HomeMy WebLinkAbout062100 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contac~ the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title Ill
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JUNE 21, 2000 -6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-023
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Mathewson
Roll Call:
Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio. Webster and Chairman Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary pdor to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
I Aclenda - APPROVED 5-0
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 21, 2000.
R:%plancomm%agendas~2000%6-21-00.doc
1
2 Minutes - APPROVED 5-0
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of May 3, 2000.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3
Findin~l of Public Convenience or Necessity for Cost Plus, Inc. at the 40456 Winchester
Road located on the southwest comer of Winchester Road and Marqadta Road. Project
Planner Thomas Thomslev - APPROVED 4-1, GUERRIERO VOTED NO
4 Directors HeadnQ Update - RECEIVE AND FILE
RECOMMENDATION
4.1 Receive and File
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be beard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
Planning Application No. 00-0072 - Development Plan - Ridge Park Office Center
(located on the north side of Ridtie Park Drive, between Rancho Califomia Road and
Vincent MoraCla Drive. Associate Planner Carole Donahoe - APPROVED 5-0
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt the Categorical Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0072
(Development Plan);
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-0072, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 56,000 SQUARE
FOOT OFFICE COMPLEX, CONSISTING OF TEN (10)
BUILDINGS ON FOUR (4) ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE, BETWEEN RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-310-028 AND
032
R:%Plancomm%agendasL~,000%6-21-00.doc
2
6
Planning ADolication No. 99-0261 - Planned Development Ovedav- TEMECULA
CREEK VILLAGE (located on the south side of State Route 79 (south) east of Jedediah
Smith Road. Associate Planner Denice Thomas - APPROVED 3-2, TELESIO AND
MATTHEWSON VOTED NO
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-024
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 79
(SOUTH) EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-010-006, AND ADDING
SECTIONS 17.22.130 THROUGH 17.22.138 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 4 (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-026t)"
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
July 5, 2000, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R:~plancomm%agendas%2.000%6-21 -O0,doc
3
In compliance wjth the/~nedcans with Disabilities Act~ if you need special ass!stance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the ~ity Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours: pr or to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonabl~ ;.arrangements to ensure accessibility to (hat meeting [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title tl} .: ~
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JUNE~21, 2000 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-023
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Roll Call:
Commissioner Mathewson !
.-: : -:
Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster and Chairman GUerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda. a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Co.~mmission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a ?Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers. ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are conside'r~;cl~tC~'b~'~ro~ti'heand all w I
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will ~:n6 i~(~Cd~on~6f' tl~ ternS::un ess
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be ,removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action. ~ : -'
A~enda ~-'jFTM -"
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve.the Agenda of June 21, 2000.
F:~Depts%PLANNING~PLANCO~%Agendas%2000%6-21-O0. doc
. ,: , ...... ;~, .... ~'~: ._,~:: ~,,~= ~,~.~,~,~-:
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of May 3, 2000.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3
Findina of Public Convenience or Necessity for Cost Plus, Inc. at the 40456 Winchester
Road located on the southwest comer of Winchester Road and Maraadta Road. Proiect
Planner Thomas ThomsleV
4 Directors Hearinq Update
RECOMMENDATION
4.1 Receive and File
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
5
Planninq Application No. 00-0072 - Development Plan - Ridtie Park Office Center
(located on the north side of Ridcle Park Ddve, between Rancho California Road and
Vincent Moraela Ddve. Associate Planner Carpie Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt the Categorical Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0072
(Development Plan);
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-0072, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 56,000 SQUARE
FOOT OFFICE COMPLEX, CONSISTING OF TEN (10)
BUILDINGS ON FOUR (4) ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE, BETWEEN RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-310-028 AND
032
F:~DeptS~,~LANNING~pLANCOMM~Agendas~2000~-21 -O0.doc
2
Plannina Application No. 99-0261 - Planned Development Overlay - TEMECULA
CREEK VILLAGE (loCated on the south side of State Route 79~ (sOuth) east of Jedediah
Smith Road. ASSoCiati~:Planner. Denice Thomas -'. t :
RECOMMENDATION: ' ~
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 79
(SOUTH) EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-010-006, AND ADDING
SECTIONS 17.22.130 THROUGH 17.22.138 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 4 (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0261 )"
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
July 5, 2000, Council Chambei's, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
F:'~DEPTS~PLANNING~plancomm~agendas~2000\6-21-00.dec
3
ITEM #2
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 3, 2000
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:06 P.M., on
Wednesday May 3, 2000, 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 Webster.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and
Chairman Guerriero.
None.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill,
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Associate Planner Thomas, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar Items were considered separately.
1 Approval of Aclenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 3, 2000.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
R:PlanMinute$050300
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from February 16, 2000
Commissioner Mathewson indicated that on pages 7, and 8 it was indicated that he had made
the motion and had seconded the motion, relaying that this section needed to be corrected.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the minutes, as amended. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3
Planning Application No, PA99-0478 (Development Plan) to design and construct three
(3) speculative industrial buildings totaling 66,116 sGuare feet on 4.72 acre of vacant land
and Planning Application No. PA00-0084 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643) to subdivide
4.72 vacant acres into three (3) parcels within the LiGht Industrial (LI) Zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No, PA99-0478 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines;
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0478, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) SPECULATIVE
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 66,t16 SQUARE FEET
ON 4.72 VACANT ACRES WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
(LI) ZONE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSINESS
PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF THE
BUSINESS PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-020-068;
3.3 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0084 pursuant to
Section 5315 of the CEQA Guidelines.
3.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PlanMinutes05O3O0
2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000o17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0084, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643 TO
SUBDIVIDE 4.72 VACANT ACRES INTO THREE (3) PARCELS
WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF THE BUSINESS
PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-068;
Via overheads, Associate Planner Thomas presented the staff report (per agenda material),
providing an overview of the proposed three speculative industrial buildings; highlighted the
location, and the revised plan to provide two driveway aprons in lieu of the three existing;
relayed that since the easterly portion of the site had a fault line traveling through it, the
buildings had been located at the back of the site; advised that based on the parking ratios
included in the staff report, the applicant had exceeded the requirements; advised that a
condition had been included requiring the applicant to submit a use synopsis; specified the
architectural articulation (i.e., pop-outs, decorative glass, and scored concrete); and with respect
to the landscaping, relayed that each site would provide more landscaping than required, noting
that the applicant would preserve some of the existing mature trees located on the slope area.
For Commissioner Fahey, Associate Planner Thomas relayed that the entryways were
recessed, noting that there were pillar-like structures at this location; and advised that the
design of this project was compatible with alternate projects in this area.
With respect to parking ratios, Commissioner Mathewson queried what parking provisions would
be provided if there was additional office space proposed for use with a potential tenant. In
response, Associate Planner Thomas relayed that at the time a tenant had been identified the
applicant would be required to provide a use matrix in order to demonstrate whether the tenant
would meet the parking ratios.
Regarding the hazard zone, Commissioner Mathewson queried whether that was a setback
required from that zone. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that it was
a fault zone and that there was a fifty-foot setback required.
Mr. Luis Aguilar, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding the corner
design where the entranceways were located.
With respect to the large area above the second floor window that had not been treated, for
Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Aguilar relayed the applicant's intent to create a contemporary
design, noting the recessed treatment at the top of the building; for Commissioner Webster,
advised that the recessed decorative band was approximately eight inches wide and would be
consistent with the color of the building; and for Commissioner Telesio, further specified the
location of the band, noting that the scored concrete was a separate element.
The Commissioners relayed the followinQ conclusions:
While relaying that she was not pleased with the entryway design, Commissioner Fahey
concurred that it was faidy consistent with projects in this area.
R:PlanMinutes050300
3
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that overall he would support the project, while noting that
the three-quarter inch deep recessed accent feature at the top of the building would not provide
an adequate treatment for this area, relaying that it would be his desire that the applicant work
with staff to address this issue.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that this building was consistent with the surrounding uses,
while noting that the design had a stark appearance; and concurred with Commissioner
Mathewson's comments that the applicant provide additional articulation at the top of the
building.
Commissioner Webster advised that the Commission focus more on the intent of the Design
Guidelines than on the consistency with the surrounding development, since numerous projects
were approved by the County; specified that the two main points of the Design Guidelines were
requirements for entry statements (as referenced by Commissioner Fahey) and for the building
to have a top, a base, and a middle; concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's
recommendation, noting that the top element needed to be further addressed; and relayed that
both these issues could be addressed by staff.
Mr. Mike Linkletter, the applicant, relayed that the window treatments were added for enhanced
articulation; noted that the renderings did not accurately reflect the entryway statements, and
provided additional information with respect to the design of the entranceways; and via
overheads, provided an overview of the design element at the top of the building. in response
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his desire that the applicant provide definition in
this area, and not a variant paint color application. noting the large wall expanse that had not
been treated.
Commissioner Telesio relayed concurrence with the need for additional textural treatment at
the top of the building.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public headng; and to approve the
project adding that the applicant be required to work with staff to address the treatment at the
top portion of the building and the entry statements.. Commissioner Webster seconded the
motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
4
Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) to design, construct and operate
a 246-unit, two and three-story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building
and tot lot.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application No. PA99-0137.
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PlanMinutes050300
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0317, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND
THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL,
CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON
APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-01t
Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue, and
therefore left the meeting at this time.
By way of overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record),
highlighting the project's location, amenities, and the adjacent uses; specified the zoning as
Medium Density, noting that per the General Plan, 7-12 units per acre would be permitted,
noting the target density with respect to the General Plan was 9.5 dwellings per acre; presented
the site plan, highlighting the proposed 22 separate residential buildings, the garage buildings,
and the recreational facilities, advising that the buildings had been clustered to avoid a large
visual expanse of apartment complex; specified the access points, and the meandering main
entranceway; noted that the dwelling units were one, two, and three stories, relaying that the
three-story units encompassed a two-story unit located above an enclosed garage area,
advising that enclosed garage parking provisions would be provided for all the units; noted that
the dwelling units ranged in size from 775-1,380 square feet; further specified the amenities
located in the center of the project area, as follows: a swimming pool/spa, a workout room, and
a recreation clubhouse inclusive of meeting rooms, recreation areas, and a kitchen; advised that
in light of staffs concern regarding the interface with the adjacent property, specifically on the
south side, the buffer in this area was particularly scrutinized; with regard to the properly
adjacent to the single-family units, specified that there would be a distance of 112 feet to the
building; via a diagram denoting the betruing and landscaping, specified the slope in this
particular area; noted that the parking areas would be buffered with a four-foot screen wall, and
berming; reiterated that staff focused efforts to de-emphasize a large mass visual impact with
the implementation of a clustering affect, created variety and visual interest with the elevation
and building orientation variations, and in order to obtain a differentiated streetscape, the
setbacks were varied; relayed that the project proposed a variety of roof lines while achieving
strong vertical and horizontal articulation, and broken facades; noted that stairwells had been
enclosed and that the windows and entrances had been extended in order to provide additional
articulation;, specified the location of the monument signage; reviewed the mitigation proposed
with respect to the traffic analysis (per agenda material); advised that in light of community
concern regarding the amount of accidents in this area, a Traffic History Collision Report had
been prepared revealing that there had been 25 collisions dudng a 9-year period which
calculated to .555 collisions per million vehicle miles, noting the average rate for this type of
road was 2.4; with respect to grading, relayed that staff worked with the applicant in an attempt
to blend the topography with the proposed units, noting that since the applicant opted to provide
enclosed garages and to upscale the project this feature was not achieved.
In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries, Associate Planner Donahoe confirmed that there
were corrections by the Public Works Department (per agenda material) regarding Condition
Nos. 44, and 51, and the addition of Condition No. 52; referenced the letter from the Pechanga
Cultural Resources received on May 3, 2000 (per supplemental agenda material) which outlined
R:PlanMinute$050300
5
their request with respect to having a walk over; and noted that the applicant would be
agreeable to the request, advising that this request be incorporated into Condition No. 12.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill addressed the Commission regarding the Growth Management
Program Action Plan which was adopted by the Council at the March 21, 2000 City Council
meeting, reading into the record the Council directive as stated on page 5, 3ru paragraph of the
staff report, stating that project approval should be at the lowest allowable density with the
exception of a project providing onsite or community amenities; relayed the Council's intent to
develop projects at the lowest end of the density range unless there were significant benefits to
the project; for Commission Telesio, confirmed that staffs recommendation with respect to this
project was approval, noting that staff and the applicant had spent approximately one-and-a-half
years working on this particular proposal; and advised that if the Commission approved the
project, there would need to be consideration given to the amenities provided by the project.
Noting the lack of clarity with respect to the Council directive, Chairman Guerriero commented
on the vagueness of the term amenities; and queried what specific amenities warranted the
exception in densities.
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill recommended that those
queries be directed to Council with this project, advising that in the Commission's findings or
deliberations those comments be denoted in order to be forwarded to Council.
For Commissioner Telesio, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that staffs recommendation
for approval was based on the fact that the project was consistent with the General Plan and
zoning, advising that the Council directive regarding growth management was to be determined
by the Planning Commission, noting that perhaps having staff address this issue with respect to
the Growth Management Plan should be addressed at a future date.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments that if this project had been proposed without
the amenities, staff would not have recommended approval, Deputy City Manager Thornhill
provided confirmation; acknowledged that it was a subjective judgement to make a
recommendation with respect to qualifying amenities, confirming that this project proposed
numerous amenities, specifically in light of the small size of the development; and relayed that
whether the amount of amenities justified the increase of approximately 100 units, was the
decision before the Commission.
Commissioner Fahey commented that the amenities factor seemed to apply to extraordinary
provisions; and queried whether staff had compared this project to other similar uses, evaluating
whether the amenities provided were above and beyond the norm. In response, Deputy City
Manager Thornhill relayed that the amenities exceeded provisions of alternate similar uses,
noting the provision of enclosed garages, improved landscaping, improved circulation, and
numerous onsite amenities; and clarified that it was within the Commission's purview to request
that the project be re-designed or that additional amenities be provided.
Referencing the Growth Management Plan with respect to Policy No. 2, regarding Redirect
Urban Development to Urban Areas, Commissioner Mathewson relayed the inconsistency with
that portion of the plan when applied to approving projects at the lowest level of density. In
response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that at the General Plan Advisory Committee
meeting that this issue was brought up regarding portions of the plan that appeared to be
contradictory; and advised that the Commission direct those questions to the Council; and
relayed various benefits regarding the placement of higher density housing proximate to
commercial areas (i.e., which could increase the feasibility for future transit).
R:PtanMinutes050300
6
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the
General Plan would be updated. noting that it had been placed on the budget for this fiscal year.
For the record, Commissioners Fahey, Telesio, and Guerriero relayed that they had individually
had previous conversations with the applicanrs representatives regarding this project.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, provided a brief history of the property, noting
that in 1989 the County had approved an application for 335 apartments on this site, relaying
that after an appeal process it was ultimately approved as a 260-unit project in December of
1990 by the City Council. advising that that particular owner did not proceed with the project;
noted that this particular proposal was submitted approximatelyone-and-a-half years ago;
referenced the allowable densities per the Development Code; specified the zoning of the
adjacent properties; advised that this complex was designed as a luxury apartment complex;
and relayed the arduous efforts of the applicant to address staffs concerns, noting, additionally,
the community meetings which were held.
