HomeMy WebLinkAbout090199 PC Agendafac~m~a~c~w~th~Am~dca~sw~thDi~b~esAcL~fy~unedq~ec~asd~atce~pak~mke~~h
oikaofeeConasiunHyDwdopmentDepadmentat(9OO)eO444l)Q. No~llcaUon48hounpdortoamedlngw(lenablelheCltytomdm
msonabb anangemnts to Nmsre accessibility to that meeting [28 ~ 35.102.H.tH ADA Tide
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
September 1, 1999, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92590
Resolution Next In Order #99-032
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Guen'iem
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Guerriem, Mathewson, Naggar, and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the pubtic 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 not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should
be filled out and fi]ed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name 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. Minutes from August 4, 1999
3. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:.
Case Engineers:
Planning Application No. PA98-0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No.
12)
S-P Murdy, LLC by Spdng Pacific Properties, LLC
At the southem end of the City of Temecula, approximately two miles
east of Interstate 15, along the east side of Pala Road, south of State
Highway 79 South, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue.
A Specific Plan and General Ran Amendment covedng the 557 acre site.
The proposed Specific Plan includes a maximum of 2,601 dwelling
units (overaft density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre), or a maximum of
2,144 dwelling units and three school sites (3.8 dwelling units per acre
density), 20 acres of commercially zoned property, roadways totaling 29
acres, public facilities and a private recreation center on 5 acres, a 14
acre community park, and a vadety of parks, drainage greenbelt,
roadway paseos and linear park totaling 35 acres.
Environmental Impact Report
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Annie Bostre-Le and Jerry Alegala
R:\wimbervg\plancomm~agendas\1999\9-1-99.doc
1
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Project Planner.
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA99-0128 (Development Plan)
Growth Management Company
Parcel 28 of Parcel Map 21382 (north side of Rio Nedo, between Calle
Empleado and Via Industria)
Construct a 19,691 + sq. fL industrial building on a 1.02 acre parcel zoned
for 'Ught Industrial" development
Exempt
Steve Griffin
Approval
PLANNING MANAGERSREPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
September 15, 1999. 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590
R:~wimbervg\plan~ornm~ag~ndas\1999~9-1-99.do~
2
ITEM #2
planComm/minutes/080499
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 4, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday August 4, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Fahey.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Fahey, *Mathewson Naggar, Webster,
and Chairman Guerriero.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Assistant Planner Anders,
Project Planner DeGange,
Project Planner Griffin,
Project Planner Thornsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
*(Commissioner Mathewson arrived at 6:18 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to postpone consideration of Agenda Item No.
4 until after consideration of Agenda Item No. 5 in order for Commissioner Mathewson to
be present for the hearing of Agenda Item No. 4. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Mathewson who was absent.
planCommlminutes/080499
2. Approval of Minutes-June 30,1999 and July 7, 1999
Commissioner Naggar indicated that the June 30, 1999 minutes should be corrected on
page 5, after the heading Commissioner Naggar relayed the following additional
comments, to add an additional bullet, worded as follows: Recommended that the
project incorporate senior housing in the high density area.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes, as amended. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent and Commissioner Webster
who abstained.
It was noted that the minutes of July 7, 1999 should be amended on page 8, Section
Commissioner Reports, paragraph B, replacing the word west with the word east in
order to correctly reflect the east side of the freeway.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes, as amended. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Plannin~l Al~plication No. PA98-0353 (Revisions to Previously Approved
Development Plan)
Request to design, construct and operate a 17,598 square foot
office/industrial building (previously approved at 23,098 square feet).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
Relaying that this particular project was previously approved by the Planning
Commission on October 21, 1998, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report
(per agenda material); highlighted the significant changes the developer made to the
overall site design, noting the increase in the total landscaped area, and the modified
color scheme; and relayed that this particular project would require a Minor Exception
Permit to allow the reduction of one (1) parking space.
Mr. David Whiffield, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Webster. provided the
rationale for the modified color scheme.
For future projects, Commissioner Webster would like the record to reflect his
recommendation to maintain darker color schemes for buildings in this particular area
due to the visual impact.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; and adopt
Resolution No. 99-022 approving the proposed revisions to Planning Application No.
PA98-0353 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the Conditions of Approval.
planCommlminutes1080499
RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0363 TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A '17, 6000 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY OFFICE AND
WAREHOUSE BUILDING, AND A MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT FOR
THE REDUCTION OF ONE (I) PARKING SPACE WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING, AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING A 1.08 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, NORTHWEST OF BOSTIK COURT, KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-370-006.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception Commissioner Mathewson who was absent.
4. Plannin~l Al~olication No. PA99-0229 {Minor Conditional Use Permit)
This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 4.
5. Planninfi Al~l}lication No. PA99-0077 {Conditional Use Permit).
Request to build and operate a 3,800 square foot drive-through restaurant
(Burger King).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
It was noted that Commissioner Mathewson arrived at 6:18 P.M.
