Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout060590 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING PJ~NCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ~E 5, 1990 - 7=00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 90-09 Resolution: No. 90-54 CALL TO ORDER= Invocation Pastor T. J. Mercer Rancho Community Church Flag Salute ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks Certificates of Appreciation: Moore, Muhoz, 1) 2) Ad Hoc Law Enforcement Committee Traffic Advisory Committee Negotiating PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. 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 City Council request specific items to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 2/~gend~O60E 90 1 06/01 ~0 RELATION: 1.1 Approve minutes of Nay 15, 1990 as'Bailed, 0 · A 7,992 squarefootofficebuildingwtthaubterraneanparkinq :located West of Front Street and south of First Street. I~ECOMMENDATION: 2.1 2.2 Pull for staff report Receive and file A. tVO stoFy, S000 Square 'root office ~dilding on 0.37 acres located north' of Second S~Feet and noF~heaet of Hercedes Street. 3 .:1 3.2 Pull for staff report Receive and file o F~-oo!lfl~ F4038 - Lot Split of 4.99 acree located northeast .of Hercedes Street, east of Xoreno Road and southwest of · Interstate 15 Continued fret he meeting of Nay 22, 1990.' RECOMMENDATION: 4 .¸1 Deny Parcel Nap No. 24038, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report. 5.1 A~o~t an urger~y ordinance entitle: ORDZ~B ~O. 00- , f~li~e of IA~e lie. S446 A Zone Change for 6.51 acre site on the vest side of Ynez Road at the terminus of County Center Road, from existing IP to .CPS o R~)J~/~NDATION: 6.1 Adopt the negative Declaration Assessment No. 33728. for EnvirOnmental 6.2 Approve change of Zone Application No. 5446 0 Appeal£iledbyOpto 22, of condition by the Riverside County Road Department to construct lane improvements at Rancho California Road and Front Streets. P~O~2iDATION: 7.1 Uphold the appellant's appeal, subject to the recommendationsof'the CityTraffic Engineer, based on findings and analysis contained in the County report. 7.2 Approve Plot Plan No. 11607, based on the analysis and findings contained in the County staff report, subJect to the conditions of approval as revised in Appeal No. 1. 06~1~0 Appeal No. 2, - Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769 Appeal filed by Won Yoo of County Planning Commission approval for location north west of Rainbow Canyon Road, South of Pala Road. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Continue the appeal for Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769, amended No. 2, to the meeting of June 26, 1990, to allow staff additional time to review the project and analyze the appeal. COUNCIL BUSINESS 10. 11. Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District Presentations Presentation by Judy Conacher, Reclamation Coordinator and Chuck Kratsch, Manager Project Services, EMWD Presentation by Bob Lemons, John Henniger and Philip Forbes, Rancho California Water District Request for Sponsorship - Hiss California Pageant RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Motion to appropriate $500 from Contingency Fund if desired. Budget Consideration RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Discuss and continue to the meeting of June 12, 1990 for final consideration and adoption. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 12. 13. 14. 15. Traffic Report Sign Ordinance Mello Roos - Ynez Corridor Landscape Maintenance 2/egend~C160680 4 05/31 Next. meet. ing: June 12, 1990, 7:00 PH, TelUe~-'ula Co'fmuni,~.y Cent. eF, 28816 l:~Jol St.z'eel, Temecula, California 6 ~INUTES OF ~N ADJOURNED REgULaR ~EETIN~ OF THE TF~ECUL~ CITY COUNCIL HELD MAY 15; 1990 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:07 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Muhoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCATION The invocation was waived. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Lindemans. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Parks announced the appointment of a permanent City Manager, David Dixon, who is presently serving as City Manager of Moreno Valley. PUBLIC COMMENTS Anne Greenstone, County Public Health Nurse spoke concerning five health issues. Requested help in organizing a transportation system connecting Lake Elsinore with Temecula, (i.e. bus system and dial a ride). Requested that signs in the County Health Center be in Spanish as well as English. Consider establishing programs for youth, (i.e. extended day care programs, and summer programs)· Provide teen mother centers on high school campuses with child care on premises. Minutes~5\15\90 -1- 05/29/90 City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 Provide a centrally located facility for homeless population or new Spanish speaking citizens which would offer "drop in" health care. Jay Waterman, 41790 Winchester, Ste. F, spoke in opposition to street vendors who set up shop in the City roadways. Mr. Waterman stated these vendors are in direct competition with local businesses. He also expressed concern that sales tax revenues will not be reported in Temecula. Mr. Waterman asked the Council to adopt a resolution to prohibit street vendors in the City of Temecula. Councilmember Mufioz askedMr. Waterman if he would favor a business license requirement, restricting street vendors to certain areas. Mr. Waterman stated he would be in favor of a business licensing process. Steve Sander, 4213 Holden Circle, spoke in opposition to removal of the trees in the median on Rancho California Road. He asked Council to save the street trees and not destroy the character of Temecula. CONSENT C~I, END~%R Mayor Parks requested the removal of Item No. 3 from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mufioz requested the removal of Item No. 2 from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve Item No. 1 as follows: 1. Minutes 1.1 Approve minutes of April 24, 1990 as mailed. 1.2 Approve minutes of April 25, 1990 as mailed. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Minut~s~5\15\90 -2- 05/29/90 City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 Reconsideration of South West Pea Community Plan Councilmember Muhoz said he was not in favor of adopting the Southwest Area Community Plan, stating it has many flaws. Councilmember Mu~oz indicated his desire to proceed with the creation of the City's own general plan. Councilmember Lindemans stated SWAP should be used as a guideline or reference for creating the City's general plan. Councilmember Lindemans stressed that actions taken by the Council today will set the stage for Temecula for the next 50 years. Councilmember Birdsall stated her concern with how the Planning staff is expected to function without any guidelines on which to base their decisions. Councilmember Moore suggested the City use SWAP as a base plan, and look into changing the problem areas. She stated that the City is not compelled to "live" with this plan forever. Mayor Parks said he does not agree with all of the provisions of SWAP, however, he believes it is a good tool to use a base on which to begin building a comprehensive general plan for the City. Councilmember Muhoz reported that SWAP is available now to use as a guide, without the need to adopt it as our general plan. Councilmember Birdsall asked for an opinion from the Planning staff. Ross Geller, Planning Director, stated that it is not a problem to operate without a plan. He said it gives the City Council an opportunity to review each parcel on a case by case basis. He suggested that when discussing the SWAP with the Planning Commission, he would point out that the whole plan is not worthless, and should be used as a guide in creating the general plan. Councilmember Muhoz moved, Councilmember Lindemans seconded a motion to modify staff recommendation to refer to the Planning Commission for evaluation of Southwest Area Community Plan. Minutes~5\ 15\~0 -3- City Council Minutes May 15, 1990 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Resolution Re~ardinu Time of Meetings Mayor Parks spoke in opposition to this resolution. He stated changing the meeting time from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM would place a burden on the public as well as staff, not allowing them time to eat or take any break after work. Councilmember Mufioz suggested a compromise of 6:30 PM. Councilmember Moore stated that City Hall is open until 6:00 PM and the change of time would prove very difficult for City staff. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to table the resolution regarding time of meetings. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCIL BUSINESS Councilmember Lindemans requested consideration of Item No. 10 next. 10. Cable Television Franchise Analysis City Manager Aleshire reported this item was continued from the meeting of May 8, 1990. The recommendation has been changed to receive and file the report and direct staff to reject all CTV license applications filed under the County Ordinance, and to direct City Manager to hire a CTV Consultant. Minu~s~5\15\90 -4- 05/29/90 city Council Minutes May 15, 1990 Mr. Aleshire stated a Consultant would be hired to draft a City ordinance and this could be placed on the agenda in a couple of weeks. Donnie Clark, Vice President of Jones Intercable, stated his desire to bring a high-tech system to Temecula. He said Jones Intercable is prepared to wire the entire City. Mr. Clark stressed the highquality of service Jones Intercable provides and stated that competition is in the City's best interest. Mr. Clark stated Jones Intercable is in favor of creating a City ordinance, but did not want construction delayed for nine months to one year. Charlie Guild, Attorney for Jones Intercable, stated that Jones Intercable was provided with certain permits by the County of Riverside, they relied on these permits and commenced construction and are in fact still relying on this franchise. Mr. Guild reported that Jones Intercable submitted an application to the City of Temecula in an effort to settle some differences. Councilmember Mu5oz asked if the points indicating non- compliance by Jones Intercable are correct, and which items have been complied with now. Mr. Guild reported that all items have been complied with. City Attorney Fields reported the chief issue is that Jones Intercable did not accept the franchise prior to City incorporation. Once the City had incorporated, a new franchise was necessary. Additionally, the documents the City has seen did not have two signatures, which is necessary. Mr. Fields further stated that Jones Intercable has now filed a surety bond, however it was filed long after the allowed 10 day period. Jim Allman, 43954 Gatewood Way, stated he is in favor of competition and receiving the best service possible. He suggested that staff do research on the best alternatives and negotiate in the residents best interest. Thomas Unglaub, representing Inland Valley Cablevision, reported that with 7,000 subscribers, they have made a major commitment to Temecula. Mr. Unglaub stated the City should take time to evaluate whether it needs another cable company and who the competition is. Councilmember Muhoz asked staff to report on three issues: one, the significance of the failure to comply with the franchise requirements on the part of Jones Intercable; two, how does the City determine the needs for service in a Minut~5 \15 \90 -5- 05/29190 City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 community of this size, three, what is the status of the other cable companies listed in the staff report. City Attorney Fields stated Jones Intercable had a period of time to accept a contract, but did not do so when the County had jurisdiction. He reported there are practical limitations on how many cable companies can logistically operate in the same community. Mr. Fields said staff wishes to be sure procedures followed for awarding franchises represent the needs and interests of the City. He stated he was not sure the City would be able to determine these issues in the next 30 days. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Services, reported that the City has only received one application from Jones Intercable. He stated that a copy of all County franchises to operate in the City of Temecula, are included in the agenda packet to serve as information for the Council on all the cable operators active in the area. Councilmember Mufioz asked City Attorney Fields if the City is on pretty solid ground in regards to jurisdiction. City Attorney Fields stated he felt comfortable with his opinion. Mayor Parks asked the cost of having a consultant to draft an ordinance. City Manager Aleshire reported that to draft an ordinance would cost approximately $1,000. If the consultant is asked to process applications for franchise, it could cost up to $9,600. Councilmember Mu~oz suggested contacting the League of Cities regarding a prototype ordinance. City Manager Aleshire reported that the League had been contacted and their recommendation is to hire a consultant. Mayor Parks stressed the importance of hiring an expert to draft an ordinance of this type to assure future applications will be resolved. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Parks to adopt the staff recommendation to receive and file the report and hire a CTV Consultant. Minutiae5\ 15\90 -6- 05/29/90 City Council Minutes May 15, 1990 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to deny all Franchise Applications filed under the County Ordinance. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Muhoz requested patience from the applicants stating that the City Council is not opposed to competition, but it requires time to establish an ordinance to serve the best interests of community. RECESS Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:20 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:42 PM. 4. Temecula Redevelopment District City Manager Aleshire reported this item was continued from the meeting of May 1, 1990. Mr. Aleshire introduced Dave McElroy, Managing Director of the Riverside County Economic Redevelopment Agency, to give present report. Mr. McElroy reported that the land within Redevelopment Project No. 1-1988 includes the area known as Old Town Temecula, and suggested that all effort should be made to preserve and protect the historic nature and architectural integrity of Old Town Temecula. Mr. McElroy stated that the plan specifically states there will be no eminent domain used in the redevelopment area. The District also authorizes the agency to provide flood control improvements, traffic signals, road improvements, street lighting, bridge improvements, parks and recreation improvements, parking facilities, fire fighting Minutes~5\15\90 -7- 05/29/90 City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 facilities, library facilities, school facilities, construction of a museum in Old Town, improvements for French Valley Airport and participation in County CORAL obligations. Mr. McElroy stated that the County has 35 project areas and would welcome the City taking jurisdiction over this agency. He further stated that redevelopment does not increase property tax. It receives a tax increment as a result of new growth. Mr. McElroy informed the City Council that a law suit is now in progress, and if successful, would halt the redevelopment plan from taking effect and the City would lose funding for these projects. Over the 40-year life of the redevelopment program, $211,000,000 of public facilities could be constructed using Redevelopment funds. Mr. McElroy described three scenarios for possible management of the redevelopment services: 1. The County could continue to manage the program. The City could assume management of the redevelopment agency. The City could enter into a contract with the County specifying how the agency is to be managed. Councilmember Birdsall asked if the City takes over management of this agency, would there be any additional pass throughs. Mr. McElroy stated that according to the County policy on City Redevelopment Projects, the County gets a 100% pass through in some form. This can be in actual dollars or, through acquisition of certain facilities benefiting the City. If the City took over management, the County would enter into an agreement specifying the financial arrangements needed. Councilmember Moore questioned the status of the law suit. Mr. McElroy reported that the law suit is still active, however, a court date has not been set. Councilmember Lindemansquestioned whether the County desired the City to take over the law suit. Mr. McElroy stated that it is staff's recommendation to have the City of Temecula take over this issue. Councilmember Lindemans stated the big loser in this issue would be Old Town, if funding is lost, and questioned if this law suit can be won. Councilmember Lindemans suggesting referring this to the City Attorney. Minutes~5\15\90 -$- 05t/9/90 ~--- City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 Councilmember Mufioz asked if the County plan is adopted, can changes still be made. Mr. McElroy stated amendments to the plan can be made. He further stated that the County would not adopt a plan they did not feel was legal, and would not defend a case that could not be won. Councilmember Mufioz asked how much time the City has to decide this issue. Mr. McElroy stated the County is prepared to give Temecula as much time as is needed. Mayor Parks asked if the City agrees to take over the District, would the County still want it's total pass-through. Mr. McElroy stated that the County would insist on the total pass-through, however it could be used in Temecula based on negotiations. Bill Bopf, Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated the Economic Development Committee has recommended that the Chamber Board encourage the City Council to preserve the Redevelopment option. He stated at present the City has a 1987 tax incremental base. If the City were to start over on this issue, it would lose that base. Mr. Bopf stated the position of the Chamber is to provide support, even to the extent of legal support. