HomeMy WebLinkAbout012903 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours pdor to a meeting will enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA T t e
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JANUARY 29, 2003 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution No. 2003-004
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Guerriero
Roll Call:
Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes
each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no__t on the Agenda, a 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, prior.to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
I Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 29, 2003
R:\PLAN COMM~Agendas~003\01-29-03.doc
2 .Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of September 18, 2002
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a
public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the
approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the
Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing.
New Items
3
Planninq Application No. PA02-0667 An application to establish two (2) parcels for
condominium purposes, bein.q a subdivision of Parcel 8 and Pame114 of Pamel Map 30468;
chanqinq the occupancy of 400 multi-family apartment units to owner-occupied
condominiums located south of Hiqhway 79 South, north of Temecula Creek, east of
Jedediah Smith Road, and west of Avenida De Missions, Emery Papp, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0667; and
3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0667, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPLICATION TO
ESTABLISH TWO PARCELS FOR CONDOMINIUM
PURPOSES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, BETWEEN JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD
AND AVENIDA DE MISSIONS, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR
PARCEL NO. 961-010-006.
4 Planninq Application No. PA03-023 A Development Plan for a Substantial Conformance to
Planninq Application 00-0213 for the Bel Villaqqio proiect that includes chanqes to the
square footaqes and the elevations of buildinqs L, M, N, and O, chanqinq the location of
Buildinq O, and chanqing the exterior material for the trim above the windows for existing
and future buildinqs located Southwest corner of Marqarita Road and North General
Kearney Road (APN 921-09-71,72, and 78), Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Continue for redesign
R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~003\O 1-29-03.doc
2
5
Planning Application No. PA02-0567 A request for a findin.q of Public Convenience or
Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a nightclub to include a type 48
liquor license, live music, dancin.q, and other entertainment uses as outlined in the submitted
statement of operations in a 4,860 square foot existing buildinR located at 28822 Old Town
Front Street and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-310-022, Rick Rush, Associate
.Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0567 (Public Convenience
or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) per the California Environmental
Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved).
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A FINDING
OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR A TYPE 48
LIQUOR LICENSE (ON-SALE GENERAL-PUBLIC PREMISES)
FOR THE EDGE NIGHTCLUB LOCATED AT 28822 OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET, UNIT NO. 203 KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. APN 922-093-003.
5.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
02-0567 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE
A NIGHTCLUB TO INCLUDE A TYPE 48 LIQUOR LICENSE
(ON-SALE GENERAL-PUBLIC PREMISES), LIVE MUSIC,
DANCING, AND OTHER ENTERTAINMENT USES IN AN
EXISTING 4,860 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT
28822 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET, UNIT NO. 203 KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 922-093-003.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Update of Development Process)
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: February 5, 2003 - Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~003\01-29-03.doc
3
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 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 Guerriero.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Development Services Administrator McCarthy,
Battalion Chief McBride,
Principal Planner Hazen,
Principal Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Thornsley,
Assistant Planner Preisendanz, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 18, 2002.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from July 17, 2002.
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 1
3 Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for August 2002.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained from Item No. 2.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
4 Development Review Process, Debbie Ubnoske
Presenting an overview of the staff recommended revisions to the Development Review
Process, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided the following highlights:
· The task of analyzing the current Development Review Process;
That meetings from various agencies were held in order for staff to obtain
feedback regarding the review process;
· The efforts made to improve the timeframe associated with this process;
The plan to implement a Development Review Process for exempt projects (i.e.,
projects not requiring environmental review) which would take seven weeks in lieu
of the current 15-week process, noting that this plan would include the following:
The development of an appointment process for application submittals;
The goal to deem complete the application at the time of the appointment; and
The exploration of the concept of developing separate applications for each
type of permit;
· Relayed that a customer service survey was developed and implemented; and
That there has been consideration to create City CEQA Guidelines, which would
create additional exemptions.
For Commissioner OIhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that it was City policy to
return phone calls within 24 hours, advising that the Planning Department was
monitoring this procedure intradepartmentally; confirmed that numerous applicants
communicate back and fodh with staff via e-mail; and noted that there was consideration
regarding allowing any applicant to follow a fast-track process (subject to applicant's
agreement to the submittal of data per a specified timeline).
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that if the
Development Guidelines became part of the Development Code some flexibility would
be lost; and noted hopes that the City Council would support the concept of forming a
Subcommittee to biannually review the status of the applications.
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 2
For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the revised
shortened timeframe for processing projects encompassed the time from the application
submittal to the time the project was brought forward to the Planning Commission or a
Director's Hearing; and relayed that a timeline was not developed for projects requiring
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) due to the variables associated with such.
It is noted that the Planning Commission received and filed this report.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5
Appeal of PA01-0601 Unmanned Telecommunication Facility consistinq of replacing
two existinq qolf ball netting wood poles with two metal poles, which will contain the
antennas located on the northeast comer of Rancho California Road and Marqarita
Road in Temeku Hills Golf Coume, Planninq Area 46 of the Marqarita Villa~le
Specific Plan 199. Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Requesting a continuance to October 2, 2002
Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the staff report (of record), noting that this item
had been continued from the August 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for
the applicant to provide additional data; relayed that staff received an additional letter
from a homeowner who was opposed to the project which was provided to the Planning
Commission supplementarily; specified the additional information the applicant has
provided, presenting the sample materials for the poles; requested input from the
Planning Commission regarding whether the site analysis data the applicant provided
was adequate and whether an outside consultant should be hired to provide additional
information regarding the project; and relayed staff's recommendation to continue this
item to the October 2, 2002 meeting.
Mr. Marc Myers, representing the applicant, noted that while the applicant would prefer
approval of the project at tonight's hearing that the applicant would agree to the
continuance; and clarified that all of the information that the applicant had submitted to
staff had not been provided to the Planning Commission.
Addressing the queries of the Planning Commission, Mr. Myers noted the following: for
Commissioner Guerriero, provided additional information regarding the pole materials,
advising that the applicant would be willing to either have an artist paint the steel poles
to resemble wood telephone poles or to add telephone pole cladding as per provided
sample materials; for Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, confirmed that staff has
not had an opportunity to review the cladding sample material; confirmed that the
photograph depicted a pole covered with the cladding material; for Chairman Chiniaeff,
advised that the poles were warranted via the manufacturer; in response to
Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that to the best of his understanding the Burger King
pamel was part of the Palamar Shopping Center and under one ownership (Director of
Planning Ubnoske noting that staff couId obtain additional information regarding this
matter); and for Commissioner Mathewson, advised that the actual wood poles vary in
diameter from 11 inches to 15 inches, and the applicant would be installing comparable
poles.
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 3
For the record, Chairman Chiniaeff noted the Planning Commission's receipt of a letter
written by Mr. Bill Miller, outlining his concerns regarding the project.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project:
~ Mr. John Shablow 30791 Links Court
o Mr. Bill Miller 30743 Links Court
o Mr. Harold Ritter 30725 Links Court
The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons:
· ,' Opined that this location was solely chosen due to the lower lease prices at this site;
,/ That approving this project would set a precedent in the City;
¢' Noted concerns regarding the health issues associated with this installation;
¢' Queried the focus of the Planning Commission regarding the camouflaging of the
facility;
· " Opined that telecommunications facilities should not be placed in residential areas;
,,' That this facility should co-locate at an alternate site (i.e., at the water tower site);
and
¢' Requested that there be review of all the recorded statements of the applicant, and
in particular the earliest hearings.
Providing rebuttal, Mr. Marc Myers, relayed the following information:
Referencing alternate telecommunication facilities which he represented and were
recently approved by the Planning Commission, noted that he thought that this
project would have been more readily approved since there would be no significant
net change to the existing environment;
· With respect to concerns expressed regarding the location of a commercial use
proximate to a residential area, clarified that there was an existing gas station which
was significantly closer to the residents than this facility would be, noting that this
project was far less intrusive;
Relayed that this project would provide a benefit to the community due to the
improved cellular service;
· That the projectwas stealth;
That he could provide more specific information regarding the Burger King parcel, if
needed; referencing the ownership list of the numerous parcels in the Palomar
Village Shopping Center, relayed that in general the majority of the parcels were
owned by the center; and
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 4
· Relayed hopes that the project would be approved, while offering to bring back
additional information if that was the Planning Commission's desire.
Chairman Chiniaeff requested that staff provide the Planning Commission all the
information the applicant had submitted to staff including the technical study; and noted
the importance of determining whether there was an alternate location that would work
from a technical standpoint.
Commissioner Olhasso clarified that she desired to see documentation regarding
contact the applicant has had with the owners of the Burger King use regarding locating
the facility at that location, or technical information regarding the rationale for this site not
being feasible for the facility to be effective.
Additional discussion ensued regarding whether a consultant should be hired to provide
additional information to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Chiniaeff noted that if the Burger King owner was not willing to lease to the
applicant there would be no need of further documentation, which was echoed by
Commissioner Telesio; and queried whether this facility could be co-located at an
alternate site and provide the same coverage.
Commissioner Telesio advised that the only two issues in question were, as follows: 1 )
Whether this site was appropriate for this facility, and 2) If the site was not appropriate
what alternate locations would be feasible for installation of the facility.
Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the golf course was a commercial use and not a
residential use.
Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the golf course
being a commercial use.
Concurring with Chairman Chiniaeff, Commissioner Mathewson noted the far reaching
impacts in alternate developments, i.e., Specific Plan Projects, if all areas in a Master
Planned Community were to be considered residential; concurred with Commissioner
Telesio, noting that if the applicant could provide documentation regarding the refusal of
property owners to permit the facility to be located on their parcels there would be no
reason for additional study information regarding the sites.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that if the alternate sites, i.e., the Burger King parcel,
cited by the Planning Commission were not available to the applicant, the Planning
Commission would need to review this project as a facility proposed to be installed on a
commercial site, and not a residential one.
Relaying the applicant's responsibilities, Commissioner Guerriero opined that the
applicant should provide documentation demonstrating that this was the only site
feasible for installation of the facility; for informational purposes, noted that if the facility
were to be located at this site, it was vital that the installation be stealth which was one
of the issues the law permitted the Planning Commission to address with this type of
facility; and relayed that he preferred the cladding material to the painted pole sample.
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 5
Additional discussion ensued regarding what encompassed the responsibilities of the
applicant with respect to investigating alternate sites.
Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the Findings the
City Code imposes on the Planning Commission regarding this type of proposed project,
as well as information regarding the extent of the responsibility of the applicant with
respect to investigating sites, and the subsequent review of that information by staff.
Offering clarification, Commissioner Olhasso reiterated that she desired to have
information regarding the Burger King site prior to determining if the site analysis was
complete.
Referencing the applicant's data, Director of Planning Ubnoske queried the Planning
Commission as to the breadth of information desired regarding the site analysis.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not require the hiring of a specialty
consultant regarding this project's analysis.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would also provide additional information
regarding the associated ordinance and the findings necessary for action at the next
hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the October 2, 2002
Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to bring additional information
regarding the feasibility of installing the facility at the Burger King site, and for staff to
analyze the cladding material that the applicant had provided at this hearing. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
For Mr. Myers, Commissioner Olhasso noted that a letter from the property owner of the
Burger King use reflecting the refusal of the property owner to permit the facility to be
located on their parcel would be adequate documentation.
Mr. Myers requested that staff provide to the Planning Commission at the October 2,
2002, meeting all the project data that the applicant had submitted.
6
Planninq Application No. PA02-0236 A Development Plan / Product Review for
detached sinqle family residences within Planninq Area No. 7 of the Ha~veston
Specific Plan located south of Oak Street, west of Marqarita Road, between
Harveston School Road and Major Entry off of Oak Street, Assessor's Parcel No.
916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3. Rolfe
Preisendanz, Assistant Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application(s) No. 02-0236
(Development Plan / Product Review) based on the Determination of
Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent
EIR's and Negative Declarations.
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 6
6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-036
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0236 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN /
PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 7 OF THE
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF
OAK STREET, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
BETWEEN HARVESTON SCHOOL ROAD AND MAJOR
ENTRY OFF OF OAK STREET, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004, 916-180-
008, 916-170-011 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 29928-1 AND 29928.
Assistant Planner Preisendanz introduced Mr. Bill Storm, the applicant's representative
who would present the revisions to the proposal that the applicant has implemented in
response to the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Storm introduced Mr. M. J. Knitter, the principal designer for the project, and Mr.
Matthew Fagan, who, via overheads, presented the proposed products for the Harveston
Development, noting the following:
That a Tuscan style had been added to the products, specifically introduced in Plan
lA and Plan 3;
That the Colonial style was eliminated in Plan lA due to its similarity to the
Farmhouse style;
· That the American Farmhouse style was simplified to provide a more authentic
product;
· That stonework was added to the East Coast Traditional style to add elegance;
· That all of the elevations in Plan 2 remained without revision;
· That in Plan 3 the Colonial style was also eliminated, and that a Tuscan elevation
had been added in this plan; and
That on the American Farm House style (in Plan 3B) the porch had been extended, a
column had been added, the roof had been extended, and the form element had
been simplified.
Relaying kudos to the representatives of Harveston, Commissioner Olhasso noted that
the presented product was wonderful and would serve in upgrading the community; and
applauded the authentic architectural styles.
R: PlanComrn/min ut es/091802 7
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staffs recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
7
Planninq Application No. PA02-0217 Development Agreement with Advanced
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. a subsidiary of The Guidant Corporation, Dave
Hogan, Principal Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Requesting a continuance to October 2, 2002.
.MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the October 2, 2002
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson
and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
8
Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0355 A Substantial Conformance request to amend
the Desiqn Guidelines of the Crowne Hill subdivision for Vested Tract Map No.'s
23143-5 throuqh -12 and approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan alonq Pauba
Road, east of Butterfield Staqe Road and south of Pauba Road, Thomas Thornsley,
Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0355 (Substantial
Conformance) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for
which an Environmental Impact Repod (EIR) was previously certified pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative
Declarations.
8.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-037
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0355 A SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE REQUEST TO AMEND THE DESIGN
GUIDELINES OF THE CROWNE HILL SUBDIVISION
FOR VESTED TRACT MAP NOS. 23143-5 THROUGH -
12 AND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL
LANDSCAPE PLAN ALONG PAUBA ROAD, LOCATED
EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH
OF PAUBA ROAD.
Providing clarification at the request of Commissioner Guerdero, Director of Planning
Ubnoske relayed that this proposal was before the Planning Commission due to the
applicant requesting a change in the Design Guidelines. Principal Planner Hazen
additionally noted that the second part of this particular application was for the Planning
Commission to review the conceptual landscape plan along Pauba Road.
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 8
The Planning Commission determined to address the landscaping portion of the
application first.
Staff presented the proposal
Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the proposed landscape
plan along Pauba Road; read into the record Condition No. 52, regarding the project's
landscape requirements at the time of project approval; and for Chairman Chiniaeff,
confirmed that the condition subjected the applicant to install native landscaping.
The applicant provided an overview of the proiect
Via exhibits, Mr. Bob Diehl, representing the applicant, relayed that proposals presented
tonight were conceptual; noted the efforts of the applicant to implement into the
landscape plan elements to address the residents' concerns, highlighting the proposed
slope plantings, the public park site, and the proposed hydroseeding; for Chairman
Chiniaeff, specified the location of the eroded section of the slope which would be
graded, irrigated, and landscaped; relayed that the plant palette would encompass 30 to
40 varying types of trees; highlighted the proposed hydroseeded areas, and the storm
drain area, specifying the function of this drain which would drain back toward the south
east; and confirmed that the applicant had not finalized the landscape plans at this time,
confirming that the applicant would comply with the conditions.
