
l
I
B
~
I
The Keith compen;earTK:.C
NOT TO SCALE
r I
-' -
H(>ri 1>;/ l l,gJ 1':~:~:'~~;-- Hal1( .11
<'1
.."'/
(~.\
<.-/
"'0
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Provide two color sets of the above at the scales inclC3led including a duplicate set 01 the color
and materials board. In addition, provide six (6) sels of the above in reduced, 11" X 1 r bla<;k and
whitefOfTJlal.
4.10.3.3 Architecture Forward and Garage Standards
The following standards shall apply 10 all residential Planning Areas, except as specKied:
. "Archileclura/ Forward" conCept shall be incorporated into 100% of the homes in Planning
Areas10, 19, 20, 21, and 33A. "Architectural FOfWard" concept shall be incorporated into at
least 50% of the homes in each of Planning Areas lA, 2, 3, 4A. 4B, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,22,
23, 24, and 31. This concept includes advancing the architecture of the living space forward
on the lot while concurrently, the garage is held in place or further recessed. Residential
dwelling units shall be designed to allow the living portion of the dwelling unit to be
"positioned" forward on !lie lot so that the arcMecture of the garage will not dominate the
street scene.
. A variety of garage placement solutions shaD be incorporated into the overall design of the
homes. Minimum driveway length from the property line to the garage door shall be eighteen
feet (181 for front-entry garages In aD Planning Areas and ten feet (10') from the property line
10 the garage edge for side entry garages in the l and LM Districts. Garage solutions that
should be incorporated into the overaD design are as follows:
Shallow Recessed Garaaes (See Figure 4-62)
Selling the garage back a minimum of eight feet (81 in relationship to the front of
the house.
Mid to Deeo Recessed Garaaes (See FIgure 4-63)
Selling the garage back to the middle or rear of the lot.
Third Car Side loaded (See FlQUre 4-64)
Selling for garage with slde-loaded entry. This plan can only occur on larger lots.
Side Entrv Garaoes (See Figure 4-65)
The use of side entry garages on lots at least 52 leet wide in order to break the
continuous view of garage doors along the street scene.
Third Car Tandem (See Figure 4-00)
Selling for third car tandem garage.
Sinole Width Drivewavs (SeeFigure 4-67)
This setting provides a maximum driveway width of twelve (12) feet for adjacent
two-car garage. .
PorIe Cochere (See FIgure 4-68)
Setting provides for the incorporation of a porle cochere.
Rcrtpaugh Ranch SpecIfIC Plan
N:13t3G7.OOO'dodISPSecl44CCAdopted.doc
4-98
Man:h. 2003
.
.
.
..
,
.
ei
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations
There is a tendency to have "build out" planes maximized 00 side and rear yaJds without
articulated treatment of those planes. This results in a lwo-story stucco effect with no vertical or
horizontal relief. Utaize the following techniques or other acceptable techniques to avoid this
effect:
. Create a single-story plane at the rear by recessing the second story.
. Utilize other similararch~ectural treatments and designs such as balconies or pop out
staircases 10 encourage reflef on polenliallarge an::Mectural planes. .
. Side and rear elevations shall have articulation with modulated facades, window treatment,
second story projections and balconies.
. Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ("Four.sided Arch~ecture").
Front Elevations
. Architectural projections shall be utilized to emphasize entrances, balconles, and porches.
Fronts of houses shaU ublize several arthitectural features. Ground fJoor windows shaD have
signif1C8l1t trim or relief, second floor overhangs or bIlift in planters. Second story windows
shall have similar treatment to emphasize them.
. AU residences shaD incorporate entry courtyards, covered entries or covered porches at the
entry inlo the design (See Figure 4-71 and 4-72).
. Details shall be concentrated around entrances. Materials used for the front entry shall be
distinctive.
. Building elements that reflect the arch~ectural style should be incorporated into building
entries, windows, front porches, and living areas directly adjacent to the street
. Ornamental features including wrought iron and exterior light features shaD be combined with
other features to create interest in the front of the house with architecturally compabble
elements.
Rorioaudl Ranch Soecillc Plan
N:131367.000\d0d\SPSect44CCAdopted.doc
4-125
MaIth. 2003
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.6 Architectural Elements
{ .
A successful project design achieves a proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness. The
differences between the plans and elevation must be readily discemable and create variety, yet at
the same time elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to resu~ in
visual chaos. Architectural elements will play a significant role in the establishment of the
architectural style. These elements include architectural detailing, colors and materials, and other
site structures. The required Architectural and design elements techniques are as follows:
Unit Enlrles (See Fagures 4-71 and 4-72)
The entry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: it idenlifies and
frames the lront doolway; it acts as an interface between the pubflC and private spaces; and it
acts as an intrOduction to the structure while creating an initial impression.
. The entry shan be designed and located so as to readily emphasll:e its prime functions.
Accent materials are encouraged to be used to lurther emphasil:e the entries.
. If the lront door location is not obvious or visible because 01 building configuration, the entry
shall alrect and draw the observer in the desired path. The design 01 the entry area in
merchant-buill housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact 01 the garage on the
facade.
· Entry doors and doorways shall be proporlionalto the architectural style of the structure.
. Covered entries, courtyards and porches shall be provided as entry elements.
. .