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to refer this issue to staff for further review. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 5. Regional Park District City Manager Aleshire introduced Paul Riverside Parks Director, to explain District Proposal. Romero, County of the Regional Park Mr. Romero reported that growth is sky-rocketing in this area, with the need for Parks and Recreation not adequately addressed. Mr. Romero reported that in the past funding for parks came from the state. He stated there is a need for a new funding source. The proposed method of funding would be a MinuteskS\IS\90 -9- 05/29/90 City Council Minutes May 15, 1990 $30 assessment per parcel. City participation in the district would obtain provide citizens with free access to any regional facility. One property in question would be the Santa Rosa Plateau. Mr. Romero reported that at a public meeting on March 22, 1990, very strong public support was expressed. Mr. Romero also stated results of a public opinion poll showed 46% of public support the district, 23% are undecided. Mr. Romero said he is trying to gain support from as many cities as possible before the November election. Councilmember Muhoz asked the following questions: me Why should the City want another government agency taxing the people? Why would only $25,000 be returned to this community of a potential $500,000 collected per year. Why would City residents contribute to this program and give 80% to the County? How will this be resolved if the City's voters choose not to participate? Mr. Romero answered as follows: This is not an additional governmental agency, it is a new agency replacing an old one. It would be creating an agency with a set participation level. It is pioneering a change in governmental structure. The $30 assessment is apportioned 25% to the City, 25% for Regional Benefit and 50% for open space conservation and wildlife preserves. With the sky-rocketing price of property, the time is growing short to be able to purchase land for wildlife refuges. If the City does not choose to participate there will be no assessment, but there will also be no regional benefit shared. Councilmember Mu~oz requested that when this agenda item is brought before the City Council again, it should be clear that citizens will be assessed $30 a year. Mayor Parks stated that if the City adopts the suggested Resolution and then votes not to participate in the district, should the measure pass County-wide the assessment will still be levied. Minutes~5\15\90 -10- 05/29190 City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 Mr. Romero stated there will be two issues on the ballot: 1. Are you willing to support the Regional Park District? 2. Are you willing to accept $30 per year assessment? Mayor Parks voiced his support of this issue, stating it has received support from the public, and asked the Council to take a good look at it. Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Mufioz seconded a motion to continue this item to a future meeting and direct staff to solicit public input on the District and on the proposed resolution. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 6. Riverside County Department of Health - Contract for Services City Manager Aleshire introduced Earl Tuntland, Environmental Health Services Division to give a presentation. Mr. Tuntland presented an offer to continue services in the area of environmental health services. These services include land use and water engineering. Mr. Tuntland described contracts with Moreno Valley, Riverside, Lake Elsinore, Palm Springs and Hemet, ranging from subdivision approval to building permits. Mr. Tuntland said The Environmental Health Services Division offers expertise in water supply and sewage, and would be happy to offer services to the City after July 1, 1990. Mayor Parks asked the City Manager if this issue has been addressed. City Manager Aleshire reported that this will be part of the budget process. No formal action was taken on this issue. 7. Tract 23304 - Club Valencia City Manager Aleshire recommended that the City Council direct the City Engineer to conduct a traffic and drainage study of Tract 23304. He reported that at the March 13, 1990 City MinuteskS\l 5\90 -11- 05129190 City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 Council meeting, Mr. William Coghlan of IDM Corporation answeredquestions concerning Tract 23304 and that the Council asked for a traffic study. On April 19, 1990 staff received a letter from IDM's attorney stating that no conditions can be imposed on the final map and that a traffic study is not warranted. IDM Corporation also agreed to voluntarily pay a traffic mitigation fee of $150 per unit. On April 20, 1990 an application was filed with the City Planning Director, requesting an extension of time on the tentative tract map. The tentative map expired on May 10, 1990. The planning staff is recommending denial of the extension for several reasons including inconsistency with the proposed general plan, potential health and safety problems. The City has received the final map which is being prepared to present to the City Council. Staff recommendation is to prepare a traffic study before a final decision is made on this tract. Councilmember Lindemans asked if it is normal procedure to ask Willdan and Associates to do this kind of work or to go out for bids. City Manager Aleshire reported that in cases of a small traffic study, Willdan would normally be used. Mr. Aleshire reported that in the case of final maps, the City has a 60-day time limit. Mayor Parks asked if the City has any recourse should the study show a traffic hazard exists. City Attorney Fields stated that when the study is complete, if it identifies a traffic problem, it can address that situation and the cost of the study can be recovered in mitigation fees. Ronnie Crossland, 30632 Hollyberry Lane, thanked staff for a very comprehensive report. She asked if a study will also address density. Mayor Parks responded that the Council could only address health and safety issues when approving a final map. City Attorney Fields stated, however, that the study would be a traffic and drainage study. Councilmember Mu5oz asked the City address the fact that the density exceeds the guidelines of SWAP. City Attorney Fields reported that unless it is a health or safety problem, nothing can be done. City Manager Aleshire reported that when a traffic study is made, it may identify a correlation between traffic problems Minutza~5\15\90 -12- 05/29/90 City Council Minutes Mav 15. 1990 0 and density. It was moved byCouncilmember Mufioz, seconded byCouncilmember Lindemans to accept staff recommendation and direct the City Engineer to conduct a traffic and drainage study of Tract 23304. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Funding Request for the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation City Manager Aleshire reported this item is a request for funding from the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation for $75,000. He stated it is staff's recommendation to refer this to budget hearings on May 22, 1990. Bill Bopf, Vice President of Chamber of Commerce, congratulated the City Council on hiring David Dixon, as Temecula's City Manager. Mr. Bopf reported the Chamber of Commerce unanimously supports the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation and feels it is vital for the welfare of the community. Mike Perdue, 44028 Highlander Drive, Chairman of the Economic Development Corporation, reported that this Corporation will not operate as a function of the Chamber of Commerce, but as a separate entity called the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation. He asked that this corporation be a private/public partnership with the City, funded by 50/50 matching funds. Mr. Perdue stated that the first year budget is estimated at $150,000. He said the main function of the corporation is to promote economic growth and development within the City of Temecula and surrounding areas and to improve business conditions in such areas to attract mediumto large clean industry employers. Additional businesses will create jobs as well as tax dollars for the City. Mayor Parks asked what happens if the City funds this group for Temecula Valley and Murrieta incorporates, possibly vying for the same businesses? Mr. Perdue answered that the Minutes~5\ 15\90 -13- 0~/29/90 City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 Corporation would not get into a bidding war with a city or organization. The City of Temecula is named because it is an established City. He stated that Murrieta would be encouraged to join and fund to the same extent. Mr. Perdue also observed that whether or not an industry locates within the City boundaries, everyone benefits from a major industry in the region. Councilmember Moore moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to continue this item to the budget hearing on May 22, 1990. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to extend the meeting until 10:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Concept Btriping Plan for Rancho California Road Over 1-15, from Front Btreet to Ynez Road. City Manager Aleshire reported Item No. 9 is a request from Bedford properties to consider a change in the median for Rancho California Road. Mary Jane Jagodzinski, Bedford Properties, spoke regarding the total plan including striping and traffic mitigation measures on Rancho California Road. Ms. Jagodzinski stated that Bedford Properties valued the quality of life, and the entrance statement to Temecula. She introduced Woody Woodard, Infrastructure Consultant for Bedford Properties, to outline plans for Rancho California Road. Mr. Woodard outlined requirements placed on Bedford Properties by the County as follows: Bedford is obligated to widen the north-bound off ramp and the south bound off ramp, also to assure by striping that there are two through-lanes, in each direction and right and left turn lanes. Mr. Woodard said to accomplish this, Bedford Properties had to work with Caltrans using their specific criteria for MinuteskS\ 15\90 - 14- 05/29/90 City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 approval. follows: Mr. Woodward outlined the proposed changes as With the highest priority, signals should be installed, and the off- and on-ramps and the signals at Front Street and Ynez Road would be designed to be in sequence. Removing the existing raised landscape medians on Rancho California Road between Front Street and Ynez Road and restriping the street to provide for two through lanes and longer left-turn pockets at Front Street and the freeway on ramps. Ms. Jagodzinski stated Bedford was very much concerned with the image of this community, outlining new landscaping going around the hotel on the South side of Rancho California Road, and the Tower Office Building on the North side including a pond. She stated that the traffic problems in Temecula are well known throughout the area and could hurt the Economic Development Committee's efforts in attracting new business. Councilmember Birdsall asked the following questions: If the bridge can be re-striped right now, why has it not been done? Why is it necessary to take medians out, instead of taking space from the sides of the road? Why are the circle loops, funded through Mello Roos, not coordinated with this program? Ms. Jagodzinski answered that the widening of the road and the signals are not fees included in the Mello Roos. This is funded by developer fees imposed by the County. Mayor Parks asked if the loop ramps are installed, would the center median still need to be removed. Mr. Woodward stated the median removal would still be necessary to assist the traffic flow, but perhaps the entire length would not need to be removed. Councilmember Lindemans read the required provisions dated June 2, 1988 as follows: Provide for the widening, restriping, reconstruction of Rancho California Road to provide six approach lanes at 1-15 with auxiliary lanes as deemed necessary from Ynez Road to Front Street, carrying four through lanes across 1-15, all as approved by the Road Commissioner and Caltrans. Minut~a~5\l 5\90 -15- 05/29/90 City Council Minutes May 15, 1990 Councilmember Mu5oz asked, with respect to the 1995 criteria, if the proposed Apricot Overpass was considered. He stated the excess traffic that will be accommodated by taking out the medians, could easily be absorbed by the Apricot Overpass. Jim Allman, 43954 Gatewood Way, stated that "trees are forever", expressed his opposition to the current plan. He asked where the alternatives to this plan? He objected to a plan that was missing loops, and all the objectives necessary to meet traffic needs of the future. Diane Jimenez, Box 1816, spoke in opposition to removal of the medians, stating she moved to Temecula to escape the cement jungle of Los Angeles. Ms. Jimenez said she felt there were better ways to solve the traffic problems. Jane Vernon, 30268 Mersey Ct., spoke in opposition to the plan. William Harker, 30031-85 General Kearny Road, spoke in favor of the plan. Mr. Harker asked the community how much they were willing to sacrifice for a few trees, emphasizing the increasing frustrations of sitting in traffic on Rancho California Road. Mr. Harker further stated the sprinklers in the medians often spray cars and the road, causing chuck holes. Mayor Parks stated a letter was received from Susan McPhillops, asking the Council to save the trees on Rancho California Road. City Manager Aleshire stated the staff recommendation is to approve the plan, with mitigation considered to provide trees along the side of the road. He stated the project complies with the requirements that the County has set forth and believes it will substantially improve the traffic condition at that location. Mr. Aleshire stated that there is a need for a more extensive study of traffic conditions on this road. Tim Serlett, City Engineer, stated the developer has been in an extensive review process with Caltrans. Mr. Serlett stated that the County is funding the signals and if optimum traffic improvements are not made, they would possibly reconsider participation in funding the signals. City Manager Aleshire reported that this is a very complicated issue because it involves Caltrans. He stated the developer has received Caltrans approval for the project. If changes are made in the project, it is likely to create a delay of many months. Minut~s~5\15\90 -16- 05/29/90 City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 Councilmember Mu5oz asked if this item is disapproved, will traffic signals not be installed in the current time frame. Mr. Aleshire answered that the current signal project is approved and scheduled to be completed this year, but it is unclear what happens if the widening the restriping plan is not approved. Mr. Woodward stated that the design of the signals cannot proceed until a plan is approved. Councilmember Lindemans asked if Bedford had put the signals on hold, with the presentation of their plan. Mr. Woodward stated that they have never postponed the signal program, they have been working on it continuously. Mary Jane Jagodzinski said that Bedford would never put these signals on hold, that they desire the traffic problems to be solved as much as the Council. She stated that Bedford has had to work with Caltrans and the bureaucracy involved, and a change of plan may delay installation of the signals. Mayor Parks asked if it is possible to show how much of the islands can be retained, and see if this will still withstand the Caltrans test. He said he would like this continued for two weeks and in that period of time, work with staff to look at the loop ramp system to determine how this will affect traffic in the future. Mayor Parks stated that a signal system cannot be designed until you know where every lane is exactly located. Until a plan is approved, Caltrans will not approve the signal. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Muhoz to continue the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Councilmember Muhoz stated it has been established that the 1995 criteria used did not take into consideration an overpass, which will greatly improve traffic problems. He said that the quality of life that the medians provide is something that cannot be replaced. Councilmember Muhoz suggested seeking another answer to solving the traffic congestion at this location. Tim Serlett, City Engineer, stated staff will address an alternative solution with Caltrans other than removing the medians. Minut~s~5',l 5\90 -17- 05/29190 City Council Minutes May 15. 1990 Councilmember Birdsall asked staff to look at the corner of Rancho California Rd. and Front Street, to correct the water run-off pot hole problems. Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Lindemarts seconded a motion to refer this matter to staff for further study. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Aleshire reported that Wednesday, May 16, 1990, is "clean-up day" in Temecula. Beginning at 8:00 AM, illegal signs will be removed. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems, will coordinate the effort. The County Road Department will also be present to help determine the legality of signs. Mr. Aleshire further reported that tonight, May 15, 1990, the County will be sweeping the City streets. Mr. Aleshire said that the median on Rancho California Road at the Target Center has had the weeds removed and will have flowers planted. City Manager Aleshire reported that the KTRM-FM radio tower relocation will be on the agenda soon. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Mufioz requested staff report on the status of a resolution regarding the western ridgeline. Councilmember Moore requested the inclusion of Diaz Road in the sign abatement program. Councilmember Birdsall thanked the public for their help in taking care of 90% of the sign problem, and further thanked the owners of the Target Center for removal of the median weeds. Councilmember Lindemans requested staff look at the sign program for housing developments in effect in the City of Hemet. Minutes~5 \ 15\90 - 1 $- 05/29/90 City Council Minutes May 15, 1990 ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Mufioz moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to adjourn at 10:58 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Next meeting: May 22, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk Minutes~5\15\90 -19- 05/29/90 AB# ~TG DEPT CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF REPORT TITLE: PLOT PLAN NO. 11376 DEPT HD.~ CITY ATTY CITY MGR ~ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council Receive and File Plot Plan No. 11376. C~SE INFORMATION: Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Existing Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Surrounding Land Uses: Background: Plot Plan No. 11376 W. Wayne Collins, A.I.A. W. Wayne Collins, A.I.A. West side of Front Street approximately 2300 feet south of First Street. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, 7992 square foot commercial building with 40 parking spaces provided on the ground level. C/P - General Commercial North: C-P General Commercial. South: C-P - General Commercial. East: C-P - General Commercial. West: R-R - Rural Residential North: Vacant graded lot. South: Existing Commercial Building. East: Existing Commercial Building. West: Creek Channel and Park. Plot Plan No. 11376 and Negative Declaration EA #34109 were tentatively approved by the County of Riverside Planning Director on March 26, 1990. Previously Lot Line Adjustment #2559 had been approved in September of 1987 that determined the parcel's configuration. The project consists of a two-story structure with 40 parking spaces on the first level and 7992 square foot of office on the upper level. The architecture is contemporary and consists of a beige stucco exterior with a red tile roof and recessed window panels. ! ! I I I The project meets the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the architecture is compatible with the surrounding area. FISCAL IMPACT= Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee: Flood Control Mitigation Fee: $1,015.00 $373.00 BUMMARY Staff recommends that the City Council Receive and File Plot Plan No. 11376. : , il Ii jl ! I l! CASE SUMMARY DATE: 03-26-90 CASE NO. PLOT PL~NNO. X1375, J~No. I E.A. No. 34109 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Construction of a 7,992 square foot office building with subterrean parking located west of Front St. and south of First St.. AREA: Rancho California / Temecula SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: #ithin the City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN: Southwest Area Community Plan a. LAND USE: "C" (commercial) b. OPEN SPACE/CONS.: Areas Not Designated as Open Space c. COMMUNITY POLICIES: SWAP Land Use Policies d. ADJACENT: Commercial ZONING: a. SITE: C-1/C-P b. ADJACENT: C-1/C-P LAND USE/AREADEVELOPMENT: a. SITE: Vacant b. ADJACENT: Commercial Office Buildings, Vacant MAJOR ISSUES: Liquefaction, 100 Year Floodplain, Subsidence, Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat REC~NDATION: AD0~TXC~Eof a Negative Declaration for E.A. 34109 and A PP~%OT~L of ~LOT PLaN ~O. XX3T6, AIk~ Mo. X, based on the following: The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinances 348 & 460. 2. The proposal ~a compatible with area development Environmental concerns can be mitigated at the development stage through the conditions of approval. W. Wayne Co111ns 18301 Irvine Blvd. Suite lB Tustin, CA 92680 CX~EDXTXO~8 CXFAPPP~TFAL PLOT PXJ~NO. XX3T$, ~mmndedNo. 1 Project Description: A 7,992 Sq.Ft. Office building with parking. Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-110-027 District/Area: Rancho California / Temecula me e The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 7,992 square foot office building with subrefresh parking. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning PLOT PLaN NO. 11376, A~ended No. 1. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 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 conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Izhibit A, Al~u~ded No. 1, or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the County Road Department's transmittal dated 02-01-90, a oopy of which is attached. ~LOT PLiH NO. 11376, ~ Mo. 1 Cm~litl~ o£ Approval ~age 3 o 10. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated 10-26-89, a copy of which is attached. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated 11-14-89, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Wardan's transmittal dated 10-26-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Sacrich's transmittal dated 12-12-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety - Grading Section's transmittal dated 11-29-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Geologist's transmittal dated 02-26-90, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the CALTRANS transmittal dated 08-03-89, a copy of which is attached. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved Landscape, Irrigation and Shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. Prior to the issuance of building permits, six (6) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall lest all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12. The irrigation plan shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 348, section 18.12 and include a =~ ~-o££ ~JevL~. Xn addition, the plan will incorporate the use of in-line check valves, or sprinkler heads with incorporated check valves to prohibit low head drainage. A minimum of forty (40) parking spaces shall be required in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Forty (40) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the At&roved Exhibit A. ~Z,O~ ~Z,~I~ NO. 11375~ ~ No. 1 .... Co~U.t:i. oz~ of ,!tp~z*ov~l · ~g~ · 19. 20. 21. 22. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of one (1) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a pez~aanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning ." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Riverside County Flood Control Environmental Health Fire Department Building & Safety - Grading Mritten evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. Xf signage is proposed, a separate plot plan accompanied by the appropriate fees as set foz~ch in Ordinance No. 348 shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to sign installation. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial confozlaance with that shown on Exhibit M-1 (Materials Board) and Exhibit M-2 (Color Elevations). These are as follows: Use Material Color Roof U.S. Clay Tile Malls Stucco Trim Tile RED with 15% BUFF Frazee #2227W Cimone J331-945 (Home Depot) ~. P~ ~ NO. 11376, Ammz:d~! No. 1 ~litioz~ of Apprml 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. $0. 31. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Screening A total of one (1) trash enclosure which is adequate to enclose a total of two (2) bins shall be located within the project, and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens the bins from external view. Landscape ~creening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety, a geotechnical report shall be submitted for review and approval. This report shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions incorporating an analysis of potential for subsidence or ground fissuring. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by Hhat ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. A total of four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access Ho the project area. Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. PI,O~ PId~ NO. 113'76, ,]kmsm~l~ ~1o. 1 ComJ.'Lti, ona o£ Appz'ml 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of w. eds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, L~t Line Adjustment No. 2559 shall have been recorded. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to any use allowed by this plot plan, the applicant shall obtain clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordinance No. 348. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. JA:jsa 03-07-90 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR February 1, 1990 P.O, ~:)x 1~ It~/T3t$~)[., c4uTol~J~ 92502 lttverside County Planning Cosmission 4080 Lemon Street R~verside, CA 92501 Ladies and Gentlemen~ ~S (Office Building) Plot Plan 11376 - Amend Team 5 - SMD #9 AP %111-111-111-9 The Road De~nt has reviewed the ~raffic study for this project. The study indicates a projected Level of Service 'C" at Front S~reet and Santiago Road. The Comprehensive General Plan circulation policies relative to Category II Land Uses states= "A minimum of Level of Service 'C' is necessary for any new Category II land use." As such, the proposed project ks consistent with this General Plan policy. The project proponent shall contribute to the traffic signal m/tigation program for the purpose of reduction of the project traffic impact upon ~he areawide circulation system. Payment of fees prior to occupancy shall provide satisfactory mitigation of this Portion of the ~raffic ~mpact. With respect to the referenced item, ~he recomaendations: conditions of approval for the above Road Department has the following Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this perm/t, the applicant shall complete ~he following conditions at no cost to any goverrm~nt agenc~s 0 No additional right of way shall be required on Front S1Lt'eet since adequate right of way exists. Prior to issuance of a building petit or any use alloeed by this per./t, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Deparlment the sum of $1,015.00 towards mitigating ~raffic impacts for signal require- This amount represents 0.58 acres x $1,750.00 per gross acre - $1,015.00 COUNTY ADJ41hlSTRAIl'~ C:DqTT:R * 4080 I.ZNOH STRIZT * R!V!3tStlX, CAi.!FOtNIA 9ZS01 Plot Plan 11376 - Amend February 1, lggo Page 2 Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this pez~t, the appl£cant ahall construct the following at no cost to any government agency ~ 0 Front ~t~eet shall be ~roved with concrete curb and ~utter located 20 feet fro~ centerline and ~a~ch up asphalt concrete paving; reconsf~-uction; or resurfac£ng of existing paving as deterSned by the Road Cce~as£oner within a 30 foot half width dochLcated right of way ~n accordance with County StandArd No. 104, Section A. Asphalt emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days folloving placement of the asphalt su~facing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt osmlsion shall conform to Section 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standazd Specifications. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along Front Street in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). l~prove~nt plans shall be based upon a centerlLne profile extending a minimum of 300 feat beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Cm~nissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for main- tenance by County. Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section 11.1. ® All work done within County right of way shall have an encroachment permit. 10. The single driveway shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards and ahall be shown on the arrest /~p~v~nt plans. 11. The a/ngle entrance driveway ahall be channelised with concrete curb and gutter to prevent "back-on* parking and ~nte~lor drives fz~xn ontering/e~Lting drlvmvays for a m~n~num distance of 35 feet measured from face of curb. 12. The street design and improvesant concept of th~s project shall be coord~a~d with PII 20090. 13. All l~lvate and public entrances and/or intersections opposite t~Ls p~oJect shall be coord~ated with this project and shoen on the street ~mpz~venmnt plans. Plot Plan 11376 - Amend February 1, 1990 Page 3 14. LT~Jw Any la~xlscaptng within public road rights of way shall comply with Road Deparim~n~ standards and require approval by ~he Road Cos~lssloner and &ssurance of con~lnu£ng maintenance though the establlslment of a landscape ~alntenance dimtrlct/main~enance aGz~t~ent or similar mechanism as approved by t~e Road Cosmlssloner. Landscape plans shall be sub~ttted on standard County Plan sheet format (24" x 36'). Landscape plans shall be sub~Ltted with the street Improvement plans and shall deptct glLlX such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are to be placed wl~tn the public road rights-of-way. CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF REPORT DEPT /~-~= TITLE: RECOMMENDATION= PLOT PLAN NO. 11436 DEPT HD.