For clarification, Principal Planner Hazen noted staff's intent to have the applicant bring
the landscape plan forward to the Planning Commission while still in conceptual form
due to the numerous residents who were concerned regarding this project; and advised
that it was staff's recommendation that the public comments be relayed to the Planning
Commission and the applicant prior to the plan being finalized.
In response to Commissioner Guerdero, Mr. Diehl noted the applicant's intent to
incorporate a transition into the landscaping at the eastern portion of the project.
The public was invited to speak
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project:
Ms. Pamela Voit
Ms. Debbie Luzuriaga
MS. Linda Mackie
Mr. Roger Jaeger
Mr. John Wayland
Mr. John Lewis
Mr. Joe McCormack
Mr. Seamrs McDonald
Mr. Dave Crone
38770 Sky Canyon Drive, #B
42075 Calle Barbona
33354 Pauba Road
41325 Billy Joe Lane
33342 Pauba Road
33560 Linda Rosea Road
41162 Mesa Robles Circle
41101 Mesa Robles Circle
41485 Via Del Monte
Murfieta
The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project, expressing the following
comments:
,,' Thanked staff, and the applicant for their efforts to address the concerns of the
residents;
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 9
,/ Submitted a petition with 26 signatures of property owners in the Country Road
Estates who were opposed to the project, as well as a letter dated September 18,
2002, from the Country Road Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) which
outlined the concerns of the HOA;
,/ That when the landscape conditions were imposed on the project, the area had been
more rural;
· / That while Condition No. 52 requires the applicant to landscape, the applicant's plan
denoted that the native vegetation would remain;
,,' Presented photographs depicting the type of landscaping desired;
v' That natural landscaping would not be sufficient for erosion control and would cause
an eyesore, as well as creating a fire hazard;
¢' That the homeowners in the Country Estates HOA were required to spend a
minimum of two percent (2%) of the market value of their homes on landscaping
within two years of the house's completion;
· / Concern regarding the lack of available on-street parking;
v' Queried why the developer was permitted to fence off public property, and permitted
to use private property for access without compensation to the property owners;
,,' That the grading would cause flooding;
v' That the subdivision rules for both the County and the City of Temecula require full-
street improvements and permanent landscaping of the slope for erosion and
beautification purposes;
v' The proposed drainage plan which would negatively impact the neighboring
properties;
,/ Requested that this item be continued in order to the applicant to provide specificity
with respect to the landscape plan;
v' Noted concern regarding the aesthetics and health hazards associated with the
retention basin;
· / Concern regarding the speeds of vehicles on Pauba Road, recommending that the
speed limit be enforced;
Concern regarding the proposed ingress and egress for the park, and the negative
visibility impacts;
· " Relayed opposition to the installation of 3-story homes;
v' Noted that per discussions with Deputy City Manager Thornhill and Director of
Planning Ubnoske in 1992, it was the intent that the language of the condition
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 10
provide flexibility for the Planning Director, the HOA, and the developer to come to
an agreement when the landscape would be installed;
Relayed a summary of conversations held in 1992 regarding the expectation for
landscaping in this area;
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Ms. Voit confirmed that the conditions solely require
the applicant to install temporary irrigation, and that when that irrigation was removed
the landscaping would most likely die; advised that it was the Country Road Estates
HOA's desire that the landscape requirements be revised in order to not devalue the
area; for Commissioner Olhasso, provided additional information regarding the County's
beautification program; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that the project was
conditioned in 1992.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Ms. Luzuriaga confirmed that the County, the City,.and
her Real Estate agent told her when she purchased her property that the slope area
would be landscaped.
For the record, Minute Clerk Hansen noted receipt of a letter submitted at this hearing
(i.e., September 18, 2002) written by Mr. Ernie G. Meth, outlining his concerns regarding
the project, specifically the landscape plan with no irrigation along Pauba Road, the
implementation of 3-story buildings along Pauba Road and/or Via Del Monte, and the
dangers associated with the drainage ditch that has been constructed adjacent to Pauba
Road and Via Del Monte.
At 8:03 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:12 P.M.
For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it was not the intent of staff to
bring this item back to the Planning Commission, advising that the project was
conditioned to have these items approved at a staff level and that staff was seeking
Planning Commission input.
Addressinq landscapinq issues associated with this project the Pianninq Commission
offered the followinq comments:
In light of the size and quality of the project, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she
expected the landscape plan to be commensurate with the landscaping on the
projects located to the south and west of the project.
Commissioner Telesio relayed hopes that the applicant would work with the
residents to come to a compromise, recommending that staff be involved in these
discussions; and urged the community to diligently work with the developer since the
project had minimal landscape requirements per the conditions due to the desire at
the time of conditioning for the area to remain rural;
Commissioner Guerriero urged the residents and the developer to work together with
staff to address the landscaping;
Concurring with previous Planning Commission comments, Commissioner
Mathewson relayed assurance that staff would work diligently to resolve these
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 11
issues, noting hopes that the developer would go the extra mile to be a good
neighbor;
Referencing Condition Nos. 52 and 54, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the intent at
the time of approval of the project was to preserve the natural state of the area;
advised that the retention basin was conditioned to be placed in this project;
questioned the need for the proposed equestrian trail due to the lack of connectivity,
recommending that the trail be eliminated and that the monies from the horse trail be
added to the landscaping; with respect to the concern regarding placement of 3-story
homes on top of the slope area, recommended that trees be placed in this area to
reduce the negative ridgeline appearance; and noted for the public that when a
developer grades and disturbs, re-vegetation was be required.
At this time the Planning Commission considered the portion of the proposal
regarding the revisions to the elevations.
Staff provided a bdef overview of the project
Associate Planner Thornsley presented a brief overview of the staff report (or record); for
Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that the parks had already been designed and had been
previously reviewed and approved; and noted that the City did not require that a pool
facility be implemented and the developer had no desire to do so.
The applicant presented the project
Mr. Bob Diehl, representing the applicant, noted that there was another developer (e.g.,
KB Homes) involved in the project at this time, and introduced Mr. Barry Burnell who
would provide the presentation; in response to Commissioner OIhasso' queries as to
why no pool facility was proposed in this project, noted that since the developer was
entering an existing established community, that the homes offered were designed for
move-up buyers, and that the product would be offered on large lots (which were
adequate size for homeowners to install their own pool), it was determined that to keep
the HOA fees down, a pool facility would not be implemented.
By way of overheads, Mr. Barry Burnell as well as Mr. Diehl, representatives of the
applicant, presented the following information regarding the proposed revised Design
Guidelines:
· A visual of a created streetscene;
Specified the elevations on the lot site plan which would have enhanced articulation
due to being visible to the public;
For Commissioner Telesio, noted that the lot sizes would vary, that there would be a
mix of one- and two-story dwellings, and that there would be opportunities for a
three-story unit on the larger lots, specifying the location of this area;
The built entry design and the landscaping;
· For Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the product designs and the streetscene
visuals were pulled from architecture which was being built today, advising that the
R: PianComm/minutes/091802 12
elevations depicted in the Design Guidelines were taken from actual project design
drawings, and that when specific architectural designs had been developed for these
homes they would be coming forward for Product Review approval;
· Presented the enhanced window treatments, porch elements, and front entries;
For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the photograph samples were depicting Pacific
Century homes which had been actually built in alternate areas; and
· That the elevation in which the driveway was inadvertently not depicted would have a
turn-in garage treatment.
For clarification, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed to the public that the renderings depicted
the types of homes that would be developed per the Design Guidelines and were not an
actual representation of the project, advising that specific product review would be
reviewed at a future public hearing.
The applicant's representative clarified that the Design Guidelines provided the
conceptual architectural styles being proposed for future implementation, requesting
input as to whether these particular guidelines define the criteria the Planning
Commission was seeking.
Commissioner Guerriero suggested that the applicant review the final Harveston Design
Guidelines to gain an understanding of what the Planning Commission was seeking.
For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that this project was
already approved with a vesting map; and relayed that at this time the applicant was
simply presenting revised updated Design Guidelines.
The Planninq Commission offered the followinq input reqardinq the proposed Desiqn
Guidelines:
Commissioner Olhasso noted that the proposed products were outdated, depicting
large stucco boxes without authentic architectural styles, relaying hopes that it was
the applicant's desire to build a higher quality product.
In response, the applicant's representative relayed the desire to build a product that
would have continuity with the existing homes in this area.
With respect to the proposed Design Guidelines, specifically on page 5,
Commissioner Mathewson noted the lack of language addressing the development
of an adequate mix of one- and two-story homes, advising that to have numerous
homes built side-by-side with the same rooflines would not be acceptable; and
requested a minimum single-story commitment.
Assistant City Attorney Curley confirmed that it would not be appropriate to impose a
specified percentage of one-stow homes with respect to this project; and for
Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the variation of the floor plans could be
addressed subject to the approved resolutions associated with this project not having
language included addressing this matter.
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 13
Commissioner Mathewson requested that the language of the Design Guidelines be
strengthened to encourage the implementation of an adequate number of single-
story homes.
Assistant City Attorney Cudey clarified that the Planning Commission was seeking a
streetscene with variation with respect to the elevations, i.e., the height, and the
rooflines. Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that this type of language could be
added to the Design Guidelines due to it being general.
Mr. Bob Fallon, representing KB Home Coastal Inc., joined the applicant's
representatives at this point to aid in addressing the Planning Commission's queries.
With respect to the general language throughout the Design Guidelines stating
should incorporate elements, or at times stating may incorporate elements,
Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the words should and may be
replaced with the word shall.
Assistant City Attorney Curley confirmed that this recommendation was appropriate.
Referencing page 7 of the Design Guidelines, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that he had
noted some revisions that he recommended that the applicant implement which he
would provide to staff.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's recommendations to add articulation to
additional elevations, the applicant's representative noted a willingness to implement
these revisions.
Referencing page 8 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Olhasso noted her
displeasure regarding the shutters denoted on the Spanish Colonial style,
recommending that arched windows be incorporated; with respect to the Craftsman
style, opined that the porch treatment was too small and the brick or stone would
need to be continued or there should be siding implemented all the way down, citing
an example from the Harveston proposed product (Plan 9); with respect to the
Italianate style, noted that she could accept the varying stucco tones or there could
be added stonework, Commissioner Guerriero recommending the added stone.
For Commissioner Telesio, the applicant's representatives noted that the chimneys
were located behind the product on this page, and that it was an optional element on
the KB Home product; and clarified that these elevations represented the smaller
end product.
With respect to pages 9, 10, and 11 of the Design Guidelines, Chairman Chiniaeff
recommended that on the enhanced elevations (i.e., elevations which were visible
from the public right-of-way), that the shutters or alternative treatments be added to
all the windows, as well as the pop-out treatments.
Referencing page 11 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner OIhasso noted that on
the Craftsman style, the porch was too small, and that the front entry should be more
continuous, suggesting that an authentic porch be added, in particular one that was
wider; and that the Spanish Colonial style should be simplified to create authenticity,
and the rooflines should create a clean front line appearance.
R: P[anComrrdminutes/091§02 14
Referencing page 11 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Mathewson
recommended that there be some architectural forward treatments, additionally
commenting on the rooflines with no variation on the rear elevations.
In response, Mr. Burnell suggested that some of the streetscenes be included in the
Design Guidelines depicting these particular implementations; and for Commissioner
Telesio, noted that at this point the applicant was unsure what the product mix would
be; and clarified that implementing the streetscenes into the Design Guidelines
would represent the required mix.
For clarification, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that when Product Review takes
place at a Planning Director's Hearing, projects were conditioned to implement an
adequate mix of roofline elements, providing assurance that staff would address this
issue.
Assistant City Attorney Cudey noted that the applicant's willingness to add a
streetscene representative of a mixed product would further define the general
concepts required, and that revising the language to add a requirement for a mixture
of styles, elevations, and heights, would provide a level of certainty regarding an
adequate mixture.
With respect to all of the subsequent enhanced elevations, Chairman Chiniaeff
recommended that all the windows on an elevation be articulated similarly in lieu of
solely one.
Referencing page 13 of the Design Guidelines, specifically the graphic denoting the
standard condition, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that this elevation was not
acceptable due to its box-like appearance; and confirmed for the applicant that the
enhance condition style could be utilized for both elevations within the public view,
and out of public view.
Referencing page 14 of the Design Guidelines, the Planning Commission
recommended a more authentic style on the Craftsman design, Chairman Chiniaeff
suggesting added fascia, i.e., brick or siding. Commissioner Guerdero recommended
that on the Spanish Colonial style the windows be arched, Chairman Chiniaeff
suggesting the addition of a pot shelf treatment with shutters. Commissioner 01hasso
advised that these depictions were the most antiquated.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant's representative concurred that the four-vent
treatment should be revised.
Referencing page 16 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Guerriero
recommended that on the one-stow French Country style depicted on the right side
of the page, stone be added under the window to the right of the entry, as well as on
the right side of the garage, Commissioner Olhasso recommending that rock
surround the garage door on the two-story element, and recommending that the
shutter treatment be revised.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant's representative specified the lot sizes in each
planning area.
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 15
Referencing page 18 of the Design Guidelines regarding the Italianate style, the
Planning Commission recommended additional consistency, not one window with
shutters and another without, recommending that continuity be implemented on the
other styles as well. Commissioner Guerdero recommended that on the Italianate
style the area around the door be scored to simulate block.
For Commissioner Olhasso, the applicant's representative relayed that the front
porch would be approximately six feet.
For Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning
Ubnoske relayed that typically the Design Guidelines could address implementation
of architecturally forward elements, advising that staff would investigate the approved
conditions for this project to ensure that this matter had not been addressed, noting
that if there was no conflicting language, then the incorporation of this element would
be added to the Design Guidelines. In response, the applicant relayed the intent for a
variety of elevations to be provided including architecture forward elements.
Recapitulating, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that there needed to be consistency in the
detailed articulation, i.e., avoiding three different types of windows on the front of a
house (as cited on page 21 of the Design Guidelines). Commissioner Olhasso
recommended that siding and rock be added to the Craftsman style even if solely on
the higher end product, and that arched windows and doorways be added to the
Spanish Colonial style.
Referencing page 22 in the Design Guidelines, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the
rear elevation was fiat and needed added elements to create visual interest.
Referencing page 25 of the Design Guidelines, the applicant's representative
provided additional information regarding the French Country style.
Referencing page 27 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Guerriero and
Chairman Chiniaeff noted the lack of consistency again with the window treatments,
recommending that the shutter treatment be added to alternate windows, and in
particular the window to the far left. Commissioner Guerriero and Chairman Chiniaeff
noted that the supports for the porch treatment appeared to be inconsistent with the
French country style.
In response, Mr. Burnell agreed, advising that this treatment would be revised
Referencing page 27 of the Design Guidelines, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended
that additional articulation be added to the Spanish Colonial style, Commissioner
Guerriero recommending enhanced stucco finish.
With respect to page 31 of the Design Guidelines regarding the French Country
style, Commissioner Guerriero and Commissioner Olhasso recommended that the
stone treatment be continued on both sides of the garage.
For Commissioner Telesio, the applicant provided additional information regarding
the design of this elevation.
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 16
With respect to page 33 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Mathewson
recommended that the language include encouragement to implement architecturally
forward elements and recessed garages, and that the configurations on page 34 be
modified to reflect this implementation.
