HomeMy WebLinkAbout021799 PC Agenda~nc~mp~ancew~thb~eAm~k:msw~thD~sab~esA~fyeuneed~pec~a~am~ancet~p~rt~d~a~k~~m~e
oWn:eoftheCommunltyDevi4pfnentDepadmmtatlgO~4-64~. NollP, catlonlhounpdo~toameegngMlenabletheCItytornake
reaMnaMe afTangeme~ts to ensure accendbllRy to that fneeOng r2~ CFR 35.t0'L]S.1H ADA T~ie Iq
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
February 17, '1999, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Reso Next In Order #99-005
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Guerriero
Guerdero, Naggar, Soltysiak and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items
that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to
speak to the Commissioners about an item no__t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak"
form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vourname and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary
before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of January 20, 1999 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No: . Planning Application No. PA98-0446 (Conditional Use Permit)
Applicant: Damone Group/VSL Engineering
Location: On the southeast comer of Pauba and Margadta Roads.
Proposal: The design, construction and operation of a 22,007 square foot
alternative seniors living services and AIzheimer care facility with
associated parking and landscaping on 3.22 acre lot.
Environmental Action: Environmental Addendure to the previously certified Environmental
Impact Report (no. 235) for the Paloma [;)el Sol Specific Plan (No.
219).
PlanneF. Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
Recommendation: Approval
PLANNING MANAGERSREPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: March 3, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers
· 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
\\TEMEC_FS201%DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMM\AGENDAS~.-lT-99,doc 1
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
JANUARY 20, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a joint workshop of the Planning
Commission Public/Traffic Commission at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, January 20, 1999, in the
Park Drive, Temecula,
City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business
California.
ROLL CALL
Planning Commission:
Public/Traffic Commission:
Absent:
Also Present:
Commissioners Guerdero, Naggar,
Webster, and Chairwoman Slaven.
Commissioners Coe, Connerton,
Markham*, and Telesio
None.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Senior Planner Hogan, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
Soltysiak,
Eclwards,
* (Commissioner Markham ardved at 6:02 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APProval of AQenda
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
2. Al~l~roval of Minutes - December 16, 1999
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
3. Circulation Element Update
Senior Planner Hogan noted that in addition to the presentation of the Circulation Element
Update, and the Summary of Proposed Circulation Plan Changes, a Pdodtization List for
Projects, concentrating pdmadly on the initial 5-year program for improvements will be
presented for the Commissions' input and, thereafter, those comments forwarded to the City
Council's Workshop on January 21, 1999; advised that the list has been modified per the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation; relayed that the Circulation Element
Update process began in the spdng of 1998; and noted that Mr. Bob Davis will present the
Update in detail, and will be available for questions, advising that this process will culminate
into the finalization of the Update which will be presented to the Planning Commission in
approximately a month.
A. Presentation of the Pdodtization List for Proiects for Capital Improvement PreQram
1. Projects for Capital Improvement Prof3ram (5-year)
Mr. Bob Davis presented a detailed report of the Pdodtization List of the Circulation Element
(per supplemental agenda material), focusing primarily on the projects for the Capital
Improvement Program within the 5-year plan, Items 1-34 (of record); noted the rationale for the
improvements; clarified the denotations reflecting projects that are under contract, funded,
partially funded, and the entity which the project falls under (i.e., Temecula, Murrieta, Caltrans);
relayed that the list is not all inclusive (omitting minor intersection improvements, etc.); advised
that the first 10 items are currently under contract or under construction; and noted that
regarding Item No. 34, Rancho Vista Road should be corrected to reflect Tierra Vista Road.
Mr. Davis concurred with Commissioner Guer~ero's recommendation that Item No, 17,
regarding the extension and signal at Jefferson Avenue, should be moved up in prioritization
due to its effect on the Ovedand Crossing.
For Commissioner Webster, with regard to Item No. 17 (aforementioned), Mr. Davis clarified
that this project was inclusive of the engineering plans and the construction; with regard to
Item No. 16, regarding improvements at Jefferson Avenue and Construction of the Date Street
extension, noted that this project will be funded by the City of Murrieta; relayed the rationale for
the location of Item No. 13, the First Street Bridge project; with regard to Item No. 8, the
Rancho California Road off-ramp widening, relayed that the reference reflected solely the off-
ramp project.
For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that although the
Rancho California Road east side on-ramp, heading northbound, and the widening of Rancho
Califomia Road (having a duo right turn onto the ramp), are currently under design, this project
could be added to the Pdodtization List; further clarified the rationale for the location of Item
No. 13, regarding the First Street Bridge.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Parks noted that fie extension of Pujol Street to the Western
Bypass, although developer ddven, could be added to Item No. 35, in the Medium-Range
Considerations.
Commissioner Connerton recommended addressing northbound Ynez Road at Winchester
Road to the northbound 1-15 on-ramp, recommending a double-striped lane for the provision
of two right lanes with the inside lane being straight-through, or, right only, and the northbound
Ynez Road and westbound Rancho California Road on-ramp in order to adequately alleviate
traffic in this particular area before mall opening; and advised that a time frame be provided to
the City Council regarding this project. Mr. Parks relayed that staff would investigate and bring
an update back to the Commission.
Commissioner Markham suggested directing the discussion at this point in time back to the
elements of the Circulation Update, in order to avoid entering another arena of discussion
which wouldn't envelop the Circulation Element.
Echoing Mr. Markham's suggestion, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that staff
desired the input of the Commissions regarding recommendation as to the Circulation Element
modification, specifically, the order of the Items on the Priodtization List.
Per Commission request, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reiterated the desire for Commission
input regarding prioritization of the improvements up to the 5-year range (Items 1-34) in order
to bring those comments forward to the City Council's workshop, advising that the immediate
issues, in the 6- to 18-month range will be presented as a package and brought to the City
Council and the PublicrT'raffic Safety Commission for input at a future point in time.
Commissioner Naggar concurred with the Priodtization List, regarding Items 1-34.
For Commissioner Soltysiak, Mr. Thornhill advised that the primary analysis utilized in the
Update was traffic modeling; and noted that cost analysis was considered.
Commissioner Telesio suggested that in addition to pdoritization of the Items, the
Commissioners consider the addition of Items not included on the list.
Commissioner Coe, echoed by Chairwoman Slaven, recommended prioritizing Item No. 33,
regarding Santiago Road, in line with Item No. 13, regarding the First Street Bridge.
Due to Chairwoman Slaven's concern with the pdority placement of Item No. 34, regarding
the widening of Ynez Road, due to the imminent opening of the Marie Callenders restaurant,
Mr. Davis suggested dividing the project into smaller segments, prioritizing the widening from
Tierra Vista Road to Rancho Vista Road or Pauba Road to address that impact.
Chairwoman Slaven recommended with regard to Item No. 11, that the Petition process be
expedited.
Commissioner Webster recommended that a brief overview of the medium- to long-range
program be presented prior to the Commissions' recommendation.
2. and 3. Medium- to Lonci-Ran.cle Phasinq Considerations (6 to beyond 10 years)
Mr. Bob Davis briefly presented the Medium- to Long-Range Considerations (6 to 10 years),
Items No. 35-51 (per agenda material).
For Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Davis clarified that Item No. 38, regarding Mumeta Hot
Spdngs Road, is a Mumeta project. Mr. Davis further dadfled that although Murdeta's projects
are denoted on the Pdodtization List, it is not to be deduced that the projects are being funded
by the City of Temecula.
Commissioner Connerton, echoed by Commissioners Telesio and Slaven, recommended
moving Item No. 46, regarding the Butterfield Stage Road northerly extension from Nicolas
Road to Washington Street, up to coincide with Item No. 11, regarding the Petition reflecting
redesignation of the 1-15 freeway. Mr. Davis recommended moving the engineering phase of
Item No. 46, Item No. 42, forward.
Commissioner Markham recommended not deleting Item No. 40 (listed after Item No. 47)
regarding development of a collector distdbutor/frontage road system along the 1-15 corridor,
and placing it in the 1- to 5-year range.
For Commissioner Soltysiak, Mr. Davis clarified the rationale for the prioritization placement of
Item No. 50, regarding the widening of De Portola Road.
With regard to Commissioner Markham's querying with regard to the parallel route to
Winchester Road from Muraleta Hot Spdngs Road and over to the split Diamond Interchange,
Mr. Davis advised that although this project is partially developer driven, it should be added to
the list.
Presentation of the Proposed Revisions to the General Plan Circulation Element
(continued, see page 6)
Mr. Bob Davis presented the Revised Circulation Update, briefly highlighting each Item (of
record).
1. Section I (Introduction)
For Commissioner Webster, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that after the Circulation update is
revised staff will further investigate provision of a supplement to the EIR (Environmental Impact
Report.)
It was noted on page 6, first paregraph, that the word their should be corrected to indicate
there.
Chairwoman Slaven recommended that with regard to Page 6, at the top of the page, the term
conformity review be clarified.
2. Section II (Summan/of Circulation Issues)
For Chairwoman Slaven, Mr. Davis clarified page 9, as follows: the deletion of paragraph 1
and 4 was due to the improved condition in those specific areas; and advised that as to
paragraph 5, regarding alternative modes of transportation, that this provision could be added
back into the material. Ms. Slaven recommended, additionally, not deleting paragraphs I and
4.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Davis indicated that page 10, the last paragraph, should be
corrected to reflect complete deletion.
For Commissioner Naggar, regarding page 10, paragraph 2, Mr. Davis noted that with regard
to the future transportation system, the time frame for this particular project is within the 5-year
range, although the TSM (Transportation System Management) program and the TDM
(Transportation Demand Management) program plans should be immediately addressed.
3. Section III (Goals and Policies)
With regard to Goal 1, stdving to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better, Chairwoman Slaven
expressed dissatisfaction with the level, advising that this issue should be brought before the
City Council.
Commissioner Guerriero, regarding page 11, Policy 1.2. recommended that the word adequate
be changed to reflect comprehensive; commended staff for their diligent efforts associated
with Policy 1.4, reflecting TSM; recommended that additional language be added to page 12,
Policy 2.1 to include rfght-of-way violations, advising that the City Council consider adding an
additional 2-4 motor enforcement officers; and suggested with regard to Policy 2,6, regarding
traffic calming, holding a workshop for the consideration of traffic calming devices (i.e., speed
undulations.)
Commissioner Telesio, echoed by Commissioner Edwards, recommended for City Council
consideration with regard to Policy 1,2, evaluation of potential traffic impacts. that the Public
Traffic/Safety Commissioner become more actively involved in this process.
Chairwoman Slaven expressed a desire for more input from the Public Traffic/Safety
Commission on traffic matters.
With regard to Policy 4.3, on page 14, Commissioner Markham noted, for Commissioner
Slaven, that all arterial parking has been eliminated with the exception of Winchester Road
and Margadta Road (adjacent to the school.) Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised
that with regard to the City not having control over Winchester Road with regard to parking,
due to it being a State highway, that staff is investigating this area of concern.
Mr. Davis clarified Policy 4.9, on page 15, regarding the TDM Plan. Commissioner Edwards
recommended that this area of discussion be an arena in which the Public TrafficJSafety
Commission become more involved.
At 8:02 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 8:12 P.M.
4. Section IV (Circulation Plan)
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Davis recommended the elimination of the reference curb
parking.
For Commissioner Markham, Mr. Davis noted that the continuity issue between the Cities of
Temecula and Murrieta with regard to standards of saturation levels are currently unresolved.
C. Presentation of the Summary of Proposed Circulation Plan Chanf:les
Since Section IV of the Circulation Element included revisions, by way of overhead maps, Mr.
Davis presented the Summary of Proposed Circulation Plan Changes (per supplemental
agenda material.)
1. HiGhway Component Deletions
With regard to Item No. 2, Commissioner Markham clarified, for Commissioner Webster, the
rationale for the deletion of the Butterfield Stage Road southerly extension.
With regard to Item No. 3, for Commissioner Soltysiak, Mr. Davis noted that the Western
Bypass is a potential use for connection with Cherry Street.
With regard to Chairwoman Slaven's concern with regard to Item No. 4, regarding the Nicolas
Road eastedy extension, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the omission of this
item doesn't mandate the deletion of this extension.
2, HiGhway Component Classification UpQrades and Other Modifications
With regard to Item No. 5, Mr. Davis presented the options of modifications to relieve traffic on
Winchester Road, noting the potential involvement with the County, Caltrans, and surrounding
cities; advised the elimination of Option A (of record); and clarified, for Commissioner Webster,
the rationale for the aforementioned project not being placed on the pdodtization list, noting,
however, that there is a process of coordinating this project with the Priodty List.
Commissioner Guerdero recommended coordinating the classification upgrades and
modifications to the Circulation Plan with the anticipated population at build-out; and noted,
additionally, that The City may not have the population base to support the current Commercial
Industrial development.
In light of the time constraint, it was the consensus of the Commissions that the remainder of
the Summary of Proposed Circulation Plan Changes be thoroughly reviewed with the provision
of maps by the Commissioners outside the meeting, and then reconvene for discussion and
Commission input at another scheduled joint workshop, Thursday, February 11, 1999.
At this time the meeting went back to the review of the Proposed Revisions to the General
Plan Circulation Element.
Presentation of the Proposed Revisions to the General Plan Circulation Element
(continued from paQe 4)
5. Section V (Implementation ProClrams)
For Chairwoman Slaven, Mr. Davis noted that page 34, section A, of Section V, addresses
traffic impact study guides.
With regard to page 36, Item 1, regarding the City's Development Impact Monitoring Program
Commissioners Naggar and Edwards recommended that additional language be added to
indicate review by the City's staff and the Planning and Public Traffic/Safety Commissions.
For Commissioner Naggar, with regard to traffic impact, Mr. Davis advised that there is a
proposal to have developers at a future point in time provide an additional independent traffic
study.
Mr. Davis concurred with Chairwoman Slaven, regarding the use of the percentage to indicate
traffic impact, recommending in lieu of that, the results of the trip generation counts and the
road capacity usage serve as more effective tools to measure the impact.
Chairwoman Slaven recommended annually updating the Circulation Element,
For Chairwoman Slaven, Mr. Davis noted the recommendation of defining Level of Service
designations. Senior Planner Hogan recommended, additionally, the provision of graphic
presentation to more accurately review traffic issues.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the policy issue on Traffic Circulation could
be presented to both Commissions at a future point in time when the supplemental EIR
(Environmental Impact Report) presentation is presented.