By way of color renderings and overheads, Project Planner Thornsley presented the
staff report (of record), highlighting location, access, architecture which would be
consistent with the mall, landscaping inclusive of the buffer between the project and the
main roadways; noted that staff has conditioned the project to add additional berming in
the landscape plan to aid in shielding the glare of headlights from cars; for Chairman
Guerriero, relayed that the aforementioned berming would be approximately three feet in
height; for Commissioner Webster, noted that the landscaping within the transportation
easement along Winchester Road would encompass approximately fifteen percent
(15%) of the total landscape plan; for Commissioner Naggar, clarified the provision of
access, specifically, regarding adequate stacking provisions; for Commissioner
Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the parking requirements; and
further specified the landscape plan.
Mr. Brian Price, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Webster, confirmed that
the split-face block would be a natural red color, and would not be painted.
Commissioner Webster relayed his comments, as follows: a) with respect to the
Condition of Approval on the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the original Center's
Specific Plan, noted that he had recommended that staff prepare an informational
planComm/mlnutes1080499
presentation for the Planning Commission at a future point in time regarding the updated
Mitigation Monitoring Program in order to specifically address Transportation Demand
Management Mitigation Measures, and to verify that the specified provisions are being
addressed, b) recommended that for future projects staff distinguish the landscape
easement percent portion of proposed projects which could be subject to being
eliminated, and c) commended the architect for his design to enclose the play area,
recommending that at a future point in time the Design Guidelines be modified to
recommend that all play areas on similar uses be enclosed.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing, and approve staff's
recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 99-023 approving Planning Application No.
PA99-0077 (Conditional Use Permit) based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein; and adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-
0077 (Conditional Use Permit) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-
0077 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,888 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL
BUILDING ON ONE ACRE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH
SERVICES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER
ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD, KNOWN
AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 910-320-001 AND
LOT A OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS PA99-0007
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
At this time the meeting continued back to Agenda Item No. 4.
4. Plannincl Application No. PA99-0229 (Minor Conditional Use Permit1
Request to operate a Large Family Daycare Home for up to 14 children,
Monday through Friday, 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
RECOM MEN DATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
By way of overhead maps, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (per
agenda material); relayed that due to the written request for a public hearing and the
amount of opposition relayed to staff the issue had been brought before the Planning
Commission; reviewed the State Law with respect to Large Family Daycare facilities
within residential areas; noted that this particular proposal meets the Design Standards
within the Development Code; noted that a petition inclusive of nine signatures had been
submitted to staff from the adjacent neighbors; relayed the concerns of community
4
planCommlrninutes1080499
members, as follows: adequate supervision, noise, traffic, and parking; and provided
additional information regarding the cited concerns.
Associate Planner Donahoe addressed the concerns of the Commission. as follows:
For Commissioner Naggar, clarified the Conditional Use Permit and the associated
revoking process.
For Commissioner Webster, confirmed that within the Specific Plan for Paloma Del
Sol there were two land use areas designated for daycare facilities; noted that the
State does not maintain requirements for minimum size play areas for this
particular type of use; noted that the City is in the process of developing an
Ordinance to detail the specificities regarding the attainment of a Large Family
Daycare Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in accordance with the State
requirements.
For Commissioner Mathewson, clarified the State permitting process for Large
Family Daycare facilities within residential areas; relayed that the State Fire
Marshall inspects these type of facilities at the time the formal request for a Large
Family Daycare License is made; provided additional information regarding
permitted levels of noise; and clarified the 300-foot distance separation requirement
between Daycare uses.
Attorney Curley clarified the Noise Standards within the Large Family Daycare Statute
setforth in State Law; for Commissioner Naggar and Chairman Guerriero, provided
additional information regarding the process of revoking a Conditional Use Permit based
on a substantial disruption of the community and the associated evidence required;
clarified the State's intent with regard to daycare facilities within residential areas; for
Commissioner Fahey, provided additional information regarding defensible grounds for
denial, noting that if the proposal meets the specified Code requirements that a denial
would not be defensible; clarified the City's associated permitting process which is in
accordance with State Law; for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional
information regarding permitted noise levels; provided additional information regarding
the Local Governing Agencies' ability to revoke the permit; and confirmed for
Commissioner Naggar, that the 300-foot distance parameter separating permitted
daycare facilities could be modified.
Ms. Sherry Evens, the applicant, provided information regarding the proposed facility
and her intent to cooperate with the concerned neighbors; for Commissioner Webster,
confirmed that the garage of the residence would be utilized to meet the requirements of
Condition of Approval (COA) No. 10, regarding the applicant maintaining two enclosed
parking spaces for vehicle parking; for Chairman Guerriero, clarified that her own three
children would be included in the total number of 14 permitted children; and for
Commissioner Fahey, noted that the neighboring area generates approximately 50% of
her daycare clientele.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed daycare use:
Mr. Mark Mush
Ms. Susan Bittner
Ms. Margaret Whiston
31731 Corte Avalos
43035 Camino Casillas
43166 Camino Casillas
PlanComrnlminutes/080499
~ Ms. Rosetta Guernsey
31977 Corte Avalina
The above-mentioned individuals expressed their concerns, as follows:
Noise
The potential for additional Daycare Centers in the area
Traffic
Parking
Inadequate space at the residence for 14 children
,,' Children in the street
In response to Commissioner Naggar's querying for a recommended distance
separation space between daycare uses (currently setforth as a 300-foot paremeter), Mr.