Doors
Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type 01 entry door used. It lunctions as the major
introduction to the interior 01 the house and concem should be given on the image it creates.
. Either single or double doors are appropriate.
. The door shall be covered by an overhead element or recessed a minimum 01 3 fllnto the wall
pl81l!3. .
. The entire door assembly shall be treated as a single design element Incluamg surrounding
frame, molding and glass sideflghts.
. Recessed doors may be used to convey the appearance of thick exterior doors.
. Wood may be used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels
contribute 10 the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in
order to be acceptable, they shall possess the same residential "leer provided by the wood
grain and panels.
. Doorways shall be typically rectangular or round-headed and lully recessed_ Spiral columns,
arches, pilaster. stonework, decorative liles, or other sculplural details shall be integrated into
the l!oolway design to enhance the visual importance 01 the entry door.
1
,
- Ranch SoecifIc !'Ian
N:\31367.OOOIdodISPSect4<lCCAdopted.doc
4-127
MaICI1. 2003
.
.
.
.
.
, \
.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
. The use of glass in the door and overall assembly is encouraged. II expresses a sense of
welcome and human scale. II can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as
single sidelights, double sidelights, transom glass or fan windows.
. Flexibility is allowed concerning the color of the door. II may match or contrast the accent
trim, but should be differentiated from the wall color.
Windows
. T~ically, the.location 01 windows is determined by the practical consideration 01 room layout,
possible furniture placement, view opportunities and concem for privacy. Greater design
emphasis should be directed to ensu~e that window placement and organization will positively
contribute to the exteriQr architectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevalion
. through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordinalion with ofher ~ign elemenls. This
relationship to one another and the walVroof plane creates a composition and sense of order.
. All windows in a specifIC plan elevation shall be integrated into the architecture of the building.
This should not be interpreted that they are all the same shape. size or type but rather that a
hierarchy of windows exists that visually relates and complements one window to another.
,
. Windows shall be recessed to corwey the appearance 01 thick exterior walls. Non-recessed
windows shall be surrounded With articulated architecturaJ elements such as wood trbn.
stucco surrounds. shutters or recessed openings, shutters. pot shelves, ledges. sills plantons.
and rails that compliment the architecture.
. Merchant-buill housing occasionally falls to adequately address proper window design and
. placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritizalion, maintenance and
cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible,
greater design effort and budget prioritization need to be given.
Garaae Doors (See Figure 4-73)
. Utilizing gaf898 types thai compflfllent the architecture, door designs, and plotting techniques
wiD do much to lessen the repelitious garage doors marching down both sides 01 a residential
street Variations include:
o Employment of second-story feature windows above the garage.
o Strong architectural entry elements.
o Designs with a mix of 2 and 3 car garages. incorporating three single doors In some
three car garage plans not facing the streel.
o . Allowance for a10-foot setback be~ adjacent garages.
o . The use of tandem garages may also be incorporated Into the building design.
o Garage plans with a double door and a single door plan shan not be placed next to
each other.
. If appJk:abJe. where 101 width permits plans should include swing-In or side entry garages With
reduced front yard setbacks of ten (10) feel.
-- Ranch _oc Plan
N:\3131S7.OOOIdodISP5ect44CCAdopted.<loc
4-128
Marth. 2003
/
DESIGN GUIDELINES
. The design of the garage door shall relate to the overall architectural design of the residence.
Colors shall be from the same paint palette.
. Ornamentation of garage doors shall be provided to add visual interest from the street scene.
. The use of the sectional. wOOd or metal, rolling garage door is required since it maximizes the
availability of useable driveway length.
. Several d'lfferent panel designs shall be utilized for any project proposed by each merchant
buikler. Metal doors shall only be used when they include either texture or raised panels of a
"residentiar nature. The use of window elements is encouraged.
. The design of the door face shall resull in a treatment which breaks up the expanse of the
door plane while being complimentary to the architectural elevation of the residence.
Architectural detail consisting of cornices, applied molding or trim or applied headers shan be
used. There shall be an 8" recess. (See Exhibit 4-73).
1
, .
- )
RoriDauah Ranch SoeciIIc Plan
N:1313lfT.OOOIdod\SPSec144CCAdopled.doc
4-129
MaJd1. 2003
.
.
.
1-..
.
~.
~ . ')
.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.7 Residential Roof Form
.AHowable Roof P~ch (See Figure 4-74)
. Allowable roof pitches of 3: 12 to 4:12 shall be used. Allowable roof pitches over balconies
and/or porches may be 2:12.
. A single roof pnch should be used on opposne sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches tend to
lessen the apparent building mass.
Roof Tvoes
The use of different roof types will add variety and interest to the street scene. Changing the roof
form on a given plan is the best method of creating allemative elevations. However, the roof
characteristics should be consistent with the historical style that is chosen.
. H'1p, gable and shake-like material shall be used. separately or together on the same roof,
Avoid a canyon effect in side yards when both buildings have front-ta-rear gables. by
providing dormer or hip elements.
. Repetitious gable ends along rear elevations shall be avoided. Roof forms with pitch changes
at a porch or projection are preferable.
. Roolforms having dual pllches such as Gambrel or Mansard shall not be used.
. Maximize variations in rooflines by offsetting roof planes and combining single-stOl'Y elements
with lwo-stOl'Y elements. long uninterrupted rooflines should be avoided. Mechanical
equipment is not permitted on roofs.