Chairwoman Slaven commended staff on their assiduous endeavor with regard to the
Circulation Update.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Senior Planner Hogan thanked the Commissioners for their time and input on the Circulation
Update.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
A. Commissioner Guerdero commented, as follows:
1. With regard to projects that are transporting dirt, for removal, or for additional
provision on a site, that staff ensure proper traffic control during transportation.
2. With regard to Jefferson Avenue, recommended that a study be done reviewing
the need for the addition of designated right-turn only lanes, primarily between
Winchester Road and Via Montezuma.
3. With regard to the Farmer Boys restaurant site located on Winchester Road
(approved at the August 19, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting),
recommended enforcement of the temporary installation of delineators (which
the project was conditioned by) until the Winchester median project is
completed.
B. Commissioners Connerton and Telesio relayed that this workshop provided
cohesiveness and constructive discussion, recommending that the Commissions periodically
meet.-
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:41 P.M. Chairwoman Slaven formally adjoumed this joint workshop to Thursday,
February 11, 1999, at 6:00 P.M., and the next regular Planning Commission meeting will be
on Wednesday. Februan/3, 1999, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive Temecula.
Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date: February 17,1999
Planning Application No. PA98-0446 (Conditional Use Permit)
RECOMMENDATION:
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- appmving Planning Application
No. 98-0446 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval;
ADOPT Environmental Addendure No. 2 to the previously
certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 235), and
make the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Section
15162.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: The Damone Group
REPRESENTATIVE: VSL Engineering, Land Planning and Surveying
PROPOSAL: The design, construction and operation of a 22,850 square foot
altemative seniors living services and Alzheimer care facility with
associated parking and landscaping on a 3.22 acre parcel
LOCATION: The southeast comer of Margarita Road and Pauba Roads.
EXISTING ZONING: SP (Specific Plan)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: PI (Public Institutional)
South: SP (Specific Plan)
East: NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
West: SP (Specific Plan)
N/A
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential)
Vacant
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA'~DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~446pa98PC,doc
1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant Land/High School/Sports Park (northwest)
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Commercial/Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND
A formal application submittal was received on October 27, 1998. A Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting was held on November 17, 1998, with staff providing wdtten comments
on November30, 1998. The applicant initiated and conducted a neighborhood meeting on January
5, 1999 to discuss the project and answer any questions or concerns of the residents. The project
was deemed complete on January 21, 1999.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the design, construction and operation of a one-story office, 22,850 square
foot alternative seniors living services and AIzheimer care facility with associated parking and
landscaping on a 3.22 acre parcel. The facility proposes 36 units and 40 beds, with a maximum
capacity of 46 beds. The proposed facility is licensed as a residential care facility for the elderly by
the California Department of Social Services, Community Care licensing branch. Landscape
improvements include: parking lot planting, planter areas, landscaped courtyards and patios, and
streetscape.
ANALYSIS
Site Desiqn and Architecture
The subject site is located within Planning Area 34 of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan (No. 219).
The proposed project was designed to be residential in style so that it would blend with the adjacent
residential development to the east. The building is a one-story structure with neutral colors that is
very architectural compatible with the adjacent residential tract in terms of colors, materials and bulk
and mass. There will a landscape buffer between the subject site and the residential tract to the
east that ranges from 20' to 85'. Staff feels this type of use is a good transitional development and
will be very compatible with the existing residential development. The facility provides 24-hour
security for their guests. The facility is secured with locking doors which prohibits the residents from
leaving the facility without supervision. There are also resident assistants who provide personal care
services, as well as, assistance with activities, housekeeping and meal services.
Due to the fact that the project is a residential, live-in facility, the noise is anticipated to be very
minimal and not adversely affect the surTounding properties.
The project is proposing two points of access, one on Margadta Road and one on Pauba Road.
Margarita Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out and Pauba Road will be allowed a full turning
movement.
Landscapincl
The applicant is proposing 58% of the site to be landscaped. There are landscaped interior
courtyards, enclosed patio areas with landscaped areas, raised planter beds to allow residents to
participate in gardening activities, streetscapes, turf area and extensive landscaping around the
building. The applicant was very successful in developing a park like setting for the residents. The
landscaping also softens the building and serves as a buffer between the existing residential
development to the east.
\~TEMEC_FS201 ',DATA',DEPTS~LANNING~STAFFRpT~446pa98pC.dOC
2
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Environmental Addendum was prepared for this project (Addendum No. 2) which concluded that
the proposed use is consistent with the uses as anticipated and analyzed in the Paloma Del Sol
Specific Plan's certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 235) for Planning Area 34. The
conclusion was made due to the fact that the proposed use is listed as a conditionally permitted use
in the Specific Plan.
Environmental Addendure No. 2 concludes that the project is consistent with the previously
Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 235), that a supplemental or subsequent environmental
impact report is not required because the general scope of impacts are similar and all mitigation
measures are in place. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
Environmental Addendure No. 2 and make the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15162.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning of SP (Specific Plan) and the General
Plan Land Use Designation of LM (Low-Medium Density Residential). The proposed use is a
conditionally permitted use within Planning Area 34 of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan. As
proposed, the project complies with the existing zoning and General Plan Land Use designation.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is the design, construction and operation of a 22,850 alternative seniors living services
and Alzheimer care facility with associated parking and landscaping on a parcel containing 3.22
acres. As proposed, the project is consistent with the Paloma [}el Sol Specific Plan and the General
Plan.
FINDINGS (Development Plan)
The proposed use is in conformance with General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable
requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with
Planning Area 34 of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan zoning.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety
and general welfare. The proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public
health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the Paloma Del Sol
Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. The project is consistent with these documents
and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the
development conforms to City Standards.
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no
known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish,
wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site.
Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger specific
plan. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife
resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
~\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT',A46pa98PC.doc
3
FINDINGS (Conditional Use Permit)
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Paloma Del Sol
Specific Plan. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula, the
Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan and with all applicable requirements of State law and other
ordinances of the City.
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. The project has been designed to be
residential in nature and is compatible with the existing residential tract to the east in terms
of colors, materials, architectural style and bulk and mass.
The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other
development features prescribed in the Specific Plan and required by the Planning
Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The subject
site is capable of accommodating the proposed project and complies with all the
development standards (lot coverage, setbacks, landscaping, building height, etc.). In
addition the project is proposing 58% of the site to be landscaped which includes a
landscape buffer to the residential development to the east, extensive landscaping around
the building, and landscaping compatible with the existing streetscapes.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The proposed use is in conformance with the General
Plan for Temecula, the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan and with all applicable requirements
of State law and other ordinances of the City.
The decision to approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission at the time of
their decision.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 20
Environmental Addendum - Blue Page 23
Statement of Operations and Letter of Justification - Blue Page 25
Exhibits - Blue Page 26
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Maps
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Floor Plans
G. Landscape Plan
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~46pa98PC.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~46pa98PC.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 99-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-
0446 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
22,850 SQUARE FOOT ALTERNATIVE SENIORS LIVING
SERVICES AND ALZHEIMER CARE FACIUTY WITH ASSOCIATED
PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 3.22
ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 955-150-027.