Mush relayed that he would rather see the number of children limited to six or seven.
For Ms. Whiston, Commissioner Naggar recommended contacting the Association
regarding parking requirements.
In response to community concern, Ms. Evens, confirmed that due to the large number
of children in the neighborhood that there were numerous children in the street, clarifying
that her daycare children would be in the house, the backyard, or supervised for an
outdoor activity (i.e., bike riding.)
While concurring with the concerns of the community, Commissioner Fahey advised that
the Conditions of Approval (CONs) would adequately condition the project; and noted
that due to the aforementioned State Law, the Commission does not have the ability to
limit this particular use beyond the COA's.
Commissioner Mathewson reiterated the regulations that the State utilized to govern this
particular use, limiting the power of the local governing agencies; and addressed each of
the issues of concern raised by the community members and the associated constraints
of the Commission.
Concurring with the previously expressed comments of the Commission, Commissioner
Naggar specifically stated that he, too, would not desire to reside next door to a Large
Daycare facility; relayed that he had made a surprise visit to the residence of Ms. Evens,
noting that she graciously let him in, advising that the residence was in remarkable good
condition; advised that Ms. Evens make a diligent effort to not inconvenience her
neighbors with respect to the impacts of the Daycare; recommended that for future uses
the issue of a 300-foot separation distance be investigated, relaying that he was of the
opinion that the distance need to be extended; recommended adding a COA to prohibit
double-parking via Attorney Curley's recommendation regarding the language of the
Condition; and relayed that since the use meets all the State Standards setforth he
would support the proposal.
PlanCommlminutes1080499
Commissioner Webster commended Ms. Evens for her diligent efforts associated with
the care of children; relayed concern with respect to the aforementioned designated land
use areas not being solely utilized for daycare uses; with respect to the CUP, relayed
that he could not concur with Finding No. 2 (denoted on page 4 of the staff report)
regarding compatibility of this project with the adjacent uses, with Finding No. 3,
regarding this use being adequate in size and shape, and with Finding No. 4, regarding
this use not being detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the
community; relayed that with respect to Large Daycare facilities he was of the opinion
that there would be compatibility and health. safety and welfare issues beyond the
provisions provided by State Law, specifically with respect to traffic issues, and the size
of this particular residence and lot.
Chairman Guerriero applauded Ms. Evens for her efforts to address the need for
daycare of children in Temecula; advised that the City could further mitigate various
issues of concern for the future, as follows: consideration of installing white curbing on
the associated street, and amending the distance between uses; advised that this
particular use is more desirable and beneficial to the community than the latchkey
situations where there is no supervision for children; and noted that parking issues could
be addressed with law enforcement if the issues of concern were substantiated.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public hearing; accept staff's
recommendation to approve the project; adopt Resolution No. 99-024 approving
Planning Application No. PA99-0229 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in
the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-024
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0229
(MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE OPERATION
OF A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME LOCATED AT 43047
CAMINO CASILLAS, SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, WEST OF VIA RAMI,
WITHIN THE PALOMA DEL SOLE SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 955-203-005
Add-
· A Condition restricting parking, specifically pick-ups and drop-offs to
the street frontage directly in front of the residence and the driveway
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception Commissioner Webster who voted n__~o.
At 7:38 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 7:44 P.M.
5. Plannincl Al~l~lication No. PA99-0077 iConditional Use Permit).
This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 3.
PlanCommlminutes/080499
6. Plannincl Application No. PA99-0168 (Development Plan)
Request to design, construct and operate two 6,000 square foot
commercial speculative buildings on a 0.99-acre parcel.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
Via maps and overheads, Project Planner DeGange presented the staff report (of
record); highlighted location, access, architecture (noting the articulation), and
landscaping (noting the screening of the central portion of the drive aisle form the right-
of-way); noted the revisions to the original site, architectural, and landscape plans due to
staff recommendation; relayed that the applicant has closed the rear access driveway;
for Commissioner Naggar, provided additional information regarding the elevation
located on Winchester Road; and clarified the landscape screening of the roll-up doors.
Mr. Peter Minegar, and Mr. Chuck McLaughlin, representing the applicant, were
available for Commission questions.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Minegard provided the rationale for the elimination of
the rear driveway, and confirmed that originally the plan had been to construct one
building on the site.
Commissioner Naggar relayed that he was pleased with the elimination of the driveway.
Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Fahey, recommended the addition of
architectural improvements due to the zoning of this particular project, suggesting the
addition of a cornice element along the top of the buildings.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the signage for
this particular project would come back to staff for approval.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; adopt Resolution No.