Desi<m of Rakes and Eaves
. The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave lypes based on climatic and
stylistic considerations.
. Moderate. Ql' extended overhangs are acceptable if properly designed. TllJhl fascia with
appropriate style are acceptable.
. Single or double fascia boards. exposed rafters. or fascias with plansclas when adequately
scaled. are ooceplable. .
. Care.shaIl be taken to ensure that material sizes avoid a weak.orJlimsy.appearance.
Overhana Prolections and Covered Porches
. Substantial overhangs are required as a response to solar and climatic conditions.
. The inclusion of covered porches and entries are required as part of the product mix. They
expand shekered living space. create entry statements and provide elevation/relief.
. Rear covered porches may differ from the roof in both pnch and material, but front porches
should retain at least one of these two characteristics.
Rorioauah Ranch Soecmc Plan
N:I31367.000'd0dISPSect44CCAdopted.doc
4-133
March. 2003
ASHBY usA. uc
FIGURE 4-70
': .--
miOtJAV~b q::
I S;; -z. -~ \iriAe;;y.
.c MiX1VP?~ ~~G
I'W M4~ILb'fPlNlt;E:
'" ~
.
"'NffJ
z.
~
.
-
2
t?Jq2.Y
'2-
t?1Cf-'/
1
~r
!. .}
. .
.
I
I
~ . . ..
: .. .
'~I
vt\~Gp Fa:F~~~.
Mi.x 6f t;M~~1WO ~~.
Ii. )
, : '._'
enS
i
Oil
~I
-o!
Cf
CUI
<1>1
cs
oJ
't-
o
X
.-
E
---
en
<1>
a.
~
C/)
't-
o
o
~
-0
<1>
'C
CU
>
.
d~
. ROripaUgl1~Ranch
The Kel'h comptnl..I-rK.C
,. " 0 :, '0 S C _A. 't. .
I" I
ATTACHMENT NO.3
STAFF LETTER TO APPLICANT DATED DECEMBER 11, 2003
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
8
.
.
.
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula - California 92589-
9033 - (909) 694-6400 - FAX (909) 694-64n
December 11, 2003
Mr. George Zeeber
Meeker Companies, Inc.
14 Hughes; Suite B-104
Irvine, CA 92618
SUBJECT: Planning Application PA03-0634 for the product review of the new single-family
homes proposed for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in Planning Area 4B.
Dear George:
Staff has reviewed Planning Application PA03-0634 and has determined that the project cannot be
approved as proposed. Below is a list of recommended and/or required changes to the above
referenced project
.1. Staff strongly recommends that you schedule an appointment with the architect for Ashby
USA, LLC in order to streamline the product review process. It has been staffs experience
that the architect who prepared the design guidelines is able to provide additional direction
and interpret the guidelines as they were intended and understood by the Planning
Commission. Please verify with staff that you have met with the architect for Ashby USA,
LlC and that his comments were incorporated Into the project
2. At this time staff cannot approved the product review as proposed. Staff has determined that
the elevations are not consistent with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan. Please
incorporate any modifications as recommended by the architect for Ashby USA. LlC and the
revisions required in this letter.
3. The Specific Plan allows stucco as an aliowable material, however section 4.10.3.9 requires
smooth or light finish texture and up to a medium linish. Heavy texture is not permitted. The
Spanish revival style should utilize a smooth stucco finish (20130 aggregate minimum).
Prairie should utilize a.light sand finish or light lace finish stucco. Please resubmit a stucco
board with these types of finish. In addition, define and label the type of stucco finish
proposed for each architectural style.
Please show the slope of all roof pitches. Each architectural style warrants a different roof
pitch to illustrate the difference between the architectural styles. For example, low rootline
accents with a shallow roof pitch are typical characteristics of the prairie style.
4.
R:\Pmduct RevlewIIioripaup RaDdI SPIM... Co. Tr 29661.5. PA03-06341commeot _.I.doc
1
It is ,critical that the roofllne and silhouette for each plan and style offer significant variety in .
order to avoid the monotony appearance. The architect for Ashby USA, UC can be very
helpful in offering suggestions to accomplish this task.
5. Each style must utilize typical features for that particular slyle. This will strongly distinguish
the styles from each other. The Specific Plan requires all four sides of the residence to
Include architectural enhancements (section 4.10.3.5). Staff has defined this language to
mean that the style can be determined by looking at any side of the residence. Therefore.
the typical features for each style must be canied over to each side of the structure. Staff
has found it helpful if the applicant provides a separate sheet indicating the type of door.
garage door. trim, window sills, Window type, chimney, lighting. etc. to be used for each style.
Make sure each style maintains it's unique characteristics, as this Will maintain the
architectural integrity. This Is not a comprehensive list, however, each plan and style need to
maintain unique features typicai of the style proposed.
6. Please specify the materials proposed on the elevations. For example: shutters do not
indicate the material type. Staff encourages organic materials where possible to portray an
authentic appearance. Also, plant-on materials such as shutters, borders and windowsill
should be of substance and reflect a reaUstic feature as opposed to a flimsy appearance.
Please show dimensions. including thickness. depth and width for such features.