WHEREAS, Damone Group filed Planning Application No. PA98-0446, in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0446 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. PA98-0446, on
March 17, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0446;
NOW, THEEFOE, 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
rafeFeRce.
Section 2. Development Plan Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA98-0446 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by
Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with
Planning Area 34 of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan zoning classification.
B. The proposed use is in conformance with General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed use is in
conformance with the General Plan for Temecula, the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City.
C. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare. The proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public
health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the Paloma Del Sol Specific
Plan and the City's General Plan. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions
of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms
to City Standards,
R:\STAFFRPT~I6pa98PC.dOc
6
D. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat
off-site, The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources,
as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findin{~s. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in
approving Planning Application No. PA98-0446 (Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following
findings as required by Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Ran and the Paloma Del
Sol Specific Plan. The proposed use is in conformante with the General Plan for Temecula, the
Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances
of the City.
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. The project has been designed to be
residential in nature and is compatible with the existing residential tract to the east in terms of colors,
materials, architectural style and bulk and mass.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and
other development features prescribed in the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan and required by the
Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The subject
site is capable of accommodating the proposed project and complies with all the development
standards (lot coverage, setbacks, landscaping, building height, etc.). In addition the project is
proposing 58% of the site to be landscaped which includes a landscape buffer to the residential
development to the east, extensive landscaping around the building, and landscaping compatible
with the existing streetscapes.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for
Temecula, the Paloma [:)el Sol Specific Plan and with all applicable requirements of State law and
other ordinances of the City.
E. The decision to approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on
substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission at the time
of their decision.
Section 4. Environmental Coml~liance. Environmental Addendum No. 2 to the previously
certified Environmental Impact Report (No. 235) was prepared for the proposed project. The
Addendure concluded that the proposed use is consistent with the uses as anticipated and analyzed
in the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan's certified Environmental Impact Report for Planning Area 34
as the proposed use is listed as a conditionally permitted use. In addition, the Environmental
Addendure concluded that a supplemental or subsequent environmental impact report is not required
as the general scope of impacts are similar and all mitigation measures are in place. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Environmental Addendum No. 2 and make the
finding that a subsequent EIR is not required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
Section 15162.
Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally
approves Planning Application No. PA98-0446 (Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit) for
the design, construction and operation of a 22,850 square alternative seniors living services and
AIzheimer care facility with associated parking and landscaping on a parcel containing 3.22 acres
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~446pag8PC,doc
7
and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 955-150-027, and subject to the project specific conditions set
forth on Exhibit A (Development Plan), and Exhibit B (Conditional Use Permit), attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March, 1999.
Ron Guerdero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at its regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of March,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\~TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRpT~446pa98pC.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~446pa98PC,dOC
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0446 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
The design, construction and operation of a 22,850 square
foot alternative seniors living services and Alzheimer care
facility with associated parking and landscaping on a
parcel containing 3.22 acres.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
955-150-027
February 17, 1999
February 17, 2001
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of
Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and
California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of
failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City~s own selection,
the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards,
judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary
damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval
of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or
legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim,
action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in
the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City
deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
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 pedod which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the previously certified
Environmental Impact Report (No. 235).
%\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~,46pa98PC.doc
10
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D"
(Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division.
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan).
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Building
Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by
architectural features integrated into the design of the structure.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "G" (Color and Matedal Board), contained on
file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from
the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Planning Manager.
Material Color
Main Building Stucco
Window Trim Color
Stucco Accent Color
Concrete Roof Tile
Threshold Taupe (SW2023)
Cranbrook (SW2154)
Zeus (SW2085)
Glazed (16027)
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
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.
10.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and retum one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
11.
If applicable, the applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G" , (Site Plan, Landscape Plan,
Elevations. Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit
five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved
Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F",
the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be
readable on the photographic prints.
12.
The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G"
(Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored
architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be
readable on the photographic prints.
\\TEMEC_FS201'~)ATA*~)EPTS~PLANNING~TAFFRPT\446pa98pC.doc
11
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
13. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
14.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans
shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identity the total
square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15.
An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage
not included on Exhibits "D' and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved
Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
16.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
appmved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager.
The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall
be properly constructed and in good working order.
17.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee
the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape
and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping
and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning
Manager, the bond shall be released.
18.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed
re~ectodzed sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the
International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches
in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at
a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk.
A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking
facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, deady and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons
with disabilities may be towed away at owner~s expense. Towed
vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
\\TEMEC_FS201 '{)ATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT'~,46pa98PC,d~x:
12
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface
identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square
feet in size.
19.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with pdor to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
20.
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan
all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints
and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for
further review and revision.
General Requirements
21.
A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work
and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
22.
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.
23.
All improvement plans, grading plans, and raised landscaped median plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to
the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
24.
The development of this project would not require the City to issue a Building Permit or any
subsequent permits. Therefore, this project is conditioned to comply with all the Conditions
of Approval pdor to issuance of the Grading Permit. The Developer may post bonds or
provide securities in order to comply with the requirements as deemed necessary by the
Director of the Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
25.
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 pdvate property.
26
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.
27.
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.
28
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.
~\TEMEC_FS201 ~E)ATA~DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRp'i'~446pa98pC.doc
13
29.
30.
33.
35,
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive wdtten clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Rancho California Water Distdct
Eastern Municipal Water Distdct
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.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and
the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct by either cashiers 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.
improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula
Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The
following design criteda shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C
paving.
b. Ddveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance
with Ordinance 461.
d. All street and driveway centedine intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to ddveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA~)EPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~I46pa98PC.doc
14
36
37.
38.
39.
40.
The Developer shall construct or post secudty and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/VV) to include
installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer), and raised landscaped median.
If the raised landscaped median is constructed, the Developer shall reimburse the
City the cost for construction of half width of the raised landscaped median not to
exceed $40.00 per lineal foot.
The access to the site on Margadta Road shall be restricted to right in/right out
only.
All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City
where sidewalks meander through private property.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil
Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
41.
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.
42.
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
43.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School Distdct shall be submitted to
the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees.
44.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining
property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown
on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check
approval and shall comply with the requirements of City Ordinance No, 655 regarding light
pollution,
\\TEMEC_FS201~)ATA',DEPTS\PLANNING~TAFFRPT'~46pa98PC.doc
15
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56,
57.
58,
59.
60,
61.
62.
63.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the C, alifomia Building, Plumbing and
Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24
Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.
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 dghts-of-way.
A receipt or ciearance 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.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals pdor to commencement of any construction
work.
The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be R-2.1.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
Provide house electdcal meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector pdor to the start of the
building construction.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate
approvals and permits.
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~46pa98PC.dOC
16
64. These Conditions are applicable only if the facility is classified as an R-2.1 If this is
classified as an I-2 and is State Regulated these conditions will change as needed.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
65.
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 Uniform
Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the
time of building plan submittal.
66.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a
total fire flow of 1900 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
dudng the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A)
67.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC
Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"
x 4" x 2-2 []" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent
to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart and shall be located no more
than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an
hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix
Ill-B)
68.
As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project
on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2)
69.