99-025 approving Planning Application No. PA99-0168 based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein; and adopt a Notice of Exemption for
P&anning Application No. PA99-0168 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA
Guidelines, and subject to the additional Condition of Approval, as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-025
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-
0168, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF TWO BUILDINGS (TOTALING 12,000
SQUARE FEET) ON 0.99 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH (27525 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE
SOUTH) KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-270-053
8
planComrnlminutes1080499
Add-
· A Condition requiring the applicant to add additional architectural
enhancement on the buildings
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
7. Plannin.q Application No. PA99-01'15 (Development Plan)
Request to design, construct and operate a t3,400 square foot industrial
building on a 0.97-acre parcel.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
By way of maps and overheads, Project Planner DeGange presented a detailed
overview of the project (via agenda material); and noted that the 30% landscape plan
would exceed the 20% percent requirement, specifying the location of the berming and
planters for this particular site and the adjacent planter which would be located on the
adjacent property in order to screen the elevation from that use.
For Commissioner Fahey, Mr. Vince Maganuco, reprSsenting the applicant, provided
additional information regarding the elevation which would be on the property line,
reiterating the location of the eight-foot planter located on the adjacent property.
Due to the location of the project on the property line, Commissioner Fahey initially
recommended reducing the size of the building in order to install landscaping on this
particular elevation at this site.
In response to Commissioner Fahey's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
clarified the benefit of maintaining the planter, as proposed. in order to have one sole
party be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping for that particular area.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; adopt Resolution No.
99-026 approving Planning Application No. PA99-0115 pursuant to Section 15332 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-026
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0115,
A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A 13,400 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 0.97 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLT COURT, 200 FEET SOUTH
OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 909-360-005
PlanCommlminutes1080499
Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
8. Plannin~l ADDlication No. PA99-0116 (Development Plan)
Request to construct a 22,000 square foot industrial building on a 1.28 acre
parcel zoned for "Light Industrial" development.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
Via overheads, Project Planner Griffin presented the staff report (per agenda material);
specified the enhanced articulation features; and for Commissioner Fahey, relayed the
landscape plan with respect to the zero lot line elevation.
Commissioner Mathewson requested that staff further investigate the existing parking
spaces provided on this particular project, noting that his figures did not compute to a
fulfillment of the parking requirements per the Development Code,
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Vince Magunuco, representing the applicant, confirmed
that there was public notification located on site that had blown down due to wind
conditions; and relayed that the applicant would be willing to add two additional bicycle-
parking spaces if that was the desire of the Commission.
Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Naggar, recommended that additional
trees be added on the east property line along the parking area.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; adopt Resolution
No. 99-027 approving Planning Application No. PA99-0116 based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein, and subject to the attached modifications; to
adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0116 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-027
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0116,
A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A 22,200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 1.28 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLT COURT SOUTH OF
WINCHESTER AND KNOWN AS PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 2847t-1
Add-
That staff further investigate the parking spaces proposed to assure
that the project meets the requirements of the Development Code, and
subsequently e-mail the Commissioners with the associated
information
10
PlanCommlminutes1080499
· That an additional Condition be added requiring additional trees on the
east property line along the parking area
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed the issues related to applicants involved in
current proposed projects that are not in compliance with the City's Standards,
and the refusal of the applicants to accept staffs recommendation to implement
revisions; noted the applicant's request to submit their project, as proposed, to
the Planning Commission; and invited the Commission to provide direction as to
the process of having staff deal with the aforementioned nonconforming projects,
Attorney Curley provided information regarding the constraints associated with
the Brown Act, regarding Commission contact by applicants; and relayed
alternate methods of dealing with the aforementioned issues.
After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to have staff
bring forward to the Planning Commission the aforementioned projects for their
approval or denial.
Informing the Commission of the current activities of staff, Planning Manager
Ubnoske relayed that staff is in the process of hiring an additional planner.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske provided clarification
regarding the planning and approval process with respect to speculative building
projects.
D,
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed the request by the Roripaugh Ranch
applicant to hold a Special Meeting with the Planning Commission. noting that
the associated documents would be provided to the Commission two weeks in
advance of the meeting for review; and relayed, for Chairman Guerriero, that a
Noise Study had been completed with respect to the Roripaugh Ranch Project.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley provided additional information
regarding staffs findings denoted in the staff reports.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's request, Planning Manager Ubnoske
relayed that staff could provide the rationale for the findings of staff in the staff
report.
With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's comments regarding the grading
project on Ynez Road and the associated dirt being left on the roadway, Deputy
Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that there are dust control regulations.
11
PlanCommlminutes1080499
For Commissioner Mathewson, Chairman Guerriero provided additional
information regarding the citing of trucks that are not in compliance with the dust
control regulations.
C=
For Commissioner Webster, Senior Planner Fagan relayed that the Wolf Valley
Workshop would be presented to the Planning Commission in September.
D=
For Commissioner Naggar, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff would
further investigate the 300-foot distance requirement with respect to proximity of
Daycare facilities, as discussed during consideration of Agenda Item No. 4.
For Chairman Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske provided additional
information regarding the City's inability to regulate issues of concern with
respect to the Portofino Project.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:05 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday,
AuGust 18, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
12
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 1, 1999
Planning Application No.'s PA98-0481 (Specific Plan), PA98-0482 (Environmental Impact
Report), and PA98-0484 (General Plan Amendment)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPUCAN~
S-P Murdy, LLC.