7. Please provide color samples of each decorative driveway proposed. Also, the plans must
provide a description of the material proposed for the driveways. Please include a sample of
any stone, brick or other material proposed for the hardscape.
Please consider the use of additional materials for hardscape. As proposild, the same .
materials for hardscape Will be used in different color variations. Staff recommends adding a
variety of stone or a1temative colors to add interest. '
8. The Specific Plan requires a minimum of four, color variations for each style in each
plannIng area. Please provide a fourth color variation sample for each plan.
9. The Specific Plan requires a variety of garage placements (pg. 4-98, section 4.10.3.3)
Please provide a variety of garage placement such as shallow, mid-deep recess, side entry
(comer lots), porte cochere etc. Staff believes that this planning area has enough comer lots
to justify a plan With a side entry garage. Please consider this issue.
10. The front elevations Indicate the depth of windows and breaks in the wall plane. Since four
sides of architecture is a requirement, the side and rear elevations should also include
recessed and projected elements. Please provide recessed and projected elements on the
side and rear and indicate the amount of projection/recess on the plans.
11. Please ensure all garages include a clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. It appears that
some of the garage depths araless than 20 feet (Plan 1,2, and 4). Please revise the plans
to show a clear interior dimension of 20 in depth by 20 feet In width.
12. Please review the plot plan to ensure each residence meets the minimum setbacks. There
are various lots that do not meet the front, side and rear setbacks. Also, the plot plan shows
the front setback taken from two different lines. It appears one line Is a utility easement,
while the other line is the actual property line. Please ensure all setbacks are taken form the
property line. Section 5.3.3 indicates the setbacks for various areas of the planning areas.
Please note that lots abutting the nature trail require a 25-foot setback.
.
R:_Il~llanchSPlMeobtCo. Tr29<l61-S. PA~_-1.doc
2
.
.
.
13.
Lots abutting Munieta Hot Springs may be adjusted by 3 feet in the front and/or rear. Staff
strongly recommends puning two story units back to provide a varied street scene along
Sweetwater Drive. Where possible, varied setbacks should be provided In order to avoid the
canyon effect as stated in section 4.10.3.5. '
The plot plan should show any/aU decks on the plot plan to ensure the rear setbacks win be
met. Please review the rear yard setback standards to ensure decks will meet the minimum
rear yard setback. It appears that some lots will not allow for decks in the rear yard, please
clarify this issue.
14.
Decks should not be constructed of standard wood. Decks should appear as either a
structurel portion of the building made of stucco or as a decorative enhancement as shown
on the rear elevation of plan 2A. Standard wood decks as shown on the rear elevation of
plan 26 are not acceptable.
As proposed, it is difficult to distinguish between the architectural style from the side and rear
elevations. The Plannlng Commission has made it clear that the architectural style must be
clearly evident from all four sides. Elements from the front elevation of each plan must be
canied over to the sides and rear so the architectural style is clearly evident from all sides.
This can be accomplished with varied roof pitches, additlcnal exposed beams, variations in
the window type such as arched windows, vertical or horizontal windows, chimney caps, etc.
The side and rear elevations need additional enhancement in order to identify the
architectural style from the respective view.
15.
16. Any supplemental materials, such as stone or siding should wrap around the side elevations
to the side yard fence or to a point it is no longer viSible from the street. This is criticai on
bottom story projections and second stories where the second story is stepped back. Some
of the stone and brick on the prairie and east coast traditional do not wrap around the sides.
17. The Specific Plan requires comer lots to maintain two (2) front elevations. Please
incorporate additional features to create a second front yard for comer lots (pg. 4-124,
section 4.10.3.5). Also, as stated above, strong consideration should be given to provide a
variety of garage placement, such as side entry garages for comer lots.
Another method of creating a second front elevation is to include exposed porches and
decorative walls (courtyards) on side elevations of comer tots. When this method utilized,
the sidewall should include doors and openings to create an active exterior living area.
18. Comer lots should be either single story or maintain a significant one-story mass located
toward the exterior side yard (pg. 4-124, section 4.10.3.5).
19. The Specific Plan requires careful design and plotting of plans to avoid a "canyon-like effect"
between buildings (pg. 4-124, section 4.10.3.5). This can be accomplished by introducing
single story elements into two story plans such as stepping second story mass away from
the property line or by including dormer or hip elements when front to rear gables are
proposed.
20. Please provide a summary matrix of each plan on each lot showing lot coverage, hardscape
coverage and type, landscaping, floor plan and architecture, and height.
21. Some of the plans have side elevations that appear blank or include large areas of blank
walls. Please make sure there are no blank walls, long interrupted walls or roof areas (pg. 4-
124, section 4.10.3.5). Articulation on the side and rear elevations provides a good
k:lProduct lleYiew\koripaugh Ilmc:h SPIM_eo, Tr 29<l61.5. PA03_ _.I,doc
3
"
opportunity to introduce the architectural style on the sides and rears, which will satisfy the .
four-sided architecture requirement. Additional windows, projections, bands, tiles, and other
decorative features should be introduced to enhance these blank walls.
22. Varied roof height, rooflines and silhouettes shall be incorporated into the each plan. Some
of the plans uIilize the same roofline, which produces a monotonous effect. Please provide a
varied silhouette. roofline and roof height for each style to distinguish between each plan
(pg. 4-133, section 4.10.3.7).