Mr. Jim Keisker, representing the applicant, via overheads, provided an overview of the
proposal, specifying the project location, adjacent streets, circulation aspects, differentials in
elevations, slopes, and amenities; noted the location of the berm placed to mitigate sound
adjacent to the single family units; relayed that the closest project building to an existing offsite
family residence was 160 feet; presented the view of the project from various vantage points,
noting the articulation, the grade changes, and the winding road; provided a line of sight view
from two adjacent residential homes; highlighted the site plan. specifying the location of the
amenities. the floor plans, inclusive of plans with two patio areas; noted the goal of the applicant
to provide a good living environment, to create a serene residential scale, and to develop a
project that was sensitive to the neighboring built environment.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Keisker relayed that the height of the three-story building
was approximately 36 feet; clarified that the berm on the southerly property line was eight feet in
height, specifying the location of the four-foot walls; and noted that the greenbelt along Rancho
California Road was approximately 150 feet.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Keisker confirmed that the Moraga Road entrance
would be gated, as well as the alternate entry; with respect to public access to the pool,
confirmed that this would be via a pre-arranged schedule; and provided additional information
regarding the line of site view of the project.
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Markham relayed that per discussions with the Swim
Club, the pool has been modified to be lengthened by five feet, and has been widened to
accommodate an additional lane; elaborated on the various improvements that the project has
been conditioned to complete with respect to Moraga Road; with respect to the eastern end of
the project, noted that the applicant would share a ddveway connection with the adjacent
property owner, relaying that this entry would be primarily a tenant only entranceway; provided
additional information regarding a bus turnout, in response to Mr. Thornhill's previous
comments, relaying that the applicant would have no objection to installing a turnout, noting that
typically the turnouts were placed per RTA's recommendation; and provided additional
information regarding the applicant's efforts to work with the Oder family who owned the
apartments to the south of the project, addressing drainage issues, existing cut-through
pedestrian traffic, and landscaping matters,
R:PlanMinutes050300
7
With respect to Commissioner Telesio's queries regarding the connection of Moraga Road to
Via Las Colinas, Mr. Markham provided additional information. Deputy Director of Public Works
Parks relayed that the project had also been conditioned to construct the intersection at Rancho
California Road/Mbraga Road; and for Chairman Guerriero, confirmed that there would be no
additional widening of Rancho California Road.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Markham relayed that the quantity of grading would be
200,000 cubic yards; provided additional information regarding the view of the project from
Rancho California Road; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the
differential in the elevation from Rancho California Road to the southerly property line, noted
that the read drops down 38 feet in that area, relaying the constraints of the project with respect
to tying into the existing pavement at Via Las Colinas. Mr. Keisker relayed that the average
grading over the entire site would be approximately 12 feet; provided additional information
regarding the quantities of grading if the site had been relatively flat.
Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant was in agreement to the Conditions of Approval, as
modified, and with the request of the Pechanga Cultural Resources as denoted in the letter of
May 3, 2000 (per supplemental agenda material).
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding staff's estimations of the average
number of persons per dwelling unit, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that 3.3 was an
average for a single family dwelling unit, noting that for multiple family dwelling units the
average would most likely be under 3, approximately 2.8 or 2.9; and with respect Quimby
requirements, relayed that for this project there would be a fee payment.
For Commissioner Fahey, Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that the average daily trip
generation per unit would be approximately nine, or ten trips, advising that with respect to this
project the number could be lower due to the proximity to services,
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the traffic analysis indicated that the Level of Service
(LOS) would be Level "D" or better at project build-out, querying whether there was a specific
degradation of service with this particular project.
Mr. Bob Davis, traffic engineer representing the applicant, relayed that with respect to the multi-
family residential units, the average daily trip generation was just over five trips; in response to
Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding degradation of the LOS, noted that without the
project Rancho California Road/Moraga Road would degrade one LOS. going from Level "C" to
"D" in the morning, and from "B" to "C" in the evening; at Lyndie Lane the LOS would go from
Level "A" to "B" in the morning and would remain unchanged in the afternoon, at Via Las
Colinas there would be no affect, at Rancho California Road/Ynez Road the LOS would not
change with or without the project; clarified that the analysis included the impacts of the
commercial development; relayed that this portion of the project would generate 1,380 trips on a
daily basis, noting that during AM Peak hours there would be 98 trips generated, and during the
PM Peak, the project would generate 128 trips per day; in response to Commissioner Fahey's
queries as to whether there were any measures as far as traffic management that could be
implemented to reduce the tdp generation by approximately 500 trips a day, advised that some
traffic could be reduced by allowing an interconnection between this project and the adjacent
project, particularly the commercial center, relaying that the applicant was making efforts to
implement this access, clarifying that there was no concept that would reduce the trip
generation by 500 trips a day.
It was noted that at 7:55 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:10 P.M.
R:PtanMinutes050300
8
Attorney Curley relayed that in light of the letter from the Pechanga Cultural Resources, staff
was requesting that whatever action the Commission ultimately decided to take with respect to
this issue that the Commission allow staff to bring back at a subsequent meeting a revised
resolution that adequately addresses the environmental findings regarding the issues the letter
raised, noting that the letter was received by staff today which did not allow time for addressing
the matter; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that the recommendation was for the
Commission to take no final action tonight in order for staff to develop a resolution addressing
the Commission's comments, and the environmental findings.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:
a Mr. Burlie Cole 42567 Remora Street
n Mr, David Michael 30300 Churchill Court
a Mr. Stan Wright 42415 Cadno Place
r~ Mr. David Boucher 42797 Twilight Court
a Mr. Scott Bruce 41395 Rue Jadot
The above-mentioned individuals opposed the project for the following reasons:
~' Concern regarding the potential for vandalism.
· ~ Relayed that a covered garage area would not compensate for higher densities.
,r Increased traffic,
Disappointed with the community meetings held regarding this project, expressing a desire
to have a representative representing their concerns.
,~ The impact with respect to overcrowding the schools.
., Recommended a 100-unit complex development at this site.
· / Opposed to additional density.
,~ Relayed that this project was not in accordance with the Growth Management Plan.
The negative impact with respect to the view of the project due to the proposed height of the
buildings.
Lowered value of surrounding properties.
Offered to get a signed petition with neighboring residents' signatures expressing opposition
to the project.
~' Overabundance of apartments in this particular area.
For Mr. Michael, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that this project's traffic study
was reviewed by Senior Engineer Moghadam. noting that the information had been verified; and
clarified that his previous comment was regarding the fact that he personally did not review it.
R:PlanMinutes050300
9
The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:
ca Ms. Helen M. Oder 29911 Mira Loma Drive
ca Mr. Robert L. 'Oder 29911 Mira Loma Drive
ca Ms. Evelyn H. Hughes 27727 Jefferson Avenue
The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following reasons:
The project would be an asset to the community and the adjacent uses.
The applicant had adequately addressed the concerns of the community.
., Advised that this is the best project that could be proposed at this site, providing a historic
overview of past proposals.
Specified the fencing that the applicant would provide between the project and the adjacent
properties.
With respect to landscaping, relayed that Sequoia trees would be utilized which would
provide fuller screening.
,, With respect to drainage issues, noted that the applicant has an adequate drainage plan
and has addressed the concerns of the adjacent property owners with respect to this matter.
,, Commenting on Condition No. 33, regarding the sewer lines, relayed that while not desiring
to burden the applicant with the cost, expressed a desire for the completion of the
referenced drainage study.
With respect to density, relayed that prior proposed projects on this site had higher
densities.
Concern with respect to an alternate proposal at this site if this project was denied.
Commended the design of this project, noting the need for this quality type of apartments
with enclosed garages.
., Ideal location for this type of project.
~ Relayed that there is a shortage of homes and apartments for the present need in this area.
In response to community concerns and comments, Mr. Markham relayed the following:
+ Via overheads, presented an inventory of the apartment projects in the surrounding area,
specifying densities ,rent amounts, and the need for this type of project in the City of
Temecula.
+ With respect to the interface, noted the heavy landscaping plan along the interface
boundary, specifying the location of the walls and fencing.
+ With respect to slope maintenance, relayed that the project's slopes would be maintained
within the project boundaries.
R:PtanMinutes050300
10
+ With respect to vandalism issues, noted that the provision of fencing would address the
concern of trespassers.
+ With respect to' Commissioner Mathewson's questions, relayed that Condition No. 93
addressed the Quimby issues.
With respect to the traffic issues, relayed that staff had reviewed the analysis that the
applicant provided; and provided the background information regarding the reputation of the
firm the applicant utilized for the traffic study.
+ With respect to school issues, noted that the project was required to pay school mitigation
fees pursuant to State Law.
With respect to the Growth Management Plan. relayed that this project was consistent, as
follows: 1 ) with respect to concentrating urbanization along transportation corridors, and 2)
with respect to the amenities proposed. noting the applicant's efforts to provide community
access to the pool; and specified that this project would be an upscale development.
+ With respect to the recommendation to develop a 100-unit complex. noted that typically a
project of that scale would not provide amenities due to a lack of justification.
+ Noted that the applicant had receipt of a letter from an Olympic swimmer applauding the
applicant's efforts with respect to the pool's shared use.
+ Concurred with Attorney Curley's recommendation to address the concerns of the Pechanga
Cultural Resources letter.
+ For Commissioner Telesio. relayed that currently there was an approximate one- percent (1 -
%) vacancy rate in apartments in the City of Temecula.
Durincl Commission discussion, the Commissioners relayed the following comments:
Commissioner Fahey relayed that this project was well-designed, noting that an apartment
complex was appropriate at this location; advised, however, that the Planning Commission had
an obligation to implement the policies that have been passed by the City Council, noting that
while the amenities issue was not cleady defined, the policy did state lowest density allowed;
relayed that the lowest density allowed would be seven to eight dwelling units per acre; with
respect to amenities, it was her interpretation that the amenities should be provisions that
addressed .the additional volumes or densities; since the primary concern was traffic impacts
with respect to the impact of the densities, recommended that there be a mitigating factor to
address the additional approximate 300-500 trips a day the higher density would generate,
recommending that investigation be conducted to implement a plan to reduce the additional trip
generation impacts (i.e., van transport).
Commissioner Mathewson relayed a desire to defer action on this issue until the City had
addressed the housing, circulation, and land use element updates; noted that if the project was
to be considered at this time he had concern regarding the following; with respect to the pool
issue, noted that this was not an amenity provision above the norm, acknowledging the shared
use with the Swim Club; noted concern with respect to the amount of grading proposed on the
site which would remove the ridgeline which was a visually pleasing aesthetic along Rancho
Califomia Road; relayed concern with respect to the view of the three-story structures, noting
that the benefit of the enclosed garage area was nullified by the view impact; with respect to
R:PlanMinutes050300
11
transportation improvements around the site, noted that in his opinion, this did not add value to
the community but solely addressed the project impacts; and advised that the project, as
proposed, did not meet the City Council policy in terms of providing amenities that would
warrant higher densities.
Commissioner Telesio advised that this was a high quality project; relayed confusion with
respect to an amenity that would warrant the higher densities, noting the lack of clarification per
the City Council policy; noted that this project was initiated long before this new policy, advising
that with respect to equity and fairness there needed to be consideration regarding this matter;
commented on the nexus between the densities and the amenities provided with a project;
advised that prior to taking action, it would be his desire to obtain additional clarification with
respect to the Council's definition of an amenity which justified a higher density; relayed that the
traffic improvements that this project would implement would benefit the community as a whole;
with respect to the recommendation to add an amenity such as a van pool. advised that most
likely the residents would still utilize their own vehicles; and relayed that in his opinion the new
policy should solely impact new development applications.
With respect to economic development, Chairman Guerriero noted the need to offer affordable
housing for employees in order to attract business to the City of Temecula; relayed that in his
opinion, this project meets all the requirements, including the Growth Management Plan's
policies; reiterated the lack of clarity regarding the term amenities; referencing the policy, stated
that the Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest density if the project
provided project or community amenities, noting that this proposal offered both in some aspects;
relayed that this was one of the best projects he had seen in twenty years; relayed concern
regarding alternate projects at this site if this project was not approved; recommended that there
be City Council/Planning Commission Workshop in order to address the Growth Management
Plan; and noted that in his opinion the shared use of the pool was a qualifying amenity, relaying
the alternate view of his fellow Commissioners, reiterating the need to clarify the term
amenities, as it pertains to warranting approval of a higher density.
In response to Commissioner Fahey's queries with respect to conditioning the project regarding
a transportation management plan, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that additional
investigation would need to be conducted with respect to traffic analysis, relaying that it could be
feasible. Commissioner Fahey relayed that if this amenity could be addressed, she could
support the project; and recommended that this issue be addressed when the item was brought
back to the Commission.
In response to Commissioner Fahey's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
relayed the possibility of the applicant mitigating traffic in alternate portions of the City in order to
compensate for the higher densities. Commissioner Fahey concurred with Deputy Director of
Public Works Parks' suggestion; and relayed that the applicant could contract with employers to
provide mass transit or develop an alternate plan to address the additional trips generated
between the minimum and the maximum densities. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
relayed that perhaps there could be transportation provided at the Senior Center or the Boys
and Girls Club or for an alternate nonprofit organization.
With respect to the above-mentioned recommendation, Commissioner Mathewson relayed
that he would concur if the transportation provision would actually be utilized.
For Chairman Guerdero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that staff had
reviewed the applicant's traffic data, concurring with the analysis; and relayed that if it was the
R:PlanMinutes050300
12
Commission's desire, staff could provide data reflecting the additional number of trips generated
by this proiect.
Regarding transl:{o~tation provisions with respect to this project's requirements, Commissioner
Telesio noted the lack of utilization of the RTA busses.
Commissioner Fahey clarified that if the transportation issue could not be mitigated, she could
not support the project.
Relaying concurrence with pursuing the feasibility of an amenity addressing traffic,
Commissioner Mathewson recommended additionally pursuing investigation regarding the
enhancement of Quimby fees as a source of a qualifying amenity.
Chairman Guerriero reiterated staffs recommendation to continue the matter in order for the
legal staff to address CEQA and sovereignty issues.
Requesting additional direction from the Commission, Planning Manager Ubnoske queried
whether it was the Commission's desire to postpone the matter until there could be a scheduled
joint workshop with the City Council, noting that then the matter would need to be continued off
calendar.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue this issue to the June 7, 2000 Planning
Commission meeting. Chairman Guerriero seconded the motion. (This motion ultimately
passed; see below.)
In response to the Commission, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff would bring back
several different options for the Commission's consideration.
Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the findings associated with the
Development Plan.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding whether the issue would come
back without additional guidance from Council, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff
would attempt to obtain additional information, noting that potentially staff could solely bring
back a recommendation from staff.
For Commissioner Fahey, Attorney Cudey recommended that the Commission keep the public
hearing open.
At this time voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who
abstained.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
With respect to the corner treatment at the mall, Chairman Guerriero relayed that the
fountain element did not appear to be consistent with the approved design, requesting
staff to investigate.
B. Regarding the interior fountain area in the proximate area of the theater (at the mall site),
Chairman Guerriero relayed that there was now a plant placed on the fountain area with
no active water treatment, requesting that staff address this issue; and additionally noted
that the interior landscaping in the mall should be upgraded.
R:PlanMinutes050300
13
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that there was a letter, which had been provided to
the Commission, that addressed the Park and Ride facility in the mall area.
Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the Commission may start to see some projects
which were under 10,000 square feet in size being developed, clarifying that due to the
size these buildings, the development could be approved via administrative approval if
there was compliance with the Specific Plan; and relayed that if the Commission was not
comfortable with this approval process the Development Code would need to be
amended to modify the approval authority.
Chairman Guerriero commented that it was his recollection that this approval process
had been set up due to the attempt to expedite staff's time due to being inundated with
numerous projects in the past.
Commissioner Fahey recommended that this issue be readdressed when the full
Commission was present. (Commissioner Webster had left the meeting.)
In response to the Commission, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff was
busier now than at any other time; noted that this approval process was following the
strict letter of the Development Code; relayed that if a developer were to review the code
with the approval authority matrix, and understood CEQA, one would query why a
project was being taken before a Director's Hearing or the Planning Commission since
clearly the Development Code stated that these projects qualified for an administrative
approval; and provided additional information regarding the process,
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:37 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, May 17, 2000
at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerdero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
R:PlanMinutes050300
14
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ~,'
June 21,2000
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Cost Plus, Inc. at the 40456
Winchester Road located on the southwest corner of Winchester Road and
Margarita Road.