~ CITY ATTY CITY MGR~Z~ Staff recommends that the City Council Receive and File Plot Plan No. 11436. BACKGROUND: Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Existing Zoning: Surrounding Properties: ANALYSIB: Plot Plan No. 11436 Benjamin Ramirez F. Earl Mellott and Associates, 1035 North Armando Street, Suite S, Anaheim, CA 92806 The East side of Mercedes Street just north of Second Street. TO construct a two-store~ 5,000 square foot office building with 25 parking spaces. C-P-S Scenic Highway Commercial. The project site is currently vacant and slopes upward to the edge of the freeway right of way. No site improvements exist on the property. The property to the south is vacant. The property to the North is developed with a commercial structure that is currently vacant. The property to the east is the freeway right of way and the property to the west is developed with an auto repair facility. Plot Plan No. 11436 and Negative Declaration Environmental Assessment No. 34198 were approved by the County of Riverside Planning Director on March 26, 1990. The project consists of a two-story 5,000 square foot office building with 25 parking spaces. According to the code, no yard setbacks are required for a structure under 35 feet in height. This structure is 25 feet in height and maintains a 5-foot setback in the front. The architecture is an adobe style building which is compatible with the surrounding western style of the area. -2- FISCAL IMPACT: Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee: Flood Control Mitigation Fee: $1,250.00 $345.00 SUMMARY Staff recommends that the City Council Receive and File Plot Plan No. 11436. i I( ..~...".,".'.',','.'.',~'-': .'..]z'?~ ......:.'" . ; ':.- ; II '"'" ~"' :"" '"': ii ' '""::"'""'"''ir""'"-',"'"'- !!,~[!!,,tl!:i :;! qa ,,,.+::: ~[I,'-:.-:.' :.- ~ · l" t,t*t.~- "[ lj= ,,;fi ~;:1 :;:[ i, ~[' "i['":*i.'-'. ~i[;[ I[;lj! ;11 :" ,.I,~111,. [] "":. .,..:_'... ,:::,:: [{:~!I l:~!ii t[; ili :,[ lit "~' :~ f. il ' ,::''"" '": ,t, -,!,.~ .:l ';f': '"': : '"':""'" !i '2tI&''',,~ , :~:j ~!i:~ [i['"':'"' ': I!i, lii'~i -[, ,jiji:' ~. f · ~l.~-x',-~:r Am,', ,,SS,l,=l~'r£s __..~l&. 1'..Z~. . B11~N - RAltIIIIBZ ~ ILD(~. I · EXHIB~ NO. ~ C,,a,$E NO. ~: ~ ~' OATE '~'~ 5 GNATURE ~' ',.~___~__' ' CASE SU~3%RY DATE: 03-26-90 CASE NO. Plot Plan No. 11436, Ar!~'~ No. I E.A. No. 34198 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Construction of a two story, 5000 square foot office building on 0.37 acres located north of 2nd St., and northeast of Mercedes St.. AREA: Temecula SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: Within the newly incorporated City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN: Southwest Area Community Plan a. LAND USE: "C" Commercial b. OPEN SPACE/CONS.: Areas Not Designated As Open Space. c. CO~H~UNITY POLICIES: Southwest Area Community Plan d. ADJACENT: Commercial ZONING: a. SITE: C-P-S b. ADJACENT: C-P-S LAND USE/AREA DEVELOPMENT: / a. SITE: Vacant b. ADJACENT: Vacant, existing vacant structure MAJOR ISSUES: Subsidence, Scenic Highway, Wildlife Habitat (SKR). RECO~iENDATION: ADO~TXO~ of a Negative Declaration for E.A. 34198 and ~ of Plot PXu No. 11456, ~ NO. l, based on the following: The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinances 348 & 460. 2. The proposal is compatible with area development Environmental concerns can be mitigated at the development stage through the conditions of approval. Off JI~DVJLT~ Benjamin Ramirez 1913 East 17th Street Santa Aria, CA 92701 PLOT PLAN NO. 11436, ~ No. 1 Project Description: Two story, 5000 square foot office building on 0.37 acres. Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-042-007 District/Area: Temecula The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a two story, 5000 square foot office building and accompanying parking. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning PLOT PL~N~O. 11436, A~amd~d No. 1. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 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 conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked ~it A, ~M~d Mo. 1, or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the County Road Department's transmittal dated 12-14-89, a copy of which is attached. 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. 16. 17. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated 11-06-89, a copy of which is attached. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated 12-20-89, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 11-08-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Departssent of Building and Safety - Land Use Section's transmittal dated 12-22-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety - Grading Section's transmittal dated 10-26-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the CALTRANS transmittal dated 07-13-89, a copy of which is attached. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved Landscape, Irrigation and Shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. The applicant shall incorporate the area between the western property line and Mercedes Street in the landscaping and irrigation plans. Installation and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the owner. Prior to the issuance of building permits, six (6) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12. The irrigation plan shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 348, section 18.12 and include a ~ ~-o~ d~oe. In addition, the plan will incorporate the use of in-line check valves, or sprinkler heads with incorporated check valves to prohibit low head drainage. A minimum of 25 parking spaces shall be required in accordance with Section 18.12, lt~verside County Ordinance No. 348. 25 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking PLOT P/,J~ MO. 11436, ~ Mo. 1 ,a~ 3 area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. '19... A minimum of one (1) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicspped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning ." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 20. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Riverside County Flood Control Environmental Health Fire Department Building & Safety - Grading Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. 21. If signage is proposed, a separate plot plan accompanied by the appropriate fees as set forth in Ordinance No. 348 shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to sign installation. 22. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit M-1 (Materials Board) and Exhibit M-2 (Color Elevations). 23. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. ~' material shall be subject to Planning Depar%ment approval. Screening .... ~I,0'1' ~/,,iKN NO. 11436, ~ NO. · · ~ · 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Prior to the final building inst~ction approval by the Building and Safety Department, a six foot high chain link fence shall be constructed along the eastern property boundry abutting 1-15. The required fence shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety. A total of ~ (1) trash enclosures which is adequate to enclose a total of ~ (1) bin shall be located within the project, and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens the bin from external view. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. Dense screening will be required along the property and 1-15 interface. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety, a geotechnical report shall be submitted for review and approval. This report shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions incorporating an analysis of potential for subsidence or ground fissuring. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordin~nce or resolution. Prior to issu&nce of building permits, performance securities, in &mounts to be dete~ined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of plantings~ walls and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. PLOT i~LAH Me. 11436, Amended #o. 1 C, ot~LLt:.:LoI~ of Appz'ov.ul 32. 33. 34. 35. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease or pests. The irrig&tion system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to any use allowed by this plot plan, the applicant shall obtain clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordinance No. 348. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. JA:jsa 03-21-90 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMI,~IONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR December 14, 1989 P.O BC~ ~14) Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 (Office Building) Plot Plan 11436 - Amend Team § - S~D %9 AP #111-111-111-9 Ladies and Gentlemen: With r~m~ect referenced Item, recommendationsl to the conditions of approval for the above ~he Road DeparUnent has %he following Prior to issuance of a building perm/t or any use allowed by this $~rmit, the applicant shall complete %he following conditions at no cost to any goveznment agency~ No additional right of way shall Street and Second Street since exists. be required on Mercedes adequate right of way Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by ~his permit, ~he developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road ~nt the sum of $1,250.00 towards mitigating ~raffic impacts for signal require- ments. This amount represents .50 acre at $2,500.00 per gross acre - $1,250.00. ® Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by ~his permit, and prior to doing any work within the State highway right of way, clearance and/or an encroachment permit must be obtained by ~he applicant from the District 08 Office of ~he State Depaxl~ent of Transportation in San BL-~mrd~O. Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall construct ~he following at no ~ost to any goYermnent agency ~ Plot Plan 11436 - Anend tl December 14, 1989 Page 2 ® o e 10. 11. 12. 13. l~e~cedes Road shall be /mp~oved with concrete curb and gutter located 20 feet f~om centerl/ne and match up asphalt concz~te paving~ ~econs~ruction~ or resu~facing of existing paving as determined by tl~ Road Coma/sslone~ wlth/n a 30 foot half width dedicated right of way In accordance with County S~anda~ No. 104, Section &. Second Street shall be Improved with concrete curb and gutter located 20 feet fz~m cent~rlln~ and match up &sphalt concz~te paving; z~conatruction; or resu~facing of existing paving as detersctned by the Road Commissioner within a 30 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standaz~! No. 104, 8action A. (Modified knuckle) Asphalt ~uls£on (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days folioring placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gellon per square yard. Asphalt e~ulmion shall conform to Section 3?, 39 and 94 of the State Standa_rd Specifications. I~provement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile ex~ending a minimum of 300 feet beyond ~~les ac a ~a~ ~ alt~n~ as app~ ~ ~he Rlvesl~ C~ty ~ad C~eslo~r. ~letl~ of ~d ~~~nts ~s ~t ~ly ~cept~ce for ~n- t~ce ~ Ha Jot drainage is involved on this p~oJect and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Coo~tssioner. Drainage control shall be u per Ordinance 460, Section 11.1. All work done within County right of way shall have an encroachment permit. All drive~ays shall conform County Standards and shall l~prove~nt plans. to t~e applicable Riverside be show on the atzeet All entrance driveway~ shall be channelized with concrete curb and gutter to prevent "beck-on' parking and interior drives fz~ entering/exiting driveways for a minimum distance of 35 feet m~ fz~m face of curb. · he street design and l~~ent concept of this project shall be coardinated with 866-.QG. Plot Plan 11436 - Amend December 14, 1989 Page 3 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Street l£ghtm shall be installed in accordance with OzdLnance 460 and 461 at all ~ntaraectiona of goads constructed o~ ls~rov~ within the develolment. ~he County Service Area (CSA) ~t nistrator determines whether the develol~sent is within an existing assessrant distr~ct. If not, the land owner shall tile after receiving tentative approval, for an ap911cation with IAFC0 for annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in pursuant to Governmental Code Section 56000 st. ~eq. All private and lmbllc entrances and/or /nter~ectioas opposite this project sha/1 be coordinated with this p~oJect and sho~n on tha street l~pz~vm~nt plans. The applicant shall co~ply with the Ca/trans r~comaend- ations u outlined in their letter dated Aug. 31, 1989. Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall cosq~ly with Road Department standards and requLre approval by the Road Commissioner and usugance of continuing ~aintenance through the establish~ent of a landscape maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar mechanism as aleroved by the Road Co~aissioner. I~ndscape plans shall be sub~/tted on standard County Plan sh-~ot format (24' x 36'). Landscape plans shall be suh~/tted with the street imp&ova -nt plans and shall depict 92L~/ such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are to be placed within the public road rights-of-way. Should this project lie within any usessment/benefit district, the applicant shall prior to recordation make application for and pay for their reapportion~ent of the assessments or pay the unit fees in the hensfit district unless said fees are deferred to building permit. L J= ~w truly you~, Eng. Unit Supervisor CITY OF TEHECUL~ ~U~DELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC The Mayor states "This is the time for the Public Hearing on Agenda Item # (Describe generally from agenda)· The Mayor also explains the time limits on testimony. The Mayor opens the Public Hearing by calling on the City Manager for the Staff Report. (The City Manager will then call on the appropriate staff member to give the report.) Council Members may ask clarifying questions of staff. The Mayor calls on: A. The Applicant and Asks Them to State Their Name and Address for the Record. (Time Limit - 15 Minutes) B. Others in Favor of the Matter and Asks Them to State Their Name and Address for the Record. (Time limit for individuals is three minutes.) C. Those in Opposition to the Matter or Concerned about the Application/Project/Matter and Asks Them to State Their Name and Address for the Record. (Groups are limited to 20 Minutes; individuals are limited to three minutes.) D. The Applicant for Rebuttal (Time Limit - 10 Minutes) E. Following each presentation, the Council may question the speakers. The Mayor states: "The issue is now before the City Council for discussion." e The Mayor calls upon individual Council Members who request recognition to speak. Following discussion, the Mayor or any Member of the Council will make a motion to: A. Continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow for further discussion or study; or B. Close the Public Hearing and: [Do one of the following] 1. Approve the application/project/matter as sub- mitted. 2. Conditionally approve the application/project/ matter with certain revisions. 3. Deny the application/project/matter. 4. Deny the application/project/matter without pre- judice (this action will allow applicant to refile without waiting a specified time period and without repaying of the required fees) The Council votes on the motion. The Mayor then opens the next public hearing. These guidelines apply equally to all other City Commissions. MAY--$ 1 -- 90 THU t O = :36 P . O2 MASSARO A WEI,S!i I~I(:H^RD O. M^,%'~^r'[O. CIVIl_ ENGINEERS * PI.ANNERS · [.AND SURVEYORS C~ty of Temecula Plsnning Department 4~17~ Business Perk Drive Temecula, California 923~O Mr. Mark Rhoades, Planner Re: Parcel Map H0. 24038 Location; Moreno Rd. in the City of Tam·cuba. CA Dear Mr. ~hoades. It is ~y request that Parcel Map No. 2403~ be continued off calendar to consider the parcel map in conjunction with a development plan when one is submitted for consideration to the City. Vary truly youra, ~ichard Maeearo, Pro,cot ~n$~uoer cc~ Dale Xerlim John Beene, ~otel g 15;'2 North ~,¥at('rm0n Avr'nu~', Suit(' 5 · 5~'~n B('rlJrtrdino, C, alif¢~rntn 9-'~404 · (714) 883-9.~?