23. It appears only two garage doors will be used for the entire tract Garage doors should
reflect and compliment the style of the architecture (pg. 4-128, section 4.1 0.3.6). This could
be accomplished with arches in the garage, type of door, addition of glass in the door etc.
A variety of garage doors shall be provided. Staff recommends providing arches over the
Spanish Revival style and using aIlemative materials and shapes where appropriate. Section
and wood garage doors are also encouraged. If metal doors are proposed, they should
include a texture or reised panels of a residential nature.
The design of garage doors should result in a treatment, which breaks up the expanse 01 the
door plane. Architectural detail consisting of comices, border of stone or brick, applied
moldingltrim or applied headers should be utilized (pg. 4-129, section 4.10.3.6).
24. Entrances are required to provide a strong, statement as a focal point to show Importance.
The Specific Plan encourages single or double doors, glass sidelights, surrounding frames,
, and molding around the door. The Specific Plan states. Emphasis should be placed on the
design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major introduction to the interior of the
house and concem should be given on the image it creates.. Some of the entrances could .
be enhanced with traditional methods and/or features to show improyement. This can be
achieved with a variation in materials, shapes, massing, varying roof height, etc.
Entry doors are required to be decorative. Staff encourages the use of glass within the
doors, double doors and/or other materials to further enhance the entrance. (pg. 4-127.
section 4.10.3.6).
25. Windows should be recessed where possible to convey a thick wall appearance (pg. 4-128,
section 4.10.3.6). This feature Is typlcai on Spanish style architecture.
26. The Specific Plan encourages rear-covered porches to be incorporated into the project as
well as front porches and covered entries. These features should be considered and should
resemble each other by similar roof pitch or material. Also, it should be noted that rear
setbacks may present a problem for many 01 the lots. Please be sure to consider this when
designing rear covered porches and/or decks. It may be beneficial to determine which lots
can accommodate decks and pre-plot the decks as necessary.
27. The plotting plan does not reference the location of air conditioning units. The Specific Plan
requires these units to be screened from public view, while minimizing the impact on side
yard use and layout. Figure 4- n shows air conditioning units should be located in the rear
yard.
28. The elevations do not show roof venting. Venting should blend in with the structure to the
greatest extent. Please indicate, how venting Will be accomplished. If roof venting is
proposed, vents shall be of the same color as the rool surface and be located on the rear
elevation of the roof.
.
R:lProductllcvlcwlRoripau Raaoh SPlMcemeo. Tr29661-5. PAlll-G6_ _-1.doe
4
. 29. Please provide specification sheets for the proposed street light fixtures, street name signs
and traffic signs. These will be used throughout the project; therefore, it needs to be
requested by Ashby USA.
30. Please plot the location and show a detail of the type of mailboxes proposed. This will also
be used project wide and must be requested by Ashby USA and the U.S. Postmaster.
31. The City recommends that all accent relief elements installed below eight feet of ground
level be constructed of dense, durable material (not softfoam) to assure long leon durability.
Please indicate materials to be used on the elevations.
32. There appear to be options for decorative driveways, however the Specific Plan requires all
lots to include hardscape (driveways and walks) within the front yard and shall be colored
concrete with varying score lines, textures, paving stones of various colors with colored
concrete borders, flag stone of various sizes and colors with concrete borders or a
combination of various textures, shapes, material and colors (page 4-122). See figures 4-85
through 891n the Specific Plan for visual concepts. Staff wants to ensure that the decorative
hardscape is provided on all lots. The hardscape material and layout should be plotted on
the site plan for staff's review.
Staff encourages decorative hardscape paths to extend from the main entry to the sidewalk.
Please consider this feature.
33. The Specific Plan requires omamental features including decorative light leatures combined
,with other features to create visual Interest in the front of the house with architectural
. compatible elements. Typical lighting lor each architectural style should be provided.
Ughting should be provided In the front entryway and/or at the garage entry. Ughting should
reflect the architecture of each unit. Please note that changes in lighting may be approved
administratively by staff, if requested.
34. Pop-outs on side and rear elevations should extend to the ground as opposed to the floating
pop-out appearance. A separate sheet addressing setback reductions for architectural
projections has been attached.
35. The elevations must show the location of addressing and how it will be constructed. For
example. will the addresses be backlit or be solid metal painted black. Please specify the
type of addressing proposed for each typical residence.
36. Please ensure the side elevations with enhancements are exposed for all comer lots. Please
indicate on the site plan that the enhanced side elevation fronts the street.
37. Chimney caps should be decorative and vary from each style. The same chimney caps
should not be used for two different architecture styles.
38. Elevations Should provide a note indicting the room option and dotted lines indicating
optional windows and/or doors.
39. Front, rear and visible side windows in key locations should include enhanced borders/sills
for windows (as opposed to typical borders) to show importance. Please include this feature
. into the elevations.
40. Please label all roof pitches for each pitch on each plan.
R:__paqb Ilanch SPoMoelo:<Co. Tr29<l61-5. PA03__-I.doc:
5
41. Please provide a scale on the floor and roof plans.
42. Comer lots should maintain significant single story elements on the exterior side elevation.
Staff has found it beneficial to plot select plans on comer lots and provide a "special" side
elevation that creates a second front elevation, while maintaining the one-story element.