Prepared by:
EXISTING ZONING:
Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
Specific Plan 7 (SP-7 the Temecula Regional Center)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Nodh: Community Commercial (CC)
South: Specific Plan 7 (SP-7),
East: Specific Plan 6 (SP-6)
West: Specific Plan 7 (SP-7),
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Commercial (CC)
SURROUNDING GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
North: Community Commercial (CC)
South: Community Commercial (CC)
East: Low/Medium Density Residential (LM), 3 to 6
dwelling units per acre
West: Community Commercial (CC)
BACKGROUND
Cost Plus, Incorporated, is requesting the Planning Commission make a finding of public
convenience or necessity in order to sell beer and wine in their retail store located at 40456
Winchester Road. This is at the southwest corner of Winchester Road and Margarita Road in the
area known as the Power Center. This finding is required because the applicant is requesting a
Type #20 (Off-Sale General Retail) license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC) within a census tract where the number of licenses issued has already been
exceeded.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\PC&N\Cost Plus Staffrpt.pc 6-21~0.doc
1
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission has developed criteria to either justify or not justify making a Finding of
Public Convenience or Necessity pursuant to State Law. These criteria and Staffs responses are
as follows:
Criteria to Justify Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
Q:
Does the proposed establishment have any unique features which are not found in other
similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other special services)?
Yes. Cost Plus offers a unique collection of imported home furnishings and accessory and
accent items. To compliment their product line they will offer special import and domestic
wines as well as microbrewery craft beer and imported beer. Both the wine and beer sold
are product lines that are not typically found in other commercial businesses. Therefore,
their business fills a market niche not currently occupied by other license holders in the City.
Q:
Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons of a
different socio-economic class)?
No.
Would the proposed mode of operation of the establishment (i.e. sales in conjunction with
gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other establishments in the area?
No. Sales are anticipated to be typical of market operations.
Q:
A:
Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e. freeways,
major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from other
establishments?
No.
Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of
population during certain seasonal periods?
No. Population in the area is expected to be seasonally stable, although the Christmas
shopping season will bring increased sales as it does for all retailers.
Criteria
Q:
to Not Justif,/Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed
establishment?
Yes. The site lies within District 432-04, and according to the Alcohol Beverage Control
office in Riverside, there are twenty (20) off-sale licenses allowed in this census tract, and
F:\Depts\PLANNING\PC&NXCost Plus Staffrpt.pc 6-21-O0.doc
2
J
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
thirty-two (33) currently active licenses issued. However, within a quarter mile radius of the
Cost Plus, there are three off-sale licenses, they are issued to Ralph's and Trader Joe's
grocery store and the Chevron gas station mini-mart.
Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity
(600 feet) to the proposed establishment?
No, there are no schools, parks, hospitals, churches or youth facilities within 600 feet of the
proposed establishment.
Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses?
No.
Q;
Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by the
residents of the area?
It is unlikely that the proposed market will interfere with residents east of the area.
Residences are beyond 500 feet of the community commercial center, in which other
licensees are currently operating.
Q:
Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area?
Staff contacted the Temecula Police Department regarding the proposed liquor license.
Police officers do not expect the proposed establishment to add substantially to law
enforcement problems in the area.
Number of similar uses within the City: There are nineteen licenses issued to grocery
establishments within the City limits, however, only one other offer specialty product lines similar
to those offered by Cost Plus.
Number of other licensed establishments within 1 mile and 3 miles: There are 13 licensed retail
stores with alcohol sales within one mile of the proposed store. A three mile radius would include
forty (40)licenses.
Conclusion: Staff recommends the Commission determine that the project proposes a certain
benefit by offering a product not otherwise available in the City.
Attachments:
Exhibits - Blue Page 5
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Licenses within ¼ mile and 1 mile radii
F:\Dep~\PLANNING\PC&I~Cost Plus Staffrpt.pc 6-21.,00.doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO, 1
EXHIBITS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\PC&N\Cost Plus StaffTpt.pc 6-21-00.doc
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
ASE NUMBER: N/A
XHIBIT- A
LANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - Specific Plan 7 (SP-7 the Temecula Regional Center)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - Community Commercial (CC)
CASE NUMBER: N/A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21,2000
CITY OF TEMECULA
"1 Mile
, Buffer
"\~' ,,::, 1/4 Mile Buffe~,
· ...:~:.?,.~ / / '
Pro ect Site
City
ABC Offsale Licenses
Streets
Highways looo o looo 2000 Feet
Parcels
ASE NUMBER: N/A
XHIBIT- D
LANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 21, 2000
1/4 and I Mile Radii Map
ITEM #4
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
June 21, 2000
Directors Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for May, 2000
Date Case No.
May 4, 2000 PA97-0274
May 11, 2000
May 18, 2000
PA97-0274
PA99-0374
Proposal
Modification of Conditional
Use Permit for the Temecula
Beer & Wine Garden - a
request for approval for on-
site serving of beer and wine,
selling wine for carry out and
providing entertainment on
an outdoor pub.
Modification of Conditional
Use Permit for the Temecula
Beer & Wine Garden - a
request for approval for on-
site serving of beer and wine,
selling wine for carry out and
providing entertainment on
an outdoor pub.
To subdivide 6.02 acres into
one common parcel
(consisting of all parking
areas, drive aisles and
landscaped areas) and 15
individual postage stamp lots
within the Business Park (BP)
Applicant
Ed Dool
Ed Dool
Brian Fronk,
Saddleback
Associates
Action
Continued to
May 11, 2000
Approved
Approved
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 3
F:\DEFTS\pLANNING\DIRHEAR\MEMO\20~O\May2000.memo.doc
1
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
F:\DEFrS\pLANNING\DIRHEAR\MEMO\2000\May2000.memo,doc
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 4, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0274 (Conditional Use
Permit).
Ed Dool, Temecula Shuttle
28464 Front Street, Temecula, CA 92590
Located on the NE comer of Front and Sixth Street in Old
Town at the Temecula Stage Stop.
Modification of Planning Application No. PA97-0274
(Conditional Use Permit) - a request for approval for on-site
serving of beer and wine, selling wine for carry out and
providing entertainment in an outdoor pub.
Exempt
Knute Noland
Receive input from the applicant and public and amend or add
conditions as necessary.
CONTINUED TO MAY 11, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
F:\USERpUBL\pLANNING\DIRHEAR\2000XS-44]0.AGENDA.do¢
1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0274 (Conditional Use
Permit).
Ed Dool, Temecula Shuttle
28464 Front Street, Temecula, CA 92590
Located on the NE comer of Front and Sixth Street in Old
Town at the Temecula Stage Stop.
Modification of Planning Application No. PA97-0274
(Conditional Use Permit) - a request for approval for on-site
serving of beer and wine, selling wine for carry out and
providing entertainment in an outdoor pub.
Exempt
Knute Noland
Receive input from the applicant and public and amend or add
conditions as necessary.
ACTION:
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
p:\pLANNING\DIRHEAR',2000\5-11-00.AGENDA.doc
ACTIONAGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 18, 2000 1:30 PI~I
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item no__t listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case Number:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Location:
Intended
Environmental Action:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Case Planner:
Status:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA99~0374 (Tenative Parcel Map
No. 29407)
Saddleback Associates, Brian Fronk
To subdivide 6.02 acres into one common parcel (consisting
of all parking areas, drive aisles and landscaped areas) and 15
individdual postage stamp lots within the Business Park (BP)
zone.
Commerce Center Drive, adjacent to Murrieta Creek (27655
Commeme Center Drive)
A previous Negative Declaration which addresses the impacts
associated with the project was adopted for this site on
February 23, 1999.
921-400-017, 044
John DeGange
X New Project
Re-submittal: Previous DRC Date:
Approval
ACTION:
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED
F:\USERpUBL\pLANNING\DIRHEAR~200OXS-18-OO.AGENDA.doC
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 21, 2000
Planning Application No. 00-0072 - Development Plan - RIDGE PARK OFFICE CENTER
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Categorical Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0072
(Development Plan);
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0072, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF A 56,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
COMPLEX, CONSISTING OF TEN (10) BUILDINGS ON FOUR (4)
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE,
BETWEEN RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VINCENT MORAGA
DRIVE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-310-
028 AND -032
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
McMahon Development Group
Ms. Cynthia Davis
To design, construct and operate a 56,000 square foot office complex,
consisting of ten (10) buildings on four (4) acres
North side of Ridge Park Drive, between Rancho California Road and
Vincent Moraga Drive.
LI - Light Industrial
North: LI
South: LI
East: LI
West: LI and BP - Business Park
Not Applicable
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 ~DeptS'~LANNING%D P'iX)-0072 Ridge Park Office Center%STAFFRPT.PC .doc
1
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
BP - Business Park
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant industrial building (formerly Amscan)
Mountain View Business Park office complex, and vacant properties
Vacant
Industrial building, Vista Office Center (under construction)
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Net Site Area =
Total Gross Floor Area
Floor Area Ratio
Landscape Area
Building Height
4.8 acres
212,235 square feet
56,000 square feet
26.39 % (40% allowed in LI)
60,692 square feet = 29%
39 feet
PARKING SPACE ANALYSIS:
Vehicular spaces required:
Vehicular spaces provided:
Standard spaces
Compact spaces
56,000 square feet @ I space/300 square feet =
Handicapped accessible spaces required:
Handicapped accessible spaces provided:
Motorcycle spaces required:
Motorcycle spaces provided:
187
221
187
27 (12%)
4
4
Bicycle spaces required:
Bicycle spaces provided:
Loading spaces required:
Loading spaces provided:
9
9
3
3
BACKGROUND
The applicant completed the pre-application process with a Pre-Application Meeting held on
February 10,2000, and a staff comment letter distributed that same day. The formal application was
received on February 24, 2000, a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting held on March
23, 2000, and DRC comment letter faxed March 27, 2000.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes a campus of single-story and two-story shell office buildings, which range
in size from 4,600 square feet to 7,800 square feet. The four larger, two-story buildings are clustered
in the center, surrounding a decorative, landscaped courtyard with fountain and elevator tower. The
six remaining single-story buildings are also clustered. three at each end, surrounding walkways,
patios and landscaped areas.
~\TEMEC_FSIOI\VOLI',Depts~PLANNING~D P~00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~STAFFRPT,PC.dOC
2
The project proposes a range and combination of alternatives to prospective buyers. According to
the applicant, the majority of future owners will be local businesses wanting to expand or locate
corporate offices to serve their existing clientele in the Temecula area. While the applicant is
conditioned to merge the existing two parcels that comprise the subject site, it is likely that a
condominium map will be submitted for the project. Staff has interpreted the Development Code
Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses which allows offices, administrative or corporate
headquarters with greater than 50,000 square feet in the LI Light Industrial zone to apply to this
project.
With buildings totaling 56,000 square feet, the project will house offices, administrative, and/or
corporate headquarters similar to the Vista Office Center project already approved by the Planning
Commission and under construction at the northeast comer of Rancho California Road and Ridge
Park Drive. Furthermore, the proposed project is compatible and of similar design as the Mountain
View Business Park office complex directly across the street.
ANALYSIS
Site Desicln and Circulation
The project site has already been rough graded into a tiered pad along Ridge Park Drive. The
applicant proposes a three-foot high retaining wall at the east end of the site and a 14-foot high
retaining wall at the west end to accommodate the project on the pad. Staff worked with the
applicant to enhance the 14-foot Keystone wall with large shrubs at the base of the wall, plantings
at the top, and planter cells in four tiers across the middle.
Although the City's Design Guidelines encourage office buildings to be located up toward the street
with parking behind, this project appealed to staff for a number of raasons. The four centrally located
buildings are larger, with architectural features that will have a presence on the street even at a
distance of 250 feet from the centedine of Ridge Park Drive. The clustering of smaller buildings
linked to patio areas offers optimal intedor pedestrian circulation. Visitors, employees and delivery
persons will use the circular, double-loaded drive aisle that is convenient and easy to navigate.
Handicapped accessible spaces, loading zones, motorcycle spaces, and bicycle racks are evenly
distributed throughout the project site. To screen the parking spaces along Ridge Park Drive, they
have been located behind a 20-foot landscaped setback area and an additional 5-foot landscaped
parkway and 6-foot sidewalk. The design of the street frontage will necessitate the relocation of
existing alder trees, and will allow for berming for additional screening of vehicles.
The project is proposed on two parcels, and will require a parcel merger. The applicant also
proposes to subdivide the project with a condominium map or other instrument.
Traffic and SianaQe
The project site takes access off Ridge Park Drive. The design proposes two driveways, one at each
end of the property frontage. Due to the length of the frontage at approximately 850 feet and the
curvature approximately at its middle, the applicant proposes to install entry monuments at each of
these entrances. The applicant has provided a Conceptual Signage Plan and Program to illustrate
their intent. A formal Sign Program incorporating the Conceptual Signage Plan, use of specific
colors, materials, plantings and lettering details and dimensions shall be required for review and
approval by the Planning Manager.
~\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1 ~epts~LANNING~D P'Z~-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~STAFFRPT.PC.doc
3
Architecture
With the use of colors, materials and architectural features, the applicant has offered a cohesive
project of one- and two-story structures that are. at the same time, unique in themselves. It is the
borrowing of both arched and straight lines, capped and non-capped corner treatments and towers,
and the various combinations of cultured stone columns, wainscoting and end walls, that give the
project interest, variety and character. All buildings have four-sided articulation. and there are no
long, unadomed wall planes. Building entrances include elements of pedestrian interest and
protection from inclement weather. Balconies are offered on the two-story buildings.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has determined that the project qualifies as an in-fill development in accordance with the
conditions as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,
as follows:
The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation of BP Business Park
and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations of the LI Light Industrial zone.
The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project site is 4.8 net acres within the
Crystal Ridge Business Park, already partially developed with industrial and office buildings.
The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The site
has already been rough graded with tiered pad sites prepared for development. Ridge Park
Drive and other off-site improvements are already in place to serve the site.
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality. The proposed office uses are not anticipated to generate noise, air
or water pollutants, and shall be required to comply with the Performance and Environmental
Standards of the City Development Code which restrict such nuisances. The amount of traffic
generated by the project is not anticipated to exceed those anticipated for uses at this site.
The project does not exceed the target floor area ratio. which was used to determine traffic
impacts at the site.
The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Eastern
Municipal Water District has indicated their willingness to provide water and/or sewer service
to the project. Rancho California Water District has also indicated that water service is
available. The Riverside Department of Environmental Health has no objections to the
project.
Therefore. staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Categorical Exemption from
CEQA, using the Class 32 In-Fill Development Projects classification.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation of BP Business Park and all
applicable General Plan policies. The intent of the Business Park designation is to develop well
designed business and employment centers that offer attractive and distinctive architectural design,
innovative site planning, and substantial landscaping and visual quality. The project design is
exemplary in this regard. With 29% of the site dedicated to landscaping, a building height maximum
of 39 feet, and a floor area ratio of 26%, the project meets or exceeds all zoning requirements of the
LI Light Industrial zone.