At this time the public was invited to speak
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project:
Mr. Roger Jaeger
Mr. Bennet Cherry
Ms. Pamela Voit
41325 Billy Joe Lane
43091 Noble Court
38770 Sky Canyon Drive, #B
Murrieta
The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project, expressing the following
comments:
Noted the need to beak up the rooflines which as proposed did not present a mix,
concurring with the Planning Commission's comments, recommending that the
elevations in the public view provide a variety of architecture detail;
Thanked the Planning Commission for their comments and recommendations;
Voiced concern regarding the impact of this project on the existing HOA, i.e.,
increased HOA fees, and the maintenance of landscaping; and concurred with the
applicant that a pool facility should not be implemented;
,/ Opposed to the implementation of 3-story homes due to the negative visual impacts;
Disappointed with the presented elevations which lack articulation, recommending
that the Design Guidelines not be approved due to the lack of specificity and
architectural detail;
Concurred with Commissioner Mathewson regarding the implementation of
architecturally forward elements; and
Noted concern regarding the proposal to eliminate the Design Guidelines for the 28
homes in the Crowne Hill Estates.
For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that residents within a
300-foot radius would be notified of the Director's Hearing which would address the
Product Review for this project, and that the hearing would also be posted, as well as
advertised in the newspaper.
.MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation to approve this application, subject to the modifications specified
in the minutes of this meeting, specifically the portion reflecting the Planning
Commission's bulieted recommendations, as well as implementing staff's
recommendations contained in the staff report. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Telesio. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 18.)
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 17
It was determined that staff would work with the applicant and the residents regarding
the conceptual landscape plan.
Further commenting, Commissioner Olhasso opined that although the applicant noted
the need to maintain the profit margin on this project, the majority of the Planning
Commission recommendations allow for the applicant to maintain its goals while
improving the product.
For Commissioner Telesio, Principal Planner Hazen noted that there was a condition on
the vesting map for this project that Pauba Road conform to a County standard road
which included an equestrian trail, advising that although Chairman Chiniaeff
recommended that the horse trail be eliminated due to its lack of connectivity and that
the monies be attributed to additional landscaping, that the trail could not be easily
eliminated due to the conditions.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval of the motion.
9 Planninq Application No. PA99-0186 General Plan Amendment: 2000-2005
Housinq Element, Dave Ho~lan, Principal Planner:
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0186;
9.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-038
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2000-2005 HOUSING
ELEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0186)
Principal Planner Hogan reviewed the two revisions proposed in the 2000-2005 Housing
Element (per the staff report), advising that a conditional approval from Department of
HCD (Housing and Community Development) had been received regarding this element;
and for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the Housing Element had been circulated.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
10 Planninq Application No. PA02-0318 Development Code Amendment: Modular
Structures and Other Chanqes, Dave Hoqan, Principal Planner:
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1Adopt a resolution entitled:
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 18
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
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 ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR
MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10
OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING
OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE" (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-
0318)
Discussion ensued regarding continuing this matter to the October 2, 2002 Planning
Commission meeting.
It is noted that Ms. Doreen Gagnon, and Rev. H. G. McComas, who had filled out
request-to-speak forms for this item opted to hold their comments until the continued
hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the October 2, 2002
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso
and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
No comments.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:50 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re,qular
meeting to be held on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 19
ITEM #3
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
2.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 29, 2003
Planning Application No. 02-0667 - Tentative Tract Map
Prepared By: Emery Papp, Associate Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0867; and
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0667, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH
TWO PARCELS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
BETWEEN JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND AVENIDA DE
MISSIONS, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 961-010-006.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
LOT AREA (gross):
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Temecula Creek Village, LLC
An application to establish two (2) parcels for condominium
purposes, being a subdivision of Parcel 8 and Parcel 14 of
Parcel Map 30468; changing the occupancy of 400 multi-
family apartment units to owner-occupied condominiums.
South of Highway 79 South, north of Temecula Creek, east of
Jedediah Smith Road, and west of Avenida De Missions
21.43 Acres
Planned Development Overlay 4 (PDO-4)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Professional Office and Very Low Density
Residential
Open Space/Conservation
Professional Office
Highway Tourist Commercial
Professional Office
R:~F' M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant (Rancho Community Church site)
Temecuia Creek
Vacant
Vacant (Proposed TM 30180)
BACKGROUND
At its May 1, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission approved Planning Applications 01-0610
(TPM 30468) and 01-0611 (Development Plan) to allow the construction of 400 multi-family
residential apartment buildings and 123,100 square feet of commercial space on the subject parcel
Shortly after the approvals were issued, the owner sold the project to Temecula Creek Village, LLC.
The new owner subsequently filed an application for Substantial Conformance on October 7, 2002.
The purpose for the Substantial Conformance application was to resolve a building separation issue
and to consolidate smaller apartment buildings. The Planning Commission approved the
Substantial Conformance application on November 20, 2002.
On December 11, 2002, Temecula Creek Village, LLC submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM)
application to establish two parcels for condominium purposes. If approved, Lots 1 and 2 of TTM
31042 will be recorded as lots for condominium purposes, and will replace Lots 8 and 14 of TPM
30468, which were intended for 400 multi-family apartment units.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Environmental Determination
This project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15162 (b) (previous Mitigated Negative
Declaration, SCH No. 2002031150).
Tentative Tract Map
Tentative Tract Map 31042 is a proposal to re-map two lots of Parcel Map 30468 (Lot 8 and Lot 14)
to establish two new lots for condominium purposes. Lots 1 and 2 of TTM 31042 are proposed as
lots for condominium purposes, replacing Lots 8 and 14 of TPM 30468, which were intended for 400
multi-family apartment units.
Grading
Conceptual grading for TTM 31042 does not significantly differ from previous project approvals. The
grading concept for this ~I'M conforms to the requirements of Condition of Approval No. 8 of
Planning Application 02-0549, requiring the applicant to resolve a building separation issue between
building R14 and the public trail along the southerly project boundary. The applicant proposes to
realign the trail to separate it from the building.
Access/Circulation
The proposed change in type of residential occupancy will not impact vehicular access to the site.
The points of access will be from the same four locations as all previously approved submittals.
Internally, the proposed changes in occupancy will not impact on-site circulation.
R:~P M~001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
2
ANALYSIS
Environmental Determination
An initial study was prepared for the previous project approvals and it determined that the project
could have potentially significant impacts on the environment unless mitigated. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program was approved for Planning
Applications 01-0610 and PA01-0611. The Tentative Tract Map application does not significantly
alter the project for which the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration was based, and staff has
determined that the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration is sufficient. Pursuant to Section 15162
(b) of CEQA, no further documentation is required. The required mitigations have been
incorporated as Conditions of Approval.
Tentative Tract Map
The initial concept for Temecula Creek Village was a mixed-use development containing 400 multi-
family apartments and 123,000 square feet of commercial space. The TTM proposal does not
change the overall number of units, it will only change the occupancy of the units. The proposed
change in type of occupancy will not affect any other prior approvals related to this project.
Grading
The proposed change to the grading concept will remove the "jog" in the public trail near building
R14, thereby providing adequate building separation. This change is proposed as the Applicant's
preferred method for satisfying Condition of Approval No. 8 of Planning Application 02-0549
(Substantial Conformance). Coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of
Fish and Game will be required to backfill the "jog" in the riverbed. If permits and/or other approvals
are not obtained from these agencies, then Building R14 will need to be moved away frem the public
trail, satisfactory to the Director of the Community Services Department. The method of separation
will be indicated on the precise grading plans.
Access and Circulation
Staff has no remaining concerns with access to the site or with on-site circulation. The Conditions of
Approval for Planning Applications 01-0610, 01-0611, and 02-0549 apply to this project, and are
also attached as conditions for this project. Concerns that staff had will be addressed when all of
the Conditions of Approval have been satisfied.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and
conforms to all applicable development regulations, and is consistent with the previous approVals for
PA01-0610, PA01-0611, and PA02-0549. Staff recommends approval ofthe application for the
Tentative Tract Map subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
The findings for the approvals of Planning Applications 01-0610, 01-0611, and 02-0549 must be
made again for the TTM.
R:\P M~2001~D1-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
3
Tentative Tract Map (Section 16.09.140 A-H)
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code, General Plan, and the City
of Temecula Municipal Code;
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that Tentative Tract Map No. 31042 is consistent
with the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and the
Municipal Code.
The tentative map does not divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant
to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land
conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be
too small to sustain their agricultural use;
The proposed land division is not land designated for conservation or agricultural use.
The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed
by the tentative map;
The project consists of a Tentative Tract Map on property designated for Professional
Office uses, which is consistent with the General Plan, as well as, the development
standards for the PDO-4 zoning designation.
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval,
are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
Per the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for this project. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for previous approvals directly related to this
project. The Mitigation Monitoring Program still applies and will ensure that the impacts are
not likely to cause significant damage to the environment.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems;
The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Safety Division, the Building
Safety Division, Public Works, Community Services and Planning Staff. As a result, the
project has been conditioned to address all concerns. Further, provisions are made in the
General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and
welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents,
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
There are solar possibilities available to the tract map; however, the applicant has not
submitted any information in regard to solar possibilities.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided;
R:~P M~.001~1-0610 TPM30468 Ternecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
4
The concerns expressed by Public Works in previous project approvals have already been
addressed, or will be addressed in the Conditions of Approval.
8. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby);
The applicant is responsible for payment of fees, which will address the City's parkland
dedication requirements.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
2. Notice of Exemption - Blue Page 35
3. Tentative Tract Map Reductions - Blue Page 37
4. Conceptual Grading Plan Reductions - Blue Page 40
5. Exhibits - Blue Page 46
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
R:~P M~001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Repo[t 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
5
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
R:\P M~001 ~01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-.__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0667, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH
TWO PARCELS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
BETWEEN JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND AVENIDA DE
MISSIONS, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 961-010-006.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application 01-0610 (Tentative
Parcel Map) Planning Application 01-0611 (Development Plan) at a duly noticed public hearing on
May 1,2002; and
WHEREAS, Temecula Creek Village, LLC submitted an application for Substantial
Conformance to modify the previously approved Development Plan for Parcel Map 30468 on
October 2007, 2002; and
WHEREAS, Temecula Creek Village, LLC submitted an application for a Tentative Tract
Map to establish two parcels for condominium purposes on December 11,2002; and
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application for the Tentative Tract
Map at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions after
finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan
and Subdivision Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Tentative Tract Map Findinqs. The Planning Commission in recommending
approval of the Application for the Tentative Tract Map, must make the following findings:
1. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code, General Plan, and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code;
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that Tentative Tract Map No. 31042 is consistent
with the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal
Code.
R:~P Ivl~001~01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
7
2. The tentative map does not divide land which is subject to a contract entered into
pumuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land
Conservation Act Contract but the resulting pamels following division of the land will not be too small
to sustain their agricultural use;
The proposed land division is not land designated for conservation or agricultural use.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map;
The project consists of a Tentative Tract Map on property designated for Professional Office
uses, which is consistent with the General Plan, as well as, the development standards for
the PDO-4 zoning designation.
4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife in their habitat;
Per the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for this project. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for previous approvals directly related to this
project. TheMitigationMonitoringProgramstillappliesandwillensurethattheimpactsare
not likely to cause significant damage to the environment.
5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Safety Division, the Building
Safety Division, Public Works, Community Services and Planning Staff. As a result, the
project has been conditioned to address all concerns. Further, provisions are made in the
General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare
are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents.
6. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
There are solar possibilities available to the tract map; however, the applicant has not
submitted any information in regard to solar possibilities.
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those
previously acquired by the public will be provided;
The concerns expressed by Public Works in previous project approvals have already been
addressed, or will be addressed in the Conditions of Approval
(Quimby);
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
The applicant is responsible for payment of fees, which will address the City's parkland
dedication requirements.
R:',P M~2001~1-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Repo~l 01-29-03 - Condo Map,doc
8
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The initial environmental assessment for Pamel
Map 30468 and the associated Development Plan identified issues that could potentially have
significant impacts without mitigation. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program were prepared to reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. The
Tentative Tract Map application package does not significantly differ from the previous approvals,
and staff has determined that the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration is sufficient. Pursuant to
Section 15162 (b) of CEQA, no further documentation is required.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Tentative Tract Map 31042, a request to establish two parcels for
condominium purposes; leaving all other previous approvals for Parcel Map 30468 and the
associated Development Plan intact, as set forth on attached Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be
deemed necessary.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 29t~ day of January 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 29th day of January, 2003 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~P M~001~01~610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~P M~_001~01-0610 TPM30468 Temecuta Creek Village~PC Staff Repod 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.
PA02-0667
PA02-0549
PA01-0610
PA01-0611
Tentative Tract Map 31042
Substantial Conformance
(previous approvals)
Tentative Parcel Map 30468
Development Plan
Project Description:
PA02-0667: Tentative Tract Map to establish two (2)
pamels for condominium purposes, being a
subdivision of Parcel 8 and Parcel 14 of Parcel Map
30468; changing the occupancy of 400 multi-family
apartment units to owner-occupied condominiums.
PA02-0549: Substantial Conformance Application to
modify residential Sub-Area D by consolidating five
smaller two-story apartment buildings into two three-
story apartment buildings, reducing the overall
number of apartment buildings on-site to 22 and
creating more on-site open space.
PA00-0610: Tentative Parcel Map 30468 subdividing
the site into 14 parcels, 12 for commercial uses and 2
for high-density residential use.
PA00-0611: Construct 400 multi-family residential
units on approximately 20.7 acres and 123,100
square feet of commercial space on approximately
11.9 acres.
Development Impact Fee Category: Multi-Family Residential and Retail Commercial
Assessor's Parcel No.:
961-010-006
Original Approval Date:
O5/O 1/2002
Expiration Date:
O5/O 1/2OO4
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
Thc
~.~ +k..... k,,~.~.... ~...~ ~...,.*~....~,~ r~/~ ~ A n0~ fcr thc Ccun~' :dmlnlctrct!vc fcc, tn
thc ......................................... ~ ....... ~ ~
R:~P M~001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
11
-~ t .~/,.~: This condition was satisfied under the previous approval
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 sixty-four
dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption required under Section 15062 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
General Requirements
The parcel map shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the
requirements of the City of Temecula's Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the
conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State
Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration
date.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards,
judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary
damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of
the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or
legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim,
action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in
the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City
deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and conditions set forth.
After grading, all slopes shall be planted in accordance with the City's Slope Planting
Guidelines. Jute netting will be required on all slopes greater than ten linear feet.
An Administrative Development Plan application shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Department for buildings on Pads C1, C2, C3, C9 and C10, prior to issuance of
building permits.
The final landscape plan shall indicate street trees planted along the Highway 79 South
frontage as a minimum of 24-inch box for each variety shown.
The applicant is advised that Highway 79 South is a state highway, and that all landscape
approvals are to meet CalTrans requirements.
10.
Perimeter trees shall include some specimen trees of the varieties indicated on the final
landscape plan. Specimens shall be a minimum of 36-inch box and shall be placed in a
manner that vehicular and pedestrian entrances are accented and provide variation in
canopy height. In addition to perimeter trees, please add three (3) 24-inch box Chinese
R:\P M',2001"O1-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Flame trees, and all eighteen (18) 36-inch box Red Crepe Myrtle trees to conform to the
number of specimens identified in the planting legend.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this development plan. Any future changes to the development plan will require submittal of
a Substantial Conformance application and will require a public hearing before the Planning
Commission.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved floor plans,
elevations and the Color and Material Boards on file with the Community Development
Department - Planning Division.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer, Property
Owner's Association, or any successors in interest.
All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed
below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wail. Parapet walls shall be of sufficient
height above the roofline to screen said equipment.