Pdor to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have appreved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion
of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access reads shall be an all weather
surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec
902 and Ord 95-15)
70.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet
six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15)
71.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system
plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed
by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans
are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention
Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed
and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials
being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection
Association 24 1-4.1 )
72.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3)
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRpT~446pa98pC.doc
17
73.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall
display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The
numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for
suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the
suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15)
74.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire
sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15)
75
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 UndenNr'iters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10)
76.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm
system. (UFC 902.4)
77.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4)
COMMUNITYSERVICES DEPARTMENT
78.
Prior to installation of the required street lighting on Margarita Road, the developer shall file
an application and pay the appropriate energy fees for the dedication of said street lights into
the TCSD maintenance program.
79. All parkway landscaping shall continue to be privately maintained.
80.
Landscape construction drawings for the landscaped median within Margadta Road shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
81.
Construction of the median landscaping shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with
the developer and the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude the acceptance of this area into the TCSD
maintenance program.
82.
Upon successful completion of the median landscaping, the developer shall provide a one-
year warranty bond equivalent to 10% of the estimated cost of the landscaping and irrigation
equipment in order to guarantee the improvements against any defective work or materials.
83.
The developer shall construct a concrete ramp, not to exceed 2% grade, on each side of the
proposed driveway at Pauba Road in order to provide safe access to the existing equestrian
trail. Said crossing shall be posted to identify the existence of an existing equestrian trail.
OTHER AGENCIES
84.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
Distdct's transmittal dated November 17, 1998, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashiers check or
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~)ATA~EPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPT~,46pa98PC.doc
18
85.
86.
87.
money order, pdor to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the
District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated November 3, 1998, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Districts transmittal dated November 3, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Riverside Transit Agency
transmittal dated December 24, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
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 shah be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicanrs Name
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA',DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~I46pa98PC.doc
19
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
City of Temecula
Plannin De artment
Post O ,oe 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
A. enticn: P TTy
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re:
The Disthct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use Cases in incorporated
cities. The Distdct also does not lan check city land use Cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for sucnP Cases. Distnct comments/recommendations for such Cases are normally limited
to items of specific ~nterest to the Distdct including District Master Draina · Plan facilities, other re ionat flood
control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a master ~3~an s stem,
end District Ares 8re nage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). n addition informat on of a general ngYt~re s
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
V/ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional ~nterest proposed.
This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will acce t ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~Pdrds and Distnct plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a I iCal extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The Distdct wo:Jl°c~ consider accepting ownership of such tac~ht~es on wntten request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards and D~strict plan check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check inspection and administrative fees will be required.
This project is loCated within the limits of the Distdct's
permits, whichever comes ~rst. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the
actual permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project ma re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water
Resources Con~/rgl ~]oard. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the
City has determined that the project has btien granted a penn t or is shown to be exempt
If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood pain. then the C ty shou d
require the applicant to provide all studies, Calculations, plans and o~er reformation required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should further requite that the a pliCant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
pdor to grading recordation or other final approvaPof the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR({ pdor to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City shou d requ re the a I Cant to
obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from the Car~¢omia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean ~,/ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wdtten correspondence from these a encies
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Cer~cation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of ~e Corps 404
permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Da,e:
TO:
CuUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: November 3, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PETIT NO. PA98-0446
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA98-0446
and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBI%IITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b)
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture
schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food
Facility. Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022.
c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-5055
will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosurd (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2).
· Waste reduction management.
3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
CH:dr
(909) 955-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered. can be applicable at time of Building
Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
cc: Doug Thompson NO~I ~ i~98
stand3b.doc
John F. Hennigar
Phillip L. Forbes
Kenneth C. Dealy
Perry R. LouCk
Linda M. Fregoso
C. Michael Cowerr
Best Best & F~ieger LLP
November 3, 1998
Patty Anders, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula. CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
LOT NO. 79 OF TRACT NO. 24134-2
APN 955-150-027
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0446
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Ranche California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
!f you have an,;' questicns, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
X998
9~/SB:mc286/F012-T1/FCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
c'
'/
December 24, 1998
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
RO. Box 59968
Riverside. CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Case #:
Applicant:
PA98-0446
Damone Group/Markham & Associates
Dear Patty:
RTA presently provides transit service on Pauba Road via Route 23 but currently, there are no
existing bus stops located within the above proposed project site.
Based on the size and importance of the project and our own plans for future growth, we are
requesting that a bus turnout or a pad for a bus stop be incorporated into the general design. In
order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for residents and visitors of this
development, RTA would like to suggest that the applicant be required to provide a bus turnout
and passenger shelter on Pauba Avenue farside Margarita Road, east of the driveway entrance.
Paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway consistent with ADA standards
should be provided between the stop and the project site.
Thank you/br'the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Your efforts to keep us
updated on the status of this request will be very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
e
na C
Transit Planner
# 247/jsc
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPT~.6pa98PC.dOC
20
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0446 (Conditional Use Permit)
The use is hereby permitted for the design, construction and operation of a 22,850
square foot alternative seniors living services and Alzheimer care facility with
associated parking and landscaping on a parcel containing 3.22 acres.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
955-150-027
February 17, 1999
February 17, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection,
the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards,
judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary
damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval
of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof. advisory agency, appeal board or
legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim,
action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in
the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City
deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Planning Application No. PA98-
0446, unless superseded by these conditions of approval. All these conditions shall be
complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit.
This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
The project is a live-in facility with 24-hour security with residents who provide personal care
services and meal services.
~\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT'~A6pa98pC.doc
21
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 Name
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA'~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~46pa98PC.doc
22
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ADDENDUM NO. 2
~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~DLANNING~STAFFRPT~448pa98PC.doc
23
ENVIRONMENTAL ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 235)
The proposed site is located within the Paloma Del Sol Specific (No. 219) Planning Area 34. The
previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 235) for the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan
analyzed institutions such as facilities for the aged licensed by the California State Department of
Social Welfare or the County Department of Public Welfare, congregate care residential facilities,
information center and nursery schools. These uses were listed as permitted and conditionally
permitted use. Therefore, it is concluded that a supplemental or subsequent environmental impact
report is not required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15162 as the
general scope of impacts are the same or similar to the proposed project, and that all mitigation
measures are already in place with the certified EIR.
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~,46pa98PC.doc
24
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA',DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPT'~46pa98PC,doc
25
STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS
AND
LETTER OF
JUSTIFICATION
38 BED CLARE BRIDGE
RESIDENCE
STATEMENT
OF
OPERATIONS
38 BED CLARE BRIDGE
RESIDENCE
38 Bed Clare Bddge
Alternative Uving Services, Inc,
The Demone Group, LLC
CLARE BRIDGE
Land U~e Description (38 Bed)
The primary concept of this residence is to provide a high level of care and services within
a hOmelike environment to residents affected by AIT. heimer's disease or other memory
impairments, The residence is deigned to include physical features that closely
approximate that of a single ramify home so as to reduce the stress of a residents'
rstocation to a long term care sating and to include aP_,lk'lties that maximize a residents'
independence and functional skills for as long as possible. Clumertng resident rooms into
neighborhoods or wings with nearby small-scale household activity areas facilitate this
goat.
Features which contribute to the design goals are:
· The building will be designed and decorated to resemble an upscale home with four
wings.