REPRESENTATIVE:
T & B Planning Consultants, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
The Wolf Creek Spedtic Plan, Environmental Impact Report and General
Plan Amendment for an area consisting of 557 acres. The proposed
specific plan includes a maximum of 2,601 dwelling units, twenty (20)
acres of commercially zoned property, three schools sites on 78.5 acres,
roadways totaling 29 acres, public facilities and a pdvate recreation
center on 5 acres, a 14 acre community park and a variety of parks,
drainage greenbelt, roadway paseos and a linear park totaling 35 acres.
The General Plan Amendment will be required to modify the City of
Temecula Land Use Element.
LOCA~ON:
At the southern end of the City of Temecula, approximately two miles
east of Interstate 15, along the east side of Pala Road, south of State
Highway 79 South, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue.
BACKGROUND
This project is being presented at this Planning Commission Workshop as an informational item. Since
it is for information purposes only, no action is to be taken on the project at this time and public testimony
is not required. The applicant and their representatives will be making a presentation for the purpose
introducing the project and its informing the Planning Commission of its status. Following the
presentation it is anticipated that there will be an open discussion of the project, with Staff and the
applicant and their representatives available to answer questions.
R:~Planning Files\Wolf Creek SP PCworkshop.rpt. doc 08/24/99
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 1, 1999
Planning Application No. PA99-0128 (Development Plan)
Case Planner: Steve Griffin, AICP
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning Application No.
PA99-0128 based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein, and
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-
0128 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME: GMC Building
APPLICANT: Growth Management Company (GMC)
REPRESENTATIVE: Shane Shaw
PROPOSAL: The design, construction and operation of a 19,691 square foot
industrial building on a 1.02 acre parcel.
42600 Rio Nedo (Parcel 28 of Parcel Map 21328)
BP Business Park (subject and surrounding)
LI Light Industrial (subject and surrounding)
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
PUBLIC INPUT:
Subject: Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
C&H Specialties (under construction)
Four Slide Engineering (under construction)
Solid State Stamping
OJ Insulation & Fireplaces
To date the staff has received no public input on this application.
R:\Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report,doc
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscaped Area:
Parking/Paved Area:
Lot Coverage:
Target Floor Area Ratio:
Proposed Floor Area Ratio:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
44,567 sq.
19,691 sq.
13,200 sq.
17,141 sq.
17,841 sq.
17,841 sq.
ft. (1.02 acres)
ft. (44% of site)
ft. (22% of site)
ft. (38% of site)
ft. (40% of site)
ft. (0.40 FAR)
19,961 sq, ft. (0.44 FAR)
34 spaces, plus 1 motorcycle & 4 bicycle spaces
34 spaces, plus 1 motorcycle & 6 bicycle spaces
25 feet high
Note: The required parking is based on the proposal to provide 3,700 sq. ~. of office, 4,800 sq. ft.
of manufacturing, and 11,191 sq. ft. of warehousing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal involves the design and construction of a 19,691 square foot industrial building on
1.02 acres located at 42600 Rio Nedo (north side of Rio Nedo, between Calle Empleado and Via
Industria). The 25 foot-high structure includes 17,841 square feet on the first level and 1,850
square feet of office space in a second-level mezzanine.
The project - which we have termed the GMC building - meets or exceeds all of the basic
standards called for in the Development Code with the exception of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
The target FAR for this zone is 0.40, whereas the proposed FAR is 0.44.
The Planning Commission may grant an increase in FAR beyond the 0.40 target - up to a
maximum FAR of 1.0 - based on a determination of the extent to which the project provides
exceptional benefits or aspects consistent with three incentive categories outlined in the
Development Code. This issue is discussed below under "FAR Incentives."
BACKGROUND
The application was submitted on April 2, 1999, and the Design Review Committee reviewed the
plans on April 22, 1999. Several discussions were subsequently held on the applicant's original
proposal to increase the lot coverage beyond the 40% maximum allowed by the Development
Code. The applicant eventually decided to pursue additional floor area in the form of a request to
increase the FAR beyond the 0.40 target by adding a second-level mezzanine office rather than
the original proposal to have a larger building footprint (lot coverage). The application was
consequently deemed complete on July 29, 1999.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The property measures 175.5 feet wide by 254 feet deep and sits below the adjoining property to
the west and essentially at-grade with the properties to the north and east. The structure is situated
on the southwesterly portion of the site, separated from the property lines by setbacks of 25 feet
in the front, 15 feet and 40 feet respectively to the west and east sides, and 35 feet to the rear.
Access is provided by a single entry drive off Rio Nedo and by a shared drive located at the
northeast corner of the site. Single-loaded parking aisles are distributed along .the easterly and
northerly property lines, to the side and rear of the building.
R:\Griffins~128PA99.GMC Staff Report,doc
2
Other site plan components include an employee patio area at the front of the site, just to the west
side of the main building entry. The patio, along with adjoining surfaces, wilt be paved with
decorative colored concrete saw-cut into a pattern of 24"x24" squares and surrou0ded by a 30-inch
high decorative garden wall. Loading is provided for at four locations, two on the easterly side of
the building and two at the rear, including a truck well. Trash will be accommodated within a single
enclosure at the rear of the property, directly abutting the nodhwesterly corner of the building.