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and with the Color and Material Boards on file with the Community Development
Department - Planning Division
Areas A and C:
Primary wall exterior:
Stucco Accent 1:
Stucco Accent 2:
Stucco Accent 3:
Trim and Bands:
Roof
Stone Veneer
Frazee Desert Fawn (8222 W)
Frazee Burnt Copper (8355 D)
Frazee Safari Tan (7754 M)
Frazee Lulled Beige (8232 W)
Frazee Almond White (8180 W)
Patina Green Metal Seam Roof
Cheyenne Limestone
Area B:
Primary wall exterior:
Stucco Accent:
Fascia, Trim, Bands and Railings:
Garage Doors
Frazee Clay Beige (8721 W)
Frazee Daplin (8234 M)
Frazee Swiss Coffee (487)
Frazee Lulled Beige (8232 W)
R:~P M~2001~01-0610 TPM30468 Ternecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
13
Roof Tile
Stone Veneer
(Wrap stone veneer around window frames)
Area D:
Silhouette Slate (ISTCS 4930)
Jackson Valley Quarrystone (SP 103)
Primary wall exterior:
Stucco Accent 1:
Stucco Accent 2:
Stucco Accent 3:
Fascia, Tdm, Bands and Railings:
Roof Tile
Stone Veneer
Frazee Hay Seed (8220 W)
Frazee Daplin (8234 M)
Frazee Festoon (8274 W)
Frazee Bumt Copper (8355 D)
Frazee Swiss Coffee (487)
Wolf Grey Shake (1 SKCB 5969)
Oakridge Mountain Ledge
17.
The Clubhouse (Sub-Area D) in proximity to the Village Center shall incorporate design
elements that closely resemble those of the Village Center commercial buildings. The
Clubhouse (Sub-Area B) adjacent to the public trail on the south side of project shall
incorporate design elements that closely resemble the residential buildings.
18.
The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
19.
All multi-family residential buildings shall meet the building separation requirements of
Section 17.06.050 B of the City's Development Code.
20.
The applicant shall submit a fence plan for review and approval for Sub-Areas B and D prior
to the issuance of the first residential building permit.
21.
The applicant shall redesign the trash enclosures such that no unattended rollout
container(s) be left in the drive aisle during pick up.
22.
The driveway apron and drive aisle to/from Jedediah Smith Road shall be sufficiently wide to
reduce vehicle stacking exiting the site, and to facilitate emergency vehicle movement.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
23.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
shall be approved by the Planning Department and recorded with the Riverside County
Recorder. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for the creation of a Property Owner's
Association for the maintenance of all landscaping on the commercial parcels, and
maintenance of all internal roadway and hardscape surfaces within those parcels.
24.
The applicant shall insure that all trees planted along the Highway 79 South property line of
the subject development be a minimum size of 24" box trees. The applicant shall revise the
landscape plans and resubmit the plans for Planning Department approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
R:~P M~O01V31-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
Prior to Issuance of an Occupancy Permit
25.
All perimeter and slope landscaping, including the Highway 79 South landscape planter area
shall be installed to the approval of the Planning Director, prior to the first certificate of
occupancy.
26.
All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
Development Plan.
27.
A one-year landscape maintenance bond of sufficient amount shall be submitted and
approved by the Planning Department.
28.
The applicant and owner of the real property represented by this approval shall join and
maintain active membership in the Crime Free Multi-housing Program.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
29.
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department.
30.
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.
PUBLIC WORKS PA01-0610 (Tentative Parcel Map)
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency.
General Requirements
31.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
32.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
33.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
34.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-
way.
35.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for
consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
36. All on-site drainage facilities shall be privately maintained.
R:\P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
15
37. The vehicular movement for the following locations shall be restricted as follows:
Highway 79 South at the easterly access to the site shall be restricted to a right
in/right out movement subject to approval by CalTrans. The method of controlling
this movement shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
Highway 79 South at the driveway east of Jedediah Smith Road shall be restricted to
right in/right out movement subject to approval of CalTrans. The method of
controlling this movement shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete
the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed
and securities posted:
38. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Rancho California Water District
c. Eastern Municipal Water District
d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
e. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
f. Planning Department
g. Department of Public Works
h. Riverside County Health Department
i. Cable TV Franchise
j. CalTrans
k. Community Services District
I. Verizon Telephone
m. Southern California Edison Company
n. Southern California Gas Company
o. Fish & Game
p. Army Corps of Engineers
39. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards) to include installation
of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Provide a lane drop transition per CalTrans standards to the ddveway east of
Jedediah Smith Road
c. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Jedediah Smith
Road.
R:~P M~.O01V31-0610 TPM30468 Ternecu[a Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
do
Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Main Project
entrance.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
a. Street centerline 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 Standard No. 207A
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard No. 800, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 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.
g. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
h. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground
Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets:
a. The Developer shall improve Jedediah Smith Road (80 feet curb to curb) to include
the installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, raised
median, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to
water and sewer) as shown on the tentative parcel map.
i. The raised median island on Jedediah Smith Road shall be 4 feet wide, 200
foot long
ii. The roadway design shall be coordinated with the adjacent property owner
All intersections shall be perpendicular (90).
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Highway 79 South on the Parcel Map with
the exception of five (5) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel and
approved by CalTrans.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities
shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
R:\P M~2001't01-0610 TPM30468 Temecu[a Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
17
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in fome until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved bythe Department
of Public Works.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision that is part of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City
Council approval of the Pamel Map\Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A
copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints that may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside
Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works
A minimum 24 foot wide easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and reciprocal
ingress/egress access for all private streets and drives.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the final map.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private properly.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
R:\P M\2_O01X01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the
final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating, "drainage easements shall be kept
free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
57.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Community Services District
58.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
59.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all
soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered
structures and preliminary pavement sections.
60.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site
including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
61.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the
site. It shall identify ail existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage
facilities intended to discharge this runoff, Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall
capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property.
The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any
upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall
be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall
be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
62.
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.
R:\P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map,doc
19
63.
The Developer shall post secudty 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.
64.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
65.
66.
Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
67.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the
approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and
accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
68.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
69. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
70. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineem, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
71. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
72.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to
the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
PUBLIC WORKS PA01-0611 (Development Plan)
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.
R:~P M~001~01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
20
General Requirements
73.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall
be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
74.
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.
75.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-
way.
76.
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.
77. All on-site drainage facilities shall be privately maintained.
78.
The vehicular movement for the following locations shall be restricted as follows:
a. Highway 79 South at the easterly access to the site shall be restricted to a right
in/right out movement subject to approval by CalTrans. The method of controlling
this movement shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
b. Highway 79 South at the driveway east of Jedediah Smith Road shall be restricted to
right in/right out movement subject to approval of CalTrans. The method of
controlling this movement shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
79.
A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for
work within their right-of-way.
80.
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.
81.
82.
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.
A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address ali soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
83.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address
special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
R:\P M~001~01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
21
84.
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.
85.
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.
86.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
ao
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Community Services District
Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
87.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints that may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
88.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
89.
90.
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.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may
include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit
shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
91.
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.
R:\P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Viilage~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
22
92.
93.
94.
95.
c. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance
with City Standard No. 800, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades.
g. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards) to include installation
of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Provide a lane drop transition per CalTrans standards to the driveway east of
Jedediah Smith Road
c. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Jedediah Smith
Road.
d. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Main Project
entrance.
Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets:
a. The Developer shall improve Jedediah Smith Road (60 feet curb to curb) to include
the installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, raised
median, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to
water and sewer) as shown on the site plan.
i. The raised median island on Jedediah Smith Road shall be 4 feet wide, 200
foot long
ii. The roadway design shall be coordinated with the adjacent property owner
b. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90).
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions
per CalTrans' standards for transition to existing street sections.
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.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal
systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
R:",P M~2001~1-0610 TPM30468 Ternecula Creek Village\PC Staff Repod 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
23
Sewer and domestic water systems
Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
96.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of
Public Works.
97.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside
Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works.
98.
All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed
by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City
Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property.
99.
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.
100. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property.
101.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
102.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
103.
104.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
All public improvements, including traffic signals, shall be constructed and completed per the
approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
105.
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.
PUBLIC WORKS PA02-0667 (Tentative Tract Map)
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency.
R:~P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Vi[lage~PC Staff Repod 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
24
General Requirements
106.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
107.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
108. 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.
109.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Califomia Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-
way.
110.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for
consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
111. All on-site drainage facilities shall be privately maintained.
112.
The vehicular movement for the following locations shall be restricted as follows:
a. Highway 79 South at the easterly access to the site shall be restricted to a right
in/right out movement subject to approval by Caltrans. The method of controlling this
movement shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
b. Highway 79 South at the driveway east of Jedediah Smith Road shall be restricted to
right in/right out movement subject to approval of Caltrans. The method of
controlling this movement shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
113.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
f.
g.
h.
i.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
R:~P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
25
114.
115.
m.
n.
o.
p.
Caltrans
Community Services District
Verizon Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Highway 79 South along property frontage (Urban Artedal Highway
Standards) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing
and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Provide a lane drop transition per Caltrans standards to the driveway east of
Jedediah Smith Road
c. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Main Project
entrance.
d. Install the driveway at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Main Project
entrance.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum cdteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
a. Street centerline 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 Standard No. 207A
c. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance
with City Standard No. 800, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 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.
g. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
h. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground
i. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
R:~P M~2001~01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Repod 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
26
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets:
a. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90).
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
Relinquish and waive dght of access to and from Highway 79 South on the Parcel Map with
the exception of three (3) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel and
approved by Caltrans.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities
shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City
Council approval of the Parcel Map\Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A
copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
R:~P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
27
126. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
127. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside
Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works
128. A minimum 24 foot wide easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and reciprocal
ingress/egress access for all private streets and drives.
129. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the final map.
130. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
131.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the
final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept
free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
132.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
e. Community Services District
133.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
134.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all
soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered
structures and preliminary pavement sections.
135.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site
including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
R:~P MW.001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~.°C Staff Reporl 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
28
136.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the
site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage
facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall
capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property.
The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any
upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall
be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall
be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
137.
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.
138.
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.
139.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
140.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the
Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula
Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". A Flood Plain Development Permit is
required prior to issuance of any permit. Residential subdivisions shall obtain a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prior to
occupancy of any unit. Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
141. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded.
142.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
143.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the
approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and
accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
144.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
R:',P M~001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Vi[lage~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
29
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
145.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
146. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
147. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
148.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to
the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Conditions:
149. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
150. Developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure areas.
151.
All perimeter walls, trail fences, entry monumentation, parkways, landscaping, pedestrian
portals, private recreational amenities and all open space shall be maintained by the
property owner or a private maintenance association.
152. The Developer shall provide to the City of Temecula an eight (8) foot multi-use trail
easement deed for public access.
153. The Developer shall provide to the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) an eight
(8) foot maintenance easement deed for the multi-use trail.
154. A multi-use trail will be constructed by the developer as indicated on the development plan.
Specifications and standards to be approved by TCSD.
155. Prior to the 221st residential building permit the development of the trial shall be completed
and accepted by TCSD.
Prior to Building Permits:
156.
The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication (Quimby) requirement through the
payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to 2.43 acres of park land, based upon the City's then
current land evaluation. Said requirement includes a 50% credit for private recreational
opportunities provided on-site and shall be pro-rated at a per dwelling unit cost prior to the
issuance of residential building permit requested.
R:~P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
30
157.
If additional arterial street lighting needs to be installed, prior to the first building permit or
installation of arterial street lighting, the developer shall complete the TCSD application
process and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the
TCSD maintenance program.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
158.
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.
159.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2250 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a
total fire flow of 3100 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
160.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum (based on the greatest hazard building) of 3
hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-site (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 400 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to 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).
161.
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)
162. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Sbbdivision Ord. 16.03.020)
163.
164.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
165.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicte access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
(CFC sec 902)
R:\P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
31
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
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)
The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
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)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a
contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
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.
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)
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
R:~P M~001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
32
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10)
176.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4)
177.
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)
178.
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.
179.
Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and alt applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81)
180.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both
the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
Special Conditions
181.
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wild
land-vegetation interface. (CFC Appendix II-A)
182.
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall
include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block
walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A)
183.
Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and
to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life
safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, and NFPA- 13, 24, 72 and 231-C.
184.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention
for approval.
185.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
R:~P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
33
186.
The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
187. The applicant shall comply with all the mitigation measures identified in the attached
Mitigation Monitoring Plan. (Environmental Mitigation Measures)
188. The applicant shall comply with all CalTrans requirements concerning signal lights for
Highway 79 South.
189. The applicant shall comply with all CalTrans requirements concerning street trees along
Highway 79 South.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Name pdnted
Date
R:\P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~DC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
34
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
R:~P M~001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
35
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Exemption
TO:
County Clerk and Recorders Office
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
FROM:
Planning Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Project Title:
Description of Project:
Project Location:
Project ApplicantJProponent:
Planning Application No. PA02-0667 (Tentative Tract Map
31042)
An application to establish two (2) parcels for condominium
purposes, being a subdivision of Parcel 8 and Parcel 14 of
Parcel Map 30468; changing the occupancy of 400 multi-
family apadment units to owner-occupied condominiums
South side of SR-79 South between Avenida de Missions and
Jedediah Smith Road
Temecula Creek Village, LLC
The__ Community Development Director X Planning Commission City Council approved
the above described project on January 29, 2003 and found that the project is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
Exempt Status: (check one)
X
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); Sec. 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); Sec. 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); Sec. 15269(b)(c))
Statutory Exemptions (Section Number: )
Categorical Exemption: Class (Section Number
Other: Article 11, Section 15162 (b).
Statement of Reasons Supporting the Finding that the Project is Exempt:
The proposed project substantially conforms to the previously approved Development Plan, Parcel
Map and the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2002031150) for the project. No
further documentation is required.
Contact Person/Title: Emery J. Papp, Associate Planner
Signature:
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
Phone Number: (909) 694-6400
Date:
R:~P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village'~PC Staff Repor~ 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
36
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP REDUCTIONS
R:'~P M~2001~01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
37
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0667
ATTACHMENT 3 - TTM 31042 SHEET 1
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:\P M~001~1-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
33
CITY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0667
A'n'ACHMENT 3 - TrM 31042 SHEET 2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:'tP M~001~D1-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Viltage~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
3,~
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:~P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village'~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
40
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE
CASE NO. - PA02-0667
ATTACHMENT 4 - CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SHEET 1
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:\P M\2001~1-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC St~ff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
CITY OFTEMECULA
i
.i
i i
i i i
i i
ii
J I JJJ~ IlllllJl
I
1
CASE NO. - PA02-0667
ATTACHMENT 4 - CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SHEET 2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:XP M~2001~1-0610 TPM30468 TemecuJa Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
CITY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0667
ATI'ACHMENT 4- CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SHEET 3
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R :',,P M~.001'~ 1-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
43'
CITY OF TEMECULA
,, lilt, jll'"i~
CASE NO. - PA02-0667
AI'FACHMENT 4 - CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SHEET 4
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:'~P M~001~)1q)610 TPM30468 Temecuta Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0667
A'rrACHMENT 4 - CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SHEET 5
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:~P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village"tPC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
R:~P M~2001~01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map,doc
46
CITY OF TEMECULA
S
CASE NO. - PA02-0667
EXHIBIT 5A - VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:~P M~2001\01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Viitage~PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
EXHIBIT 5B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - PDO 4
I n'l Temec_creek_viLshp
:[:::::] Citypm'celsl.shp
,~V' Clty_streetst.shp
' Gen..plan_city1 .shp
BP
CC
H
HR
I-ITC
L
LM
M
NC
OS
Pi
PO
SC
).000000'
O0000'C'O0
EXHIBIT 5C - GENERAL PLAN
:)ESIGNATION - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
CASE NO. - PA02-0667
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:'~P M~2001~01-0610 TPM30468 Temecula Creek Village\PC Staff Report 01-29-03 - Condo Map.doc
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 29, 2003
Planning Application No. 03-023, Bel Villaggio (Substantial Conformance)
Prepared by: Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission continue this item for
redesign.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Vondana Kelkar
MCA Architects Inc.