The grouping of resident suites into "neighborhoocr' wings correlating of eight to nine
suites per wing. This layout avoids the long hallways that are typiCally associated with
nursing and large retirement homes.
Each suite will contain a closet and a separate bathroom with toilet and sink,
Residents may pereonaiize Ihair rooms with cherished possessions or some furniture
from their own homes,
· Each neighborhood has Its own:
1. laundry room;
2, personal care/adaptive bathing area;
3. resident caregiver's work area for maintaining resident records and
storing medications and supplies.
The various common areas within the building that are specifically designed for resident
use will include:
· beauty/barber shop
· dining rooms
· life skills activity areas which include
1o office
2. kitchen
3. work shop
4. laundry room
5. hobby-Craft room (with greenhouse)
· living room
· parrot/den (sitting room)
· wander paths throughout the building
· electronic alarm system to safeguard against unaccompanied residents wandering
outstde the building
In addition to the above, the building wilt be provided wilh an intedor courtyard and
enclosed patio areas with landscaped areas including raised planter beds to enable
residents to partic~ate in gaffientng activities.
Services:
The following accommodations and services are provided to residents:
· ongoing health assessments by a professional nurse to meet the changing needs of
residents;
· three meals per day and snacks planned under the direction of a registered dietitian;
· registered nurse available 24 hours;
· 24-hour assistance with personal care/activities of dally living;
· medlcation supervision;
· private (or semi-private), fully fumished suite;
· recreational and cultural activities both within the home and in the community;
· In-room emergency caJl system;
· housekeeping service;
· linen and personal laundry service.,
OfT-Site Management & Staffing:
The residence will be staffed on a 24 hour basis with resident assistants who provide
personal care services as well as assistance with activities, housekeeping and meal
service. The ratio of resident assistants to residents will be approximately 1:7. The
director of the residence will be a nurse with responsibility for daily operations as well as
monitoring resident medical status and supervising meditation administration.
The residence management team consists of the following individuals:
· Resident Director
· Community Service Representative (CSR)
· Life Enrichment Coordinator
· Realdent Assistant Supervisor
· Kitchen Manager
Together this team provides prolessional depth to the service aleliven/of the small
freestanding building, yet at the same time, allows for a comfortable and non-institutional
environment at the residence.
The management team reports to the Regional Director, who is responsible for the
operetiortal and marketing issues relative to the faclltUes in his or her region. All building
maintenance staff/services are under the supervision of the Regional Director.
The ALS corporate management group is raspeneible for the development and
implementaUon of overall corporate politics and procedures that relate to ALS fadllties.
This group includes the following individuals:
· Executive Vice Presidem of Operations
Corporate Director of Quality Assurance and Staff Development
· Director of Marketing
· Corporate Dietitian
· Director of Human Resources
Additional support is provided by the corporate Interior Designer for capital improvements
and/or the Corporate Development group for resident/family satisfaction analysis and
competitive reviews.
LETTER OF
JUSTIFICATION
38 BED CLARE BRIDGE
RESIDENCE
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION- PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCE
1. Is the site suitable and adequate for the proposed use?
The site is located at the east intersection of Margadta Road and Pauba Road (Lot 79 in
the Paloma del Sol Specffic Plan). The project will be a 34 unit, 38 bed Clare Bddge. The
site is approximately 3.22 acres. The site is suitable and adequate for the proposed use.
The building is approximately 21,000 square feet- the footprint of the building on the site
meets all the requirements for the Temecula development code.
2. Would the ProPosed use and design have a substantial adverse effect on traffic
circulation and on the planned capacity of the street system?
Traffic will pdmadly be generated from employees and visitors of the site. According to the
1997, Assisted Living Residences - A Study of Traffic and Parking Implications, prepared
by the Amedcan Seniors Housing Association, resident vehicles do not contribute
measurably to traffic volumes generated by assisted living residences. This is because
most of the residents'age and physical limitations do not permit them to ddve. In fact,
none of the Clara Bddge residents will ddve.
According to the aforementioned traffic study, employee vehicles contribute
approximately 55 percent of all traffic volumes generated by assisted living residences.
On a typical weekday, employee vehicles generate an average of 0.91 trips per bed or 35
trips per day. Dudng peak weekday hours, which ara typically from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 am.
and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., employee vehicles generate an average of 0. 18 tdps per bed
or 7 trips per the aforementioned peak weekday pedods.
Visitor vehicles contribute approximately 30 percent of all traffic volumes generated by
assisted living residences. On a typical weekday. visitor vehicles generate an average of
0.55 trips per bed or 21 tdps per day. During peak weekday hours, which ara typically
from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., visitor vehicles will generate
approximately 0.17 tdps per bed or 7 trips per the aforementioned peak weekday pedods.
Service vehicles, including food derivedes, healthcara supply deliveries, etc., contribute
approximately 15 percent of all traffic volumes generated by an assisted living residence.
On a typical weekday, service vehicles make an average of 0.26 trips per bed or 10 trips
per day. During peak weekday hours, which are typically from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., service vehicles will generate 0.07 tdps per bed or 3 tdps per the
aforementioned peak weekday periods.
Service delivery vehicles also include those trips generated by emergency vehicles. The
demand placed on a community's emergency services by assisted living residences is no
higher than it would be if the residents lived elsewhere in the community. Therefore, it
estimated that there will be approximately one (1) to two (2) emergency vehicles per
month generated by the proposed Clare Bddge residence.
The following table summarizes the daily tdps generated by the proposed Clare Bridge
residence:
Estimated Clare Bridge Residence
Weekday Trip Generetion
TYPE OF VEHICLE Peak Hour Trips Average Daily Trips
Resident
Employee 7 35
Visitor 7 21
Service/Emergency 3 10
TOTAL 17 66
As indicated in the table directly above, the proposed Clare Bddge residence will have a
maximum tdp generation of approximately 66 trips per day (1.74 trips/day/bed), which will
include an average of approximately 17 weekday peak hour tdps.
3. Would the ProPosed use have a substantial adverse impact on the Qeneral
welfare of persons resldinQ in the community?
The features, services and staffing all contribute to the welfare of the residents and the
associated welfare of the surrounding neighbors and community. Market research
indicates that there is an unmet compelling need for such services in the community.
The pdmary concept of this residence is to provide a high level of care and services within
a homelike environment to residents affected by Alzheimers disease or other memory
impairments.
Features which contribute to the design goals are:
· The building will be designed and decorated to resemble an upscale home with four
wings.
The grouping of resident suites into "neighborhood' wings consisting of eight to nine
suites per wing. This layout avoids the long hallways that are typically associated with
nursing and large retirement homes.
Each suite will contain a closet and a separate bathroom with toilet and sink.
Residents may personalize their rooms with cherished possessions or some furniture
from their own homes.
· Each neighborhood has its own:
1. laundry room;
2. personal care/adaptive bathing area;
3. resident caregivers work area for maintaining resident records and
storing medications and supplies.