\\TEMEC_FSIOl\VOL1%Depts~PLANNING',D p'i:X)-OO72 Ridge PaX Office Center~STAFFRPT.PC.doc 4
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The applicant and her development team worked congenially and cooperatively with staff during the
processing of this application. The applicant understood the requirements of the General Plan,
Development Code, and Design Guidelines, and worked with staff to bring forward a quality project
to the Planning Commission. The project is consistent with applicable City documents, compatible
with surrounding development and staff recommends approval.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The General Plan Land
Use designation for the site is BP Business Park, which encourages the development of
business and employment centers such as professional office buildings.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety,
and general welfare. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Department, Building
Department and the Department of Public Works. and these departments have conditioned
the project to comply with applicable Codes and regulations which protect public health and
safety. Emergency vehicle access is provided by the project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7
Exhibits - Blue Page 8
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Maps
D1. Site Plan
D2. Conceptual Signage Site Plan and Program
E. Conceptual Grading Plan
F1. Elevations - 4,600 square foot Building
F2. Elevations - 6,400 square foot Building
F3. Elevations - 7,800 square foot Building
F4. Elevations - Sections
F5. Elevations - Accessory Details
G1. Floor Plans - 4,600 & 6.400 square foot Buildings
G2. Floor Plans - 7,800 square foot Building
H1. Landscape Plan
H2. Landscape Details
I. Color and Materials
Sheet 2
Sheet 11
Sheet 3
Sheet 6
Sheet 7
Sheet 8
Sheet 9
Sheet 10
Sheet 4
Sheet 5
Sheet L-1
Sheet L-2
Under Separate Cover
\~TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI',Depts'~PLANNING'~D P%00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~STAFFRPT.PC.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~STAFFRPT,PC.dOC 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0072, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF A 56,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
COMPLEX, CONSISTING OF TEN (10) BUILDINGS ON FOUR (4)
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIDGE PARK
DRIVE, BETWEEN RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VINCENT
MORAGA DRIVE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
940-310-028 AND -032
WHEREAS, McMahon Development Group filed Planning Application No. 00-0072 -
Development Plan (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application,
on June 21, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the
project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code;
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with
all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The General Plan Land
Use designation for the site is BP Business Park, which encourages the development of business
and employment centers such as professional office buildings.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Department, Building
Department and the Department of Public Works, and these departments have conditioned the
project to comply with applicable Codes and regulations which protect public health and safety.
Emergency vehicle access is provided by the project.
Section 3. Environmental Comoliance. Staff has determined that the project qualifies as
an in-fill development in accordance with the conditions as set forth in the California Environmental
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\004)072 Ridge Park Office CenterXRES-DP.PC.doc
Quality Act CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, as follows:
A. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation of BP
Business Park and all applicable General Plan policies as well as with applicable zoning
designation and regulations of the LI Light Industrial zone.
B. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than
five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project site is 4.8 net acres within the
Crystal Ridge Business Park, already partially developed with industrial and office buildings.
C. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
The site has already been rough graded with tiered pad sites 'prepared for development. Ridge
Park Drive and other off-site improvements are already in place to serve the site.
D. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed office uses are not anticipated to generate noise,
air or water pollutants, and shall be required to comply with the Performance and Environmental
Standards of the City Development Code which restrict such nuisances. The amount of traffic
generated by the project is not anticipated to exceed those anticipated for uses at this site. The
project does not exceed the target floor area ratio, which was used to determine traffic impacts at
the site.
E. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Eastern Municipal Water District has indicated their willingness to provide water and/or sewer
service to the project. Rancho California Water District has also indicated that water service is
available. The Riverside Department of Environmental Health has no objections to the project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally
approves the Application for the design, construction and operation of a 56,000 square foot office
complex, consisting of ten (10) buildings on four (4) acres, located on the north side of Ridge Park
Ddve, between Rancho California Road and Vincent Moraga Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel
Nos. 940-310-028 AND -032 subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this twenty-first day of June, 2000.
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 twenty-first day of
June, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D p\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Cen~er\RES-DP.PC.doC
2
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~STAFFRPT.PC.doc 7
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 00-0072 - Development Plan
Project Description: The design, construction and operation of a 56,000 square foot office
complex, consisting of ten (10) buildings on four (4) acres
Development Impact Fee Category: Office
Assessor's Parcel No.
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
940-310-028 AND -032
June 21, 2000
June 21,2002
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 cashiers 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 condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and
all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek
monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality
thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by
the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within
the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13,
Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152
and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the
defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require
additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any
unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail
to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant
fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval
without further notice to the applicant.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
1
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 tb'completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "DI"
(Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division or as amended by these conditions of approval.
a. Mounding or berming shall be provided along Ridge Park Drive to screen vehicles
facing the street.
b. The site plan shall show a separation between single-story buildings of 15-feet or
wider.
The site plan shall show a separation between two-story buildings and other
buildings of 20-feet or wider.
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "H1" and "H2" (Landscape
Plan and Details) or as amended by these conditions.. 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 properly 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.
Mounding or berming shall be provided along Ridge Park Drive to screen vehicles
facing the street. Plantings and their locations shall be modified where necessary
to maximize the vegetative screening.
Slope and street plantings shall blend with existing adjacent plantings and shall
meet the requirements of the City Development Code.
c. All utilities shall be screened.
d. The developer shall ensure that mature plantings do not interfere with utilities and
traffic sight lines.
e. · The landscape plan shall meet the water conservation requirements of City
ordinances.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "FI" through "FS"
(Building Elevations, Sections and Accessory Details), contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division, or as amended by these conditions. All
mechanicel 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 "1" (Color and Material Board) contained on
file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division, or as amended by
these conditions. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require
approval of the Planning Manager.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge park Office Center\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
2
Material Color
Stucco walls, reveals (Montalvo Finish)
Expo Stucco
.... Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Expo Stucco
Standing seam metal roof-AEP- span
Plaster finish Cornice-light sand finish
Expo Stucco #52 Ivory
Wood accent member -Olimpic stain
Semi -transparent
Cultured Stone
Mission Light Fixtures
Natural Aluminum Storefront
Decorative Metal Railing - Frazee paint
Glass - ¼ inch
#487 Tumble Weed
#52 Ivory
#478 Whole Wheat
#460 Pebble
#225 Sorrento
#454 Desert Sky
#263 Amaretto
Redwood
#907 Blue Grey
#CVS-2042 Chardonnay Dressed Fieldstone
#8355D Burnt Copper
Solar Bronze Glass
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 Riverside County Ordinance N. 655.
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 return one
signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
11.
The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D1 ," "E," "F," "H1 ,""H2," and "l" (Site Plan, Conceptual
Grading Plan, Landscape Plan and Details, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the
final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development
Department - Planning Division staff. The applicant shall submit five (5) full size copies of
all revised exhibits, and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved
Exhibit "1" (Color and Materials Board) to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board shall be
readable on the photographic prints.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
12.
13.
A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit for review and approval
a merger of the two lots identified on the site, or such other mechanism wherein buildings
do not cross property lines.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~COA-DEVPLAN.dOc
3
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 "HI" and "H2," or as amended by these
conditions;. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall
be accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the
site.
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
15.
the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
An Administrative Development Plan application for a formal Sign Program shall be
submitted that incorporates the concepts proposed in Exhibit "D2," or as amended by these
conditions. The Planning Manager shall review and approve the Sign Program prior to
issuance of building permits for any signage in the project.
The Sign Program shall include the use of colors and materials, and plantings at the
base of all monument signs.
b. The Sign Program shall dimension lettering and locate all building sign envelopes.
16.
17.
18.
19.
A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
appreved 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.
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.
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 spaca finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
4
off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Udauthorized 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."
20.
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.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
21.
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
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
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. 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.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center%COA-DEVPLAN.dOC 5
28.
29.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is'shown to be exempt. Direct discharge of runoff from the site to the storm drain
system is prohibited. Runoff shall be collected onsite and urban pollutants shall be mitigated
prior to discharge.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
30.
31.
32.
33.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
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 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. A Parcel Merger shall be processed and recorded.
35. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
36. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~COA-DEVPLAN.dOc 6
37.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, and striping, as
appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Sewer and domestic water systems
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.
38.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan"
in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
39. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property.
40.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
41.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to
the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass
Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
42. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
43.
,44,
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern MunicipaI Water District
c. Department of Public Works
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.
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
45.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
46.
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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center%COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
7
47.
48.
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.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
49.
50.
51.
52.
The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
53.
54.
55.
Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
Provide house electrical 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 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
56. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
57. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
58. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
59. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
60. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
61. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the stad of the
building construction.
62. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
63. Show all building setbacks
64. · California Building Code allows buildings on the same property to be considered one
building as long as the allowable area is consistent with section 504. Further, with 60 foot
yards on all sides the allowable area may be unlimited. Should plans in the future be to do
a parcel split, this project may require that exterior walls, opening, etc be fire rated and
careful attention to how this may impact the future use should be undertaken. An example
is the center cluster of buildings on this parcel. Should a property line be established
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC 8
between each side of the four building cluster this "building" would now only have two yards
and the allowable increases would have to based upon this.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shaft be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
85. 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.
66. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a miramum 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 400 GPM for a
total fire flow of 1900 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 Ili-
A)
67. 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) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and
adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection
and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access road(s) frontage to 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.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B).
68. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2)
69. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
70. 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)
71. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
72. 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)
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~COA*DEVPLAN.dOC 9
73. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.60rd. 99-14)
74. Prior to bOifding construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
75. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points Of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
76. 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 shal~ 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 )
77. 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)
78. 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)
79. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display
monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home
parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which
indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire
hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall
be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation.
80. 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)
81. 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)
82. 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)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center%COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
10
83. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
84. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
OTHER AGENCIES
85.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 22, 2000, a copy of which
is attached.
86.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water Districts transmittal dated April 18, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
87.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Districts transmittal dated March 6, 2000, 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 shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~COA-DEVPLAN.dOC
11
County of Riverside
DEPARTI~IENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: March 22.2000
TO:
FROM
RE:
'CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A Don e, CV fl, Y/5 5:227
CLARENCE
7" !men Health Specialist~II~'~
PLOT PLAN NO. PA00-0072
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0072 and has no
objections. SanitaO' sewer and water services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK 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 Ibr each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be
submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to
ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific
reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022).
c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Genemtor Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Waste reduction management.
d) A letter from the 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 ttealth Clearance.
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
Bonnie Dierking, Supervising E.H.S.
""'-
EASTERN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT-~
Board of Directors
President
David J. Slawson
lice President
Clayton A. Record. Jr.
Marion V, Ashley
Richard R. Hall
Rodget D, Stems
Mary. C. White
General Manager
John B. Bindin
Directorofthe
Metropolitan Water
District ofSo. Calif.
Clayton A. Record. J~
Treasurer
Joseph J. Kuebler. CPA
Legal Counsel
Redwine and SherrilI
Apd118, 2000
County of Riverside
Environmental Health Department
P.O. Box 1206
Riverside, CA 92502
Dear Colleague:
Re:
SAN53-Sewer Will Serve
PA 00-0072, Ridge Park Office Center, APN 940-310-028, 032,
Located North of Ridge Park Dr., West of Rancho California Rd.
in the City of Temecula.
EMWD is willing to provide water and/or sewer service to the subject project. The
provisions of service are contingent upon the developer completing the necessary
arrangements in accordance with EMWD rules and regulations. The arrangements
may include plan check, facility construction, annexation, payment of financial
participation charges, coordination with a sub-agency, reclaimed water facilities and
other requirements. The developer should contact EMWD's New Business
Development Department eady in the process to determine the necessary
arrangements for service.
EMWD's ability to serve is subject to limiting conditions, such as water shortages,
regulatory requirements, legal issues, or conditions beyond EMWD's control.
Thank you for your cooperation in serving our mutual customers. If you have any
questions, please call me at (909) 928-3777, ext. 4518.
Civil Engineering Assistant
New Business Development
mhs
c:
; APR 2 4 20~D
Ms. Carole Donahoe
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
\\fpsnts2\J_\WORDPRCC\WORD\NEW_BUSI.11\Will Serve\year2000\pa00-O072.doc
Post OFfice Box 8300 Pen'is, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (909) 928-3777 Fax: (909) 928-(,177
Location: 2270 Tremble Road Perris. CA 92570
John F, Hennigar
March 6, 2000
Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Depactment
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAI'LABFLiTY
A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 19626-1 AND
A PORTION OF PARCEL 22 OF PARCEL MAP 12549
APN 940-310-028 AND APN 940-310-032
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0072
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees
and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative
at tiffs o~ce.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
00XSB:ktO67XF012-T3\FCF
[~ant'hn ('ulifornia Water District
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~S'~AFFRPT.PC.doC 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE o June 21, 2000
VICINITY MAP
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge park Office Center~STAFFRPT.PC.doc
9
::--~ Project
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI Light Industrial
, ;;;,,~,~,,,,~,5,~,;,~,;,~,5,;,;,;,,
~ Project .;,,~:~:;,.,~~~:~,,,~:
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP Business Park
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
\\TEMEC_FS101%VOLl\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center\STAFFRPT.PC-dOc
10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 21, 2000
SITE PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge park Office Center~STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - D 2 CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE SITE PLAN AND PROGRAM
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
\\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~STAFFRPT.PC.doc
- 12
CITY OF TEMECULA
PARK
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI~DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Cente~STAFFRPT.PC,dOc
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
NORTH ELEVATION PAD *A'
,J
SOUTH ELEVATION PAD 'A'
WEST ELEVATION PAD 'A'
EAST ELEVATION PAD 'A*
CASE NO, - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F 1
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 21, 2000
ELEVATIONS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI~Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center\STAFFRPT.PC,doC
14
CITY OF TEMECULA
NORTH ELEVATION PAD 'G'
SOUTH ELEVATION PAD 'G'
EAST ELEVATION PAD 'G'
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F 2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
ELEVATIONS
\\TEMEC_FS101~VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
NORTH ELEVATION PAD 'D' _ ....
SOUTH ELEVATION PAD 'D' _
WEST ELEVATION PAD 'D' __ ___
EAST ELEVATION PAD '_D'_
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT -F 3
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
ELEVATIONS
\%TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge park Office Center\STAFFRPT.PC.dOc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F 4
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
ELEVATIONS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~STAFFRPT.PC.doC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F 5
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
ELEVATIONS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office CenterXSTAFFRPT.PC.dOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN PAD 'A' (4,600 S.FJ
SHELL OFFICE BUtLOqNC
6,400 5F
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN PAD 'G' (6.400
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G 1
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
FLOOR PLANS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center%STAFFRPT.PC.doC
19
CITY OF TEMECULA
FIRST LEVEL ELEVATOR _TgWE~R _P_LA~N___
SECOND LEVEL ELEVATOR TOWER pLAN
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G 2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 21, 2000
FLOOR PLANS
\\TEMEC_FS101%VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center%STAFFRPT,PC.doc
20
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - H 1
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
LANDSCAPE PLANS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center~STAFFRPT,PC.doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
PAD ~ '~-~'~;~"
PAD
'F'
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - H 2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 21, 2000
LANDSCAPE DETAILS
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\Depts\PLANNING%D P\00-0072 Ridge Park Office Center%STAFFRPT.PC.doC
22
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 21, 2000
Planning Application No. 99-0261 (Planned Development Overlay)-
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
Prepared by: Denice Thomas, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission: adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-._
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AN
ORDINACE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) EAST
OF JEDEDDIAH SMITH ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 961-010-006, AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.130 THROUGH
17.22.138 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 4 (PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0261)"
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Chds Smith, Old Vail Partners/LandGrant Development
PROPOSAL:
To adopt a Planned Development Oveday district to develop 32.6
vacant acres within the Professional Office zone with 20 acres of
residential and 12.6 acres of commercial.