1247 Pomona Road, Suite 105
Corona, CA 92882
PROPOSAL:
A Development Plan for a Substantial Conformance to Planning
Application 00-0213 for the Bel Villaggio project that includes
changes to the square footages and the elevations of buildings L, M,
N, and O, changing the location of Building O, and changing the
exterior material for the trim above the windows for existing and
future buildings.
LOCATION:
Southwest corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearney
Road (APN 921-09-71,72, and 78)
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan (SP)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Specific Plan (SP)
South: Specific Plan (SP)
East: Specific Plan (SP)
West: Specific Plan (SP)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Community Commercial (CC) and Professional Office (PO)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Bel Villaggio
South: Costco
East: Mall
West: Margarita Road
R:\SUB CONFORMANCE%?.003~03-023, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions~Staff Report 1-29-03.doc
1
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved the Bel Villaggio retail center on January 31,2001. Since then,
construction has started on Buildings B, E, and J and are close to completion. No Certificate of
Occupancies have been issued for these buildings yet.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing the following changes to the approved plans:
Chan.qes to Square foota.qes
The square footages of Buildings L, M, N, and O are proposed to be changed in accordance with
the following table:
Approved Proposed Difference
L 18,000 20,000 +2,000
M 10,625 7,046 -3,579
N 6,800 6,158 -642
O 4,200 6,028 +1,828
Total for Center 116,625 116,625 0
Chan.qes to the Elevations
The following components of the elevations for the center are proposed to be changed:
· Building L's main tower element has been made shallower, the towers for Buildings M and N
have been modified, and the tile roofs in the front and rear of the building have been eliminated.
· The cornices for Building L are larger and more pronounced.
· Building L includes recessed lighted areas.
· Small raised planters have been added to the front of the Building L.
The small tile accents on the elevations have been eliminated for building L.
· Blue awnings are proposed instead of teal and burgundy for Buildings L, M, N, and O.
· Building O has new elevations.
Changes to the Exterior Accent and Trim Materials and Colors
· A new exterior accent color is proposed for the rear and sides of the buildings in the center.
· The material for the trim above the windows for the entire Bel Villaggio project is proposed to be
changed from stone veneer to painted concrete.
Chanqes to the Location of Building O
The location of Building O is proposed to be changed from along the Loop Road to adjacent to the
RCWD well site.
R:~SUB CONFORMANCE~2003~03q323, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Report 1-29-03,doc
2
ANALYSIS
Changes to Square foota.qes
Since the total square footage of the center has not increased, staff supports these changes to the
plans. In fact, it is not unusual for retail centem such as Bel Villaggio to adjust the square footages
of their buildings between the planning approval and construction of the site.
Chan.qes to the Elevations
The applicant is proposing changes to the elevations of Building L to comply with the corporate
requirements of Ethan Allen. It is staff's position that corporate identity should not substantially alter
the amhitectural theme of a center or a building. Staff has advised the applicant to revise the initial
elevations to help retain the architectural continuity of the center. However, the applicant has
elected to forward their proposed plans to the Planning Commission as submitted. The following
are our recommendations:
· Changes to Building L, M, and N tower elements.
Staff feels that the towers are one of the basic architectural elements of the center. Eliminating
the tile roof or reducing its size is detrimental to the architectural integrity of the entire center.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the towers be restored to their originally approved
configurations.
· The cornices for Building L are larger and more pronounced.
In this case, the cornices can be considered an architectural accent. The applicant is only
proposing these larger cornices on Building L However, staff recommends that this element be
extended to Buildings M, N, and O. To create a cohesive theme among these buildings and at
the same time distinguish it from the rest of the center.
· Building L includes recessed lighted areas.
This feature is minor enough that staff would recommend keeping it just for Building L. This
feature can by itself distinguish Building L from Buildings M, N, O and the rest of the center.
Small raised planters have been added to the front of the Building L.
The small raised planters further distinguish Building L from the rest of the center including
Buildings M, N, and O. Staff considers these planters to be minor features of this Building.
· The tile accents on the elevations have been eliminated for Building L.
The small accent tiles are also considered by staff to be architectural accents. Since the
proposed blue colors of the awnings are not consistent with teal and burgundy colors of the
small accent tiles and blue accent tiles would not be appropriate, staff is recommending
eliminating the small accent tiles on Buildings M, N, and O to make them consistent with
Building L.
R:\SUB CONFORMANCE~2003~03-023, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions~taff Report 1-29-03.doc
3
· The blue awnings proposed instead of the approved teal and burgundy.
Again, staff is considering awnings to be the accent element unique to Building L, M, N, and O
and distinguishes these buildings from the rest of the center. The approved teal and burgundy
awnings were color coded with the accent tiles on the buildings. However, Building L has
eliminated the small accent tiles and the Buildings M, N, and O still have teal and burgundy
small accent tiles. Staff is recommending approval of this color change.
· The new elevations for Building O
The proposed elevations are an improvement to the previously approved elevations and
consistent with the architectural theme of Building K. Staff is supportive of the proposed
change.
Changes to Accent and Trim Exterior Materials and Colors
· A new exterior accent color is proposed
This new color is proposed for the rear and sides of the buildings in the center. Staff has
requested this change to provide more dimension and contrast to the architectural features of
the buildings. Staff is recommending approval of this new color.
· The material for the trim above the windows is proposed to be changed
The material for the trim above the windows for the entire Bel Villaggio project is proposed to be
changed from stone veneer to painted concrete. Buildings B, E, and F have already been
constructed with the painted concrete which was not an approved material. At this time, it would
be difficult to change these features to the approved material. Staff does not support the
change in materials.
Chanqes to the Location of Buildinq O
The location of Building O is proposed to be changed from along the Loop Road to adjacent to the
RCWD well site. This change is a positive change since Building O will now block the RCWD Well
Site from the interior of the center. Staff is recommending approval of this change.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified. Under California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) this
project is exempt.
Section 15162 applies when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project,
no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not
discussed or examined in the EIR.
The affected area of the site development meets the criteria noted by developing consistent with the
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 land uses which anticipated retail and office uses.
Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
R:~SUB CONFORMANCES2.003\03-023, Bel Veilagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Report 1-29-03.doc
4
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff is recommending continuing this item for redesign. The following is a summary of staffs
concerns and recommendations:
Proposed Changes Recommend Recommend
Approval Redesign
Changes to square footages of the Buildings L, M, N, and O X
Modification to the size and design of the Building L's front and
rear tower elements and Building M's and N's front towers X
Enlargement of the cornices for Building L X
Note: As long as the cornices for Buildings M, N, and O are also
changed
Addition of recessed light areas for Building L X
Addition of small raised planters to the front of the Building I X
Elimination of the small tile accents on the elevations of Building LX
Note: As long as the tile accents to the tile accents for Buildings
M, N, and O are also eliminated
Modification of awning colors from burgundy and teal to blue X
Modification of awning colors X
New elevations for Building O X
Modification to the accent colors for the entire center X
Modifications to the exterior trim materials for the entire center X
Modification to the location of Building O X
Attachments:
Exhibits - Blue Page 6
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
J.
K.
Vicinity Map
Proposed Site Plan
Proposed Buildings L, M and N Elevations
Proposed Building O Elevations
Proposed Buildings L, M and N Floor Plans
Proposed Building O Floor Plan
Approved Site Plan
Approved Buildings L, M and N Elevations
Approved Building O Elevations
Approved Buildings L, M and N Floor Plans
Approved Building O Floor Plan
R:\SUR CONFORMANCES003\03-023, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Report 1-29-03.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
EXHIBITS
R:~SUB CONFORMANCE~003~03-023, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Report 1-29-03.doc
6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-023
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
VICINITY MAP
R:\SUB CONFORMANCES_003\03-023, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Report 1-29-03.doc
7
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
CASE NO. - PA03-023
EXHIBIT- B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R-~SUB CONFORMANCES2003\03-023, Bel Vetiagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Repor~ 1-29-03.doc
8
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ClTY OFTEMECULA
z
CASE NO. - PA03-023 PROPOSED BUILDINGS L, M, AND N ELEVATIONS
EXHIBIT - C
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:\SUB CONFORMANCE~2003~03*023, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions~t~fl Reporl 1-29-03.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-023
EXHIBIT - D PROPOSED BUILDING O ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:\SUB CONFORMANCES003\03-023, Bel Vel[agio Elevation Revisions\Staff Report 1-29-03.doc 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
L
CASE NO. - PA03-023
EXHIBIT - E PROPOSED BUILDING L, M, AND N FLOOR PLANS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:\SUB CONFORMANCES2003\03-023, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Report 1-29-03.doc
11
ClTY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-023
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
PROPOSED BUILDING O FLOOR PLAN
R:'~SUB CONFORMANCES003\03-023, Bel Veltagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Report 1-29-03.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
3
il
Il
CASE NO. - PA03-023
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:\SUB CONFORMANCES003\03-023, Bet Vellagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Repor~ 1-29-03.doc
13
APPROVED $1'I'E PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-023
EXHIBIT - H APPROVED BUILDINGS L, M, AND N ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:\SUB CONFORMANCE'G.003\03-023, Bet Vellagio Elevation Revisions~Staff Report 1-29-03.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-023
EXHIBIT - I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
APPROVED BUILDING O ELEVATIONS
R:\SUB CONFORMANCE~003~03-023, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions~Staff Report 1-29-03.doc
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-023
EXHIBIT - J APPROVED BUILDINGS L,M, AND N FLOOR PLANS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
R:~SUB CONFORMANCE~2003~03-023, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Reporl 1-29-03.doc
CiTY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-023
EXHIBIT - K
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 29, 2003
APPROVED BUILDING O FLOOR PLAN
R:',SUB CONFORMANCES003\03-023, Bel Vellagio Elevation Revisions\Staff Report 1-29-03.doc
17
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 29, 2003
Planning Application No. 02-0567
(Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit)
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-
0567 (Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional
Use Permit) per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section
15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved).
2. ADOPT a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A FINDING
OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR A TYPE 48
LIQUOR LICENSE (ON-SALE GENERAL-PUBLIC PREMISES)
FOR THE EDGE NIGHTCLUB LOCATED AT 28822 OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET, UNIT NO. 203 KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. APN 922-093-003.
3. ADOPT a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
02-0567 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE
A NIGHTCLUB TO INCLUDE A TYPE 48 LIQUOR LICENSE
(ON-SALE GENERAL-PUBLIC PREMISES), LIVE MUSIC,
DANCING, AND OTHER ENTERTAINMENT USES IN AN
EXISTING 4,860 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT
28822 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET, UNIT NO. 203 KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 922-093-003.
R:\M C U P~2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.dcc
1
APPLICATION INFORMATION:
APPLICANT
Ronald M. Hanna
Edge Nightclub
28822 Old Town Front Street, Suite No. 203
Temecula CA 92590
PROPOSAL:
A request for a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a nightclub
to include a type 48 liquor license, live music, dancing, and
other entertainment uses as outlined in the submitted
statement of operations in a 4,860 square foot existing
building.
LOCATION:
Located at 28822 Old Town Front Street and known as
Assessor's Parcel No. 921-310-022.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: (SC) Service Commercial
EXISTING ZONING:
(SC) Service Commercial
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: (SC) Service Commercial
South: (SC) Service Commercial
East: (VL) Very Low Density/interstate 15
West: (SC) (Service Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Service Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Commercial
South: Commemial
East: Residential/Interstate 15
West: Vacant
BACKGROUND:
As background, on October 16, 1997, Planning Application 97-0279 was approved by the
Director of Planning, which permitted the operation of a nightclub with dancing, live
entertainment, a disc jockey and the on-site consumption of alcohol at 28822 Old Town Front
Street. The operation that was associated with this conditional use permit was terminated on
May 10, 1999, per a License Action Request to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
signed by the owner of record Lee J. Cornwell (see attached). According to Section 17.04.010G
of the Development Code, if the use is discontinued for more than a three-year period, the
conditional use permit shall be deemed abandoned. On May 10, 2002, the Director of Planning
deemed Planning Application 97-0279 to be abandoned.
On October 16, 2002, the applicant Ronald M. Hannah, submitted an application for a Minor
Conditional Use Permit to operate a nightclub at 28822 Old Town Front Street. As a part of this
application, the applicant has indicated in a statement of operations (see attachment) that the
Edge Nightclub intends to apply for a Type 48 Liquor License (On-Sale General-Public
Premises) with the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. However, the Department of
R:\M C U P~002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report,doc
2
Alcohol Beverage Control has informed staff that they have not yet received a formal
application.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Planning Application 02-0567 is a request for a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity and
a Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a nightclub to include a type 48 liquor license, live
music, dancing, and other entertainment uses as outlined in the submitted statement of
operations in a 4,860 square foot existing building. The hours of operation are as follows:
· 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday-regular business hours (Office Hours)
· 6:00 PM to 2:00 AM seven days a week - (Entertainment-full bar)
The site currently has 120 parking spaces available for the Edge Nightclub to utilize during the
hours of 6:00 PM to 2:00 AM according to the site plan and a signed lease agreement. The
signed lease agreement states that the parking for the tenant shall be on an as-needed basis.
The nightclub use is the only business in the existing center that operates during the early to
late evening hours.
ANALYSIS:
Findinqs of Public Convenience or Necessity
Based on a determination of the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC), there is
currently an over concentration of "on-sale" licenses within Census Tract No. 432.15 in which
the applicant's business is located. ABC has determined that there are currently 46 "on sale"
licenses in the subject census tract with only 3 licenses allowed.
Planning staff has determined that 14 of the 48 "on sale" licenses in Census Tract NO. 432.15
have been issued after October 17, 1997, the date in which the previous Minor Conditional Use
Permit was granted. Staff's research also indicated that 13 of the 14 "on sale" licenses issued
by ABC were for "bona fide eating places." The Department of Alcohol Beverage Control made
the required public convenience or necessity findings for the 13 "bona fide eating places." The
Planning Commission made the required public convenience or necessity findings for the High
Society Billiard and Dart Club (PA99-0113), which is one of the recently issued "on sale"
licenses. The application for the High Society Billiard and Dart Club was for the relocation of an
existing license.
Staff cannot make eight of the ten required findings for a public convenience or necessity in
regards to the request for a Type 48 Liquor License (On-Sale General-Public Premises). The
Planning Commission has developed criteria that must be met in order to justify a finding of
Public Convenience or Necessity. These criteria and staff's responses are as follows:
Criteria to Justify Makinq a Findinq 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) ?
R:\M C U P~2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
3
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
A:
A:
Q:
A:
The application meets this criteria. In the statement of operations the applicant has
stated, "the scope of the proposed project will encompass musical groups, comedians,
disc jockeys, karaoke, magicians, spoken word artists, and other culturally diverse
artistic presentations." These are types of entertainment that are not currently provided
in other similar establishments.
Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons of a
different socio-economic class)?