43. Staff does not encourage closed shutters or windows with only one shutter on the side.
Please revise these features and provide authentic and/or traditional features.
44. Make sure that all venting matches on each side of each elevation. Staff recommends
decorative venting that blends with ,the architecture rather than standard venting from the
roof.
45. Staff believes that the plotting could be improved. It appears many of the single story plans
are grouped together. Staff recommends dispersing the single story plan throughout the tract
to provide variety throughout the tract. Some single story plans could be located along the
nature trail to break-up the roofline.
46. Please subm~ a written letter describing how each architectural style meets the design
guidelines and utilizes authentic and/or traditional materialS and features for each respective
style.
47. Please provide a summary matrix showing the lot number,lotsize, plan type, footprint, lot
coverage, hardscape coverage and hardscape option.
48.
Please revise the- fence plan to reflect figure 2-15 and 2-16 where appropriate. Only one
pilaster is requires between residences as shown on figure 2-15. The pilaster should be
located at the front connection.
49. Please show the location of gates on the fence plan.
50. Please remove all references to stucco on fencing. All block walls should be slumpstone with
pre-cast concrete cap. Ashby USA, LLc has constructed sample walls located at the office
site. Staff recommends visiting the site to review the walls required to be constructed. '
51. Please ensure that a 2-foot break Is provided between pilaster and the rear wall plane
between residences as shown on figure 2-15 of the Specific Plan.
52. Staff Is unclear how the fence connecting residences will be constructed when a retaining
wall is shown perpendicular to the wall. Please provide a typical cross section to show how
this will be accomplished.
.
.
53. Please show the location of pilasters where the view fence is located as shown on figure 2-
16 of the Specific Plan.
54. Staff is concemed with how some of the block walls encroach into the side and front yards at
the comers. Block walls should terminate where the wall returns to the residence (figure 2-
16). This issue will be affected by the requirement of 2 front elevations as required in the
design guidelines. Fencing at comer lots should be pulled back as far as possible to show
the elevation and/or to provide for an outdoor courtyard open to the street. Please contact
staff to discuss this item further. .'
1l:\Pnlduo:t Ilevicw\llorit>auBb IlmchSI'IM<ekrCo. Tr29661-S. PA03~ _.1_
6
-'
.
55. Block walls should be provided In all locations where vISible from the public streets. This
includes exterior side yards and retums (figure 2-16).
56. Pilasters should be shown at exterior comers where two rear yards merge as shown on
figure 2-16.
57. Please provide a detail of view fencing on sheet 6 and show the type of tubing, color, height,
spacing between each pole, spacing to the ground, etc.
Prairie comments
58. The Prairie style chimneys should include a broad flat cap. Chimneys for prairie style homes
are typicaily wider than typical and Include a band at the top.
59. Prairie style should consider the use of dormers, including gable and hipped donners,
through-comice and palladian. This will add interest to the roofline while further
distinguishing this style from the others.
60. A typlcai Prairie style front door shall be used for each plan (This same comment applies to
all styles).
61. The eaves should be wider than standard, boxed and without brackets.
62. Prairie style often maintains lower porches and/or porte-cocheres. Staff feels there is an
opportunity to provide porle-cochere, with a deep recessed garage that would fulfill the
prairie style.
.
63. Please review typical prairie style doors Windows and ensure they are typical prairie style.
There are various door and window styles that may project a stronger prairie appearance.
Spanish Revival
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
.
Spanish styles do not typicaily utilize a standard gable roof. Please consider utilizlng side
gables, cross gables. combined hipped and gabled roofs. and hipped roofs.
)
Roof tiles shall represent the style presented. Spanish tile roofing shall utilize barrel tile roof
as opposed to standard .S. tile roof.
Arched garage doors should be Utilized for the Spanish styles.
Additional wrought Iron detail could be provided on the Spanish styles. Considerwrought
iron details around windows
Deep recessed windows should be used liberally in prominent locations where possible to
portray a thick wall appearance.
Please consider using decorative Spanish tiles around windows and in other prominent
locations.
Consider arcaded Wing walls, exterior staircases and balconies open or roofed with wood or
iron railings.
Jl,_R~ itaD<Il SI"M..w Co. Tr2966I-S. P~34'<:ommcut_.l,doc
7
East Coast Traditional
.
71. All East Coast Traditional plans utilize too much stucco. While stucco may be used for trim,
the exterior walls should be predominately wood siding (other composite siding may be
acceptable, subject to staff approval).
72. Please consider providing dormers on various elevations as appropriate.
73. Consider using steeper pitch roofing such as 6:12 to 12:12. A steep roof with horizontal
siding will establish a strong sense of east coast housing.
Landscaoe Comments
74. Tristania, Agonis and Bougainvillea are subject to freeze in the Temecula area. Please
provide substitutes.
75. Please indicate sizes for trees and shrubs at time of planting. tnsure that sizes meet
Specific Plan and code requirements.
76. Please specify ground covers and indicate size and spacing.
n. Side yards outside of the fence have the potential to be forgotten and neglected. Please
provide drought tolerant, maintenance free plantings that Will survive if irrigation is tumed off
and plantings are neglected.