-,n; CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: #s MTG: 6/5/90 DEPT c. D. TITLE: RepoFt on BillboaFd Hor&torium DEPT HD'~ CITY ATTY CITY HGR ~ RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct Public Hearing 2. Adopt Ordinance No. 90- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TF~ECUL~, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 90-08 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(b) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance placing a moratorium on the construction of billboards at a regularly scheduled meeting on April 24, 1990. At the time the urgency ordinance was adopted the Council felt that additional time was necessary to establish local goals and objectives as they relate to the visual and aesthetic values of the community. The original urgency ordinance was valid for a period of 45 days. Government Code Section 65858 allows a second extension of a moratorium effectively prohibiting billboards for an additional 10 months and 15 days. DISCUSSION= The Council has stated they wanted their Planning commission to review all of the sign standards contained in Ordinance 348 and specifically address and make recommendations for the creation of new standards. The first Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for June 4, 1990. At that time or shortly thereafter, the Commission will begin studying the sign regulations. Ordinance 348 requires that before the City Council can extend the moratorium on the construction of Outdoor Advertising Displays (billboards), a mitigation report must be submitted outlining what actions have been taken to address the Council's original concerns. FISCAL IMPACT= Not determined. ..... RG:jsg Notice of Public Hearing, THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Consideration of an extension of Ordinance 90-08, establishing a moratorium on Billboards Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or 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(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714) 694-1989. The time, place and date of the hearing(s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Rancho California Water District Community Room 28061 Diaz Road Temecula Tuesday. lune 5, 1990 7:00 PM ORDINANCE NO 90- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO 90-08 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS PURSUANT TO TIlE PROVISIONS OF CALWORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(b) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF WHEREAS, On December 1, 1989, the City of Temecula was established as a duly organized Municipal Corporation of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 57376, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted its Ordinance No. 89-01, thereby adopting, by reference, for 120 days the Riverside County Code as the Ordinances of the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 348 of the Riverside County Code, which contains the Land Use Regulations of the County of Riverside, and which Regulations are currently applicable to the establishment of all uses and development applications (including the allowance of signage) within the City of Temecula. WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-04, the City readopted Ordinance No. 348 of the County of Riverside as the Land Use Regulations for the City of Temecula; WHEREAS, As part of its review of new and potential development within the City of Temecula, the City Council examined the Southwest Area Community Plan (S.W.A.P.) portion of Riverside County General Plan as it has pertained to development in the City of Temecula. Such examination revealed that said S.W.A.P. may not provide an appropriate development scheme for the City of Temecula, and consequently, the City Council adopted the S.W.A.P. as planning guidelines until the City could adopt its own General Plan. All action on development applications since incorporation, as to required consistency with the adopted General Plan, has taken place pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360. WHEREAS, In recognition of the need for effective long range planning criteria, the City Council commenced within the time limits prescribed for adoption of General Plan, the study and formulation of a General Plan for the City of Temecula. A material pan of said General Plan Study will be the review and development of effective criteria to regulate all forms of signage within the City of Temecula. WHEREAS, Ordinance 348 of the Riverside County Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Use Code") currently provides for the approval and establishment of "Outdoor Advertising Displays" within the City of Temecula. The Land Use Code defines an "Outdoor Advertising Display" as "The advertising structure and signs used for outdoor advertising purposes, not including on-site advertising signs as hereinafter defined", Ordinance 01 1 05/31/90 WHEREAS, In the near future there could be certain applications for such Outdoor Advertising Displays, the approval of which would not conform to the contemplated General Plan scheme of development in the City of Temecula and would contradict the specific purposes for the adoption of a unified General Plan. Moreover, pending completion of the General Plan, it is foreseeable that further outdoor advertising display proposals will be submitted for property within the City which would contradict the ultimate goals and policies of the proposed General Plan; WIIEREAS, This Council is concerned about the maintenance of the visual aesthetic quality of the City of Temecula, and with the creation of an orderly and balanced development scheme within the City of Temecula. Accordingly, to protect the integrity of the ultimate General Plan and to assure the continued development stability of property within the City of Temecula, this Council finds that it is necessary to establish interim zoning policies concerning such signage to allow staff the time necessary to investigate and formulate the ultimate plan of development for the City of Temecula as encompassed within the terms and provisions of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth above are true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council further finds as follows: The City of Temecula is presently developing a General Plan for development of the City of Temecula. The ultimate goal of the General Plan is to provide a balanced and unified plan of development within the City of Temecula and will ultimately upgrade the economic, social and cultural welfare of persons and properties within the City of Temecula. A material portion of the General Plan study will be the formulation and establishment of regulations for signage, including primary signs, in the City of Temecula. (b) There is the potential for certain applications for the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays, the approval of which would contradict the ultimate goals and objectives of the General Plan. Moreover, pending completion of the General Plan it is foreseeable that further such applications will be received which may further Ordinance O1 2 05/31/90 contradict such goals and objectives of the General Plan; and, Pending approval of the General Plan, and associated I. and Use Code Regulations concerning signage, the approval of any further sign location plans, plot plans, or other discretionary entitlement for Outdoor Advertising Displays, would result in immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare of persons and properties within the City of Temecula. SECTION 3. The following interim zoning regulations are hereby adopted. Pending the completion and adoption of the General Plan of the City of Temecula together with associated signage regulation for the Land Use Code for the City of Temecula, the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays is hereby prohibited and no application for sign location plan, plot plan or other applicable discretionary entitlement for a Outdoor Advertising Display shall be accepted, acted upon, or approved. The provisions of subparagraph 3 (a), shall not apply to any application for: Onsite Advertising Structures and Signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.5) (ii) Subdivision Signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.6) (c) Other than as expressly provided in this Ordinance, all other applications for signage shall be processed and acted upon pursuant to the normal and customary provisions of the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Temecula. SECTION 4. This Ordinance is enacted under the authority of California Government Code Section 65858(b) and shall be of no further force and effect ten months and fifteen days from the date of adoption of this Ordinance unless the City Council has extended this Ordinance in the manner as provided in said Section 65858(b). SECTION 5. This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure pursuant to the terms of California Government Code Sections 65858 and 36937Co), and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Ordinance 01 3 05/31/90 SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) public places. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 5th day of June, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] Onfinancc 01 4 05/31/90 CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF REPORT AB# MTG DEPT ~ TITLE: CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5446 DEPT HD ~ CITY ATTY CITY MGR ~ RECON~ENDAT ION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33728; and APPROVE Change of Zone Application No. 5446; based on the findings and analysis contained in the County Staff Report. CASE INFORMATION: Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: MDC - CALIFORNIA Markham and Associates West side of Ynez Road, north of Winchester Road. Change existing I-P (Industrial Park) Zone to CPS (Scenic Highway Commercial) Zone on a 6.51 acre site. I/P- Industrial Park. CPS - Scenic Highway Commercial. North: I-P Industrial Park. South: MSC - Manufacturing - Service Commercial. East: MSC - Manufacturing - Service Commercial. West: MSC - Manufacturing - Service Commercial. ANALYSIS: Background: This Change of Zone application was originally submitted for the County of Riverside's consideration on March 31, 1989. It was considered by the Riverside County Planning Commission on August 2, 1989 and September 20, 1989 and ultimately recommended for approval by the Commission on November 29, 1989. The application was forwarded to the City of Temecula on April 3, 1990. Summary of County Analysis: The County Staff and Planning Commission originally were most concerned about inconsistency with the Southwest Area Community Plan. That issue was resolved at the November 29, 1989 meeting. Other issues, including area development, surrounding and adjacent zoning, future impacts, and the environmental constraints of the area were evaluated. Findings were made in the positive and the application was recommended for approval. COHPLI~,NCE WITH CURRENT CITY POLICIES~ Southwest Area Community Plan The City Council has adopted the SWACP as a policy guide until an Interim General Plan or new General Plan is adopted. The SWACP designates the subject site as Commercial, which is consistent with the requested Change of Zone. Change of Zone Policy The City Council recently decided that plot plans would be required of new Change of Zone applications on a temporary basis. Staff's understanding is that this would generally be required of new submittals, but not necessarily required of those applications previously considered by the County. The City Council maintains the authority to consider zone change proposals as desired. Customary legal time limitations do not apply with Change of Zone Applications. SUMMARY The County of Riverside staff report, findings, meeting minutes and exhibits are attached for review. The ultimate use of the site as an industrial or commercial development appears highly likely. Whether the City prefers it in either capacity is a policy decision with a similar level of impacts and required improvements. Staff is recommending that the City Council ADOPT the Negative Declaration for the application and APPROVE Change of Zone No. 5446 as recommended by County Staff. First and second readings of the Change of Zone Ordinance will occur in subsequent meetings of the Council if the application is approved. Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC BEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Change of Zone No. 5446 Applicant: MDC - California Location: West side of Ynez Road at the terminus of County Center Road Proposal: Change existing IP zone on 6.51 acre site to CPS Environmental Action: Negative Declaration Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or 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 heating(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714) 694-1989. The time, place and date of the hearing(s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Rancho California Water District Community Room 28061 Diaz Road Temecula Tuesday. June 5. 1990 7:00 PM ~ L~IID ~ ~ M:OE.~eOR$ fd~lX CLODS) ell, I -1 5 App. llIC-CaLIFIlIIA ~ e, Ibo I'"P 10 L"'-P-S f I -1 $ ~. I"I)C-CAL lFOIN I A I}.e I-P TO C"P'S 41.,,am I"I.NIIIETA 4MI[& $e~. Doer.let. $0c' IYER$1DF.. CDU~T¥ PL^N~INC DEPA~E~','T imp .v o~ C .L.! // 1141 A 'il C D // I / I / I I I I % I SUBMI'R'AL TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: The Planning Department SUBMI'R'AL DATE: SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5446 - MDC REQUEST: I-P to C-P-S - CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Commission and Staff Recommend AnC~PTI~N of a Negative Declaration for E.A. Number 33728 based on the findings incorporatedin the environmental assessment and the conclusion that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. APPROVAl of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5446 from I-P to C-P-S in accordance with Exhibit 2, based upon the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated November 29, 1989. J(~ph A~/Richards, Planning Director PROJECT LOCATION: Western side of Ynez Road, north of Winchester Road, adjacent tg Interstate 15. BACKGROUND: Change of Zone No. 5446 is an application to change the zoning on a 6.5 acre site from I-P to C- P-S. The site is the northern portion only of a parcel which totals 13.85 acres. ItlVE~SIK COUtrrv PLMNING OOI~ISSION KilttriES IIOVENKR Zg, 1989 OF I~KIPONEHT: Izzf (M~khim & Assoc., 4X?S0 lttnchester Rold, TIBeCUl&) Concurred lfith rKmmmnditlo, If apl~oval. NO one else viahad to camant. · is closad it 0:26 I.u. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS: CamriSe If Zone.No. SSIS ts in Ip_plt.citton to change the zone me 31 acres frml R-A-S to R-3, surrounding zonl~ lS RoA-S, It-3, C-P-S C-I/C-P; the prope~y tn ~tstton ts curren.tl~ vacant; uses tnclude ham corrals, am11 colaerClal Ilses, matered es Land Use Planntng A~I; land u.se pal.totes .ull for .future .thin d~valopment occur adjacent to the Pure1 center; TM I~OjeCt 1s also wtthtn the Te~ttorles Cmmuntty Plan ~tch designates the to Spectftc Plan No. .hfch calls for mlt(-fmntly denstry If 20 dye1 ts per acre, and close to approved Plot Plan No. 10284, ~tc~ ts in sentor. ctttzen aper.tmnt canplax it a 'denst~y of 13.S dwlllng untts ;and, envtromental concerns tnclude floodplains, peleontolfitcal resources d' too~ $. ChinBe If ZoN No. SS2S ts consistent vtth the C(mprehenstve hner.I1 lan arid the approved Southvest Area CamlJri~t.y Plan; 1s tempetibia vtth area lopmerit; and, tim envtromentll concerns vtll kava to be litigated it tht ttm developant. MOTION: Upon morton by Conantsstonet and uMntmusly cirrtad, Declaration for EA 34017 ~ Cmmtsst, appr.oval per. E~htbtt 2, based on the above seconded by Comntsstoner. kadltng, rectumrended adoptton of the Negittve of Zone SSSS from R-A-Sto R-3 s Ind conclusions. AYES: ComtsstoMrs Turner, lioNhoe, I, Idolf end Smtth GE OF ~ 6446 - EA ~37Z8 --NX:-Ciltfomta - Ilurrletl Area - First ~ll.~ltordsorlal tittrier - 6.k ic~et, earth of ¥taclmster lid, trust wf hez ad - C-P-S. etc. (Cent. ~ 9AK)/I~) (DICJ 3 STAFF ~~ND&TXON: Adoptton of the Nqittve Doclaritton for f,A 33728 and #p~oval of Change of Zone aM6 bised on ~he flndtMs BM conclusions Itstad be II~ff Npo~t. St4f¢ roytied that ~hts tt4n ms continued ~o allaM ttm for the Southwest Area Pl&n to k approved, end ntd that the_P1a~. /M team of kpt~vtso~s ~ts~e~dly. The SourMast Area floe subject stUu cemerctel end the proposed zontq ts conslst4nt dean Keller (IMr~hin end Assoc., 4~7S0 ¥tnchester Raid, Teucula) brought on ecet~ showtee be S~AP destgMttoM for that iTM. SM Utd th_~t she us tn co~cu~ence utah the ~ecomneWtto~s of PlaMtng I~ff. io aM else ~shed to Gallant. The h#~tng ms closed it 9:33 i.e. FINDINGS M~ CONCLUSIONS: Chon0e of Zone S,6 ts a pr~osll ~ Winge ~e ~t~ ~ a 13.85 ic~ ~el; ~ ~.~ ts ~ntl~ :o~ Z~ aM ts ·eunt; ~nd*~ zont~ ticlugs I~. C-Pea. HoSC e~ sm R-R; ~ 11es ~,n be Sourest Te~t~r~ ~ Use Plenntng Am; ~ ~o]e~ stte ts htqo~ II cmrctal; end. [nvt~ntal ~sessmnt ~. 