LOCATION:
Generally located on the south side of State Highway 79 South east
of Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Professional Office (PO)
Z3 Specific Plan Overlay District
EXISTING ZONING:
Professional Office (PO)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Professional Office (PO)
South: Open Space (OS)
East: Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
West: Highway Tourist Commercial (HT)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
F:%Depts~PLANNING~DO~99-O261~61PA99 PDO PC.doc
SURROUNDINGLAND
USES:
North: Vacant
South: Temecula Creek
East: Residential
West: Vacant
BACKGROUND
The owner of this property has been in contact with the City regarding this proposal since February
25, 1999. The formal application for this project was filed on June 30, 1999 and was deemed
incomplete on July 7, 1999. An August 5, 1999 meeting was held with the applicant to discuss the
project in detail On August 9, 1999 a detailed letter was provided to the applicant, which
enumerated the Planning Department's concerns. The applicant revised the proposal and submitted
a revised list of uses for staff review. On September 29, 1999 staff provided the applicant with
comments on the review. On November 29, 1999 the law offices of Greenberg & Bass submitted
a letter to the City advising that the applicant has filed for relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Although bankruptcy was filed, review of this project was continued at the request of the applicant.
On February 17, 2000, the applicant made a revised submittal that incorporated comments from
previous meetings and correspondence. On March 9, 2000, after many revisions, a Development
Review Committee (DRC) Meeting was held. On March 23, 2000 a follow-up DRC letter was
forwarded to the applicant deeming the project incomplete again. The applicant made the
modifications suggested by staff, revised the proposal and resubmitted. The project was deemed
complete on May 12, 2000 and scheduled for the next available hearing date, which was June 21,
2000.
The Development Code contains provisions for Planned Development Oveday distdcts in Chapter
17.22. The Code provides a process for the creation of mixtures of uses in smaller areas where a
specific plan or village center oveday is not appropriate. The applicant is proposing a Planned
Development Overlay district (PDO), entitled Temecula Creek Village, with a mixture of residential
and commercial uses for 32.6 vacant acres. Specifically, the project proposes 20 acres of residential
uses and 12.6 acres of commercial uses.
This proposal, if approved by the City Council, would adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, add
Section 17.22.130 through 17.22.138 to the Development Code, and amend the Zoning Map.
Enclosed in your packets, for your review, is a draft of the proposed ordinance, the environmental
initial study, and a booklet that includes more detail regarding the project. The intent of this staff
report is to analyze the affects of changing the land use from Professional Office to the mixed uses
delineated in the PDO, and to make a recommendation as to its appropriateness.
ANALYSIS
Site Desian
Access
The project is located on the south side of State Highway 79 south, east of Jedediah Smith Road
and west of Avenida De Missions. Access to the site is provided through the use of one centrally
located main access near the Village area, two public access points (one from Highway 79 south and
one from Jedediah Smith Road), a fire access from SR-19, and one access from Avenida de
Missions. Entry to the residential areas will be restricted to four gated access points that will be
accessible to the residents of this gated project.
F:~Depts~PLANNING~PDO~99-O261~261PA99 PDO PC,doe
2
Uses
Existing Use Designations
The existing zoning and the General Plan designation for the property is Professional Office, which
is intended to encourage low-rise office development situated in a garden arrangement. Typical
uses in this zone include legal offices, medical offices and limited support convenience retail and
personal service commercial businesses. Additionally. the General Plan designated this property
as a Specific Plan Oveday Area. The intent of the Specific Plan Oveday Area is to require a
coordinated, comprehensive planning approach for specified areas of the City. The property in
question is designated as a Z3 Specific Plan Overlay Area.
The General Plan envisioned that the land uses in the Z3 future specific plan area would include a
mixture of uses including office, support commercial, residential, services, as well as recreational
and open space uses. The applicant is proposing a mixture of support commercial, village
commercial and residential uses for this site. The proposed Planned Development Oveday is
consistent with the General Plan.
Proposed Use Designations
The project would create a neighborhood with integrated commercial uses to meet the daily needs
of its residents. The proposed Planned Development Overlay District text would add detailed land
use matrix, development standards, and supplemental design guidelines to Chapter 17.22. The
proposal is consistent with the Development Code requirements for Planned Development Oveday
Districts.
Project Design
The project site is situated along the north side of Temecula Creek west of Jedediah Smith Road
and east of Avonida De Missions. The proposed Planning Areas from west to east are as follows:
5.6 acres of retail/support commercial, 9 acres of multi-family residential uses, 7 acres of village
uses, and 11 additional acres of multi-family residential uses. The proposed residential density
range is 16 to 20 units per acre
Retail/Support Commercial -This area of the PDO allows for views to the creek while providing
the tenant with visual opportunities from Highway 79 South. The land use concept for this area
is a combination of Neighborhood and Community Commercial Zones. This area will also
provide a transition between the Highway Tourist Commercial area located to the west and the
multiple family areas.
Multi-Family Residential - The clustered medium density residential development will surround
the Village component of the project. The suggested density for the project is between 16 and
20 units per acre. The Floor Area Ratio for this planning area is proposed to be 0.45 with a
maximum allowable height of 30 feet. The applicant is opting to rely on the City's Development
Code for calculation of the private outdoor open space requirements and the parking
requirements for the residential component of the project. The proposed outdoor amenities in
these areas include a clubhouse, pools, spas, bar-b-ques, and play lots. The residential area
will be within walking distance of the Village commercial area.
F:'~Depts~PLANNING~PDOL~9-0261L~61PA99 PDO PC .doc
3
Village - This component of the project is the heart of this PDOs design. The Village area is
accessed from the main entry via a boulevard style entrance from Highway 79 South. This area
is intended to Serve as the gateway to the project. The applicant is proposing outdoor gathering
places complete with benches, trash receptacles, pedestrian walkways, and bike paths. The
parking standards for this area will be based on the Development Code. The applicant is also
proposing a list of landscape materials. While this information .is helpful in an advisory sense;
staff is recommending that the final landscape palette be determined when a detailed
development plan is submitted and the proposed plant materials are reviewed by the City's
Landscape Architect for suitability.
Signage
As with other elements of the project that are not specifically delineated, signage for this project will
be coordinated with the applicable existing City Sign Ordinance and the guidelines provided in the
proposed PDO. The review of signage will be conducted as the development plans are submitted
for review.
Other Design Consideration
Staff has identified an additional item that should be added to the project. This item is a community
accessible hiking/biking trail adjacent to Temecula Creek. This would connect with other citywide
creekside trails and would allow non-motorized community access to the Village commercial area.
The trail would be an amenity to area residents and businesses, as well as an amenity for those
residing in the multi-family component of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project and accompanies this staff report. The project
being reviewed with this Initial Study is for the Zone Change and future General Plan Amendment.
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration to the City Council.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan uses of Professional Office with a Specific Plan Oveday. This project site is
described as future Specific Plan Area 7_3. The proposed Planned Development Oveday is consistent
with the future specific plan provisions in the General Plan. The General Plan states that the vision
for this area is to "achieve a comprehensively planned mixed-use development with compatible/
complementary mixtures of office, support commercial, residential and services." Staff believes that
this project satisfies these requirements.
However, there is also a potential conflict with the General Plan. The Circulation Element Map
currently depicts a road, labeled Via Rio Temecula, as traversing the southern portion of the site
from east to west. The applicant is also proposing the deletion of this proposed road from the
General P~ The applicant filed an application, PAgg-0371, for a General Plan Amendment on
Septembe ,1999.
The applicant has submitted a traffic study, which was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer.
Additionally, the applicant has met with the Public Works Department regarding the potential impacts
to circulation if the road is removed. The Public Works Department has indicated that they would
be supportive of the proposal to delete the road. Furthermore, according to the General Plan traffic
F:'{)epts%PLANNiNG~DO~99-O261~261PA99 PDO pC.doc
4
study, this segment of Via Rio Temecula would be expected to carry see less than 2,000 trips per
day. Given the minor traffic volumes carried by this segment of Via Rio Temecula, staff is not
anticipating any future problems from this proposal. This item will be presented for the
Commission's consideration next month. Staff is anticipating that both proposals will be submitted
simultaneously to the City Council for final consideration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff supports this innovative design with the addition of the community and resident bicycle
trail/pedestrian path. The proposed Planned Development Overlay meets the requirements of the
Development Code and is consistent with most of the General Plan. The remaining General Plan
issue will be brought forward for the Commission's formal consideration later next month. To ensure
consistency with the General Plan, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve
the project with the condition that a General Plan Amendment, approving the removal of this
segment Of Via Rio Temecula, be adopted prior to the Planned Development Oveday becoming
effective.
FINDINGS
The proposed Planned Development Oveday district and the General Plan Amendment are
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
The project is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The project will provide
neighborhood and support services for the existing residential development, as well as,
providing a transition between the existing highway tourist commercial zone and the existing
residential development to the east of the project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance - Blue Page 9
Exhibit I - Planned Development Oveday - Blue Page 11
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 24
Exhibits - Blue Page 27
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
Initial Study - Blue Page 30
F:M:)epts'~PLANNING',,oDO~g9-0261~261 PA99 PDO PC,doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO, 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PA00-0261
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
F:%Depts%PLANNING%PDO~,99-0261~61PA99 PDO PC.doc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL AN ORDINACE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SOUTH
SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) EAST OF JEDEDDIAH
SMITH ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-
010-006, AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.130 THROUGH 17.22.138
TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 4 (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0261)"
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed Planning Application No. 99-0261, in a manner in accord with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 99-0261 was processed including, but not limited to
a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application
No. 99-0261 on June 21, 2000, at a duly noticed public headng as prescribed by law, at which time
the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended conditional approval of Planning Application No. 99-0261
to the City Council subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning
Application No. 99-0261 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
99-0261 (Planned Development Oveday) hereby makes the following findings:
A. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the land use designation and policies
reflected for (PO) Professional Office and Specific Plan Overlay Area Za of the City General Plan.
B. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of residential and commemial
development proposed.
C. The proposed Planned Development Overlay Zoning District is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat because the project will not approve any specific on-the-ground development and future
development requests will require additional and appropriate review.
F:~Depts~LANNiNG~PDO~99-0261~-~1PA99 PDO PC.doc
7
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An environmental initial study has been prepared
for Planning Application No. 99-0261 in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. As
a result, staff is-recommending that the Planning Commission make recommendation to the City
Council adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Planning Application (PA99-0261).
Section 4. Approval. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council approve the Ordinance for Planning Application No. 99-0261
(Planned Development Overlay), substantially in the form contained in Exhibit A and subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 21th day of June 2000.
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 21th day of June, 2000,
by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:%Depts~PLANNING%PDO%99-0261L'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'~61PAg9 PDO PC.doc
8
EXHIBIT a
ORDINANCE NO. 00-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 79
(SOUTH) EAST OF JEDEDDIAH SMITH ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-010-006, AND ADDING SECTIONS
17.22.130 THROUGH 17.22.138 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL
CODE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO.
4 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0261)
WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general
plans as may be in effect in any such city; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall
be consistent with the adopted General Plan of the city; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the Zoning Map to accurately reflect private properly
and to be consistent with the adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on June 27, 2000,
and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the City Zoning Map
and Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and
local ordinances; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Libra~/,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS. the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on , 2000 to
consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map and the Temecula Municipal Code.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
section 1. Amendments To The City Zonine Mal~ The City Council hereby amends the
Zoning Map for the City of Temecula for a parcel identified as APN 961-010-006 from Professional
Office (PO) to Planned Development Oveday No. 4 (PDO-4).
Section 2. Planned Develol~ment Oveday No. 4 The City Council hereby adopts the
supplemental standards and requirements for PDO-4, Planned Development Oveday District No. 4
as contained in Exhibit A of this Ordinance.
Section 3. Environmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information contained
in the Initial Environmental Study, and hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application 99-0261.
F:~Depts~LANNING~oDO',99.-0261 ~61 PA99 PDO PC.doc
9
Section 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the rern~iining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 5. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies
of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage;
and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Councilmembers
voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __th day of ,2000.
A'F]'EST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
CityClerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 00- was dully introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the __th day of ,2000 and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of
,2000, by the following vote:
AYES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:None
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
CityClerk
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\PDO\99*0261~61PA99 PDO PC.dOC
10
EXHIBIT 1
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 4
F:%Depts~PLANNING~c~DO~99~0261 L-'61PA99 PDO PC.doc
11
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
17.22.130 Title
Sections 17.22.130 through 17.22.138 shall be known as "PDO-4"
Planned Development Overlay District).
(Temecula Creek Village
17.22.132 Purpose and Intent
The Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-4) is intended
meet the planned mixed use criteria contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
These requirements are intended to provide regulations for the creative design of, and the safe and
efficient operation of a unique mixed area within the City.
17.22.134 Relationship with the Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines
A. The list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses for the Temecula
Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District is contained in Table 17.22.136.
B. Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.138, the following rules and
regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area.
1. The development standards in the Development Code that would apply to
any development within a Professional Office zoning district that are in effect at the time an
application is deemed complete.
2. The Citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application
is deemed complete.
3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in
effect at the time the application is deemed complete.
4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time an
application is deemed complete.
17.22.136 Use Regulations
The list of permitted land uses for the Temecula Creek Village Planned Development
Overlay district is contained in Table 17.22.136.B. Planned Development Overlay - 4 contains
three different planning areas. Two of the areas are commercial, the third is residentially based.
A copy of the Planning Area map for this PDO is contained in Exhibit 17.22.136. The three areas
are identified as follows:
· Retail/Support Commercial. (identified as Planning Area PDO-4R in Table 17.22.136.B),
· Village Commercial Area. (identified as Planning Area PDO-4V in Table 17.22.136.B);
and,
· Multi-Family Residential Planning Areas. Unless specific standards are provided for this
Planning Development Overlay, the residential development standards for the High
Density Zoning District contained in Section 17.06 shall apply to this Planning Area.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\PDO\99-026fi261PA99 PDO PC.doc
12
Table 17,22.136A
Planning Area Exhibit
Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District
""iLLI
LUO~
n"O~
ovo~ ~
/
~\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts~PLANNING\PDO\99-0261~261PA99 PDO PC.doc
13
Where indicated with a letter "P" the use shall be a permitted use. A letter "C" indicates the
use shall be conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Where
indicated with a "-", the use is prohibited within the zone.
Table 17.22.136B
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use ~ PDO-4R {PDO-4Va
A
Adult business
Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jaT-zercise/martial arts studios (less than
5,000 sq. ~.)
Aerobicsldancelgymnasticslja7-zercise/martial arts studios (greater
than 5,000 sq. ~.)
Airports
Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities
Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient)
Alcoholic beverage sales
Ambulance services
Animal hospital (indoor only)
Antique restoration
Antique sales
Apparel and accessory shops
Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances)
Arcades (pinball and video games)
Art supply stores
Auction houses
Auditoriums and conference facilities
Automobile dealers (new and used)
Automobile sales (brokerage)-showroom only (new and used)-no
outdoor display
Automobile Oil Change/Lube Services with no major repairs
Automobile painting and body shop
Automobile repair services
Automobile rental
Automobile salvage yards/impound yards
Automobile service stations with or without an automated car wash
Automotive parts - sales
Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine - with or without
an automated car wash
P P
P
P
C
P
p p6
P
p p6
C
P
~\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\PDO\99-0261~61PA99 PDO PC,dec
14
Table 17.22.136B
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use I PDO-4R {PDO-4Vs
B
Bakery goods distribution
Bakery retail
Bakery wholesale
Banks and financial institutions
Barber and beauty shops
Bed and breakfast
Bicycle (sales, rentals, services)
Billlard parlor/pool hall
Binding of books and similar publications
Blood bank
Blueprint and duplicating and copy services
Bookstores
Bowling alley
Building material sales
Butcher shop
C
Cabinet shop
Camera shop (sales/minor repairs)
Candy/confectionery sales
Car wash, full service
Carpet and rug cleaning
Catering services
Clothing sales
Coins, purchase and sales
Cold storage facilities
Communications and microwave installations2
Communications equipment sales
Community care facilities
Computer sales and service
Congregate care housing for the eldedys
Construction equipment sales, service or rental
Contractor's equipment, sales, service or rentat
Convenience market
Costume rentals
Crematoriums
F)6
P ~ P
P P
C
p ps
P
p ps
P
P
p ps
P P
C
P
p ps
P P
C
C
P
C
P C
P P
~\TEMEC_FS101WOLl\Depts\PLANNING\PDO\99-0261~261PA99 PDO PC.doc
15
Cutlery
D
Data processing equipment and systems
Day care centers
Delicatessen
Discount/department store (less than 20,000 square feet)
Distribution facility
Drug store/pharmacy
Dry cleaners
Dry cleaning plant
E
Emergency shelters
Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor storage)
Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage)
Table 17.22.136B
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use I PDO'4R IPDO'4Va
P 3 P
P
C C6
P P
P
p p6
P P
P
F
Feed and grain sales
Financial, insurance, real estate offices
Fire and police stations
Floor covering sales
Florist shop
Food processing
Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity
Freight terminals
Fuel storage and distribution
Funeral parlors, mortuary
Furniture sales (less than 20,000 sq. ~.)