Architecture
The 25 foot-high building is of standard tilt-up concrete construction consistent with the vast
majority of other structures in the area. The southeasterly corner of the building is highlighted at
the first level main entry area by a 5-foot deep recess extending back 25 feet on both sides from
the corner and supported by two round, fluted columns. This corner of the building is further
enhanced by glass and a 45°, 16 foot-wide "cut-off" at the first level, with additional glass at the
second level extending to the top of the parapet. An additional, although perhaps less aesthetic
major offset to the rectangular shape of the structure occurs at the 16 foot-wide by 39 foot-long
truck well located at the northeast corner of the building.
All four building walls are equally divided by five horizontal reveals, each measuring 2 inches wide
by % inches deep. The reveals are interrupted at several points with vertical elements resembling
columns which extend the full height of the building - one on the front elevation, three on the
easterly side elevation, five on the westerly side elevation, and two on the rear elevation. These
features measure four feet wide at their base and for most of their height, and then widen out in
two one-foot steps to a total width of eight feet at top of the parapet. These column features are
defined at their outer edge by v-grooves in the concrete, and to the interior by a two-foot wide
vertical band of fluted concrete.
Spandrel glass provides additional interest on two of the most visible surfaces of the building. The
front elevation and the easterly parking lot elevation feature a total of six horizontal rows of glass
divided into five sections each and which measure 17 feet-wide by 5-feet high. Four rows, two each
on the first and second levels, are located on either side of the column feature on the front
elevation, and two - one over the other - are located behind the front entry area on the easterly
elevation facing the parking lot. We have included a condition of approval which would have these
rows of spandrel glass aligned with the surrounding reveals.
The basic color of the smooth concrete wall surfaces is the "white-white" color used on four of the
horizontal "bands" defined by the reveals which encircle the structure. An "antique white" color is
used as an accent on the remaining two bands - the second and fourth bands from the top. The
smooth concrete outer surfaces of the vertical column elements are painted a "mariposa green"
color, and the fluted concrete areas interior to the column elements are painted an "antique white"
color to match the two horizontal accent bands on the building. The glass will be a "green/silver
gray" color with supporting white anodized aluminum frames.
Landscapin9
Landscape planting is provided along all of the property boundaries, including 25 feet in the front
(plus six feet in the public right-of-way), 15 feet along the westerly boundary (which consists of a
2:1 up-slope), and seven feet (two feet wider than the minimum required by Code) along the
northerly (rear) and easterly (parking lot) boundaries. These perimeter plantings are supplemented
with minimum five-foot wide landscape planters at the ends and middle of each of the parking
aisles and along the base of the easterly elevation of the building between the loading doors and
extending to the front entry area.
R:',Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
3
All of the landscaped areas are planted with trees, shrubs and ground covers consistent with City
standards and the comments from our Landscape Amhitect. Worthy of special note perhaps is the
use of Queen Palms along the building fa~pade on the front and easterly (parking lot) elevations,
and two Canary Island Palms at either side of the project entry drive.
FAR Incentives
The Planning Commission may consider three incentive categories in determining whether or not
the proposed 10% increase in floor area ratio from 0.40 to 0.44 FAR is supportable. The incentive
categories are described in Section 17.08.050 of the Development Code. They include: (1) uses
which provide outstanding employment, fiscal, social and economic benefits, (2) projects which
exhibit exceptional architectural and landscape design, and (3) projects which provide public
facilities beyond the norm.
In support of the request, the applicant relies on the second incentive category - architectural and
landscape design - and cites the following:
Enhanced architectural features, including multiple decorative reveals and special column
features on all elevations, the unique scheme of colors represented by the white on white multi-
color walls with contrasting vertical accents, and the extensive use of high performance
reflective glass in and around the building entry and at additional locations o~ the most visible
portions of the building.
Enhanced landscape features, including two decorative Canary Island Palm trees at the
property entrance, Queen Palms along the south and east building walls, expanded planting
around the preperty's perimeter, the employee patio area with patterned paving and decorative
30" wall, the decorative walkway from the street to the building, and the decorative paving and
landscaping around the employee patio and at the building entry.
Staff believes a 10% increase is supportable in the present case. The primary basis for our
judgment is the fact that we would have endorsed the project design as it was originally
submitted if it had complied with the City's FAR standard. Since that time, the project has
been enhanced with additional landscape planting and significantly more building articulation,
including the column features and the spandrel glass elements.
Traffic Analysis
The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed site plan and determined that the trips
generated by this project will not exceed the trips anticipated by the Circulation Element for this
site. The project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) falls within the range of the average building intensity
anticipated under the traffic analysis for the General Plan. The applicant will be required to pay
traffic signal mitigation fees and development impact fees as conditions of approval for the project
to address the impacts associated with the increased traffic on Rio Nedo and at the Rio Nedo and
Diaz Road intersection.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
It is anticipated that a Notice of Exemption will be filed for Planning Application No. PA99-0116 per
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332.
Section 15332 applies to in-fill development projects on sites that are: less than five (5) acres and
substantially surrounded by urban uses; consistent with the applicable general plan designation and
all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning; have no value as habitat for
R:~Griffins\128PA99,GMC Staff Report,doc
4
endangered, rare or threatened species; and that can be adequately served by all required utilities
and public services.