33728 ms ~ne for this ~oJeR aM ~. nvl~n~ ts~es ~dress~ ~tn ~11 k ~ttgated. ~n~ ~ Z~ ~6 Is ~nsts~nt ~ ~ ~~st A~a ~,tV Plant ts ~tlble ~ i~l Mvelo~nt& led, onvt~ntll ~ce~s Mn M ~tt~ted slgntftMnt ~fect ~ ~ envt~nt. NOTION: Upon morton by Cemmtasloner Tu~Mr. secoruled by ComulsstoMr DoMhoe end uMntmously ca~ed. tAe C(mntaston recoanended adoptton of be Negettwe Declaration for [A 33728 imf approval of CMnge of Zm, aM6 fl*em I-P to C-~-S tn ecco~dince utah [~htbtt ! end blsed on tM above mimed ftndtnge and AYtS: Conntssloners Turner. DoMhoe. BMdllng. Ik)lf IM kltth SEPTINBER 20, 1989 KIYERSID[ COUNTY PLANNING COWItZSS~ON ~NUTES land; ~tte ts zoned R-R; $urr~ndtng zontng tnclude$ R-R, R-Z, C-P-S and C-1 stte 11es vlth the urMntzt~ co~t~r ~fe~nced tn t~ land use' ~1tctes ~ut~st Te~J~ Land Use Planntng~a; t~ a~a ts Z~ ~t~ and ~ ~ect ts co.latent ~th thts Categ~ mats ~or~ IX ~t~nttal land use c~te~l; ~he r~e st~'s ~ntatt .red land use ~st~atton on ~ ~t~t A~a. ~nt~ Plan ts ~/ac~; and, t~ tntttal s~ ~r ~s~mnt ~. .~cated ~ fo11~ conce~ Y~lt h~a~, s~btlt~, ~ologlcal a~haeologtcll ~sou~es. T~ ~oposed ~3ect ts ~tstent th ~ ~d ~ut~st Te~~ ~nd Use Poltctes and Ca~o~ II crt~rla, ~ ~th t~ Generl~ Plan; ts ~pa~tble ~ ~ 1~al ~t~ o~ iv ~veto~ent~ and, ~ en~menta~ ~ncer~ can ~ mitigated ~ a level of silicate, t~fo~, t~ ~posal ~11 not ~u a st~tftcanL effect on ~TI~: ~n rotton b~ ~t sKon~d b~ ~tsstoner hr~ance, and unantmousl~ cartted, ',~tsston rK~en~d ~ the Board adoptton ~ ~e aegatt~ Declaration k 33429, approvet of ~ange of Zone S360 f~ R-R to R-Z tn accordrice ~th btt 2, and ~prova~ o~ Tentatt~ Tract No. 22656, bengal No. 2, ~bJect to con~ttons of ~proval as ~en~d thts ~e and ~sed u~n t~ a~ ftn~ngs and conclusions. ~LL ~L ~TE ~LT~ ~ ~~: AYES: ~1sstone~ Tu~er, ~nahoe, ~adltng, once and NOES: None ABSENT: None (AGENDA IT~ 2-5 - Tape ZB) . . CHANGE OF ~I:)NE 6446 - EA 33728 - IK)C California - 14u~rteta Area -Ftrst Supervisortel Dtstrtct- 6.5, acres, noah of ¥tnchester Rd, vest of Ynez Rd -' I-P to Cop-s, etc. (Cont. frm 8/2/80) BoaHag ms opened it :~0:39 &.n. and ues continued to g:30 aJ. on govmd~r 29, Tbts 1tan was cunttnued t~m the August Snd beartag tn order to a110~ time for P- ~011t an ~he Slt~ la3aCanT, To Tnei& ~ nor~n esC- S ng a~)Sd. Staff had originally I~OpeSed approval of this project, as a camaro_to ase en the stte uould be crapetibia ~th an.tat.trig ,la.n.d uses In. gould be consistent ~tth the current kneral fain. novever, i~proved Southuest Area Plan destgnatos the stte es Light Zndu. s_trlal, T~ cur?ant l-P zontng of the stte ts cunslstent vlth the I~OpeSeO southeast Area · ele~.~.~t~.or., u~11e the 1~op~sed ¢-P-S zo~.~ng u~u~ be tnco~s~,se.e~,~. ~.h t.~ ...... ItIVERS~DE COUNTY PLANNING COI414ISSION #ZNUTES $EPTE)4BER 20, 1989 designation. Staff continued to recommend approval of the proposed change of zone based on the ftndtn~s and conclusions 11seed tn the staff report. TESTZlIDNY OF PROPONENT: ~Tlan Keller (#&rkhan and Assoc.. 41750 Oaflarson Road, Teaecula) satd that the last ttme she ~s before the C...tsston she gave a lengthy .xplanaUon:as to t~y she felt that tht s zone change .as ~pp~oprtate. She mated to ..p~astze that Planning staff, vhose profession It ts to datarathe the appropriateness of & pre~ect, has determined and recemaended that this pro~Ject ~s compatible 1Math &res development and consistent Mth the current General Plan. The staff requtred to make coaststoney ftndings based on the extst4ng General Plan. She asked tf Planntng staff ts requtred to make such findings, then ts not the Planning Commission also requt~ed to do the sane. As for the tentatively t~reved Soutl~est Area Plan, that plan ts currently tn the heartag I~OCeSS and cleslgnatton may change. Cennlsstoner Turner asked staff tf anythtng has changed. 14s, ~ohnson $atd that tn constricting the current General Plan, staff felt that the request for con~erctal was appropriate, but conceded that the proposal ~ls Inconsistent vlth Sk~AP. Cena~tsstoner Turner said that he dtd not have & problm Mth the proposed use. Zf the applicant was vtlllng to take s chance on the $VAP and consistency zontng, then he vould not have a problem vlth the applicant's proposed zone change. #r. Vtckers adv4sed that thts !s a legislative action only, and the Cmmtsston does ~ot have to move' thts ttm on at thts time. One of the problms ts that the case ts proceeding before the S~AP ts finalized. Xt lay be that C-P-S now, then haytag to come back later and fezone the property to X-P, vmuld subject the County TO some 11abilities based on downzoning. if they placed the case on hold, pending the STRAP betng approved, and tf the applicant uere Successful tn haYtag the Sourthrust Area Plan changed, then the Ccmntsston ~ould be clear tn their recmenendatton. He did not see uhere apprOVal to C-P-$ at thts point ess gotng to help the County. Commissioner Purrlance satd that he suspected from prevtous testimony that the applicant nould prefer a continuance to · denial. Rs. taller satd that she multi prefer a contfnuance. She asked County Counsel unit the basis for dental of the proposed change of ~one gould be, stnce the proposal ts coapittble vlth area develolment and ts consistent vtth the current General Plan. Nr. Vtckers advtsed that. as a legislative actton, the Caeeta$ton could ricanBend dental of a none change vimthat or not Jt ts nststent. The CaBal. as. Ion Is~ it tMs potnt, coast. dart_nO sanething that.may or ~ n?t be .consistent. lie satd that the Boars uould be unhappy to have the Caamss~on act on sanething that uould appear,to Predatesthe'U hat the Board vents to 4b Mth SIdAP. He uould be reluctant TO beys saNthtng go 4~o..~va~ u~ch say tte the 6oa.~d's kinds on SkfAP. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COIOUS$ION 14ZNUTES SEPTE]qBER 20, 1989 IOTIMI: Upon soUon by Caratsstoner Turner, seconded by Cm~tsstoner Purvtence, and unanimously cartted, the Caratssion continued Change of Zone No. 5446 to Novmbe~' Z9, 1989 at g:30 a.m. ZTEX 2-5 - Ta~ lB) OF ZO#E S409 - £A 33609 - Tcmlslav, G&brtc & Associates - Sedco/Vtldomar Area rst Supervisortel Otstrlct - 2.94~ Kres, northwest corner of Palenat St and neon blth IM - R-R to C-1/¢-P, e~. (Cone. finn 8/16/89 be ieUverttsed) Rovmber ..ned at 10:50 a~. and ds continued to 9:30 a.m. on 9. STAFF i: tierile1 of Change the staff .report. acres, locged at the Road, from R-R to C-1 log house currently Adoptton of the Negattve Declaration for EA 33609 and 5409 hsed. on the ftndtngs Ind conclusions 11sted tn I~Oposal ts an epp31catton to change the zone on 2.94 corner of Palomar Street and C11nton ICetth Surrounding Zonlng ts R-R and C-1/C-P. A too:st. ory the project stte. Surrounding land uses tnclude stngle flatly residences ehomes (some vlth horses) and vacant parcels. The pro,act ts located te Southwest Area Camuntty Plan and the~e ts no $pectftc policy for thts area. sane constraints to g~ovth tnclude lncreued burdens on publtc :1es and services, and envtromenta~ constraints. Staff datemined area _ts Category Ill, due to the rural character of the area and the extsl large ]or stzes. The proposed change of zone ts, therefore, Inconsistent wt 6erietel Plan Land Use designation and ts tnccmpittble Mth exlsttng land uses. The SI~AP p~an deslgnges the stte as Pestdenttal, 2-4 DU/acre, and therefore proposed zone change ts also tKonststint wtth the proposed S~JAP plan. In ensver to Canmtsstoner Purv~ance, stiff posttton to thts proposal wro attached to · ~ohnson idylsad that the letters tn question the folioring change of zone (C;Z 5409 ind CZ 5411). to the ImCket for Change of Zone 5411. ~d that the bo letters tn staff report tn error. tn opposition to thts and the letters are attached Pie 011ve~(Tautslev, GabfiG & Assoc., 8:7gZg Front St., that. the people vim sutnltted the tuo letters In opposition of thts IrOposal. She $etd that she had the orlgtnal letters did lot ken coptes. Stiff tdvtsid thit they had not )It race1 California) sald no~ tn support but bid satd be &pp~oved. She set~ th&t thts you, d be a lo91ca~ e~tensto' htters, end Its. 01fNr give the letters to staff. She set d that &_lread~ stated Mty ~ feet that the careereta1 ms appropriate. that en the September Sth keartng of the SidAP plan, tlKy asked that prepe~ty be designated for camerctal zontng, end felt confident that request M11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMIdISSI~ MINUTES August 2, 1989 closed at 11:30 a.m. the Flood ~shuba advtsed the Con~tsston regarding the dratnage dttch that wt~ be tn of the lot wlth the offset betng near the property 1the. fie satd the wt~] leave thts situation up to the applicant. Iqr. the lot. &d no I~Ob]em wtth the dratnage dttch betrig located tn the back of FI#DINGS AND JSI~S: Tentative Tract No. 13165 ts a p~oposal to subdivide &ftve acre ~to stx 0.69 acre lots, tn the Padlay area; the p~operty ts zoned 000 vacant; su~oundtng zontng tncludes R-A-20,000, A-lb ~nd A-1-4; the 1es vrithtn the Jurupa Cmmuntty Plan; the land use designation ts Rural Re~ entta~ 3A, 0.4 - 2 du/acre (2~ - ~ acre ~ots) and ts trl~htn the Jurupa Protec~ Sphere; adjacent lots stzes are ½ to 1~ acre and Environmental No. 33525 was done for thts p~oJect and the · nvtronmental tssues addres :he~tn wtll be mitigated. Tentative Tract No. 13165 ts consistent wtth the )a Comuntty Plan and Equestrian Sphere policies; tentative Tract No. ts compatible wtth a~ea development and environmental concerns can be mttt ed through the conditions of approval. gOTION: Upon motton by Chat~n unanimously carrted, the CO~ts$ton Declaration for EA 33523 and approva~ of based on the ftndtngs and conclusions tn of the Flood Control. ecoadad by Cemmlssloner Purvtance and .nded adoptton of the Negattve ~attve Tract No. 13165 , Amd. ~! and subject to the ~evtston ROLL CALL RESULTED AS FOLLD/S: AYES: Commissioner Turner, Donahoe, Beadling, ,ca, $=tth NOES: None ABSEKT: None (AGOIDA ITEH 2-5 - Tape 2A) CHANGE OF ZONE 5446 -EA 33728 - goC - Coltrolla - fiu~rleta Area -Ftrst S~pervtsortal Otstrtct - 6.5~ acres, north of Ntnchester Rd, ~est of Ynez lid - I-P to C-P-S, etc. lleartng opened at 11:31 a.m. and ~as continued to 9:30 a.m. on September 20, 1989. STAFF I~~TIOII: Adoptton of the Negative t)eclaratton for Envtromnental Assessment No. 33728based on the conclusion tMt the pre3ectwt11 ~ot have a ~tgntflcaat ~'fecton the environment &rid approval of Change of Zone M46 from I-P to C-P-S based on the prevtous ftndtngs and conclusions. The applicant ls p~Dpostng to chan~e the zontng on 6.6 acres from I-P to C-P-S. The proposed :Fro3ect ts ]~'.~:e~ ~r~ ,of kinc~e~ ~, e~ cf 1-15 ~d ~: of Inc: Ro~d RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING ¢OH~4ISSIOH MINUTES August 2, 1989 tn the Fturrteta area. Currently the Stte ts zoned Z-P, surrounding zoning tncludes Z-P, C-P-S, I~SC and some R-R. The subject site consist of a portion of a 13.85 acres porcel that ts currently vacant. The land uses in the area tnclude vacant parcels, offtce buildings &rid comerctal. The project 11es withtn the Southwest Territory L~nd Use Planntng Area which indicates that there is en urbentztng corrtdor ·long the Z-15 freway. Staff advised that the land use designation on the stte ts C~tegory Z]. The project ts also located within the proposed Southmst Area ;ommntty Plan which was tentatively approved by the Planntng ¢omtsston on ,luly 12, 1989. The proposed land use designation ts L-%-Ltght Industrial. #htle the proposed ch. ange .of .zone is. Jnconststent vdth the tentatively approved SWAP, staff ftnas that the project is consistent with the current Southrest Territory Land Use Planning Area and therefore consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the project is ccxnpmttble with the extsttng land uses. An initial study for EA 33728 was completed and the concerns addressed will be wittgated at the time of development. Commissioner Purvtance expressed concern with the proposed project not being consistent vrith the SWAP that is betng proposed, but it is consistent with the existing General Klan and staff is recommending approval; he did not agree with this logic. Co,,,tsstoner Donmhoe stressed this may be the opinion of one of the Supervisors but not all, it ts her understanding that those cases that are in conflict with the existing General Plan should not be sent up to the Board. C~mmisstoner Purvtance replied the case in question is consistent with the existing General Plan but it All be inconsistent with the SWAP tf it is adopted by the Board. TESTZHONY OF PROPONENT dean Keller (~rkhmm & Associates), 27715 ~efferson Avenue, Suite 201, Tenmcula representing the applicant concurred ~th staff's recommendations. go~tsstoner bonahoe inquired where is this project in relation to the home Improveant project that ms wtthdrm~m. Ms. Keller said the home Improveant project is to the north and the reasoning behind the withdrawal of this project resulted because of the type of use proposed in this area (commercial}. Because of the comnerctal use on the home t~rovement project, it was determined by the Planning Director that this type of use on this project ~ould be inappropriate for this piece of land. Tigre l~s ~o one present in fevor or in opposition to this project. Mr. Vtckers advised this gmse is consistent with the SWAP plan, it can be sent foryard. Cmmntsstoner Smtth stated they hive heard from two Supervisors tn the area and they hive both given their opinion of what they would 1tie to see done and whether or not there is · Board opinion, he did not know. Commntsstoner Turner sItd be did not hive any problems with the pro;}ect. Mr. klys advised that the Board of Supervisors 1i aware of the conflicts and the~fo~e s~thtng amy be forth coming to resolve these problem. ~c~.~i$~ione, Do.~hoe seid she ~Id ~ r~luct~t t~ ~:,~,'"~¥~ So.~hf~; thP_t is 11 ~VERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COI~ISSION MINUTES August 2. 1989 Ns. Keller $atd tt ms her understanding tf the case ts consistent ~tth ~hat extst no~, then that ts ~hat tt should be Judged on because there ts no u~y of lmc~tng ~hat the future wuld be on the S~AP. She personally felt since thts rise ts consistent vtth the adopted 6eneral Plan is It ts no~, thts case should be considered tn thts linttar. C~mtsstoner Purrlance asked ~hat Is the t~rry for this area to be zoned ¢~merctal stnce there are & lot of c~merctal kroJects Prtsently tn thts Irea. Rs. Keller replted thts case ms submitted on rch 31 Ind It his gone for several ~onths and the c11ent muld like to Ikvelop the property. #r. Vlck~rs advised tf this p~oJect ls dented today, tt vd11 he filed vtth the Board and tt vt11 prebably ~ ml)Pealed by the oppltcant. He stated he spoke ldth the Planntng Dtrector find out tf there yes some vmy to expedite the SIMP coming back to thin (meant rig the resolution) for thetr ftnll Ipproval and get tt to the Board as fast as posstble so that some of the Problms can be rlso1 veal. NS. Keller commented she spoke ~Ith Brta~ Beck of the Souripest Area Tern regarding thts area hetng sho~n is Industrial on the SkIAP m~o and the reasoning Mas Ix~ause tt ts already Z-P zontng. She noted that up unttl Decotuber 1987. the zontng on thts proper~y yes C-P-S. Ns. Keller Nent on to elaborete on the Problm of c11ents ~th projects along the freev~y corridors. She idvtsed that those c11ents Ntth Projects along the freev~y frontage hive htgher lease rates. kcluse of the aboYe discussion of thts case tn regard to the S~AP outtree, the Commission ~oreed to continue thts case. NOTION: Upon morton by Cmntssloner Turner, seconded by C~mlssloner Boed~lng and unanimously carried, t~ C~1sslon contt~ed Change of ~ S~ ~ ~pt~r ZO at 9:30 a.m. 2-6 - Tape 2A) . ~:HANGE ~: CASE 4933 - EA 31632 - Charles Ooner - Lakeland Vtllage Area Ftrst Su I&l District - 60~ icres, rest of Nlchado, list of Plmis St - R-R to . TRACT IMP ~937 - g8 6(~ acres - Schedule A opened at I1:92 closed at 1:02 STAFF IE~NI)ATZON: Adoption of attve Declaration for EA 31632 based en the conclusion that the I~oposed v111 iGt k4ve i $1gntflc&nt effect en the environment end Ipproval of Chlnge No, 4933 ffm RoR to R-Ao20oOO0 tn accordinca ~th Exhtbtt 2 Ind el of Tentative Tract No. 12 Zontn~ Area: #urrleta Supervisortel District: E.A. #umber: ~$728 Reglon&l Te~m No.: One Ftr$% CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 6446 Plenntng Commission: 11-29-89 C~m~_~.~ ~:z~: 9-20-8~, 8-2-89 KTVERSZDE OCIJNTY PtANNZNG DEPARTNENT STAFF REPORT 2. 3. 4. 10. 11. 12. 1~. Ap~ltoant: Engtneer/Rep.: Type of Request: Location: Exlattng Zontng: Surrounding Zontng: Stte Charec%erlsttcs: Area Charactertat. Ice: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: Land Dtvtslon Data: Agency Recommendations: Letters: Iphere of ZnfluenM: NDC - California N~rkhlm and Aasocte%es Z-P to C-P-S North of #tachester Road, east of I- lS, ~estofYnezRoad Z-P Z-P, C-P-S, H-SC, end R-R Vacant parcel vhlch tmd some grading tn the recentpast. Gomgrassy areas. Zndustrtal park, some coglgercta], 81ngle-fimlly residential Lind Use: lndustrlal Density: N/A Open Space/Cons.: Total Acreage: Tot&l Lots: DU Per Acrs: Propesed #tn, Lot Size: 8N Let%er Di~ed: Road: 4-3-89 M&l%h: 4-14-89 Flood: 4-28-89 FI re: 4-2~-89 CALTRANS: O~poitne/$up~orttng: None Not vtthln · C&t. egory ]:! - Cm~erctal- Areas Not. Designated 6.51 Parc of 1 lot N/A N/A CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 6446 ~t,~ff I,~e2 Jintral Plln Colls1atency/Are~ C.