Furniture transfer and storage
G
Garden supplies and equipment sales and service
Gas distribution, meter and control station
General merchandise/retail store less than 10,000 sq. ~.
Glass and mirrors, retail sales
Governmental offices
Grocery store, retail (less than 20,000 sq. ~.)
Grocery store, wholesale
Guns and firearm sales
P
p
P P
P
p p6
P P
p p6
C
P
P
p p6
p p6
P
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\PDO~99-0261~261PA99 PDO PC.doc
16
Description of Use
Table 17.22.136B
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District
).Do-4. I..O-4v
H
Hardware stores
Health and exercise clubs (less than 5,000 sq. ft.)
Health and exercise clubs (greater than 5,000 sq. ~.)
Health food store
Health care facility
Helipor~s
Hobby supply shop
~lome and business maintenance service
Hospitals
Hotels/motels
I
Ice cream parlor
Impound yard
Interior decorating service
J
Junk or salvage yard
K
Kennel
L
Laboratories, film, medical, research or testing centers
Laundromat
Laundry service (commercial)
Libraries, museums and galleries (private)
Liquefied petroleum, sales and distribution
Liquor stores
Lithographic service
Locksmith
M
Machine shop
Machinery storage yard
Mail order businesses
p F)6
P P
P
P P
P P
p p6
P P
p p6
P
P
C
P
P
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\PDO\99-0261~.61PA99 PDO PC.doc
17
Table 17.22.136B
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use ~PDO-4R ~PDO-4V8
Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited to, the
following:
Custom-made product, processing. assembling, packaging, and
fabrication of goods within enclosed building (no outside
storage), such as jewelry, furniture, art objects, clothing, labor
intensive manufacturing, assembling, and repair processes
which do not involve frequent truck traffic.
Compounding of materials, processing, assembling, packaging,
treatment or fabrication of materials and products which require
frequent truck activity or the transfer of heavy or bulky items.
Wholesaling, storage, and warehousing within enclosed
building, freight handling, shipping, truck services and terminals,
storage and wholesaling from the premises of unrefined, raw or
semi-refined products requiring further processing or
manufacturing, and outside storage.
Uses under 20,000 sq. ~. with no outside storage
Massage P
Medical equipment sales/rental P
Membership clubs, organizations, lodges C
Mini-storage or mini-warehouse'
Mobile home sales and service
Motion picture studio
Motorcycle sales and service
Movie theaters
Musical and recording studio
N
Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club
Nurseries (retail) C
Nursing homes/convalescent homes C
O
Office equipmentJsupplies, sales/services P
Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than
50,000 sq. ~.
Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 sq. ~., including,
but not limited to, business law, medical, dental, veterinarian,
chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance
P
Paint and wallpaper stores ~
P
P
P
p6
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\PDO\99-0261~261PA99 PDO PC.doc
18
Table 17.22.136B
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use
Parcel delivery services
Parking lots and parking structures
Pawnshop
Personal service shops
Pest control services
Pet grooming/pet shop
Photographic studio
Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenclosed)
Postal distribution
Postal services
Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.)
Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities Commission
Q
Reserved
R
Radio and broadcasting studios, offices
Radio/television transmitter
Recreational vehicle parks
Recreational vehicle sales
Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within an enclosed
building
Recreational vehicle, trailer and boat storage-exterior yard
Recycling collection facilities
Recycling processing facilities
Religious institution, without a day care or private school
Religious institution, with a private school
Religious institution, with a day care
Residential (one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or
industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business)
Residential, multiple-family housing
Restaurant with drive-through window
Restaurants and other eating establishments
Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment
Retail support use (15 percent of total development square footage in
BP and LI)
Rooming and boarding houses
PDO4R I PDO-4Vs
P P
P P
P P
P P
P
P
C
C
C
p p6
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLl\Depts\PLANNING\PDO\99-0261~261PA99 POO PC.doc
Table 17.22.136B
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use I PDO-4R IPDO-4Vs .
S
Scale, public
Schools, business and professional
Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12)
Scientific research and development offices and laboratories
Senior citizen housing (see also congregate care)5
Solid waste disposal facility
Sports and recreational facilities
Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building'
Swap Meet, outdoor
Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales
T
Tailor shop
Taxi or limousine service
Tile sales
Tobacco shop
Tool and die casting
Transfer, moving and storage
Transportation terminals and stations
Truck rentals (no sales or/service)
TVNCR repair
U
Upholstery shop
V
Vending machine sales and service
W
Warehousing/distribution
Watch repair
Wedding chapels
Welding shop
Welding supply and service (enclosed)
Y
C
P P
P
P
P
p6
P P
Reserved
Z
Reserved
1. The CUP will be subject to Section 17.08.050(G), special standards for the sale of
~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\Depfs\PLANNING\PDO~99*0261~261PA99 PDO PC.doc
20
Table 17.22,136B
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use {PDO-4R ~PDO-4V8
alcoholic beverages.
2. Subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.40 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
3. See Section 17.06.050.(E), special standards for indoor swap meets.
4. See Section 17.080.050(R), special standards for self-storage or mini-warehouse
facilities.
5. In PDO-4, all senior housing residential projects shall use the development and
performance standards for the High Density Residential zone and the provisions contained
in Section 17.06.050.H.
6. The size of the use or activity is limited to 5,000 square feet.
7. Outdoor entertainment in conjunction with an eating establishment is permitted provided
that the outside noise levels do not interfere with off-site conversation.
8. Drive through facilities are not allowed in the Village Planning Area.
Retail/Support Commercial Planning Area is identified as PDO~4R.
Village Commercial Planning Area is identified as PDO-4V.
Multi-Family Planning Areas A & B use the High Density column in Table 17.06.030.
17.22.138 Supplemental Design and Setback Standards
Each Planning Area with the Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay has
supplemental design guidelines integrated into this PDO. These guidelines are intended to
augment the previously adopted Citywide Design Guidelines with requirements specific to this area.
A. Village Planning Area.
\%TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%Depts\PLANNING\PDO\99-0261%261PA99 PDO PC,dec
21
2
TErvlECULA CREEK VILLAGE
VILLAGE
The Village area will serve as the vital activity
center of Temecula Creek Village. Centrally located within
the project, this group of buildings will contain a welcome
mixture of goods and services to complement life in the
multi-family neighborhoods. A state-of-the-art clubhouse
facility will provide space for meeting rooms, a library and
reading rooms, computer rooms and other resident
amenities, as well as a "signature" pool and spa.
central circulation corridor.
3. Additional buildings will be organized along the corridor,
with their entries pushed to the "imagined" property line
along the circulation road (the back of the sidewalk), creating
an "urban" environment. Pedestrian pass-throughs will be
created in the gaps between buildings ("paseos") to give
access from parking areas.
A. MIX OF USES
The site of the proposed Village area is
approximately seven acres, and will contain a variety of
shops and services, including:
-retail stores
-restaurants
-recreational facilities
-commercial services
-medical and dental offices
In some cases, office uses could be located above ground
floor retail spaces. In addition, the ancillary uses of the
residential neighborhoods, such as the Community
Clubhouse with its amenities and Support Retail will be
located in the Central Retail Hub.
4. The buildings sited along the boulevard will be separated
to allow vehicular entry into the parking areas, which will
be located behind (and in some cases beside) the buildings.
6. The visual axis of the central corridor will be terminated
by the community center building and its associated open
space.
Architectural primary
"Gateway Driveway
~Pedestrian
Path
B. SITE ORGANIZATION Parking --,,
The buildings in the village core will be organized Area
around the a central spine, which is also the primary entry pedestrian
path oF travel
corridor to the development.
Vehicular
path of travel
1. The mixed-use buildings planned for the Village Hub
area will be sited in such a way that their walls help to
define the streetscape.
a. The buildings closest to State Highway 79 will
be located at the minimum required front setback
from that road.
Access
Area
,4 ~ Access to
vi,,aoe
VILLAGE HUB
2. The primary driveway into the complex will be framed
by buildings on either side, creating a "gateway" into the
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
"VILLAGE"
C. PARKING AND CIRCULATION
The clustering ??elated uses in the Village Retail
Core makes shared parking opportunities possible. The
mix of offices, with their predominant daytime use, with
retail and restaurants, busy primarily at night, creates a
reciprocal parking condition. For this reason, the village
parking demand would be lower than what is otherwise
required by the City of Temecula's Development Code. It
is proposed that the total demand of the anticipated uses
will be five spaces per thousand square feet of leasable
retail/office area.
1. Direct vehicular access to the Village will be available
via a proposed controlled intersection along Highway 79
South onto the project's principle entry drive. This tree-
lined street will provide easy ingress to and egress from
the parking areas serving the facilities, in addition to angled
parking spaces located on the drive itself. Auto circulation
wilt feature a continuous loop through the public area of
the village, helping to alleviate congestion in this part of
the site.
AUTO CIRCULATION IN VILLAGE HUB
VehicularPath
ofTravel
2. Parking lots will be located behind (and in some cases
beside) the proposed buildings, so that the buildings help
to screen the parking areas. The lots will be landscaped
to soften the hard edges of the paving, and provide pockets
of shade.
pARKING CONFIGURATION
@ RETAIL VILLAGE
3. The "downtown" core will also be served by double
rows of diagonal parking, angled in the direction of travel
both in and out of the village area. pedestrian "collector"
walks will be detailed with contrasting paving materials
leading to identified crosswalks.
a. Accessible parking will be located in the
angled parking which is curbside near retail
entries.
b. Crosswalks will be laid out to coincide
pedestrian plaza areas.
4. Convenient bike parking will be provided in the Village
core to encourage human-powered travel in this area.
pEDESTRIAN GATHERING AREA
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
"VILLAGE"
D. PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACES
Generous land~c~aped plaza areas are planned in
the midst of the retail village to encourage the accumulation
of patrons in the core who will visit a number of
establishments on any given outing,
1. These outdoor gathering areas will be linked to the
system of walkways and bike paths which traverse the
site, creating convenient access for residents.
2. pedestrian gathering areas will be made comfortable
through the inclusion of amenities which encourage rest
stops:
-benches and shade structures or trees
-trash cans and (where applicable) ash urns
-kiosks
E. BUILDING SCALE AND DESIGN
1. The V~llage area structures will be limited to one or two
stories, and will be designed to be complementary to the
existing residential scale of the neighborhood.
, Canopy
Double Pa~m__j RETAIL ELEVATION @ ENTRY /__ Glass
Entr'/V~y Slorefront
2. Buildings will be designed to include sufficient articulation
of their mass to provide an adequate sense of scale.
Specific details which may be used for this purpose include:
a. Offsetting portions ofthe buildings to avoid
long expanses of unbroken wall surface.
b. Locating entries and fenestration in recesses
to provide additional shade and shadow on
the building faces.
c. Use of awnings, canopies, and blade signs
to provide additional light/shadow play and
visual rhythms.
d. large openings with clear glass will be provided
at the street level to provide increased visibility
into the retail spaces.
e. select staggering of upper and lower floors
to avoid unbroken two-story wall surfaces.
f. use of staggered parapet heights and sloping
roof forms to give variety to building
"skylines."
3. Buildings with ground floor retail will be set close to the
streets to facilitate pedestrian access.
4. Restaurants and food uses within the village will be
encouraged to provide outdoor dining facilities. Where
possible, these "fresh-air" eating patios should adjoin
pedestrian walkways.
EXTERIOR pERSpECTIVE ~ VILLAGE AREA
5. Exterior building finishes should consist of a
complementary variety of quality materials, including the
following:
-exterior plaster in various textures and colors
-exposed colored concrete block of split face,
fluted, burnished, or sandblasted textures
-brick and natural or cultured stone
-decorative architectural metals, such as grilles
or railings
-metal or concrete (not mission) tile roofs
-metal or fabric canopies or awnings
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
'VILLAGE"
-clear and/or tinted glass (non-reflective)
-glazed ceramic or natural porcelain tile
accents ' '
-slate tile
-decorative light fixtures
-architectural accent lighting
-limited use of wood trim around glazed
openings
F. LANDSCAPING
Landscaping in the Village will generally be used
to complement the building architecture, provide color,
scent, shadow and movement, and contribute to the overall
comfort and attractiveness of the development. A hierarchy
will be established in the plant palette which uses the
largest materials in the most open areas, with the scale
progressively diminishing as transitions are made to
predominantly pedestrian areas.
1. Special themed landscaping will be developed to identify
the entrances from the existing public streets to the various
parts of the development.
a. Repetition of particular colors, leaf forms,
or plant groupings.
b. Inclusion of architectural landscape
elements, such as low walls or lamp posts.
..
"THEMED" LANDSCAPING
2. "Street" trees will be chosen for the village area which
bring color and shade, but do not litter the sidewalks.
These trees will be located in tree wells where they may
be unde~lanted with drought tolerant annuals or perennials.
3. Parking lot trees will be chosen for their wide-s
canopies, to provide a maximum of shade c
areas.
4. Strip planters a minimum of seven feet wide will be
provided at each end of every column of parking spaces,
and finger planters will be provided at a minimum of one
for every ten spaces.
pARKING AREA pLANTING
Fingerplanler
minimum 1 per 10
parking spaces
5. Pedestrian paths and gathering areas should feature
a large-scale tree as a focal point, but will be accented
with lower plant materials chosen for their durability. color.
and scent. In order to protect planrings in heavily traveled
areas, the planters may be curbed or raised above grade.
Candidates for plant materials include the following:
-salvias, achilleas, jasmines, wisteria, crape
myrtle, limonium, oenothera, and cape
plumbago
Multi-Family Residential Planning Area.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1'~Depts\PLANNING',PDO\99-0261~61PA99 PDO PC.doc
22
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Two multi-family residential neighborhoods will
surround the central village area of the project and provide
the development with a resident customer base. The nine-
acre Multi-Family "A", west of the Village. will provide a
transitional zone between the Village core and the Retail
and Support Commercial Area. Multi-family "B",
approximately eleven acres, provides a pleasing symmetry
around the Village center.
2. Each dwelling unit will be designed to include an are
for private outdoor open space according to the City of
Temecula's Development Code,
a. Each private outdoor open space will have a
minimum dimension of eight feet in at least one
direction.
b. Private outdoor open spaces will be screened,
where possible, by projecting architectural elements
wing walls, and/or landscaping.
A. STATISTICS
Each medium density residential neighborhood
will consist of 16-20 units per acre. The maximum proposed
F. A. R. forthe apar~rnents sites is 0.45. Individual buildings
will not exceed a height of thirty feet (30').