The application does not meet this criteria. The Edge Nightclub is expected to serve all
socio-economic classes.
Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales in
conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other
establishments in the area ?
The application does not meet this criteria. Sales are anticipated to be typical of
nightclub operations.
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?
The application does not meet this criteria. An existing nightclub, the Stampede, is
located less than one mile away from the proposed Edge Nightclub.
Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of
population during certain seasonal periods?
The application does not meet this criteria. Population in the area is expected to be
seasonally stable.
Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within the Census Tract of the
proposed establishment?
According to the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control there is currently an over
concentration of (43) on-sale licenses within the subject Census Tract (432.15).
Specifically ABC has determined there are currently (46) on-sale licenses with only 3
allowed.
Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity
(500 feet) to the proposed establishment?
Currently two churches are located within the 500 feet of the proposed site.
Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses?
The proposed establishment could possibly interfere with the two chumhes. Both
churches are currently conditionally permitted to hold bible studies on Wednesday
evenings as late as 9:00 PM. The proposed establishment is requesting to be open on
Wednesday nights from 6:00 PM until 2:00 AM.
R:\M C U P~2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
4
Q:
Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by
the residents of the area?
A:
The proposed establishment could potentially generate noise pollution that would affect
the residents to the east across the freeway. Should this occur the City would pursue
the noise as a part of its nuisance abatement procedures.
Q: Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area ?
A:
The applicant in his statement of operations stated that the Edge Nightclub would
implement a designated driver program, would provide alcoholic beverage training for
staff and would work closely with law enforcement and city government to ensure a safe
secure environment and positive implementation for this phase of the business.
Minor Conditional Use Permit
The Development Code (Section 17.08.050G1) states, "all business or establishments offering
the sale of alcoholic beverages, except the incidental sale of beer and wine at a restaurant, shall
require the appropriate license from the state of California and the city and be subject to a
conditional use permit." The applicant has filed an application for a Minor Conditional Use
Permit, which is the appropriate application for the operation of nightclub in the Service
Commercial zoning district.
In a letter dated January 8, 2003 (see attached), Mr. Jim Wiggins from the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control states that there are no applications on file with his department for
28822 Old Town Front Street-The Edge Nightclub. Once the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control receives an active application for the above stated address, their Departmental policy
would be to give the applicant a Zoning Affidavit Form (see attached) to be filled out by the City
of Temecula. In the General Information section of the Zoning Affidavit Form it states, 'q'he
ABC district office will not make a final recommendation on your license application until after
the local CUP review process has been completed. If the local government denies the CUP,
ABC must deny your license application."
The proposed site is located within 500 feet of two separate existing church facilities. Both of
these church facilities have been recently granted a Minor Conditional Use Permit by the
Director of Planning. The Truevine Pentecostal Church located at 28780 Old Town Front Street
was approved at a Director's Hearing on August 22, 2002 (PA02-0297). The Christian Science
Society located at 28900 Old Town Front Street was approved at Director's Hearing on January
16, 2003 (PA02-0609). According tothe Development Code (section 17.08.050G3) businesses
that sell alcoholic beverages shall not be located within 500 feet of any religious institutions.
The proposed site plan indicates that there will be 120 parking spaces available for the Edge
Nightclub. The proposed parking does not meet the off-street parking requirements as stated in
the Development Code (Section 17.24.040). The stated parking requirement for a club is 1
space per 33 square feet of gross assembly floor area. Staff has utilized the floor plan provided
by the applicant and has determined that there is 4,636 square feet of gross assembly floor
area. The required off-site parking for the Edge Nightclub is 140 parking spaces.
Staff, in reviewing the proposed Minor Conditional Use Permit, has determined that the
proposed Minor Conditional Use Permit application is not consistent with the Development
Code. Staff cannot make the required findings necessary to recommend approval of the project.
R:\M C U P~002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
5
However, the applicant has the potential to apply and receive a Minor Conditional Use Permit to
operate a Teen Club.
SUMMARY:
Findin,qs of Public Convenience or Necessity
In summary, in reviewing the Public Convenience or Necessity, eight out of ten (10) findings
analyzed by staff do not meet the criteria. The general areas of deficiency are related to over
concentration and siting near sensitive uses. Unless the findings for Public Convenience or
Necessity can be made, the Planning Commission must also deny the associated Minor
Conditional Use Permit.
The following findings for a Minor Conditional Use Permit cannot not be made:
Minor Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 17.04.010.E.1 )
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development
Code.
The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and staff has
determined that the proposed project is not consistent with the goals and policies
contained within the General Plan and regulations within the Development Code. The
Development Code does not permit businesses selling alcoholic beverages to be located
within 500 feet of religious institutions. Two religious institutions are located within 500
feet of the proposed use. These churches did not exist at the time of the previous
granting of the CUP for this project. The proposed project does not meet the parking
requirements as stated in Section 17.24.040 of the Development Code. The required
parking for a club with 4,636 square feet of gross assembly floor area is 140 off-street
parking spaces. The proposed project is providing 120 off-street parking spaces.
The proposed minor conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The proposed Minor Conditional Use Permit has the potential to adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The proposed use does not meet the off-street
parking requirements; overflow parking from the proposed use has the potential to
directly affect the adjacent properties. If there are not enough parking spaces available
on site, patrons of the proposed use may park at the adjacent properties without the
consent of the property owners.
The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community.
The project has been determined to be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community in that the project would aggravate an already over
concentrated situation.
R:",M C U I:A2002~02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
6
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Planning Application 02-0567, a
request to make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use
Permit based on the information provided by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board and the
findings of staff.
A'i'rACHMENTS:
1. PC Resolution of Denial for the request of Public Convenience or Necessity - Blue Page
8
2. PC Resolution of Denial for a Minor Conditional Use Permit - Blue Page 12
3. Exhibits - Blue Page 16
A. Vicinity Map
B. 2000 Census Tract Map
C. Site Plan
D. Floor Plan
E. 500 foot Radius Map
4. License Action Request Letter to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control - Blue
Page 22
5. Statement of Operations- Blue Page 23
6. January 8, 2003, letter from Jim Wiggins- Blue Page 24
7. ABC Zoning Affidavit - Blue Page 25
8. ABC FAX regarding Over Concentration - Blue Page 26
9. Census Tract information - Blue Page 27
10. Applicant's Letter of Justification - Blue 28
R:~vl C U P~002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2003-
FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
R:\M C U P~002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
8
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A FINDING
OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR A TYPE 48
LIQUOR LICENSE (ON-SALE GENERAL-PUBLIC PREMISES)
FOR THE EDGE NIGHTCLUB LOCATED AT 28822 OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET, UNIT NO. 203 KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. APN 922-093-003.
WHEREAS, Ronald M. Hanna, filed a request for a Finding of Public Convenience or
Necessity, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and
'WHEREAS, the request for a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law; and
WHEREAS, the application was processed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 29,
2003 to consider the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the request for a Finding of Public
Convenience or Necessity 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; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission and after due consideration
of the staff report and public testimony, the Planning Commission denied the request for a
Finding Public Convenience or Necessity; and
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 denying the request for a Finding
Public Convenience or Necessity hereby makes the following findings:
Criteria to Justify Makin,q a Findinq 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)?
A;
The application meets this criteria. In the statement of operations the applicant has
stated, '~he scope of the proposed project will encompass musical groups, comedians,
disc jockeys, karaoke, magicians, spoken word artists, and other culturally diverse
R:\M C U P~002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
9
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A;
Q:
A:
Q:
artistic presentations." These are types of entertainment that are not currently provided
in other similar establishments.
Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons of a
different socio-economic class) ?
The application does not meet this criteria. The Edge Nightclub is expected to serve all
socio-economic classes.
Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales in
conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other
establishments in the area?
The application does not meet this criteria. Sales are anticipated to be typical of
nightclub operations.
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?
The application does not meet this criteria. An existing nightclub, the Stampede, is
located less than one mile away from the proposed Edge Nightclub.
Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of
population during certain seasonal periods?
The application does not meet this criteria. Population in the area is expected to be
seasonally stable.
Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within the Census Tract of the
proposed establishment?
According to the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control there is currently an over
concentration of (43) on-sale licenses within the subject Census Tract (432.15).
Specifically ABC has determined there are currently (46) on-sale licenses with only 3
allowed.
Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity
(500 feet) to the proposed establishment?
Currently two churches are located within the 500 feet of the proposed site.
Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses?
The proposed establishment could possibly interfere with the two churches. Both
churches are currently conditionally permitted to hold bible studies on Wednesday
evenings as late as 9:00 PM. The proposed establishment is requesting to be open on
Wednesday nights from 6:00 PM until 2:00 AM.
Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by
the residents of the area?
R:\M C U P',2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
10
A:
The proposed establishment could potentially generate noise pollution that would affect
the residents to the east across the freeway. Should this occur the City would pursue
the noise as a part of its nuisance abatement procedures.
Q: Will the proposed establishment add to/aw enforcement problems in the area?
A:
The applicant in his statement of operations stated that the Edge Nightclub would
implement a designated driver program, would provide alcoholic beverage training for
staff and would work closely with law enforcement and city government to ensure a safe
secure environment and positive implementation for this phase of the business.
Section3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. 02-0567 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,
Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). This section applies when a public agency
rejects or disapproves the proposed project
Section 4. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 29th day of January 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
)ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2003-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of
th
the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 29 day of January, 2003, by the
following vote:
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\M C U P~2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.dcc
11
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2003-
FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
R:\M C U P~2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.dcc ' '
12
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
02-0567 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE
A NIGHTCLUB TO INCLUDE A TYPE 48 LIQUOR LICENSE
(ON-SALE GENERAL-PUBLIC PREMISES), LIVE MUSIC,
DANCING, AND OTHER ENTERTAINMENT USES IN AN
EXISTING 4,860 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT
28822 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET, UNIT NO. 203 KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 922-093-003.
WHEREAS, Ronald M. Hanna, filed Planning Application No. 02-0567, in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and
WHEREAS, Planning Application No.02-0567 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and
WHEREAS, the application was processed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed 3ublic hearing on January 29,
2003 to consider the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application 02-0567 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; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission and after due consideration
of the staff report and public testimony, the Planning Commission denied the request for a Minor
Conditional Use Permit; and
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. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in denying the request for a Minor
Conditional Use Permit hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code.
The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and staff has
determined that the proposed project is not consistent with the goals and policies
contained within the General Plan and regulations within the Development Code. The
Development Code does not permit businesses selling alcoholic beverages to be located
within 500 feet of religious institutions. Two religious institutions are located within 500
feet of the proposed use. These churches did not exist at the time of the previous
granting of the CUP for this project. The proposed project does not meet the parking
R:\M C U P~002~02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
13
requirements as stated in Section 17.24.040 of the Development Code. The required
parking for a club with 4,636 square feet of gross assembly floor area is 140 off-street
parking spaces. The proposed project is providing 120 off-street parking spaces.
2. The proposed minor conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor conditional use
will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The proposed Minor Conditional Use Permit has the potential to adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The proposed use does not meet the off-street
parking requirements; overflow parking from the proposed use has the potential to
directly affect the adjacent properties. If there are not enough parking spaces available
on site, patrons of the proposed use may park at the adjacent properties without the
consent of the property owners.
3. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community.
The project has been determined to be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community in that the project would aggravate an already over
concentrated situation.
Section3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. 02-0567 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,
Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). This section applies when a public agency
rejects or disapproves the proposed project
Section 4. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 29th day of January 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
R:\M C U P~.002~02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.dcc
14
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2003-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 29th day of January, 2003, by the
following vote:
AYES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'WI C U P~2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report,dcc
15
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:'~t C U P~002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
ect Site
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0567
(Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 29, 2003
VICINITY MAP
R:\M C U P~002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
17
ClTY OFTEMECULA
2000 Census Tract Boundaries
November 12, 2002
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0567
(Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 29, 2003
2000 CENSUS TRACT MAP
R:\M C U P~002~02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
Zoning: MSC(O~'~ce, Re~'landlndus~alUses) Pm~ctAm~ Build'ragA l~,050sq~a~e~
Suit= Siz= Divf.~ to 1,300 square fret
Parkins: 120Spa:es ~' I~ldingB l$,660sq~refee~n'~tflom
7,830 ~ ~ feet of ~zz.~ne
Divis~k~ to TS0 .=~, ,~'~ feet
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0567
(Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT C
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 29, 2003
SITE PLAN
R:~vl C U P~002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
19
CITY OF TEMECULA
Bc -t o5
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0567
(Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 29, 2003
FLOOR PLAN
R:~VI C U P~2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
Edge Night Club With 500 ft. Radius
p January 16, 2003
N
~ c~y
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0567
(Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 29, 2003
500 FOOT RADIUS MAP
R:\M C U P~2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.dcc
21
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
LICENSE ACTION REQUEST LETTER
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
R:~/I C U P~2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
22
~eo~,cT-15-2002 10:10 ABC RIVERSIDE ~ 7B10S31 P.02
alifomia
Department of PJcoh01ic Beverage Control
UCENSE ACTION REQUEST~'-/
Read instructions on reverse before completing.
SECTION 1
~ Rh'q'~tP~T.ql~' *mC
CLUB OD~SSI~
I~.vF, RSXDE
28822 FR01Tr EUxat~r l~s.;t' 203 & 20~
7. MNMNQ ADOF#~$
27..~~. RALGL'I'UOpd~ DRZV]~
SEOTION 2
HU~]~'I'EI'A CA 02563
CANCELLATION
I voluntarily cancel my license because I am no longer in business. I understand my Ucense cannot be reactivated or
reinstated.
~..~--".lmmediately Z Upon issuance of
SECTION 3
SURRENDER-R~e65
L.~ other,
I voluntarily surrender my license for a ported of not more than one year, I intend to ~ Transfer ;~ Reactivate
the liccnsc. I undc~tand that (a) thc liccn,sc must be renewed at the time renewal fce~ arc due or thc license will be automatically canceled;
(b) ibc Department will pr0cced to cancel my llccnse after one year if not transferred or reactivated; and (c) ! must report any change in my
mailing address to the Departmem.
:.'~mmedfately . ~Upon issuance of
I-'~ Sun'ender by ~'~ Premises abandoned
Department
SECTION 4 SURRENDER OF PRIVILEGES FOR A SPECIAL EVENT
19. DA'I~ TO BE SURRIENOERED ~9. PEPJOOOF SUR~ENnER
~/PM m
SECTION 5 a[~~T FOR R~URN OF SURRENDERED LIC~SE
~quest thc retu~ of thc S~n~ h~sc ~cn~d a~vo, -
....
I d~l~ und~ ~nalty e h~ ~n no chang~ in ownemMp of ~ho hcens~ business, and thc premises possess thc same
qualilications r~uirrxl for the original issuance of the license.
t& 0!icRil, ,r, irf Beverage Control . I
ABC USE ONLY
---Letter attached requesting surrender, cancellation or return
' ' '~,'~T~'~JCENSENEEDEO 27. D~TESlGI~E0
AM/PM
L.--~ Accusation ponding (Send copy of ABC-231for cancellations W HQ '.H&L if accusation pending.)