~-t16111ty The project 1tea wtthtn the ~ou~h~eat Territory Lend Use Plenntng Area, vhtch lndtc&tes tl~t there ta &n url~ntztng Gorrtdor elo~g the Z-15 ¢reevay. Staff h~s derstained that t, he project ta C~tegory Z! (roemercia1 lencl use cleatgr~t 1on. Exlsttng 1end uses In the erea tnclude v&¢ant parGels, some offtee buildings, and some commercial uses, Including a f&at-food restsurest. The DroJect la e11o located wtthtn the Dropo~ Soughvest Area Community Plan, vhlch was ten%attvely &DDroved by the Pl&nnlngColmt$slononJuly 12, 198g. The proposed land usa designs%ton ls L-I - Light Industrial. &~lff has determined the% the proposed change of zone ta consistent vtth the current Mneral Plan designation. However, the proposed C-P-S zontng 1s Inconsistent wtth the proposed Oeneral Plmn designation of Lt~ht Zndustrtal. Due to the fact that $t&ff ta required to makm consistency findings blsed on the current ~ener&l Plmn, $tmff finds the proposed C-P-$ zone to be ~onststent with the Oenerml Plan, end compmttble with the existing land uses in them ires. ~nvtror~en*-l'A~lvats An tntttal Itudy for EnvironmentAl Assessment No. 33728 was completed. The Envtronmentml Asseswent ta atticbed tO this report,. The concerns iddressed in the E.A. will be ilSteated it develolment. me thanes of Zone No. 6446 11 & propo#l t~ thence the zoning on · 6.5 ecre Itte frei %-P to ¢-~-$. The $1te Gonititi of the ~eat, ern Iwrtton of · lS.86 I~il. The proplrty tl ~urr~ntly zoned %-P end li violaS. ~urroundtng zontng tncludea :Z-P, C-P-8, N-SC, ~cl sale R-R. The project lies vtthin the loutMist Territory Lind Use Pllnntng Are&. The I~roJ~'~ llto tm Oiteeory Z! ~x.~rct~'l. C~ANGE OF ZONE NO. 6446 ~tlff Report Page 3 !~NCLU~IONS: Chlngl of Zonl No. ~446 16 consistent wtth the currant ~outtwmst Territory Land Usa P]&nning Area. Ctmnge of Zone No. 6446 t$ 4f~ent4a~en~ consistent wtth the proposed $outl~mst Area Community Ptan. (Amended P.C. 11-29-89) 3. Ctmnge of Zon~ No. [H$46 is compatible with area d~velopment. ® The environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of ~pp rova 1. RECOI~DATION: ~OPT]:ON of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33728, based on the conclusion that the project utll not have a significant affect on the environment; and, APPROVAL of the CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5446 from l-P to C-P-S, based on the previous findings and conclusions. DK:BJl 7-19-89 (~IGE OF ZONE NO. 5446 Staff Report Page 4 FURTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATZONS:. September 20, 1989 Change of Zone No. 5446 was continued frm the August 2rid publlc heartrig to allou ttme for the proposed Southwest Area Ccxmu~tty Plan to be approved. The change of zone proposes C-P-$ zontng on a stte adjacent to the 1-15 and ~ust north of Winchester Road. Staff originally proposed &pprova] of thfs pro~ect, as a cm~erctal use on the site ts c~mpattble frith extsttng land uses tn the area,' and a c~merctal use ts consistent wtth the extsttng 6eneral Plan. Hm.~ver, the tentatively approved Southwest Area Plan designated ~he stte as Ltght Industrial. The current I-Pzontng of the stte ts consistent wtth the Southwest Area designation, whtle the propsed C-P-S zontng ts inconsistent wtth the Southwest Area designation. DK:bc 8/30/89 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: ~ MTG: DEPT: c.'~. TITLE: APPEAL NO. 1 PLOT PLAN 11607 DEPT H~' CITY ATTY CITY MGR .".,~4~ / Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends: That the City Council UPHOLD the appellant's APPEAL, subject to the recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer, based on findings and analysis contained in the County report, and APPROVE Plot Plan No. 11607, based on the analysis and findings contained in the County staff report, subject to the conditions of approval as revised in APPEAL No. 1. Case Information Date Appeal Filed: Case No.: Appellant Representative: Proposal: Location: Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Surrounding Land Uses: Project Information: April 6, 1990 Appeal No. 1, Plot Plan No. 11607 Opto 22, the Engman Family Trust. Howard Oxley, Howard Oxley Associates. An appeal for relief from a condition of approval placed on Plot Plan 11607, by the Riverside County Road Department. North of Rancho California Road, east of Business Park Drive. M-SC/Manufacturing Service Commercial North: M-SC Manufacturing Service Commercial South: M-SC Manufacturing Service Commercial East: M-SC Manufacturing Service Commercial West: M-SC Manufacturing Service Commercial North: Vacant South: Industrial Development East: Vacant West: Industrial Development Proposed 12q,000 square foot engineering facility on approximately eight (8) acres. ANALYSIS Project Backc~round Plot Plan No. 11607 is a proposal for a 12q,000 square foot electronics engineering facility on approximately eight (8) acres in the Rancho California Business Park. The project was tentatively approved at the County of Riverside Planning Directors hearing on January 8, 1990. The appeal for relief from County Road Condition No. 1 was filed with the Temecula Planning Department on April 6, 1990. APPEAL NO. 1 PLOT PLAN 11607 Area Settin~ The project site lies within an existing industrial park development. The site has been rough graded. Project Description The proposed building is divided into three (3) major functions, manufacturing, warehousing, and offices. Parking has been adequately provided. Landscaping constitutes 52.5 percent of the site. Employee amenities are provided which include picnic areas and a recreation facility. APPEAL The applicant is appealing County Road Condition No. 1. County Road Condition No. 1 states: "Prior to the issuance of building permits or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall submit a signing and striping plan for the Rancho California Road/Front Street intersection providing the following lane configuration on Rancho California Road, Northbound - One left turn lane; two through lanes; One right turn lane, Southbound - Two left turn lanes; two through lanes, The applicant shall provide any widening necessary to implement such plan as approved by the Road Commissioner, all at no cost to any government agency." A typographical error was made when the Road Department letter was prepared. The requested improvements apply to Front Street and not to Rancho California Road as stated. City engineering staff concurs with this interpretation. The Appellant has proposed three (3) possible courses of action based on the appeal application: "That the revised report (traffic) be acceptable to the City of Temecula. That Opto 22 be relieved of the responsibility to construct said improvements and instead voluntarily contribute an amount of money into a road benefit fund created by the City of Temecula. APPEAL NO. 1 PLOT PLAN 116O7 If item number 2. above is not Ix~sible, the City of Temecula waive the County Road Department's requirement that ':Prior to the issuance of building permits or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall submit a signing and striping plan for the Rancho California Road/Front Street interrotation ...... "end inroad allow same to be required prior to building occupancy, thus allowing us to pull out building permits considerably ~ooner than would otherwise be possible." The Appellant's third item is quoted from the second traffic study. The second traffic study states, "Restripe Front Street at Rancho California Road to provide the following: Southbound; two left turn lanes; two through lanes." The City Engineer has evaluated the Appellant's traffic study, and his recommendations are attached. Summary The Planning Staff recommends: That the City Council UPHOLD the Appellant's APPEAL, subject to the recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer, based on findings and analysis contained in the County report, and e APPROVE Plot Plan No. 11607, based on the analysis and findings contained in the County staff report, subject to the conditions of approval as revised in APPEAL No. 1. CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERS REPORT APPEAL NO. 1 PLOT PLAN NO. 11607 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council REVIEW and CONSIDER a policy for addressing conditions of approval for traffic reports for new development projects. BACKGROUND The County of Riverside currently requires any development project that immediately impacts an intersection past the level of Service C (level of Service D at the peak hour) to be burdened with the total improvement of the intersection. This policy has resulted in the first development adjacent to an impacted intersection to be burdened with the full costs associated with improvements. In some cases the cost of these improvements would make the proposed development economically infeasible. In addition, the County~s policy has also created numerous projects with the exact same conditions of approval for improvements. The County's policy does not recognize any relationship the level of impact to the level of improvements. It also does not create an equitable fair share basis to assure the improvements get constructed. For these reasons, Staff recommends that the following policy be adopted to address County approved projects which have been conditioned with specific mitigations. RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant post a performance bond equal to the cost of improvements listed in the mitigation requirements in the Traffic Study, prepared for the project at the time a building permit is issued. At the time that a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the applicant is required to deposit an amount of $10,000.00 to a newly approved City Road Benefit Fund. The Development Impact Fee Study currently being prepared by Willdan Associates will determine an equitable fair share of the developer's cost of improving the intersection based on the number of vehicles which will be generated by the project. When the Development Impact Fee schedule is adopted by the City Council, the developer will either pay additional funds or receive a refund equal to the difference between the Development Impact Fee amount and the amount of deposit. Notice of PubU¢ H~.nri~ THE CITY OF ~ULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Appeal No. 1 Appellant: Opto, 22 Location: North of Rancho California Road, East side of Business Park Drive Reason: To appeal a condition place by the Riverside County Road Department on Plot Plan 11607, to construct lane improvements at Rancho California Road and Front Streets. Environmental Action: Negative Declaration previously adopted. Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or 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(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714) 694-1989. The time, place and date of the heating(s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Rancho California Water District Community Room 28061 Di,, Road Temecula Tuesd~. June 5. 1990 7:00 PM .VICINITY MAR VICINITY MAP NORTH CASE SUMMARY CASE NO. FTA 036-89 I10. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: electronic engineering facility. REA: Temecula GENERAL PLAN: a. LAND USE: ZONING: a. SITE: M-SC b. ADJACENT: M-SC LAND USE/AREA DEVELOPMENT: a. SITE: Vacant b. ADJACENT: General Office/Warehouse MAJOR ISSUES: Liquefaction, flooding, through the Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING DATE: January 8, 1990 E.A. 34521 PLOT PLAN #0. 11607, NIERDED #0. 1, PI.MINING CORRECTION To construct a 123,910 square foot Southwest Territory - Southwest Area Community Plan. Light Industrial and traffic impacts will be mitigated ~ECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL of FTA 036-89, PLOT PLAN #0. 11607, AMENDED NO. 1, ALINING CORRECTION I10. 1 and ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for E.A. 4521 based on the following findings and conclusions: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 348 and Ordinance 460. 3. The project is consistent with the zoning on the parcel on which it is located and meets the development standards of the zone. 4. The project is compatible with surrounding derelopement. 5. The project has no significant environmental effects and a Negative Declaration may be adopted. JC:gs;sc [/04/89 PLANNING DZRECTOR'$ HEARING DATE: ~ANUARY 8, 1990 OPTO 22 15461 $prtn~Jale Street Huntington Beach. CA 92649 FTA 036-89, PLOT PLAN lB. 11607, MEI)E3) lB. 1, PLNIIIIS ~Oil lB. I Project Description: Construction of in elec%ro, Jc englneertng f&ctllty Assessor's Pircel No.: g210020-06S-3 Arel: Temcule 0 The use hereby permitted by thts plot plan ts for & 123,910 square foot electronic engineering fac111ty uhtch tncludese lobby (4.855 sq. ft). offtce (20,250 .sq. ft.), mr.house (45,520 sq ft), end a Inufac~urlng (53,285 sq. ft.) The pen, tttee shall defend. Indemnify. end hold h&r~less the County of Riverside. 1rs Igents. officers. end e~ployees from in). cl&tm. Ictton. or proceeding &gatnst the County of Riverside or 1rs Igents. officers. or el~)]oy~es to Ittack. set &stde. votd. or annul, In eppr~val of the County of Riverside. 1rs &dvtsory &genctes. appeal boards. or legislative body concerning FTA 036-89, PLOT PU~ BO. 11607, MEI)ED lB. 1, PLMNI#G I:MU~CTZOII NO. I . The County of Riverside wtll promptly nottry the ln.tttee of such clltm. Ictton. or procudtng &gatnst th.e ~un..ty of verstde .rid ~ to cooperate fully tn the defense. If the County Tilts promptly nottry the permittee of e~y such cl&tm, &ctton or p~oceedtng or f&11s to cooperate fully tn the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, tndenntfy, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. Thts Ipproval shall be used ~tthtn t~o (2) years of &pp~oval date; otherYise tt sh&11 becoM null tad votd end of no effect uhitsoever. By use ts mant the bogInning of substantial construction contomplited by t~ls approval ~thtn the bo (2) ~ear ~ertod uhtch ts thereafter dtltgent?~ Imrsued_ to cmpletton. or the beginning of substlnttll uttllntlon cont,,plated by thts Ipprovel. The daveloire. at of the pre~Ises shill confore substlnttelly ~lth that is $hmm on plot pll~ m~ed ~tbtt A, Mn~d ~. 1, Planntng ~ctton ' ~. I or es mn~d by ~e cmdltlo~. (~nded ~r Dt~cto~'s ~rtng on U8/ ) In the event tke ~se hereby permitted ceases operettoh for a pert od of one (1) ~eir or ire, this &pprovel shall become mll end votd. AKY outstde 11ghttng shall be hooded end dtrected so is not to shtne d!rectly upon &dJotntng proper~ or Imbllc rights-of-May, end shall comply ~lth Ordinance No. 655. PLOT PLAR BO. 116O7 NKI)ED BO. 1 CoMtttons of Approvsl Page 2 e 8, 10. 11. '12. 13. 14. 1S. 16. The applicant shall comply vlth the street 1spray·merit racomrenditions outltmed tn the County Road Department transMttal dated 12/2_7/89 a copy of tfhtch ts sat·chad. (Mended per D~rector's IJeartng on IMter and say·rage dtsposal facilities shall be Installed tn acco,dance vtth the p~ov~stons set forth ~n the R~verstde County Health Department tr&nsmtttal dated 12-7-89, I copy of ~htch ts attached. flood protection ·be11 be provtded tn accordance'vdth the Riverside County Flood Control Dtstrtct transmittal dated 12-21-89, I copy of uhtch ts attached. Ftre protection shall be provtded tn accordance wtth the appropriate section of Ordinance 546 and the County Ftre ~rden's trans·late1 dated 1/8/90 a copy of ~htch ts attached. (Amended per Director's Heartng on 1/8/90) The applicant shall comply vtth the ~ecommendattons set forth tn the Department of Butldtng end Safety Land Use Sectton transmittal dated 12-18-89. a copy of ~htch ts attached, The applicant shall comply wtth the reconnendatlons set forth tn the Department of Building and Safety Gradtng Sectton transmittal dated 12-20-89, s copy of uhtch ts attached. The applicant shall comply vtth the recommendations set forth tn the Riverside County Geological Report No. 601 end is stated tn the Geologist's transmittal dated 7-3-89, a copy of vhtch ts attached. The sppltcant shall comply vtth the recomuendattoos set forth tn the Eastern Iqunlctpal Natmr Otstrtct's transmittal dated 12-8-89, 11-30o89, a copy of vhtch ts sttached. The &ppltcant shall comply u lab the recommndatlons set forth tn the Department of Butldtng and bPety - Plan Check tramsadttal dated 12-8-~J, · copy of tlhtch ts attached. All landscaped areas skill be planted Jn accordance vlth spproved landscape,_trrSgittc~ ~d ·bedtrig plans prtor to the tssuance of occupancy peaIts· M MmlittC Sprintlet system shall be Installed end ill 11~dSCilmd &r~s sl~_e11_ be ·mint·tried tn e_ vlable grovth condition. fl~tfng v4thtn ten (10) feet of an an_try or exlt drtvevay ·hal 1 not be Imruttted to grov htgher than thirty (30) Jnches. PLOT FLM BO. 116O7 Ceedtttons ef Fame 3 17. 