1. Parking will be provided for the proposed aparLments
at a rate consistent with the City of Temecula's Development
Code, as follows:
-(1) covered and (0.5) uncovered parking
space per (1)-bedroom unit
-(1) covered and (1) uncovered parking space
per (2)-bedroom unit
-(2) covered and (0.5) uncovered parking
spaces per (3)-bedroom unit
-(1) uncovered guest parking space per (6)
units
pRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE
B. SITE ORGANIZATION
1. The residential villages will include 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom
apartment homes clustered into larger buildings of a
manageable scale. No individual structure will contain
more than twenty units, nor be more than two hundred feet
long.
2. The residential buildings will be distributed on the site
in such a way as to take maximum advantage of existing
natural features (such as views toward Temecula Creek),
while sensibly negotiating the topography of the site in
order to avoid excessive grading.
a. The maximum possible number of units will
be arranged in buildings which generally
parallel Temecula Creek, to create broad views
from a select number of apartments.
RESIDENTIAL CONFIGURATION
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
3. Individual buildings will be oriented to one another such
that the maximum possible privacy is afforded each resident.
Buildings will be separa'~ed from the street by parking areas
and covered spaces in order to extend the buffer zone
between residences and major thoroughfares.
RESIDENTIAL/pARKING CONFIGURATION
4. Outdoor amenities such as pools, spas, barbecues, and
play lots, as well as enclosed recreation areas, will be
developed in the spaces created by the clustering of
buildings. These "leisure zones" will be evenly spaced
within the multi-family clusters to provide convenient access
for the residents. Each outdoor recreational node will be
shared by a maximum of 80-100 units, and may include
the following amenities:
-built-in barbecues and picnic tables
_recreation/multi-purpose room
-"tot lot"
-fenced pool/spa area
-open turf area
"LEISURE ZONE"
5. Functional elements of the site, such as dumpsters
storage areas, will be centrally located and
screened with architectural elements which employ details
derived from the buildings, or with adequate landscaping
SERVICE AREA
C. PARKING AND CIRCULATION
In accordance with the City of Temecula's City-
Wide Design Guidelines, the parking lots will be designed
for convenient circulation without dominating the site·
Special care will be taken to distinguish the necessary
routes traveled by service vehicles and visitors; "way-
finding" signs will be a significant element of proposed
overall Master Sign Program.
1. The residential parking areas will be gated at t
primary entry points. including both those from the existing
· streets, and from the Village Core. Cared entries into the
residential villages will be enhanced by the inclusion of
special accents, which may include the following:
a. Highly articulated low walls crafted from
natural materials germane to the site.
b. Planfings with a strong theme, focused on
such elements as color, shape, or composition.
c. Site identification signage
d. Accent lighting
2. Parking areas will be separated from the residential
buildings by a minimum of ten feet.
3. Perimeter planters at residential parking areas will be
a minimum of five feet wide, and "finger planters" will be
provided at a minimum of one for every ten parking spaces.
S10UTE;I~O~OUG~
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LANDSCAPING @ RESIDENTIAL pARKING
4. Required carports will in general be located at the
perimeter of the parking areas, where their solid outside
walls can be planted with vines in order both to screen the
carports themselves, and to add another layer of texture
to the landscaping facing the street. Carports will incorporate
details dedved from the language of the residential buildings-
5. Sound walls will be constructed along Highway 79 in
areas without buildings which would otherwise serve as
screens for both sound and unwanted views. These 6' to
8' high walls will be accented by plantings and articulated
with architectural details complementary to the overall
development, which may include:
a. Offsets of surfaces and height changes to break
up long stretches of uninterrupted wall.
b. Special cornice or cap treatments
c. Use of alternating materials to break up long
wall surfaces.
Land$cap.ng
. . .~ . ....~ .' ¥,~
SOUND WALLS
6. Pedestrian pathways to dwellings will be articulated with
enhanced surfaces and themed landscaping- Paving
materials will be chosen to complement the overall
architectural theme of the development. and may include
-colored, textured poured-in-place concrete
-select use of concrete pavers
-brick paver accents
-decomposed granite in less traveled areas
The landscaping along the pedestrian paths will generally
include a "structural backbone" of shrubs with colorful
foliage and blossoms, accented by blooming perennials
and ground covers. Limited pockets of annual flowers will
be planned to provide focal elements which change with
the seasons.
7. Pedestrian paths will also be designed to connect to
planned public transportation stops. Walkways and bike
paths will be carefully located to promote and enhance
easy non-vehicular access to all of the project's features.
D. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE
The primary goal in the architectural design of the
residential buildings is to generate imagery that will "feel
like home," to the residents while complementing the existing
dwellings in the neighborhood-
1. In broad terms, the characteristics of the proposed
architectural language include:
-low roof slopes with deep overhangs
-metal or concrete tile (not mission) roofs
-primary wall surfaces of plaster
-building bases of brick, stone, or split face
concrete block without additional finish
-use of arcades, trellises, and covered patios
-built*up trim at glazed openings, cornices,
and fleestanding columns
2. The mass ofthe individual buildings shall be manipulated
to create a product which "feels" residential. Techniques
which may be used to accomplish this include:
a. Breaking the roof line through the use of
different heights, and a mix of corniced
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
MULTIoFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
parapets and sloping surfaces.
b. Articulation of the wall planes through the
use of offsets, ;'e'cesses, built-up trims and
accents, and overhanging elements such as
canopies or awnings.
c. Transformation of architectural detailing on
alternating units.
E. LANDSCAPING
Landscaping within the residential viilag
upon to accomplish a number of functions. Primarily. the
plant materials and hardscape will be designed to work in
concert with the architectural language of the dwellings to
create an overall ambiance.
VARIED RESIDENTIAL ROOFLINE
3. The architectural language developed for the dwellings
will be carried through to the auxiliary use buildings such
as the laundry and recreation rooms, storages areas, and
trash enclosures.
4. Privacy and security fences and walls which are not
attached to buildings will be constructed with details and
motifs to complement the residential structures and sound
wails. In addition, long stretches of walls will be broken up
to provide visual interest through the use of the following:
-offsets of the wall surface
-variations in heights and materials (typical
waft/fence heigts 5'-7')
-use of alternating trim detaits
5. Colors will be chosen to generally reflect the natural
environment, while providing the proper amount of emphasis
for the chosen architectural language. Where possible,
natural materials (stone, brick, colored concrete block) will
be left in an unfinished state.
1. Trees, shrubs, and ground covers, as well as trellises,
arbors, and benches will be placed to strategically frame
desirable views and features while effectively screening
others.
a. Shared entry portals to clusters of
apartments can be flamed through the use of
three tiers of plant materials: trees whose
canopies define the "ceiling" of the space,
mid-level shrubs which create the eye-level
background, and groundcovers, flowers, and
paving materials which lead the eye to the
grouped entries.
b. "Portals'" can be created at the transitions
from the parking areas to the pedestrian
through the use of arbors or other landscape
structures, planted with brightly flowering
and/or fragrant vines.
c. Covered parking structures can be enhanced
and blended with the horizon through the use
of vines trained to the walls.
d. Shared outdoor recreation areas can be
'~valled" by a combination of dense vegetation and
screen walls to both screen them from passersby,
and reinforce the sense of "outdoor room."
e. Trash collection areas and outdoor
equipment can be screened with a combination
of literal walls, earth berms. and/or mid-
height shrubs which distract the viewer at eye
level.
2. The palette of living things will be selected to effectively
define, color, scent, and shade pedestrian and comr
areas, and punctuate both near and far views.
building materials, plant materials will be chosen for
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
durability and suitability to the local climate as well as for
their beauty.
a. Special themAs will be developed in the
landscape to aid residents and visitors in the
subconscious recognition of such important
site features as pedestrian circulation, public
areas, and private entrances. Key elements of
the theme will be repeated colors, leaf shapes,
or compositions.
._.- ~- : '_~'~ ,, .,;:,~:,,
'
·
..
/~, .'
_ _ , . ..., - c.
.. :. .:~;': ~
RESIDENTlAD OUTDOOR SPADE pERSPECTIVE
3. Plant materials will be selected from the suggested list
in the Ci~ of Temecula's Development Code, chosen for
their ability to accent the proposed architecture. Sizes of
trees will range from 15 gallons for ~pical landscape use,
to 24" and 36" boxes for specimens. Shrubs will be 5
gallon. Candidates for inclusion in the residential areas
include:
a. Vines: cliostoma cafiistegiodes, distictis,
gelsemium sempe~irens, mandevilla,
trachelospermum jasminoides, and wisteria
b. Shrubs: achillea, arbutus unedo "Compacta",
calfiandra eriophylla, centhranthus tuber,
heteromeles arbutifolia, iris douglasiana,
lagerstroemia, limonium, oenothera,
plumba9o ~pensis, sedum spurium, and
spa~ium junceum
c. Trees: albizia julibrissin, arbutus unedo,
arecastrum romanzo~anum, koelreuteria
I0
bipinnata, liquidambar styracifiua. and platanus
raoemosa
4. Hardscape throughout the development %viII make use
of colors and materials which support the unified appearance
of the overall project, while providing a high level of both
comfort for the residents and durability for the managers-
a. Paving in outdoor recreation areas may
consist of colored, textured, poured-in place
concrete with accents of concrete or brick
pavers.
HARDSCAPE TEXTURE
b. Enhanced paving consisting of colored,
textured, poured-in-place concrete or
interlocking-type concrete pavers will be
featured at pedestrian crosswalks in parking
areas and at the main public entries into the
residential complexes.
Retail/Suppo~ Commercial Planning Area.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING~PDO\99-0261~61PA99 PDO PC.doc
23
11
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
RETAIL/SUPPORT COMMERCIAL
The Retail/Support Commercial area rounds out
the mix of uses at Temecula Creek Village. Located at the
intersection of Highway 79 South and Jedediah Smith
Road, this approximately 5.6 acre site includes a grouping
of buitdings which anchors the west end of the project.
The stores and services planned in this area are intended
to support the daily needs of the local neighborhood.
a. The driveway into the site from Jedediah
Smith Road will be "gated" by the buildings
on both sides.
b, The primary buildings will be oriented
to provide maximum visibility for the tenants
whil~ preserving views to Temecula Creek.
2. Some portion of the buildings will be built to the front
setback line on Jedediah Smith Road and Highway 79, as
prescribed in the City-wide Design Guidelines.
3. Pedestrian and bicycle access into the retail/support
commercial area will be distributed along the border with
Temecula Creek to take maximum advantage of the natural
setting, while providing the highest degree of comfort and
safety for residents.
a. These paths will be developed with the
same hardscape and planting language used
elsewhere on the site.
b. Amenities such as benches and bike racks
will be provided in the open areas of the site
to encourage non-automotive travel to the site
by village residents.
Highway 79
A. SITE ORGANIZATION
In general, the new buildings will be distributed on
the site to achieve maximum user convenience while
sensibly negotiating the topography of the site in order to
avoid excessive grading. Where new buildings occur
adjacent to the existing streets and in the context of existing
development, setbacks will be designed to respect the
pattern of the built environment. Special care will be taken
in siting the buildings adjacent to the proposed mult-family
residential neighborhood.
1. Buildings in this commercial area will be laid out in such
a way as to accomplish the following objectives:
SIOUIEIID~OUGII~
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
RETAIU SUPPORT COMMERCIAL
4. Barriers will be avoided between the retail/support
commercial site and the adjacent residential area to allow
for the "flow" of space ~ar~d traffic. However, a landscape
buffer will be provided for any buildings located within
twenty feet of the shared access drive which separates the
sites.
B. PARKING DESIGN
Primarily, the parking and circulation will be
designed to allow drivers and pedestrians to easily move
through the site without confusion. Parking spaces will
provided at the rates required by the City of Temecula
Development Code based on use. (It is estimated that the
total demand of the anticipated uses will average out to
five spaces per thousand square feet of leasable retail rea.)
1. Vehicular entry to the Retail/Support Commercial area
will be via Jedediah Smith Road on the west, and a shared
drive located between the site and the adjacent residential
development to the east. (This shared entry drive is
accessed off of Highway 79.)
2. Parking will generally be located between Highway 79
and the proposed commercial buildings.
/-- Buffer from street
pARKING AREA pLANTING
12
3. Strip planters a minimum of seven feet wide will
provided at each end of every column of parking
and finger planters will be provided at a minimum of one
for every ten spaces.
4. Planter areas will be avoided at the head of parking
stalls when they are located directly in front of retail stores,
C. BUILDING SCALE AND DESIGN
1. The retail/support commercial area structures will be
predominantly one story, and will be designed to complement
the existing residential scale of the neighborhood while
incorporating design elements of the Multi-Family and
Village areas of the project.
2. Buildings will be designed to include sufficient articulation
of their mass to provide an adequate sense of scale.
Specific details which may be used for this purpose include:
a. Offsetting portions of the buildings to avoid
long expanses of unbroken wall surface-
b. Use of awnings, canopies, and blade sign
provide additional light/shadow play and
visual rhythms.
c. Arcades at the pedestrian walkway areas in
front of the storefronts.
:, ,,- .E\, / ,,.,.. ',,..,,~',,~.
~" ' "' "" Canopy Structure ~ // ':'"
.... .~ .=~,~-~' , ,,'~ \,.
,-7.. \
Entrance
RETAIL pERSPECTIVE
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
RETAIU SUPPORT COMMERCIAL
d. Use of staggered parapet heights and sloping
roof forms to give variety to building
..
"skylines."
3. Exterior building finishes will consist of a complementary
variety of quality materials, including the following:
-exterior plaster in various textures and colors
-exposed colored concrete block of split face,
fluted, burnished, or sandblasted textures
-brick and natural or cultured stone
-metal or concrete (not mission) tile roofs
-metal or fabric canopies or awnings
-clear and/or tinted (non-reflective) glass
-glazed ceramic or natural porcelain tile accents
-slate tile
-decorative light fixtures
-architectural accent lighting
D. LANDSCAPING
As recommended in the City of Temecuta's City-
Wide Design Guidelines, landscaping in the retail/support
commercial area will be used "to frame and soften structures,
to define site functions, to enhance the quality of the
environment, and to screen undesirable views."
1. Street trees as recommended by the City Wide Design
Guidelines will be planted along both Jedediah Smith Road
and Highway 79 in areas where they do not already exist.
"THEME~D" LANDSCAPING
2. Vehicle entries into the retail/support commercial area
will feature special themed landscaping, which may include
the following:
~3
a. repetition of particular colors. leaf forms.
or plant groupings
b. inclusion of architectural landscape
elements, such as low walls or tamp posts
3. Parking lot trees will be chosen for their wide-spreading
canopies, to provide a maximum of shade on the paved
areas.
4. Strip planters a minimum of seven feet wide will be
provided at each end of every column of parking spaces,
and finger planters will be provided at a minimum of one
for every ten spaces.
5. Service areas on site will be screened with a combination
of walls, earth berms, and/or mid-height shrubs which
distract the viewer at eye level.
6. Pedestrian paths and gathering areas should feature a
large-scale tree as a focal point, but will be accented with
lower plant materials chosen for their durability, color, and
scent. In order to protect plantings in heavily traveled
areas, the planters may be curbed or raised above grade.
Candidates for plant materials may include the following:
-salvias, achifieas, jasmines, wisteria, crape
myrtle, limonium, oenothera, and cape
plumbago
SERVICE AREA
E. PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACES
The proposed plan for the layout of the buildings
in the retail/support commercial center will generate the
unique opportunity to develop outdoor pedestrian gathering
areas with views to Temecula Creek.
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
RETAIL/SUPPORT COMMERCIAL
pEDESTRIAN GATHERING AREA
1. These outdoor gathering areas will be linked to the
system of walkways and bike paths which traverse the site,
creating convenient access for residents.
2. pedestrian gathering areas will be made comfortable
through the inclusion of amenities which encourage rest
tops:
-benches and shade structures or trees
-trash cans and (where applicable) ash urns
-kiosks
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
PROJECT SIGNAGE
Special consideration will be given to the
development of a comprel~ensive overall signage program
for the project, which includes not only identifying signs for
passersby, but also way-finding signs for visitors and
residents alike.