78. Code requires slope banks S' or greater in verticai height with slopes greater than or equal to .
3:1 to be landscaped at a minimum with an appropriate ground cover, one 15 gallon or
larger size tree per 600 square feet.,of slope area, and one 1 gallon or larger shrub for each
100 square feet of slope area. Slope banks In excess of 8' in vertical height with slopes
greater or equal to 2:1 shall also be provided with one 5 gallon or larger tree per 1,000
square feet of slope area in addition 10 the above requirements. Please insure thaI slope
plantings meet these requirements. Insure that all slopes of this size are landscaped by the
developer following grading operation completion.
79. Please provide a copy of the grading plans for planning area 4B With the next review for
cross checking.
80. Front yard landscaping shall be provided in all residential zoning districts and shall include,
at a minimum, one fifteen-gallon size tree per lot, one flVe-gallon size tree per lot, and
seeded ground cover. These requirements are in addition to the required street trees.
Please add trees as required.
Upon resubmitting revised plans, it Is critical that you submit a written response to each comment.
This will expedite staff's review of the revised plans. Also include any additional changes that were
made as a result of meeting with the architect for Ashby USA, UC or any other changes made.
Please submit 2 copies of each plan when resubmitting plans to staff, including two copies of 11" x
17" elevations. Elevations do not have to be color with the next submittal, however colored
elevations will be required prior to scheduling this item for a pUblic hearing.
.
R:lPnldllttllovlew\lloripoup _ SI'\Me<trrCO. Tr29661-'. PA0:H)6J4\oommalI_-1.doc
8
.
.
.
"
Please ensure that the Specific Plan you are using is the most current version, approved in March
2003. If you have questions conceming this issue, please contact me at your convenience.
Staff understands there are many comments to be addressed; however, staff feels that the
groundwork has been established for a viable project. If you have any questions regarding the
above comments, please feel free to contact me at any time via email at
dan.lonQ@citvoftemecula.ol'Q or by phone at (909) 964-6400 extension 198. I look forward to
working with you as this project progresses forward.
sincerely~
c:::;:>-
Dan Lon
Associate Planner
Il:\ProductReview\RoripaDgb Ranch SPIMeobtCo. Tr29<l6t-S. PAOl-06__-t.doc
9
ATTACHMENT NO.4
APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2004
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-I.doc
9
.
: /
.
.
.. ~l:.lI-tIb-<M/l4 1<!: 16
I<N I TIER & ASSOC I AlES ,
949 ?S2 0151 P.82/0S
February 5, 2004 '
CITY OF TEMECULA '
PLAN CHECKCORRECTlON REPLY
Roripaugh Ranch- p1aMing area 4B
MEEKER COMMUNffiES,INC.
14 Hughes. SUite 8-104
Irvine Ca. 92618
From a rlSt by Dan Long -dated January 19th,2004
Planning apprlCalion PA03-0634- Planning area 4-b
~ndent: '
Chip Melton Knitter and associates
Dear Dan,
P1el!S9 find my ~em by item reply to your request,lisll ,Information letter. I hope it will
assist you as we work together to proceed with this project
, If any qUestions arise while you are considering my reply, pll!8S9 fell free to contact me
at my office. (949) 752-11n.
1. We have had a team meeting to discuss the Planning dept's intent on an item by
Item basis.
2. Alter our team meeting with The author of the guidelines and following the intent
of the recommendations the original repor!s and this latest liSt from you.
3. We have provided a new extubit with the requirements specified.
4. At 0Uf compliance meeting it was decided that the Intent of the designs had been
met by changing roof pitches on the featured elements of each plan. However
buyer affordabllity is a consideration and it Is not an option to change the main
roof slruaure for each elevation type.
5. We have provided elevation elements with the theme of the front elevation on
each exposed, enhanced, elevation type, '
6. We have provided a more inclusive materials list on the elevations themselves.
'7. 16 separate color sample have already been provided.
8. a fourth color variation will be provided.
9. With a relatively shallow set baCk and narrow lots, aside entry garage would
create a cramped uncomfortable driveway approach and virtually eliminate front
, yard landscaping. We would prefer to not provide this type of driveway.
, 10. we have provided matching elements at the front ant back of each enhanced
plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations
11. all plans have a min. 20' x 20' clear space
12. We have reviewed the site plan and it appears to be in compliance with all set
back requirements.
13. We have reviewed the site plan and it appears to be in compliance with all set
back requirements
14. The architeclure lends itself to using wood decks. Further adding stucco and
Tube steel on the rear of the house would add a Stucco 'add-on" look that is to
be avoided. The wood decks give an opportunity for color and material contrast
that we are trying to achieve.
15. We have provided matching elements at the front and back of each Enhanced
plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations.
16. we have updated our plans to shOW relUm materials to the fence line.
C*"1 dacumonlBlcl1i..."i.
r
. ., rCD~~ J..c::. ~-(
KNIIIt:K ll. ~lHI~
~~ 'r:i.!. l<Jl:>l t'.l<J:YW;
17. We have an one story plans on corner lots. Element such as stone and brick are
an shown to return to the fence me. There would. be no further enhancements
beyond the 6' property fence. .
' 18. All oomer lots are either one story homes or have single story elements.
19. Plan 1.1s a single story. We do have single story elements along the. sides of
,plans 2 and 3.Plan 4 is a little more lraditional.
20. Matrix should be provided by the landscape architect
21. We liave provided matching elements at the front ant back of e~ Enhanced
, ,; plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations.