The site meets all of the criteria for in-fill development, and therefore the project is eligible for a
CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The project is consistent with the (BP) Business Park land use designation and the (LI) Light
Industrial zone applicable to the properly in the Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
Upon approval of the Development Plan as conditioned, the project will meet all of the standards
and guidelines for industrial development prescribed by the Development Code and Design
Guidelines.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards
and guidelines, and compatible with the nature and quality of surrounding development. Staff is
supporting the requested increase of 10% in the FAR (from 0.40 to 0.44) based on the proposition
that we would have supported the project design before the additional enhancements were added
in support of the request. We are therefore recommending approval of PA99-0128 based on the
following findings.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (BP)
Business Park development in the City of Temecula General Plan, and the standards for
(U) Light Industrial development contained in the City's Development Code. The site is
therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and
density of industrial development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent
with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City-Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building
codes.
The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other
associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and
safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as
conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines,
standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and
function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Furthermore it
has been found that the project provides enhanced design features consistent with the
incentive category for architectural and landscape design listed in the Development Code
(TMC 17.08.050A2), which supports the requested increase in FAR from 0.40 to 0.44.
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 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
industrial park. 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.
R:~Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
5
Attachments
PC Resolution - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 20
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Grading Plan
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plans
H. Landscape Plan
R:\Griffins\128PA99,GMC Staff Report.doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
R:\Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Repod.doc
7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA99-0128, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 19,691 SQUARE FOOT
BUILDING ON 1.02 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
RIO NEDO BETWEEN CALLE EMPLEADO AND VIA INDUSTRIA
AND KNOWN AS PARCEL 28 OF PARCEL MAP 21328
WHEREAS, Growth Management Company filed Planning Application No. PA99-0128, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0128 was processed, including but not limited
to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0128 on
September 1, 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 hearing and after due cc~nsideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA99-0128.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. FindingS. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA99-0128 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section
17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for
(BP) Business Park development in the City of Temecula General Plan, and the standards for (LI)
Light Industrial development contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore
properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of industrial
development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with-other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the CityWide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and
other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety
of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for and as conditioned has
been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations
intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare. Furthermore it has been found that the project provides
enhanced design features consistent with the factors listed in the Development Code (TMC
17.08.050A2) supporting the requested increase in FAR from 0.40 to 0.44.
R:\Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
8
C. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
is no 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 industrial park. The project will not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section
711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption has been adopted for
Planning Application No. PA99o0116 per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15332. This Section allows exemptions for in-fill development projects that meet certain
prescribed criteria. The subject site complies with these criteria and therefore the exemption can
be applied to this project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA99-0128 (Development Plan) for the design,
construction and operation of a square foot building on 1.02 acres located on the north side of Rio
Nedo between Calle Empleado and Via Industria, and known as Parcel 28 of Parcel Map 21328,
subject to the project specific conditions set fodh in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 1st day of September, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1 st day of September,
1999, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',Griffins',128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\Griffins%128PA99,GMC Staff Reporl.doc
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: PA99-0128 - Development Plan
Project Description:
Construct and operate a 19,691 square foot industrial
building on a 1.02 acre light industrial parcel
DIF Category:
Business Park/Industrial
Assessor's Parcel No:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
909-290-028
September 1, 1999
September 1, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of
seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file
the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public 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 this condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4c).
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 period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
R:\GriffinS\128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
11
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), E (Grading Plan), F (Elevations), G (Floor Plans), and H (Landscape Plan),
contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division,
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.
The six rows of spandrel glass windows shall be aligned with the surrou'nding reveals by
either making the windows narrower or wider or adjusting the reveals so that they provide
a space designed to accept each panel of windows. The specific design solution shall be
subject to review and approval by planning staff.
All roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed below the lowest
level of the surrounding parapet wall.
The trash enclosure at the rear of the site shall be architecturally treated to complement and
blend with the design of the building,
All landscape planters shall maintain a minimum clear inside dimension of five (5) feet. All
planters adjacent to parking spaces shall be provided with a 12 "wide step-out the length
of the planter.
10.
All compact-parking spaces will be marked for "COMPACT CARS ONLY." Handicap parking
spaces shall be 18 feet rather than 16 feet in length.
11.
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and Exhibit 'T' (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
Primary wall:
Accent wall and fluted surface of column features:
Smooth portion of column features:
Glass:
Glass frame
Vista Paint # 49 "Vista White"
Vista Paint # 50 "Antique White"
Vista Paint # 82 "Mariposa"
Beger "Green/Silver Gray"
White Anodized aluminum:
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
13.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one
signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
14.
The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G, H and I", (Site Plan, Grading Plan,
Elevations, Floor Plan, Landscape Plan, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final
conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department -
Planning Division staff, and shall submit five (5) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1"
copy of Exhibits D through H, and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of
R:\GrtffinS\128PA99,GMC Staff ReporLdoc
approved Exhibit "r' (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.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
16.
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 "H", or as amended by these conditions.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants sh~ll be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
17.
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.
18.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the 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.
19.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the landscape 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.