Sign in
Fascia
-- Blade Sign
--.Awning Sign
SIGNAGE
1. Overall project signage will be designed with a detail
language which complements the architecture of the
development.
a. Monument signs at project entries should
be planned integral with their supports, and
feature materials derived from the buildings.
2. Blade signs (wall-mounted signs which hang
perpendicular to the wall surface) are encouraged in the
Village area.
3. Tenant identification signs should be integrated with the
building architecture, taking advantage of fascias and
awnings.
4. Post-mounted directional signs which complement the
buildings are encouraged along the pedestrian paths and
in the gathering areas.
15
5. Non-electrified signs which are illuminated by exterior
light fixtures are encouraged-
6. In the village area pedestal signs located at the perimeter
of outdoor eating areas are encouraged when they feature
the restaurant's menu.
PROJECT ACCESS AND SAFETY
All vehicular access and circulation routes through
the site will be designed according to the standards published
by the City of Temecula Fire Department.
1. Site roadways shall be designed to allow fire department
access to within 150' of all portions of all buildings.
a. Minimum driveway dimension shall be 24'.
b. Minimum vertical clearance at all drives shall
be 13'-6".
c. All medians shall be set back a minimum of 30'
from the face of curb.
d. 16'o0" minimum drive width shall be provided
on each side of all medians
2. All gates across access drives shall be electronically
activated, sliding or swinging type, and have a minimum
clear width of twenty feet when open.
a. All manual and electronic gates shall be provided
with Knox Rapid entry systems.
3. All buildings will be submitted to the City of Temecula
Fire Department for a determination of whether they need
to be fire sprinklered. This review will be done in the
schematic design phase.
4. All commercial areas of the site shall be accessible (by
vehicles) from a minimum of two locations.
.................................
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL
PA99-0261 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
\~TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\PDO\99-0261~261PA99 PDO PC.doc 24
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: PA99-0261 (Planned Development Overlay)
Project Description:
A Planned Development Overlay district to include 32.6
acres within the Professional Office (PO) zone located on
the south side of State Highway 79 South, west of
Avenida De Missions and east of Jedediah Smith Road
Assessor's Parcel No: 909-290-058
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 One
Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One
Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not
delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of such failure
of to satisfy this condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and
all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek
monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality
thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the
voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter
4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and
21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the
defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require
additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused
portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either
promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to
indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof,
or any of its officers. employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the
required deposit, the Director may terminate the lans use approval without further notice to
the applicant.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\PDO\99-0261~261PA99 PDO PC.doc
25
3. The applicant shall revise the site plan and text to include a public multi-purpose trail along
Ternecula Creek.
This approval shall have no force or effect until such time as the General Plan Amendment
has been approved by the City Council, modifying the Circulation Element Map.
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
F:~DeptS',PLANNING~PDOL~J-0261~1PA99 PDO PC.doc
26
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
F:~)ept$~.PLANNING~PDOLqg*O261L~'61PAtt PDO pC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0261
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -JUNE 21,2000
VICINITY MAP
\~TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING~PDO\99-0261~61PA99 PDO PC.doc
28
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) ZONE
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO)
CASE NO. - PA99-0261
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -JUNE 21, 2000
%\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\PDO\99-0261~261PA99 PDO PC.doc
29
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INTIAL STUDY
F:~)ep{s%PLANNING%PDOL,~cJ-0261~261PA99 PDO PC.doc
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Planning Applications No. PA99-0261 & PA99-0371
Planned Development Overlay Area No. 4 (PDO-4) and General
Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dan Rockholt, Senior Planner
(909) 694-6400
Generally located on the south side of State Highway 79 east of
Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road.
Chris Smith
Old Vail Partners/Land Grant Development
12625 High Bluff Drive
Ste. 212
San Diego, CA 92130-2054
"PO" Professional Office, Z3 Specific Plan Overlay Zone
"PO" Professional Office
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately
33 acres from Professional Office (PO) to the Planned Development
Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. This action will adopt the concept for
a vision to revitalize the area for mixed-use development known as
"Temecula Creek Village." Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element
removing a portion of a proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula,
from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from
the Circulation Plan.
The property is surrounded by open space to the south, existing
professional offices to the north, low-medium residential uses to the
east, and highway commercial uses to the west.
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Supplemental Information
None
This Initial Environmental Study is being completed to evaluate the
proposed change of zone from Professional Office to Planned
Development Overlay. The mixed land uses proposed within the
zone change application have impacts to the area to a lesser degree
than those already in place. No detailed information on the future
development of this site is available at this time. All future
development projects will receive appropriately detailed
environmental review when specific details are available.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\rOCkhOlt~INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geology and Soils
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a si~]nificant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
Dan Rockholt, Senior Planner
Printed name and Title
F:\DeDtS\PLANNING\rOCkhOlt\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 ,doc
1. Land Use and Planning, Would the project:
Ce
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UnlessMitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
1 .all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) zone. Additionally, the proposed plan will require an
amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed extension of Via
Rio Temecula, from Avertida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the Circulation Plan.
This action will adopt a concept for a vision to revitalize the area with a mixed-use development known
as "Temecula Creek Village."
This proposal will not divide any established communities. Further, the environmental impacts
associated with Land Use and Planning are consistent with the impacts considered within the proposed
PDO, as well as the adopted City General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Additionally, a traffic
study was performed by a Registered Traffic Engineer, which indicates that the removal of the
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Through existing adopted policies and development guidelines, future development will be subjected to
City review as well as additional environmental oversight. When specific projects are proposed, land
use considerations will be reviewed at that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified
and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
F:\DeptS\PLANNING%roCkhOlt%INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
3
Comments:
2.8
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan. This action considers the adoption of the PDO which includes up to 400 multiple-
family dwelling units to be considered in future development. Any construction of future dwelling units
will be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, as a result, this action will have less than significant impacts
to the environment, therefore mitigation measures are not necessary.
2. b,c
This action will not displace any number of existing housing units, therefore will not displace any
persons from their dwellings. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional
mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or.death
involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
i)
Potentiajly
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ./'
iv) Landslides? '/'
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ,/'
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ,/'
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
3.all The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan. The project is located within the Alquist Prioilo Special Study Zone for the Wildomar
Fault Zone. The General Plan indicates that this area is within Ground Shaking Zone II. Due to the
F:\Depts\PLANNING\rockholt~INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
4
seismic nature of the area, future development could potentially incur moderate to severe ground
shaking, resulting in potential risks to public safety and property damage. To minimize the effects of
seismic activities, all development is required to adhere to construction standards outlined in the City's
Fire and Building Codes. It is important to note that seismic phenomena is not unique to this project, but
rather affects the entire southern California region.
Proposed grading for the project would not produce any additional geologic hazards nor create any
unique geologic features beyond those normal during construction activities. All grading activities will
require plan check review and subsequent inspections to ensure compliance to applicable
laws/requirements. When specific projects are proposed, seismic and safety issues will be addressed at
that time. As a result, either less than significant or no additional impacts have been identified and no
additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Info~rnatlon Sources
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge suc,h that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
F:\Depts\PLANNING\rockholt\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 ,doc
5
Comments:
4.all The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan. The environmental impacts associated with hydrology and water quality are consistent
with the impacts considered within the approved General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report.
In addition, standard erosion protection measures will be required as part of the approval of future
grading plan. When specific projects are proposed, hydrologic factors will be reviewed at that time. As
a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are
necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Poten~:ially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless MitigaTion Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~rnpact Incorporated Irnpac~ Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ,/
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially '/'
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ,'/
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
d. '/'
e. ~'
Comments:
5.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan. All air quality impacts caused by future development stem from mobile source
emissions. Regionally, future development will have minimal air quality impacts because the scope of
development has likely been anticipated in the regional air quality plan. Discharge of temporary
construction vehicle activity will only be temporary in nature, and less than significant given the duration
of the project. Local and regional climate patterns will not be changed due to the relatively small size of
the project. Due to the mixed-use nature of the proposed project, minimal odor and emissions are
anticipated. Burning wastes are not permitted for this project. Further, the minor change to the
Circulation Element will also have minimal impacts to air discharges. When specific projects are
proposed, air quality factors will be reviewed at that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been
identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\rOCkholt\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 ,doc
6
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
]ssues and Supporting Information Souzces
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potendally
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, o~ programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Comments:
6.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecuta, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan. A detailed traffic study has been conducted, which studied potential impacts that may
result from future development stemming from this action. This study has been reviewed by Staff,
which included a review by the City Engineer. Staff has concluded that the proposed change to the
Circulation Element is consistent with the goals of the approved General Plan and Environmental
Impact Report. This conclusion is a result of the comparison of proposed land use changes to existing
permitted land uses. Although the proposed project will result in a net increase of daily vehicle trips
over the current vacant land, it would not be an increase over the type of land uses already permitted
for the property under current zoning requirements. Additionally, it is important to note it is anticipated
that the proposed project will generate less than 2,000 average daily trips (ADT). Therefore it is
concluded that a change to the Circulation Element resulting in the removal of a future extension of Via
Rio Temecula from Avienda Missions westerly through to Jedediah Smith Road is consistent with the
goals and policies of the General Plan. When specific projects are proposed, further circulation impacts
will be reviewed at that time, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time. As a
result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3 and 4)
F:%DeptS\PLANNING\rOCkhOI~\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
7
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federaliy protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
lmDact
Corrll~el~ts:
7.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan.
The site for the proposed zone change does not lie within any area identified as supporting identified
endangered species. Biological impacts due to the any future development's proximity to Temecula
Creek may occur. However, because this action does not review actual in-the-ground development.
Through existing adopted policies and development guidelines, future development will be subjected to
City review as well as additional environmental oversight. When specific projects are proposed, land
use considerations affecting biological resources will be reviewed at that time. Additionally, any
proposed development will require appropriate biological studies, which in turn may result in the
modification of the project. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional
mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
F:\DeDts\PLANNING\rockholt\lNITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
8
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Potentially
Significant
impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
8.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan. The future development does not incorporate within its design any use of non-
renewable materials, nor cause the removal or loss of mineral resources from the area, since none
have been identified. When specific projects are proposed, further mineral resource impacts will be
reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time. As a result, no additional
impacts have been identified and no additional. mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and
3)
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Crate a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant UnlessMitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
F:\Depts~PLANNING\rOCkhOlt\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 ,doc
9
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
issues and Supporting ~nformation Sources
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
NO
Impact
Comments:
9.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan.
Given that the proposed development is mixed-use in nature, no increase to explosion hazards, toxic
chemical release, or increased safety hazards is anticipated. Emergency response plans and those
sections of the Temecula General Plan, which address public safety take into consideration the area at
built-out conditions. Fire hazards are increased slightly due to the nature of construction, however all
development plans are required to be reviewed by the Fire Department prior to approval. Conditions
set forth during this phase of the development process will minimize impacts to less than significant
levels.
When specific projects are proposed, further impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous materials
will be reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time. As a result, no
additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary .
(Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less ~'han
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
F:\Oepts\pLANNtNG\rockhoit\tNITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 ,doc
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
10.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. Increases in' noise levels will be minimal, given that the proposed
development is mixed-use in nature. No land uses are anticipated that would cause severe increases
in ambient noise levels. Some short-term construction noise will occur during future proposed grading
activities. When specific projects are proposed, further impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous
materials will be reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time.
Additionally, future development will require appropriate noise studies, which in turn may require noise
mitigation measures at that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no
additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered Government services in any of the following areas:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provision or need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
b. Fire protection? ,/'
c. Police protection?
d. Schools? ,/'
e. Parks? ,/'
f. Other public facilities?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated impact impact
F:\Depts\PLANNING\rockholt\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
11
Comments:
11.all
The proposed project ~s an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. No increases to existing governmental, public facilities or services
shall result from this action. It can be anticipated that impacts to public facilities and services will
occur. However, it is anticipated that the resulting impacts would be minimal and comparable to
developments already permitted under existing ordinances and guidelines. When specific projects
are proposed, impacts to public services and facilities will be reviewed, and any required mitigation
measures wilt be imposed at that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no
additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant UnlessMitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ,
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ,/'
regulations related to solid waste?
NO
Impact
12.all The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PC) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. Increases to demands for public utilities are anticipated, given that
future development will be mixed-use in nature. Mixed-use developments typically have demands to
services such as electrical utilities, telecommunications infrastructures, sewer and water distribution,
F:\Depts\PLANNING\rockholt\lNITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
12
etc. However, these levels are not anticipated to cause severe demands that would hamper other
land uses in the area. Local utility infrastructures are constructed and are being improved to handle
increased demands caused by local development. When specific projects are proposed, impacts to
utilities and service systems will be reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at
that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation
measures are necessary. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Inlorrnat~on Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact ~ncorporated Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
13.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. When specific projects are proposed, impacts to public services and
facilities will be reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time.
Additionally, the City has adopted design guidelines within the development process, which requires
development to meet certain design and aesthetic standards. As a result, no additional impacts have
been identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant NO
~rnpact Incorporated Impact Impact
F:\Depts\PLANNING\rockholt\lNITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
Comments:
14.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. The General Plan EIR diagram of Areas of Sensitivity for
Archaeological Resources (Figure 5-6) does identify the property as a potential sensitive
archaeological site, although the text of the General Plan EIR recognizes that the survey leading the
identification of sensitive sites may not accurately portray all cultural resources in the study area.
However, much of this site has been previously disturbed. This disturbance further reduces the
likelihood of finding any cultural resources. Further, no burial locations have been identified on site,
however more detailed analysis may be necessary to determine potential impacts. Mitigation
Measures are identified below. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
Mitigation Measure
14.all Because the area of the proposed project has been identified as one with potential sensitive
archeological resources, any future developments within the area will require detailed study and
analysis. All new development will comply with AB 3180 ("Mitigation Monitoring Program") and
report to the City on the completion of mitigation and resource protection measures required for
each project.
Further, future development will be required to comply with the provisions outlined in the
California Environmental Quality Guidelines in regards to the preservation or salvage of
significant archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
15.alh The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. When specific projects are proposed, impacts to utilities and service
systems will be reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time. These
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\rOCkhOlt\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
may include, but are not limited to impact fees, incorporation of recreation elements within the
development, etc. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation
measures are necessary. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental e, ffects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant UnlessMitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
NO
Impact
Comments:
16.a
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. The PDO is intended to prepare for future development that is
consistent with the appreved General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report. As a result, no
additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Source:
1, 2 and 3)
16.b:
The cumulative impacts from the project are considered less than significant because the site is
proposed to be developed in a manner consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. All
cumulative impacts from the land use and development scheme envisioned in the General Plans have
been analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the project's consistency with
these documents, cumulative impacts must be considered as less than significant. As a result, no
additional impacts have been identified. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
16.c: No environmental impacts have been identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, directly or indirectly. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
F:\DepIS\PLANNING\rOCkhOlt\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
15
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Comments:
17.a:
The City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report, copies of which are available at the
City of Temecula Planning Department. Additionally, the Temecula Creek Traffic Impact Analysis,
February 2000, copies of which are available at the City of Temecula Planning Department.
17.b: Cumulative impacts from all of the issues discussed above were addressed and mitigated to one
degree or another in the General Plan, Specific Plan and respective EIR's.
17.c:
Mitigation measures associated with the present project and analysis have been previously described
and the measures will be implemented as part of the grading permit approval, issuance, or monitoring
processes.
SOURCES
2.
3.
4.
City of Temecula General Plan
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Temecula Development Code
Temecuta Creek Traffic Impact Analysis, February 2000
F:\Depts\PLANNING\fQCkhoIt\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 ,doc