Distribution:
Section 2: Original to HQ l ic; copy to D~trict fil¢ Section 3: Original to HQ Lic; copy to Dixtrict file; copy to su. rpeme fde
Section 4: Original to Disrrict flle Section 5: Original + I copy to HQ Lic; copy to Distdct file
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
R:\M C U P~2002~02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
23
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
The Edge (Entertainment) will operate a venue that will feature a
variety of visual and performing arts as well as recorded audiovisual
entertainment. The scope of the proposed project will encompass musical
groups, comedians, disc jockeys, karaoke, magicians, spoken word (poetry)
artists, and other culturally diverse artistic presentations. The Edge will also
feature dancing as part of its activities and entertainment calendar. The
target audience for this venue will be twenty-one years of age (and older)
with a concentration on the thirty to fifty year of age clientele. One evening
per week may be scheduled to provide the same quality entertainment to
younger members of the community. Strict'standards and policies have been
drafted and will be implemented to address concerns that may arise when
any one of the targeted demographic groups is in attendance at any one of
the proposed events. These will ioclude, but are not limited to, a strict dress
code, checking for signs of possible controlled substance use and weapon
concealment prior to entering the establishment. The Edge will implement
and enforce a "no tolerance" policy. Our corporation's goal is to operate an
upscal~ entertainment venue where people of the City of Temecula and
surrounding communities may attend artistic and interactive events in a
positive, fun, and safe atmosphere.
The hours and days of operation will remain flexible to accommodate
the varying activities and entertainment scheduled during the week. Our
regular business (no entertainment) hours will be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00
P.M. Monday through Friday. Early hours are necessary for functions such
as the. Rotary Sunrise Breakfast, which starts at 6:30 in the morning.
Therefore, 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M. Monday through Saturday will be made
available to any community group who may have the need for such hours.
All entertainment events will be scheduled Sunday through Saturday from
6:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. Our corporation will exercise the option of
operating The Edge seven days a week to allow flexibility in scheduling any
special event such as musical recitals, non-profit organization benefits, or
wedding receptions.
The number of employees will vary depending on the event. Regular
public functions will have a minimum of 15 employees on duty. The
majority of these employees are security specialists. We will maintain a
well trained, positively motivated, and customer service oriented security
team. Our goal is to be proactive in conflict management and resolution.
The innovative and unique approach to broadcast live images from the venue
through the Internet will aid local authorities and other concerned parties in
monitoring any scheduled public event.
Our establishment meets and exceeds the number of parking spaces
(43) required by the City of Temecula per Section 17.24.040 of the
Development Code. We offer one 120 spaces during peak hours of
operation. We also offer two well-marked handicap-parking spaces directly
in front of our venue.
The Edge offers a state of the art audiovisual system, which will
facilitate full implementation of the proposed activities and entertainment
calendar. The establishment will also provide its patrons with an upscale
experience in a safe setting. Our corporation will strive to make The Edge a
positive force in the community.
THE MISSION OF THI*~ EDGE (ENTERTAINMENT) in partnership with
its employees is to provide high-quality entertainment and services and be a
positive force in the community and in the visual and perforating arts
industry, provide a neat, dean, safe, secure, and orderly environment where
patrons can enjoy interactive and artistic presentations.
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
ADEND UM A
In addition to the fine entertainment venue that The Edge will
establish we will further enhance our appeal and services by offering food
and liquor sales (full liquor-48 license) by the fall of 2002. We will at that
time implement the L.E.A.D program sponsored through the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board (ABC). Additionally our staff will be trained to be
responsible servers of alcoholic beverages. We will also have a designated
driver program in place to coincide with the issuance of the liquor license.
We will work closely with law enforcement and city government to ensure a
safe and secure environment and positive implementation for this phase of
the business.
MISSION STATEMENT
Tl~E MISSION OF ~ EDGE (ENTERTAINMENT) in partnership with
its employees is to provide high-quality entertainment and services and be a
positive force in the community and in the visual and performing arts
industry, provide a neat; clean, safe, secure, and orderly environment where
patrons can enjoy interactive and artistic presentations.
OBJECTIVE NUMBER ONE
100% OF OUR STAFF WILL BE TRAINED IN CUSTOMER
SENSITIVITY AND SERVICE
WE WILL D.EVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A CUSTOMER
SENSITIVITY AND SERVICE TRAINING PLAN TO INCLUDE,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
STANDARDS
ASSESSMENT
OBJECTIVE NUMBER TWO
100% OF OUR STAFF WILL MEET THE REQ,UIREMENTS TO BE
PROMOTED TO THE NEXT LEVEL WITHIN THEIR CHOSEN
POSITION (OR A DIFFERENT POSITION) AND SUCCESSFULLY
MEET INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP)
· WE WILL ESTABLISH AN EARLY DETECTION OR
IDENTIFICATION PROCESS FOR AT-RISK EMPLOYEES
WE WILL ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING AT-RISK
EMPLOYEES
· WE WILL ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR PROMOTIONS
WE WILL DEVELOP POLICY AND PROCEDURES UTILIZING
"BEST PRACTICES" THAT ENCOURAGES AND INCREASES
EMPLOYEE ACI-rlg~VEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
WE WILL DEVELOP A MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT
METHOD OF COLLECTING, ANALYZING, AND
COMMUNICATING DATA RELATING TO EMPLOYEE
ACHIEVEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
OBJECTIVE NUMBER THREE
TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND ONGOING OPPORTUNITIES TO
COMMUNICATE AMONG THE CONSTITUENCIES WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY
WE WILL ESTABLISH AND EXPAND SHARED DECISION
MAKING (TO INCLUDE EMPLOYEES AND COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATIVES)
WE WILL CREATE A COMMUNICATION NETWORK BETWEEN
OUR ESTABLISHMENT AND KEY COMMUNICATION LEADERS
AND ENTITIES
· WE WILL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN INFORMATION
SYSTEM TO IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING OF OUR DIVERS
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND INTERESTS
PARAMETERS
WE WILL PROVIDE A FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT TO ALL
EMPLOYEES
· WE WILL NOT TOLERATE PREJUDICE, DISCRIMINATION, OR
DISRESPECT OF ANY KIND TO ANYONE
· WE WILL RECRUIT AND HIRE ONLY QUALITY PERSONNEL
· WE WILL PROVIDE ONGOING STAFF DEVELOPMENT
REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
· WE WILL NOT TOLERATE INEFFECTIVE EMPLOYEES
· WE WILL MAXIMIZE THE USE OF AVA~.ABLE RESOURCES TO
IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGIC PLAN
· ALL DECISIONS WILL BE MADE BASED STRICTLY ON WHAT
IS BEST FOR THE ORGANIZATION
· WE WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE AND
FACILITIES
APPROPRIATE
· WE WILL MAINTAIN NEAT, CLEAN, SAFE, AND SECURE
FACILITIES
Employee Conduct Policy
TItXSE EMPLOYEE CONDUCT RULES ARE PLACE IN WRITTEN FORM
FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOU AND YPUR FELLOW EMPLOYEES SO THAT
ALL EMPLOYEES WILL RECEIVE THE SAME FAIR TREATME~NT.
A. Commission. of Any One of the Following Acts will be ConsMered Just Cause
for Immediate Dismissal:
1. Supplying false or mi.qleading information when applying for employment.
2. Possessing dangerous or deadly weapons on Company premi.qes or while off
Company premi.~es in performance of Company duties.
3. Reporting for work under the influence of intoxicants or drugs, drinking
alcoholic beverages, using drags, or the possession of either while on
Company time or company premises.
4. Immoral, immature, or indecent conduct; soliciting persons for immoral
purposes; or the aid and/or abetting of any of the above.
5. Refusing to comply with the legal, business-related requests of a supervisor.
6. Disrespectful conduct. [Gambling or fighting on Company premises;
coercion; intimidation or threats against guests, supervisors, or fellow
employees; using vulgarity or failing to give high degree of service or
courtesy to any guest].
7. Theft or misappropriation of guest's, employee's, or company property, or
unauthorized removal of any of the above, inelo&ing found items.
8. Interfering with or hindering with work schedules or sabotage.
9. Abusing, misusing, or destroying Company property, or the property of
guests or other employees.
B. Commission of Any One of the Following Acts will be Considered Just Cause for
Remedial Action which CouM Range from Oral to Written Reprimand, Suspension
from Work Without Pay, to Immediate Dismissal
10. Failure to satisfy legitimate debts.
11. Smoking in other than designated areas; unauthorized use of telephone;
parking of personal auto in area other than designated by management.
12. Failure to abide by clock rules or sigu-in/sigu-out procedures; working
overtime without management approval; unexcused absence or tardiness;
stopping work early; not reporting properly when absent [employee must
report to management by telephone or written message within three hours
prior to report time, reason for absence and when he will report for work].
13. Making or publishing false, vicious, or malicious statements concerning any
employee, supervisor, the Company, or its food, beverages, or services.
14. Failing to perform work Or job assignment satisfactorily and efficiently.
Loitering or sleeping on the job.
15. Engaging in or knowledge of activities on or off premises which could be
considered a discredit to the Company or its employees.
16. Failing to observe established Fire, Safety, Civil Defense Rules, or common
safety practices; or to report unsafe action of other employees to
management, or to rep?rt any injury sustained while on duty.
17. Unauthorized presence at guest functions and guest areas when either on or
off duty. Being on property when off duty. No social contac{ with any guest
will be perm~.'tted at any time.
18. Foiling to present a high degree of personal cleanliness at all times. Food and
beverage service personnel must obtain and keep current a valid health card
to be on file with the employer. Failing to wear prescribed clothing and
approved nnme badges.
19. Unauthorized distribution of literature Or posting of notices, signs or writings
in ay form on Company premises during working hours and in working or
public areas.
20. Discussing personal or unauthorized Company matters in public areas where
a guest could overhear conversation.
21. Dining or snacking at any time other than during designated meal or break
periods, or in areas other than those designated by the management.
NOTE: ALL EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO COOPERATE WITH
MANAGEMENT IN BUSINESS-RELATED INVESTIGATIONS. THESE
SITUATIONS COULD BE AS INVOLVED AS FULL SCALE AUDITS OR AS
sIMPLE AS AN EXAMINATION OF ONE'S PACKAGES OR WORK AREA. ALL
EMPLOYEES AND AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO SEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.
A SEARCH OR INVESTIGATION, IN AND OF ITSELF, DOES NOT IMPLY OR
CONSTITUTE AN ACCUSATION OF WRONGDOING. FAILURE TO
t/OLIINTARILY COMPLY WITH ~ INVF_~TIGATION OR SEARCH MAY
RESULT IN TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT.
ALL NEW EMPLOYEES ARE HIRED ON A NINETY (90) DA Y TRIAL BASIS.
Employee Signature (Signature indicates you have read and understand the above)
This condnct policy is intended to be used as a guideline and is informational only.
The policy provisions nrc _not conditions of employment nnd may be modified,
revog~i or changed at any time without notice. Nothingin this.policy is intended to
create, nor is it to be construed to constitute a contract between The Edge Nightclub
and any of its employees.
Name
Address
EMPLOYEE HEALTH EVALUATION
Pre-Employment
Last First Middle
Social Security No.
Name of Physician
Sex __ Date of Birth
Phone No.
Physician Address
Check One
Have you ever:
No Yes
__ 1. Missed more than two weeks of work due to
health or medical reasons?
2. Been refused employment for health or medical
reasons?
3. Been awarded compensation due to an accident or
injury?
4. Been discharged from employment due to medical
or health reasons?
5. Worked with asbestos?
6. Worked dusty jobs?
__7- Worked with radioactive materials?
Please explain all answers marked "yes."
Check One
Have you ever received medical treatment for:
1. Alcohol or substance abuse?
2. A mental condition.
__ 3. Rheumatic fever or rheumatic heart disease?
4. Any type of cardiac disorder?
__ 5. Fainting spells or seizures?
6. Diabetes?
__ 7. Asthma, hay fever, allergies or sinus trouble?
8. Hepatitis or liver disease?
9. Stomach problems?
10. Ulcers
-1of 2-
Please
11. Heart Problems?
12. Tuberculosis?
13. Back Problems?
14. Blood disorders?
explain answers marked "yes."
Other comments concerning your health.
Signed Date
- 2 of 2-~
SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to protect employees and company assets by having a
safe workplace. We do not wish'to have a situation wherein a fellow employee under
the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs puts our employees at risk. We do not wish
to have the company or its community standing put at risk by an employee who is
using alcohol or illicitdrugs at work or has the same in his or her possession.
Pobey
1. Being at work under the influence of alcohol, illicit drugs, medications
without appropriate medical reason or medications of inappropriate dosage
or duration is against company policy. Possession of alcohol, illicit drugs, or
medications without appropriate medical reason is also against company
policy when at work. Possession of alcohol, illicit drugs, or medications
without appropriate medical reason while not at work is also against the
policy of this company.
2. This company has a zero tolerance policy for drug or alcohol abuse and any
violation of these policies will result in immediate termination of
employment.
3. Ali applicants being considered for employment will be subject to a
mandatory drug test.
4. Drug testing of employees after being hired will be conducted if a reasonable
suspicion warrants this procedure.
5, The refusal of an applicant to consent to testing will result in the application
not being considered for employment.
6. The refusal ofnn employee to consent to drug testing will result in immediate
termination of employment.
7. Reasonable suspicion will be determined by mnnagement based upon the'
employee's declining job performance. The legal mandate to provide a
reasonable safe work place for its employee's and customers is the reason for
testing.
8. An accident at work is considered reasonable suspicion. Testing of an
employee that is injured on the job will be mandatory and performed
immediately after the injury occurs.
9. All people tested will be informed that they are being tested.
10. All tests will be in a situation that assures privacy in the collection of
specimens.
11, AH positive tests will be confirmed through the use of alternntive testing.
12. Tests will remain confidential, as will the results.
13. The chain of custody of the sample will be factually documented.
Initial
Consent For Drug/Alcohol Screen Testing
I, , have been fully informed by my potential
employer of the reasons for this urine test for drug and/or alcohol I understand
what I am being tested for, the procedure involved, and do hereby freely give my
consent. In addition, I understand that the results of this test will be forwarded to
my potential employer and become part of my record.
If this test result is positive, and for this reason I am not hired, I understand that I
will be given the opportunity to explain the results.
I hereby authorize these test results to be released to The Edge Nightclub and/or the
management company hired by the same.
Applicant Signature Date
Medical Testing Authorization
I, the undersigned, declare that I am a competent adult at least eighteen (18) years
of age. I hereby grant permission for the following medical test to be performed on
me:
DRUG TESTING AND H1V ~'OSITIVE TESTING.
I further acknow~dge that such tests may involve the temporary invasion or
penetration of my body by medical instruments, lights, sound, x-rays, or other
imaging and diagnostic media, and may further involve the obtainment of bodily
fluids, tissue, products or waste, all ofwhich I give up any claim to.
I further certify that all such contemplated tests have been explained to me and that
I have provided complete and honest responses to all questions posed to me
regarding my health, including pregnancy, disabilities, allergies, and susceptibilities,
if any.
I understand that these medical tests are not being performed for my benefit, but
are instead performed for the benefit of The Edge Nightclub and/or the
management company hired by the same, which I hereby release from any and aH
responsibility for treatment, advice, referral, or diagnosis.
I grant this authorization in exchange for the opportunity to be considered for
employment, Or for advancement in' employment, or because such testing is required
by law, and I acknowledge such testing is necessary and relevant to my employment.
I voluntarily make this grant without reservation.
Applicant Signature
Date
AI-FACHMENT NO. 6
LETTER FROM JIM WIGGINS
DATED JANUARY 8 2003
R:\M C U P~2002~02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
24
J~N-08-2005 15:17 ABC RIVERSIDE 909 ?810531 P.O1
6'TATE OF CAUFORNIA,~.' BUSINESS~ TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY.