20.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed refiectorized 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, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
R:\Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff ReporLdoc
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3
square feet in size.
21.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
22.
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
23.
A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
24.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
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 private
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.
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.
R:\Griffins\128PA99 GMC Staff Report,doc
29. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Planning Department
b. Department of Public Works
30.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
31.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
32.
The Developer shall obtain any necessan/letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent propedies as directed by the Department of Public Works.
33.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
34.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
35
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Stan'dard No. 207A.
c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos, 400. 401and 402.
d. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
The Developer shaft construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works: Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to sidewalks and
driveway approaches.
36.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department
of Public Works.
37.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed id 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.
38, 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.
R:\Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
39. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to
the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass
Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the
approval of {he City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
40. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
41. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department
of Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
42. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing
and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title
24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.
43. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other
outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building
and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
44. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
45. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
46. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/S-1/F-1.
47. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
48. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
49. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
50. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main'entry.
51. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
52. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
R:\Griffins\128PA99GMC Staff Report.doc
16
53. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Chapter 29.
54. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
55. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
56. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
57. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
58. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
59. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
60. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
61.
62.
63.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related'codes which are
in force at the time of building plan submittal.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC 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 1850 GPM for
a total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic
fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as
given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix
Ill-A)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
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 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent
public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than
250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access roadis) frontage to a
hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the
system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and
Appendix Ill-B)
R:\Gri~ins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
64.
As required by the California 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. (CFC 903.2)
65.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
66.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access reads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
67.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
68.
Prior to building construction, dead end readways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
69.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be:
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot.. (CFC 8704.3,
901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
70.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
71.
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). (CFC 901.4.4)
72.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation, (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
73.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC
Article 10)
R:\Griffins~128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
18
74.
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. (CFC 902.4)
75
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4).
76
Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81)
77.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from
both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
OTHER AGENCIES
See attached correspondence from the Rancho Water District dated April 12, 1999.
See attached correspondence from the Department of Environmental Health dated April 14, 1999.
See attached correspondence from the County Flood Control District dated April 30, 1999.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the
above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained
in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make
to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
R:\Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
19
Gcn=ral Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin De artment
Post O~ce ~x 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: ,~I'~V~ ~R. I FFI hf
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKE 1 S 1 KEEl'
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/955-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
The Distdct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does not lan check d~/land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for su~p cases. Disffict comments/recommendations for such cases are normally imited
to items of spedtic anterest to the District including District Master Draina · Plan fad ties, other re tonal flood
control and draina · facilities which could be considered a logical componenilor extension of a master ~n s stem
and District Area 8rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a genera ns~/usre is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following Checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
This prgject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional ratarest proposed,
This project involves District Master Plan fadlities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standPards and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check inspection and administrative fees will be
requ red.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
constdered regional in nature and/or a Io ical extension of the adopted
Masta Drainage Plan. The District woul~ consider accepting ownership of such fac~hties on wntten request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and Distdct plan check and inspection will
be reqruired hr Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. ~1/.. ~
/Thisp iectis,o.tedwithi. th.,imi o, th. Diathct's
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of~e actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project ma re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from
Resources Con~/r~l ~oard. Clearance for grading recordation, or other final approva? should the State Water
not be given until the
C ty has determ ned that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro'ect ~nvolves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should
require ~e applicant to provide all studies calculations plans and other ~nformation required to meet FEMA
requirements and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
prior to grad ng, recerdation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMRI prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a li~:ant to
obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from the Cal~mia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or written correspondence from these a encies
indicating the project is exempt from these requ~rementa. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quaff Cer%gf{cation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Corps 404
permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:
TO:
FROM:
COUNTY OF RIVERSID!
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: April 14, 1999
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CSteve G 'ffin
C , Environmental Health Specialist III
PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0128 (LOT 28 OF PM 21382)
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0128 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CBECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b)
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment 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 Disclosure (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.
co: Doug Thompson
stand3b.doc
John F. Hennigar
C, Michael Cowerr
Best Best & Fffjeger LLP
April12,1999
Steve Griffin, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL NO. 28 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 21382
APN 909-290-028
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0128
Dear Mr. Griffin:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative a[ this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
/,,/~4~ ///~/14t~
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
99\SB:rnc089\F012-T5\FCF
c: Laurie Willlares, Engineering Services Supervisor
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\Griffins\128PA99,GMC Staff Report.doc
20
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
VICINITY MAP
R:\Grif~ns~128PA99.GMC Staff Report. doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP BUSINESS PARK
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
\%TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\GdffinS\128pA99,GMC Staff Report.doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT- E)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
SITE PLAN
R:\Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report. doc
23
CITY OF TEMECULA
_-,_-
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
GRADING PLAN
R:~Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Repor~.doc
24
CITY OF TEMECULA
~ !11
~'~" [] rh
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
ELEVATIONS
R:\GriffinS\128PA99,GMC Staff Report.doc
25
CITY OF TEMECULA
T
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
FLOOR PLAN
R:\Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
26
CITY OF TEMECULA
LANDSCAPE CONCEPTPLAN
CASE NO. - PA99-0128
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:~Griffins\128PA99.GMC Staff Report.doc
27