The various common areas within the building that are specffically designed for resident
use will include:
· beauty/barber shop
· dining rooms
· life skills activity areas which include
1. office
2. kitchen
3. work shop
4. laundry room
5. hobby-craft room (with greenhouse)
· living room
· parlor/den (sitting room)
· wander paths throughout the building
· electronic alarm system to safeguard against unaccompanied residents wandering
outside the building
In addition to the above, the building will be provided with an interior courtyard and
enclosed patio areas with landscaped areas including raised planter beds to enable
residents to participate in gardening activities.
Services:
The following accommodations and services are provided to residents:
· ongoing health assessments by a professional nurse to meet the changing needs of
residents;
· three meals per day and snacks planned under the direction of a registered dietitian;
· registered nurse available 24 hours;.
· 24-hour assistance with personal care/activities of daily living;
· medication supervision;
· private (or semi-private), fully furnished suite;
· recreational and cultural activities both within the home and in the community;
· in-room emergency call system;
· housekeeping service;
· linen and personal laundry service.
On-Site Manaaement & Staffina:
The residence will be staffed on a 24 hour basis with resident assistants who provide
personal care services as well as assistance with activities, housekeeping and meal
service. The ratio of resident assistants to residents will be approximately 1:7. The
director of the residence will be a nurse with responsibility for daily operations as well as
monitoring resident medical status and supervising medication administration.
The residence management team consists of the following individuals:
· Resident Director
· Community Service Representative (CSR)
· Life Enrichment Coordinator
· Resident Assistant Supervisor
· Kitchen Manager
Together this team provides professional depth to the service delivery of the small
freestanding building, yet at the same time, allows for a comfortable and non-institutional
environment at the residence.
The management team reports to the Regional Director, who is responsible for the
operational and marketing issues relative to the facilities in his or her region. All building
maintenance staff/services are under the supervision of the Regional Director.
4. Is the desion of the prolect compatible with the exlstlnQ and DrODoSed
development within the district and surroundlnQs?
The proposed Clare Bddge residence is designed to include physical features that closely
approximate that of a single family home so as to reduce the stress of a residents'
relocetion to a long terTn care setting and to include activities that maximize a residents'
independence and functional skills for as long as possible. Clustering resident rooms into
neighborhoods or wings with nearby small-scale household activity areas facilitate this
goal.
The extedor of the building will be designed to blend with local architectural design
elements. The site has been designed to meet all local code requirements.
ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCES
A STUDY OF TRaffic
AND PARKING IMPLICATIONS
I
Ae:Lded
-- A Study of ll, el~c m~l Pletimm mm&alene
R~slden! Vehicles
Rei~nt vehicles do not contrilxlte measurinly to Traffic vo/umes ge~ ~ ai~ ~
~m~ns, ~ ~t ~e. ~ ~qe ~m~r of re~dem ~s at ~ ~ ~
~ m 0.N ~ ~r ~, or 4 m~m ~ W ~ ave~e sad ad
I~r~e num~ o1 ~ m a mng~ M~W ho~ is 2-0 ~l ~r ha~: 0,9
~s ~ ho~d in ~ h~eing.
aecmjm meat rmmidenm ao net drive, their tm~peF..~on needs ~ ~ly ~mml
Veiltie Ownemhip
Stage Femlr Home
Employee VehiclN
Empleyee vertices c~ntrim 8Ppmxjmmely 65 percen! of ~1 tr~c volume QeneSd
~ ~ u~ ~ 71 ~ ~ ~ hm ~ ~e m~ MI~ lying m~. Du~ng ~
m~y m~g ~n~ ~. ~ ~ ~Sy ~n 7~ a.m. and g~ &m.,
~z~ u~md N~ng r~ide~. OuHng ~ whey e~ni~ ~ hours, ~i~
~ ~ g~ p.m. ~ 6~ p.m., emmaVie ~hi~s ~ ~ ave~e of 0.16
per un~, or 12 t~ m ~d from ~ s~mge slz~ ~ed ~ng mmn~.
The moderate impec~ of employee ve~luea on traiffic volume is lirgely due to the fac~ffilt
rnoet assistrail lying employees am full-t/me staff. This limits the 'in Ind out" a:livi~es
a~ecl with pert-time sUmft. AddffionW~y, because ellisted living reaidences proviNe 24-
hour p~mm overm~ht ~en, ice~, employwee am typiCaily SChlduleCl tO begin rand and their
PI~ 3
m-~
Rlaidencll
-- A 6ludy of l'rm~lc m~d PerIdea Imgdig~t~one
shiPs dudng non-peak driving hou~ Employees am madly r.~qedulecl In three shiftS:
morning shift from ?.0O a.m. to 3.00 p.m.; an afternoon shut fern 3.130 p,m. to 11:00 p.m.; end
a night ellfit 1roe 1
.l~/ufilt ) .ItdL~ clllur~
Vllrmr Vehlolel
Viitat v~tlcles contribute ~opro,vimmly 30 p~ of d ~ w~me gene~ by ~s~
~g ranms. On e ~ ~y, ~ ~a ~ an evade 0.55 trips per un~,
or 43 ~G To ~d ~m ~n ave~e ~zed ~isma ~g ~ia~- ~dng ~ we~y
~ ~ng ~, ~r vehims ma ~ a, qe ~ ~11 ~ ~r u~t or 9 ~ps To ~d
~m ~ e~e ~ ~ed ~ m~. ~ ~y e~n~ d~g h~rl,
~e~or vehiclel m~ ~ aver~e of 0.22 tdps Rr unR, or 17 tn~ D ~a ~m ~ a~r~i
The impact of via/tar vehicles on traffic volume gener~e~ 1W a~isted living residerims is
moderate. Imrgely I~ecause visor vehicles m~ve end {leluan thmt,.,ghout the day on I:olh
week~lil~l and ~eekonde. ~ do n~/h the typ.~3l traffic oral perking volumes generated Dy
other housing types (which are usuNfy highest during peak ddv~n9 hours).
Visitor VehirJe Tr-affiG GeneralJan
.11/unit 2.2/t~ .5,S/unit
s u~ps 17 Ui~ 43 ~p:
Servic~ Vehicles
Sen/Ice vehi~ee contribute approximately 15 percent of all IrkEriC voJume gener=ted lay an
ar~,i,ged living residence. On · typi;al weekday, service vehicles meae an average of 0.26
~ps per unn, or 20 ~l~ to aria from an avlrage S~zld assisted/ivmng rrddenr~. During pmLk
wiek42ay rftomYg driving hours, seNice vehicles m~3e an averige Ot Q.07 trips per unK, or
Page 4
6 trtps t~ and lrom an Everage sired asrd~ed EUng ruicferme. During peak my evenin~
driving h~jrs, aefvtce vehiclel ma4e in ave,age ot 0.06 trip~ per unit. or ¢ trlp6 to and Inxn
an average sized antseel living remh2encs.