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
Riverside District Office
3737 Main Street, Suite ~[900
Riverside, CA 92501
Office (909) 782-4400
Fax (909) '/81-0531
January 8, 2003
Rick Rush
City of Temecula Plato-ring Department
Temecula, Ca. 92589
Mr. Rush
This letter is in response to your inquiry on Alison Hannah. I understand she has applied
for an a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the premises located at 28822 Old Town Front
Street-The Edge Night Club. There are no applications for a license to sell alcoholic
beverages pending with our Department for either Alison Hannah or any entity claiming
the address listed above.
Alison Hannah applied with our Department in 2001 and her husband, Ronald Harmah
applied in 2002. There were issues raised in both applications by our Department and
applicants withdrew.
If [ can be of further assistance please call.
Investigator
(909) 782-4407
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
ABC ZONING AFFIDAVIT
R:\M C U P',2002~02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
25
JAN-22-2003 11:0S ABC RIUERSIDE
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Co~ttol
ZONING AFFIDAVIT
909 781~531 P.O1
GRAY DAVIS. Governor
Instructions to the Applicant: Complete Items I - 14. Sign and date th~ form and submit it to ABC.
~]Yes [~No
For answers to Questions 9 - 14, contact your local city OR county planning department (if inside the city
limit~, contact c_j~ planning; if outside, con~act countv plan~..' g.
L~Yes ONo .LL--~Yea I-]No
Under the penalt7 of perjury, I declare thc information in this affidavit is true to the best of my knowledge.
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
[]C.U.P. Approved
[]C.U.P. Denied
GENERALINFORMA~ON
· Section 23790 of the Bnsin~s and Pmfesaioas Code says
that ABC may not issue a retail license contrary to a valid
zoning ordinance. This form will help us dea~nnine whether
your proposed bnsincss is properly zoned for alcoholic
beverage sales.
· A conditional usc pcr~t (CUP) (Item I 1) is a special zoning
p~rmit g~ntcd after an individual ~cvicw of proposed land-
usc ha~ been made. CUP's are used in situations where the
proposed use may create hardships or hazards to neighbors
and other community mcmlx:~ who ~ likely to be affected
by the proposed use. The ABC district office will not make a
final recommendation on your license application until after
thc local CUP review process has bees completed. If the local
government denies the CUP. ABC mast deny your license
application.
23790. Zoning ordinances. No retail license shall be issued
for any premises which ate located in any territory where
exercise of the rights and privileges conferred by the license
is contrary to a valid zoning ordinance of any county or tilT.
ABC-255 (9/01)
Premises which had been used in thc exercise of those
rights and privileges at a time prior to the effective date of
thc zoning ordinance may continue opcradon under thc
following conditions:
(al The premises retain the same type of retail liquor
license within a license elnssificatioa.
(b} The licensed p,-c,fises m'~ opera~ continuously
without substamial change in mode or character of
operation.
For purposes Of this subdivision, a break in continuous
operation does not include:
(1) A closure for not more ~ 30 days for purposes of
r~air, if that repair docs not change the nature of the
licensed premises and does not i~crease the square footage
of the busings used for thc sale of alcoholic bevurages.
(2) Thc closure for m.~toration of premises rendered totally
or pe~t. ially inaccessible by as act of (]od or a toxic
accident, if the restoration d~__s noLi]ace-n-~-
---~-- ..... ~'-- / -/' #ot ·
TOTAL P. 01
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
ABC FAX REGARDING OVER CONCENTRATION
R:\M C U P~.002~02-0567 Edge Ntghtclub~Staff Report.doc
26
JAN-iS-2003 17:02 ABC RIVERSIDE
909 7810S31 P,O1
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Riverside District Office
3737 Main Street. Suite 900
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: 009-782-4400
Fax: 909-781-0531
State of California
GRAY DAVIS. Governor
Business, Transportation & Housing Agen~y
MARIA CONTRERAS-SWEET, Secretary
FAX TRANSMISSION
Pages 2 (Including this cover sheet)
Total
Number
of
Original: OTo follow by regular mail ~lWilt not follow
To: Rick Rush~ Planner Date: 1/15/03 Time: 1645
Fkm/Office: City of Temeucla Planninl] Dept Fax: 694.t477
Prom: Laura Gardhouse Phone: 909-782-4357
cc:
Subject:
The Edge Night Club - Censu~ Tract Information
Comments:
Per your request, attached is a print out from the US Census Bureau web page which shows the new
census tram number for the following address:
28822 Old Town Front St., Temecula
As you can sec from the print Out, this address falls within Census Tract #432.15
Per a review of our office stats, Census Tract 8432.15 consists of the following:.
Population - 2,889
Number of On-Sale License~s Allowed - 3
Number of On-Sale Licenses Active. 46
Number of Pending On. Sale Applications - 5
As we discussed on the phone, at the time application was made with th s deparnncnt in November of
2001, this address fell within a different census tract number (432.04). The stats at that time showed that
there were 27 on-sale licenses allowed and 90 were active.
As I informed you, our front staff uses the US Census Bureau web page to determine which census tract
an address falls within. The US Census Bureau web page address is: www.census.gov
If you need further information, plea.qe give me a call at 909-782-4357
NOTICE
This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed, and may contaln information that is privlleged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
notified the! any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
~rohib~ted. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone, and return the original message to us et the above address,
ABC.75 (NEW 2/01)
"Be Energy Efficient"
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
CENSUS TRACT INFORMATION
R:'~I C U P',2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report,doc
27
JAN-16-2005 16:31 ABC RIVERSIDE
909 ?810531 P.02
01-16-03
04:29 PM
CENSUS TRACT INFOMATION BY CENSUS TRACT WITH ADDRESS
WHERE COUNTY IS 33-RIVERSIDE AND CENSUS TRACT IS 0432.15
PAGE: I
Census License Ueensee
Tract Types Status Num Premises
0432.15 41 ACT 248862
0432.15 47 ACT 370471
0432.15 41 ACT 39504
0432.15 21 ACT 112879
0432.15 47 ACT 335738
0432.15 47 ACT 173345
0432.15 52 ACT 185057
0432.15 47 ACT 197340
0432.15 21 ACT 377731
0432.15 41 ACT 209094
0432,15 20 ACT 395032
0432,15 47 ACT 212820
0432.15 41 PB',ID 396543
0432.15 41 ACT 351231
0432,15 21 ACT 376781
0432.15 41 ACT 385872
0432.15 41 ACT 384826
0432.15 41 ACT 308317
0432.15 41 ACT 372916
0432.15 48 ACT 242571
0432.15 47 ACT 356054
REYNOSO ALFONSO
27465 JEFFERSON AVE, TEMECULA CA 92590
CROSSCRFJ~ LLC
43860 GLEN MEADOWS RD, TEMECULA CA 92590
HASSON GLORIA
28676 OLD TOWN FRONT ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
S'rATER BROS MARKETS
27475 JEFFERSON ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
SOLANO MIRIAM M
27780 JEFFERSON AVE STE 1, TEMECULA CA 92690
MEXICO CHIQUITO INC
41841 MORENO RD, TEMECULA CA 92590
VFW POST 4089
29000 PUJOL ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
MANDERSCHEID DONALD L
28551 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD, TEMECULA CA 92590
ALHOZY INC
27911 JEFFERSON AVE STE 109, TEMECULA CA 92590
STJOHN COSTAS
28690 OLD TOWN FRONT ST STE .500, TEMECULA CA
92590
MAUUK INVESTMENTS INC
28410 OLD TOWN FRONT ST STE 100, TEMECULA CA
92590
TEXAS ULS CORFORATION
28495 OLD TOWN FRONT ST STE B & C, TEMECULA CA
92590
LEFFINGWELL DELIA VICTORINO
27713 JEFFERSON AVE 101, TEMECULA CA 92590
REYES JESSE JOSE
27713 J;FFER~ON AVE 101, TEMECULA CA 92590
FARHAT AKRAM SALAH
27315 JEFFERSON AVE STE E, TEMECULA CA 92590
BERNIES CAFE & DEE
27535 JEFFERSON AVE, TEMECULA CA 92590
TACO FACTORY [NC
27315 JEFFERSON AVE A, TEMECULA CA 92690
AMORE ENTERPRISES INC
28250 OLD TOWN FRONT ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
BMW MANAGEMENT LLC
27717 JEFFERSON ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
BEACON LOUNGE INC
27725 JEFFERSON AVE STE 101, TEMECULA CA 92590
GHOMIZADEH MASSOUD
27464 JEFFERSON AVE, TEMECULA CA 92590
RECEIVED: 1/16/O3 4:5OPM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #574; PAGE 3
JAN-16-2003 1G:31 ABC RIVERSIDE
909 7810531 P.03
01-16-03
04:29 PM
CENSUS TRACT INFOMATION BY CENSUS TRACT WITH ADDRESS
WHERE COUNTY IS 8~.RIVERSIDE AND CENSUS TRACT IS 0432.15
PAGE: 2
Tract Types Status Num Premises
0432.15 41 ACT 246402
0432.15 41 ACT 248000
0432,15 40 ACT 348581
0432.15 41 ACT 301689
0432.15 47 ACT 375735
0432.15 41 ACT 255092
0432.15 21 ACT 347585
0432.15 21 ACT 256902
0432.15 41 ACT 344028
0432.15 41 ACT 260938
0432.15 41 ACT 325501
0432.15 47 ACT 263628
0432.15 41 ACT 317474
0432,15 20 ACT 266795
0432.15 48 ACT 305223
0432.15 41 ACT 274556
O432.15 41 ACT 276800
0432.16 47 ACT 308530
0432.15 20 ACT 301998
0432.15 41 ACT 295508
0432.15 41 ACT 339294
STADIUM PIZZA INC
27314 JEFFERSON ST STE I-3, TEMECULA CA 92590
H$1AO SHU CHUNG
27371 JEFFERSON AVE STE V & W, TEMECULA CA 92590
WlLLIAMSON G~LDA DECENDARIO
27911 JEFFERSON AVE STE 104, TEMECULA CA 92590
U,.%N',IALUXMEE CHUREE T
27451 JEFFERSON AVE, TEMECULA CA 92590
CALIFORNIA GRILLE RESTAURANTS INC
27345 JEFFERSON AVE, TEMECULA CA 92590
JWL MANAGEMENT INC
27313 JEFFERSON AVE B, TEMECULA CA 92590
SHADDA MAEN HAMID
2832~ OLD TOWN FRONT ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
DEMOULIN IRENE T
28780 OLD TOWN FRONT ST UNIT Al, TEMECULA CA 92590
PARKER DANIEL R
29000 OLD TOWN FRONT ST A, TEMECULA CA 92590
THESING MICHAEL ALAN
28636 OLD TOWN FRONT ST STE 109, TEMECULA CA
92590
FERNANDE$ EV.~NGEUNE
27645 JEFFERSON AVE STE 106, TEMECULA CA 92590
PARAGON STENG~OUSE RESTAURANTS INC
27600 JEFFERSON AVE, TEMECULA CA 92590
DAI-H:HN FRED L
28495 OLD TOWN FRONT ST STE A, TEMECULA CA 92590
ELEu I H~?~D INC
29115 OLD TOWN FRONT ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
ZARIPHES '~-IEODORE A
27423 JEFFERSON ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
MOLl ~-H VERA
27326 JEFFERSON AVE STE 17, TEMECULA CA 92590
DEPHILIPP!S MICHAEL 13
27309 JEFFERSON AVE STE 110, TEMECULA CA 92590
TENIECULA STAMPEDE
28721 OLD TOWN FRONT ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
KEELING DONALD EDWIN
27570 JEFFERSON ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
COVARRUSIAS ARTEMISA M
28645 OLD TOWN FRONT ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
THYZEL DF_BRA L
28410 OLD TOWN FRONT ST STE 112-112A., TEMECULA CA
92590
RECEIVED: 1/16/O3 4:51PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #574; PAGE 4
JAN-16-2003 16:32 ABC RIVERSIDE
909 7810531 P.04
01-16-03
04:29 PM
CENSUS TRACT INFOMATION BY cENSUS TRACT WITH ADDRESS
WHERE COUNTY IS 33-RIVERSIDE AND CENSUS TRACT IS 0432.15
PAGE: 3
Census License U;ensee
Tract Types Status Num Premises
0432.15 47 ACT 300119
0432.15 41 ACT 304121
0432_15 20 ACT 346664
0432.15 41 ACT 341625
0432.15 41 47 ACT 345317
0432.15 42 ACT 333183
0432,15 41 ACT 386227
0432,15 41 PEHD 390359
0432.15 41 ACT 350434
0432.15 41 ACT 353189
0432.15 41 PE~D 395692
0432.15 41 ACT 360720
0432.15 41 ACT 376587
0432,15 40 ACT 362462
0432.15 41 ACT 365877
0432.15 41 PEND 395720
0432.15 21 ACT 348303
0432,15 41 ACT 278829
MANDARIN CHINA FOOD INC
27725 JEFFERSON STE 102 103, TEMECULA CA 92690
CHRISTOFORAKIS MICHAIL
28120 JEFFERSON AVE STE A 101, TEMECULA CA 92590
SPIRrT' EN I I:HPRISES INC
28903 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD, TEMECULA CA 92590
TCB INC
29105 OLD TOWN FRONT ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
NGUYEN THUAN THI
27533 JEFFERSON AVE, TEMECULA CA 92590
DOOL EDWARD L
28464 OLD TOWN FRONT ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
RAMIRF/TIMOTHY ,ION
27470 COMMERCE CENTER DR STE A, TEMECULA CA 92590
GILL KULDEEP KAUR
27715 JEFFERSON AVE 106, TEMECULA CA 92590
BHANDAL PARAMJIT SINGH
27715 JEFFERSON AVE 106, TEMECULA CA 925g0
CAMPINI DONALD ROBERT
LAI MANLEE
27405 JEFFERSON AVE, TEMECULA CA 92590
GILLMORE CHERYL LEE
27405 JEFFERSON AVE, TEMECULA CA 92590
BAR~JAS JOSE LUIS
27911 JEFFERSON AVE 101, TEMECULA CA 92590
MCMILLEN MICHAEL DEAN
28950 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 102, TEMECULA CA 92590
C H H L-PSHIP
28134 JEFFERSON AVE, TEMECULA CA 92590
ZELENIK RANDY LYNNE
41971 MAIN ST, TEMECULA CA 92590
SMART & FINAL STORES CORPORATION
26665 JEFFERSON AVE, MURRIETA CA 92562
SIGGYS INC
26820 JEFFERSON AVE, MURRIETA CA 92562
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 10
LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION
R:\M C U P~2002\02-0567 Edge Nightclub\Staff Report.doc
28
The Edee Nightclub
Letter of JustificatiQt~
Conditional Use Permit and Letter of Necessity and Conveni¢tlc¢
Q. Is the site suitable and adequate for the proposed use?
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms o:Cthe size and sha?e of the lot
configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity o fuse. This project is consistent with the
Development Code
Q. W~uld the pr~p~sed use and design have a substantia~ adverse effect ~n tra~c circulati~n and ~n
the planned capacity of the street system?
No. The site is located in an industrial area that is generally deserted by 6:00 P.M. in the evening.
The entrance is tocated on Front Street at the south end of town and the tra~c is very light during
hours of operation.
Q. Would the proposed use have a substantial adverse impact on the general welfare of persons
residing in the eommanity ?
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within
the General Plan and the Development Standards contained in the Development Code. These
documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are not detrimental to the
general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure th~ is achieved
Q. Is the design of the project compatible with the existing and proposed development within the
district and surroundings?
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely effect the
adjacent uses, buddings, or structures.
Famed To 909-694~6477- A ITN: Mr. Rick Rush, City Planning Department