22. At our compliance meeting it was decided that the intent of the designs had been
'met by changing roof pitches on the featured elements of each plan. However
buyer affOrdability is a consideration and It Is not an option to change the main
roof structure for each elevation type.
23, Varied garage doors will be provided.
24. At our compliance meeting It was decldad that the intent of the designs had been
. met by chatiging roof pitches on the featured elements ,of each plan. However
buyer affordablfily is a consideration and It is not an option to change the ma,in ,
. ,Building structure for each elevation type. We have shown a variety of front door
. types. Son\e with glass side Ilghts some without Some of the styling of the home
would'not be amenable to glass detaUs and some buyers may also be of a like
. mind so as not to be amenable to glass in tI1elr front doors.
25. Discussed and Implemented where possible.
26. Decks, and patio CiOVers haw been shown where required and optioned to buyers
where they are not required.
27. a/c units shaH be in the rear yard.
28. We never show cloaked venting on a presentation drawing. however we are
intending to use O'Hagin Cloaked venting on all plans where visible to the street .
or right of way.
29. By the landscape architect I developer.
30. By the landscape architect' developer.
31. We specify high density foam trim .
32. By the landscape architect I developer.
33. This Is a specification item. Specifications are provided by the developer.
34. Bringing design elements to the ground would cause setback issues and would
. not-be visible due to property fences. However. where possible we have shown
this lTealment however.
35. the street addressing will be a simple rnwnlnated address sign in a conspicuous
spot on each elevation.
36. All comer have one story plans or plans with single story elements plotted on
them. Elements such as stooe and brick are all shown to retum to the fence line.
There would be no further enhancements beyond the 6' property fence.
37. Chimney caps are all different per each style of elevation.
38. We have shown any room options that may exist on the floor plans. There are no
options to dash in oolhe elevations
39. We have provided matching elements at the front and back of each Enhanced
plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations.
40. The roof pitch will be shown on the construction documents.
41. Scale is ~.I ft. and will be shown on the construction documents.
42. All comer have one story plans or plans with single story elements plotted on
them. Elements such as stone and brick are all shown to retum to the fence line. .
There would be no further enhancements beyond the 6' property fence
43. This is an acceptablealtemative to a blank wall.
Colrny_cI1IpI....p
KNITTER!:. RSSOCl~lES,
949 7S2 0151 P.04/05
. '~2004 ,,12: 18
.
.
.
44. venting shall match.
45. They are not greuped. See enhancement plan.
46. Respectfully submitted.
47. Landscape Architect to provide .
48. Civil and Landscape.
49. Civil and landscape to provide.
5O.others.
51. others.
52. others
53. others
54. others
55. others
56. others
57. others
58.lt would be oost prohibitive to provide special construction for a single
elevation feature at the side or rear off a plan, just to be "truer" to an
, architectural style. We do show all of the other elements that you have
described.
59. We have used the guidelines.thatwere provided by the City of Temecula.
They were proposed as guidelines with brief desaiptions of architectural
themes to follow. Many of the elements that you have described are
speculative and therefore open to interpretation. It is our intent to capture
the spirit of each architectural style. I think we have done just that. Why
even in the example that you show of a 'pralrie style home" in your
guidelines is actually a church designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and is built
in the Chicago area.
60. We have used similar doors on simUarly styled homes.
61.The eaves ARE wider. 2' vs. l' on the other homes.
62. The delail that you have described, A portlH:ochere. Although admittedly
a very nice feature, would price buyers away from the home that the
builder is trying to market. The buDder is trying to provide an appealing
home in a nice neighborhood that is in line with the market In the area.
63. The door thatts intended for this model would be a flat plank type that is
readily available and marketed as a prairie style door.
54.We have considered changing the roof. but it is not a worthwhile
consideration when net appeal to value Is considered.
65. True c1ayl Spanish tile cannot be warranted due to their brittle nature and
huge shipping loss factor. In a custom building situation, special handling
can be given to the situation. But this is far too great a liability in marketrhousing.
66.Again a very nice detail. But the market cannot bear this type of
embellishment.
57. Although nice, most tube steel details around windows that are authentic
cause impossible egress conditions.
68. we have recessed windows where practicable.
69. The detail that you describe causes stucco cracking and defect warranty
issues that cannot be overcome by anything but a painstaking custom
application.
c-Jmy cIocumentSlehlp/ch;p
:,,' '~2IilB4 : ,'12'19
KNITTER tASSOCIATES',-,C,
949 7S21il151 'P..BS/05 ,
70.We considered these applications early in the design process. But the
'idea was eliminated due to mar1tet studies.
71.Although manufacl1Jred sidings are a vast improvement over dimensional .
lumber. the weather extremes that exist in Temecula cause most paints to
Peel. causing the- homeowner higher maintenance costs and therefore a ,
liability to the builder.
72. The elevations should stand as they are.
73. the spirit of the gUidelines has been fulfilled.
74. By the landscape architecU civil.
75. By the landscape arch~ civil.
76. By the landscape architect! civil.
77. By the landscape architectl civil.
78. By the landscape architect! civil.
79. By the landscape architectl civil.
80. By the landscape architect! civil.
.
.
C:lml~p/dlIp
TOTI'L P. 05