The moderite impact of sewk:~ vehicles on traffic v~lumea generated Uy ua~ted lying
residences ~ due, in pert. to me fs~ eW mos~ service vendors. which are conira:ted.
scheduled to artlye lad depart during non-peak ddvtno hours. Asaiated living rceidencas
typicsily have trash renmvad mduled daily: bulk food dallvee~es tmee times a week - two
de}ivories per week for meet and vegembw products and one delivery leer week for dairy
pm4uGis; ~ eblv~m(I by a pharmacy am Lypica/ly scheduled once a week, es
~OdS( d~averies; Offica suppies a/m typic~ly se,,~eG~ed oncw a month;
ffazedl/m o~ect pact up is typtcel(y echedukd on demamd. as are o~em~m shipments
such Is UPS and Federa~ Express; and U.S, madL which Is not matratted, is dativered
days per week-
Serfbe Vmhk~ Traffic
Other Vehicles
One to two emergencies per monff"a e1 an asausted living reeidence usually require the
~ispm'c~ ot in ~nl)uJa,qee atd par~t~edtcS. Although no O~a m available on the aural)Or Of
emergency seMce vehicJes dis~{I I~/h~uaing type. the numt=er of emergency san4c~e
vehicles disproved to a.s4imKI lying religions is slighlty higher men for other housing
Wpes. The demand pascal on a c~.,EE,,jnify's Emergency sentic'el by ass~lld living
residenCeL hOwever, iS no rllglqet than jt would M if the mi~rff. I Fated elsewhere In ~a
community. in fact, emergency service uM0e hl prol)ably lower bec~u$a a.~Jmed 0vine
remdencee, which ate designed to &;;~mrnodate the elderly. tes.qJro gra, b ba~s, walk-ln-
1:~gttlJh. hand rails. and other aef~ty teaturns generally not found In offier housing f),pe.s.
Generation Con-,pari~on
Tat~ ~lffic volume gener~ed by ass~st~ trying m~de~s during a ~( wee~ay
~r~ 1.72 ~ ~r u~ ~ 134 ~ ~f an a~ ~ ~ O~ng m~denu. TO~
~ 8~mg~ 0.37 ~ ~r un~, ~ ~ t~ps for an avenge mz~ ~md hang m~den~.
Page 5
Total treat volume Generatool hy aaSletecl livinG reslclenc~ during peak weekday evening
driving houm armaged 0.43 ~ per unit, or 34 trli~ k' In evemere sized md lying
teckMnae.
laeialed LIving Reeidmwe Traffic Generation
wonit . ~ ~/unh .07~una ,qT/un~s
341m~ 9eips strips 29tr~s
(-p.m,-ep,m,) lZwips 1?trips 4trips 34ffipa
Trm'fi¢ volume Oene~ed by asmstecl living ruldencal is bw ffi m~ea ~mn ~md
~Olaam, gene~e 0.74 ~ps ~r unit ~ng ~ ~ly mm~g Gd~ hou~, 1.01
~ 0.~ Nr Unit du~ ~ ~e~y mo~ng ~ ~um. 0.49 ~ps Nr
~ ~ e ~i~ ~; ~rs, ~d 6.~ ~ per u~ d~ng a ~ ~e~,
Perking Generatim Comparison
Protang ~:lumes ~e~em~cf by ~ ~ng ms~n~ ~ also ~w ~ mode~e ~mp~
~ other hou~ng ~es. ~X~ on Their t~lc ~atE, ~ U~nO ~s re~ire O.~
P~e 6
Ae4|~ted Uvlajt Realdence= -- A Study of Tri~lo and PElt!lie !mDllmele0~
learking ms during peek weekday driving hours (parking v0/umes me he/f of tr~ffc
volumes lXcauee treff'e; velames a_rw~-_,jm for both in end out traffic). Aezleed hing
residenceS, however. typimJP/provide an everego d 0.50 pBddng Iplmm; per unit, or 38
pahdn~ q~ces for at~ everage sized asmklecl ~ reaiden(~. Dul~g peak weekx:bly
hours, Gon(2Omlniums mquirl 1.11 parking ml per unit, Iow/mld-r~e apartmonte 1 ,ol
I~lrking 8pex)lls per unit, Ng~-hse epmtments 0.88 pa~king apece~ per un/t, retirement
commur,~ties 0,2,7 parking Ipl{:ee per room, arlcl nursing2 home., 0.28 ped~ng ~F'-""'~'-- per
morn.
Generalton by Housing
Cm",dorrdnium (TIE ~30)
LewNid Rime Ammment(ITE22;)
Nursing Hem (FIE
Rel~'en'~nt C~nmu/~ly
1, f l lun~
~ .o l Nnlt
0 2 71rl)om
Con~uefon
Asslined living cesk:lences (~enerate low to modeme nfflc end perking valuffes c;:mpared
to other/qouamg types- This is due to several factors:
· Resiclents lypic~ly do not clrive
· Employees are ur, uaJ)y full-time staff and am typieeJ~ se, he~Jhid to trriv0 and tiepen
durtng non-peak drlvl~ hours
· V'LNtors typically errlYe N~I (:lepaJ18l ~ll horn during the day
· Servce vendors ate usum~ mntrlcmd and lme(~Jli~ to afflve ~ d~psrt during
~ driYing hours
~ IlvlnQ resiclences gene,eZe mode~e rraff}c and pa~king volume 13etause they sre
umuelly wthin short walkin~ dlmnc~ to public l~qlportaof'l, And most usmecl living
re$idgncag ~ctiveh/pursue red esla~e pBt';iJ~ k)(3ted Nc;ng rn,q~Ot firiN roadways serviced
by r.~jblic tranll2ort~oll, These real emte pereels, malt of w~lcrt m Iocate~l betwlen
r~sidential and ,-camrnerUej atoM, ~re Idetly Suited for asrdsted living res~encss, which
Pege7
I01221~17 l~,,34+PM;,JlIltl( 1532;Hege '1~1
P o
PIg:dmity a publobafWQortadiOn offmS employees, residents and viiiors more awssporta-
draw employees from a letget employee l:xx:~f, Im:iudk~ qualified emDIgyeem who may n~
Page e
Bent By: THE t:)~mO~E 9~Ok~
U.& BumIra of fhe Census, 65+ in 618 United SiSrag, I 9~
U.~ Bureau offhe Census, Suwey af Income and Program Pmlddpmlon, 1991,
U~ Health Cam Financing Admh~mmt~oa, Me~caid Fief Sheet, lOgS.
ANdcan Senlops Hou~ng Asmx~a~on, Developmere Sunmy, 1906.
hliloneJ Mu~ Housing CouncRtNa~onaJ ApadmenS Associe~gn, Apartment living in
ins of Tmnspome~n Engineer, TAp Generation, 1991.
In~ of Tpsnsllxtallo4q Engineers, Panrjng Generalion, 1987.
Page 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~46pa98PC.dcc
26
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
N,T.S.
CASE NO. 98 - 0446
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 17, 1999
VICINITY MAP
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~,46pa98PC.doc
27
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SP (Specific Plan - Planning Area 34 of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
CASE NO. 98-0446 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 17, 1999
R:\STAFFRPT~446pa98PC,doc
28
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA 98 - 0446
CASE NO. 98 - 0446 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 17, 1999
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT~446pa98PC.c~oc
29
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. 98-0446 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 17, 1999
ELEVATIONS
R:%STAFFRPT~446pa98PC,dOc
30
CITY OF TEMECULA
o []
CASE NO. 98-0446
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 17, 1999
FLOOR PLANS
R:\STAFFRP~446pa98PC.dOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
C__OU~TYARD ENLARGE,.M,E~J7
' .. ,, ..
PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN ~oe Nn
CASE NO. 98-0446 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 17, 1999
LANDSCAPING PLAN
R:%STAFFRPT~46pa98PC.doc
32