18. Prtor to the tssuance of gradtag or butldtng pereta, 8the (g) coptes of a Parktag, Landscaping, Irrigation, and ShadingPlans $hall be sulmttted to the Planntng Departeat for &pproval. The 1,ca,ten, number, genus, spectes, and con,ether slze of the plants shall be sho~m. Plans shall meet &11 requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Sac,tone 18.12, and shall be &ccompanted by m ftltng fee as set forth tn Sac,ten 18.37 of Ordinance No. 348. A total of 196 parktag spices shall be provided tn accordance ~th Sac,ten 18.12, Riverside County ~dtnmnce No. 348. A~ Pa~tng s~ces sha~ be p~vtd~ is sh~ on the ~p~oved Exhtblt A, Mnded No. I. The parktn9 I~a sha~ ~ su~lc~ ~th upha~ttc conc~te Paytag ~ I mtntmm depth of 3 taches on 4 taches of Cliss II ~se. (~nded ~r Director's ~artng on 1/8/90) lg. A total of stx (6) handicapped Parktag spaces shall be provtded as show 20. on Exhtbtt A, Amended No. 1. ~mch Parktag space reserved for the handicapped sha~l be 1den,tried by a PenMnently afftxed retqectortzed stgn constructed of porcelain on stee], beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The slgn shall not be smaller than 70 square tnches In irma and sha~] be centered it the tritertar end of the perktn9 space it a mtntmum hetght of 80 taches from the bottom of the stgn to the parktn'g space ftntshed grade, or centered it a mtntmum hetght of 36 taches from the Parktag spice ftntshed grade, ground, or stde~alk. A stgn. shall &1so be posted tn a conspicuous p~ace, at each entrance to the off street Parktng facility, not less thin 17 taches by 22 taches tn stze ~tth lettering not less than ! tach tn hetght, ~htch clearly and conspicuously states the fall,,ring: "Unauthorized vehtcles not displaying distinguishing placards or 11cease plates tssued for physically handicapped persons may be to, ed I~ay at o~ner*s expense. TMd vehtcles amy be reclaimed at or by telephoning .' In &ddttton to the above requiremats, the surface of each parttrig place Shall have · surface 1den,trice,ten stgn duplicating the symbol of &ccesstbtltty tn blue Patna of et least 3 squirm feet tn stze. Prtor to the 1stance of I buildtag persalt. the eppltc&nt shall obtetn clearmace amS/or Immtts fKm the felleying agencies: Road Department Riverside County 1flood Control Envlrormentel Health Ftre Department County Geologist Eastern Iquntctpal triter Mstrtct Atr ~ual tty Control Bo&~d. Butldlng and Safety - Land Use and Gradtag ¥rltten evtdence of campit&ace shall be presented to the Lind Use Dtvtston of the Department of lutldtng end Safety. ~LOT PLAN NO. 116O7 ME]~ED NO. 1 Cendtttons of Approve1 I~e 4 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Butldlng elevations and floor plans shall be tn substintt&l conformance vtth that shorn on Exhtbtts I~tertals used tn the construction of all buildings shall be tn substantial confonmnce ~th that shmm on Exhtbtt I~l(Color Elevations) and Exhtbtt I~Z (Nateft·Is Board). These ere as lollors: Extertor Kal 1 Boors Frames and adjacent valls ¥tndov $ysten Sandblasted Concrete Pathted Natal IM~r'al Color Rust Ttnted Glass Bronze Roof-mounted equtpmnt shall be shtelded from ground vte~. mterta] shall be subject to P]anntng Department approval. .Screening A 10 x 30 foot trash enclosures ~htch ts adequate to enclose a total three btns shall be centrally located ~thtn the project, and shall ~ constructed prtor to the tssuance of occupancy peTerIts. Each enclosure shall be s~x feet ~n height and shall be made v~th masonry block and an opaque gate vtth a self-latching device ~h~ch screens the b~ns from external vte~. Landscape screening shall be destgned to be opaque up to a mtntmum hetght of stx (6) feet at mturtty. All street 11ghts and other outdoor 11ghttng shall be shovm on electrical plans su~ttted to the Department of Butldtng and Safety for plan check &pproval and shall cmply Mth the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County comprehensive General Plan. Thts project ts located vtthtn a Subsidence Report Zone. Prtor to lssuance of uny butldlng pemtt by the Riverside County Departmnt of lutldtng Indsafety, · California Ltcensed Structural Engtneer shall carttry that the tntended structure or butldtng ts safe and structurally Integrated. Thts certification shall be based upon, but not be 11mtted to, the stte spectftc sttslrlc, geologtc and geotechntcal conditions. klhere hazard of subsidence or ftssure development ts determined to extst, Ipproprtate adttgatton measures lust be demonstrated. I)rlor to tssulnce of gredtng per·fits, the &ppltcent shall colply vtth Ordinance No. 663 by plytrig the fee requtred by that ordinance vhtch ts based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the p~ovtstons of · Hlbttat Conservation Plan prtor to the payment of the fees requtred by O~dtnance PLOT I)LM gO. 116O7 fUI~ED BO. 1 Condittoes of Approval IMge 5 30. 31. 32. 33. #o. 663, the applicant shall pay the the fee requtred under the Habttat Comserv~tton Plan as Implemented by Coun~ ordinance or resolution. A mtntmum of nine (9) of Class I b?ke locker or Class II btcycle racks shall be provided tu convenient locations to facilitate btcycle access to the project a~ea. Prior to tssuance of occupan~ Perutts, Ill rtqutred landscape planttng and Irrigation shall have been ~nstslled and'be ~n a condition acceptable to the Dtroctor of Butldtng and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of ~eeds, titsease or pests. The ~rrlgatton system shall be properly constructed and tn good uor~tng order. All utilities, except electrical 11nes rated 33kV or greater, shall be t nstel led underground. Prtor to a~y use allowed by thts Plot Plan, the applicant shall obt~tn clearance from the Department of Butldtng and hfety - Land Use Sectton that the uses found on the subject property are tn conromance wtth Ordinance No. 348. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complted wtth prtor to occupancy or any use allowed by thts Permtt. ,,]C: gs ;sc 1/04/90 JAN 81 90 RIVI'~t"JE t;OUNTY '~LANNING DEPARTMENT 2?, 1.~89 !tiversXde County Planning 4080 Lemon P~LverlXde, CA 92501 (~ng.tne~z~.tng ~,ac.tl Lty ) · 1"~ #036-89 pcl 8 of Fll 19580 #111-111-111-9 ladies and ~en~leamn~ x-ecc~mendat ions t to the conditions of appz~val fo~ ~he above the Road ~t has the follov£ng S~aff b~- reviewed the L~vlsed traffic It'uc~y fo~ the above referenced project. ~he traffic studlf has been pz~pa~ed in &ccordance v£th ~CC®l~c~d ~raff[lc emglnee~lng st. anda~ts and p~ac~lces, utilizing County &ppz~ved quidelines. ~e generally concur v£',.h t~e findings z~lative t.o traffic The study lndica=es a projected I~vel of Service 'C' on ~ancho California Road at l~ont Bt.r~= vl?.h ~tt£gation. The Comprehensive ~ral Plan cal&tion policies ~ r~cessary fo~ any ~e Cat~9ory Zl land ~ll.' &s such, the proposed proJ~c~ is consist~nt vith t.h..ts ~eneral ~lan policy. ~he folloelag ccadltloa o! approval provides for the ~ec~ssary to ~chiev~ o~ ~tntain the ~ level o£ ~lce~ Bood/~ St. reet l,n~ezJocr..I, on l:X~:~2.a.tng tam following lane ~orthbound - O~e left ~tn'a 1L~e~ two tJ~'ough Lanes~ - lob turn lanes; t~o through ~anes. CXlOh"~ ~TI~ (~ri'!l · 44~0 L!:N~ STIIFF * IJV!:113~ ~ Y~1OI aPlot.P1an 11607 - Mnd #1 Decmr LU, 1989 applicant roball i~covlde any vidon~ug nocossary to much plan as app~ by tho Ro~d Cosm~tsaloa~r, all at to any govarmmnt &gsn~. Prior to issuance of a bulld~ pernit o~ any use allowed by ~his petmir, the applicant shall compl®~e tho following condl~ at ~o cost to auy gov~qmamt &9~n~ 2. No odd~tional right of vey roball bm z~qulz~d on Bus~nems Pa~k D~lve aln~a mdmquat~ right of Ry e~L~. Prior to issuance of m building pro.mir ar any use aIlowsd by this pmz~tt, the dmvmlop~ shall' deposit vith the Itlve~slde Cour~cy Road lMt~rCmont the sun of $15,452.50 tov&rdo mitigating traffic lmpac~o for signal z~luiz~- Th~s auount represents 8.83 ac~es at $1,750.00 pe~ gross acre - $15,4S2.50. Prior to occupancy or any use alloecd by this permit, ~ applicant shall consi=uct t~] following at ~o cost to any 4. i hiness Pazk D~lvm shall be l~provmd vith 34 feet of asphalt concrete l:~mm~mt within a _45 foot pa~ width dedicat~d right ,~f way In accordance vlth County Standazd in. ( 8'/39 Asphalt ~ulilon (fog seal) shall be applied than foulmen days foll~g 91~~t of m~iac~ ~ m~11 ~ a~llg at a ra~ of 0.05 gallon m~ y~. ~lt ~ls~n 8~1 ~~ ~ ~~ ~m~olutlon shall be ~s ~ ~ t~Lm pro:Joct and the Ro~d Cca~Lss~o~. Ea'ai~mg~~l~lbe a~ ~ Oz~ZL,~a,-m~ 460, lect. tcm ,11.1. All vo~k done within County zight of way shall have an enc~oac]~ent $1z~lt. q~lot. ¥1sn 11607 - Dec:mr 27, 1989 Fsge 3 10. .1.1. 12. 13. .1.4. %5. ZO.! dz%vevaym wl~mll Cottory ataw~-,~ and ~hall ~o ~he applicable Riverside be ahoun on ~ mtr~et Tbe wt.m~ dewXgn'mnd %a~vmen~ oorac~el~ of this mhall be ~t~d vA~b 1~ 19580. S~roet lighting mhall be zequLrod An accordanco vAth Ordinance 460 and 461. She County Service ~ (~) ~~a~r ~~s ~r ~m ~s~ ~lifies ~ ~ ~et~g ama~~t ~mtri~ or ~t. Xf mr, ~ c~ation of a 'Liqht~q ~em~nt D~Act' ~ ~~ce ~l~ ~n~ ~ ~tAon 56000. ~11 prAva~e and lmblAc entrances and/or int&rmectAons opposite t~Am project mhall be coordinated vi~h this pro:Joct and ohoen on the mt~wet ~u~rovemont planre. Any landacapin~ vifJ~n public x~ad rights of ray shall m~t~e ~gh ~ es~lAm~n~ of a %~ca~ fo~t (24' z 36'). ~ca~ ~1 ~ ~~ vl~ W s~t ~~t pl~ P~ ~lct ~ CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF REPORT AB# MTG DEPT e.~. TITLE: APPEAL #2, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21'769, REVISED NO. 1 ~MENDED NO. 2 DEPT HD. ~ CITY ATTY CITY MGR RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends: That the City Council Continue the Appeal for Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769, Amended No. 2, to the June 26, 1990 meeting, in order to allow Staff additional time to review the project and analyze the appeal. PROJECT INFORMATION: Case No.: Applicant: Appellant: Reason for Appeal: Project: Location: Zoning: Existing Land Use: Surrounding Zoning: SWAP Designations: Project Statistics: Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769 Ranpac, Inc. J. C. Resorts, Inc. See attached application. Revised 4-lot subdivision of 91.37 acres. West side of Rainbow Canyon Road, immediately south of the Temecula Creek Inn. R-R Rural Residential. R-2 Multi-family Residential Vacant hillside property. Rural Residential. Residential - 8-16 dwelling units per acre, OC - Office Commercial; R-S Resort Commercial. Number of Lots: 4 Number of Acres: 91.37 Notice of Public Henr~r~ THE CITY OF ~A 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Appeal No. 2; Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769 Appellant: Won Yoo Location: Northwest of Rainbow Canyon Road, South of Pala Road Reason: Appellant suggests map not consistent with area development; that the project could significantly affect the environment; that the design of Street 'A" constitutes an impact not assessed; that no analysis supports required general plan findings, that the project has been improperly conditioned, that ridgelines and water courses, oak trees and rock outcroppings will be lost through project implementation grading measures, that pertinent information is lacking on the tentative map and that the environmental assessment failed to address total impact of this project on the environment. Environmental Action: Negative Declaration recommended for adoption at Planning Director's Hearing. Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or 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 heating(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project applicabn(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714) 694-1989. The time, place and date of the hearing(s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Rancho California Water District CommuniF Room 28061 Di~7 R~d Temecula Tuesda~y. June 5, 1990 7:00 PM Tracy Louvat 26201Ynez Road Temecula, Ca 92390 714-694-0227 , HAY 1990 May 31, 1990 Dear Frank Aleshire and City Council Members: I am contacting you today as the recently crowned Miss Temecula Valley. I would like to take a moment to tell you about my forthcoming competition in the Miss California U.S.A. Pageant and put forth a proposal. I realize your time is valuable, so here is my request in three paragraphs. You may read the details later on. In order to compete in the Miss California U.S.A. Pageant, candidates require the support of businesses and organizations in the Temecula Valley, along with other corporate sponsors. In recognition of their support, all sponsors will be represented in the official Miss California program book, of which 3000 copies will be printed. In 1989, the contestants competed before a standing-room- only crowd of 5000. The show, produced by Guy Rex and viewed by millions, held one of the top five slots in the Neilson ratings for the month of August and was nominated for two Emmy Awards. My entrance/registration fee for the pageant is $1100.00. The Temecula Chamber of Commerce and Erickson and Associates have already offered their support and feel confident in my opportunity to succeed. What I am requesting from the City of Temecula, is a $500.00 sponsorship to put towards my registration. In order to discuss this in greater detail, I am also requesting a few minutes to be represented at the City Council meeting taking place this Tuesday. I have attached information about myself and details about the event on page two. Thank you for taking the time to read through this proposal, I look forward to speaking with you very soon. Sincerely, Tracy M. Louvat Miss Temecula 1990 RESUME OF ACHIEVEMENTS -Director of Aerobics, Gold's Gym Temecula -Fitness Consultant, Gold's Gym Anaheim -Certified through IDEA(International Dance Exercise Association) -Choreographer of dance and music for community events, i.e. Hot Time in The City, Temecula Middle School, April 1990. -Graduated Summa Cum Laude and Valedictorian of The Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, June 1989. -Associates degree in the fiels of Marketing and Merchandising, June 1989. -Experienced community representative at Chamber of Commerce functions, City of Santa Clarita, 1989. -Miss Frontier Belle, Canyon Country Frontier Belle Pageant 1989. -Secondrunner-up, Miss Santa Clarita Valley Pageant, 1988. Business owners who sponsor Miss California candidates reach a sizeable audience they might not otherwise attract. This audience consists of California and Nevada residents, and affords the ability to greatly affect sales and public awareness of products and services. I would be happy to answer any questions you have regarding sponsorship opportunities and benefits. The 1990 Miss California U.S.A. Pageant will take place August loth and 11th in Palm Springs, California. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB# I! TITLE: FY 1990-91 BUDGET REVISIONS DEPT HD ~ DATE: 6/5/90 FROM MAY 29, 1990 COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTY DEPT: FINANCE CITY MGR~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the revisions to the Proposed FY 1990-1991 Budget that were made pursuant to the City Council meeting held on May 29, 1990. DISCUSSION: Attached is a schedule of the revisions made to the Proposed FY 1990-1991 Budget in accordance with Council's direction of May 29, 1990. You will notice we made the specific reductions of appropriations in the departments of Planning, Building and Safety, Public Safety and City Council, as well as, an approximate reduction of five percent in total Personnel Services plus Operations and Maintenance. Please note that no reductions were made in the City Attorney or Engineering departments, as the proposed appropriations consist of mainly consulting services. Also, no reductions were made in the City Clerk's proposed appropriations. Upon the review of the City Clerk's department budget, the City Clerk's office felt that their budget was already at a minimum level to attain the required objectives of the 1991 budget. A reduction of the rental payment for 1991 was based on our discussion with Harry Clark of Muni Financial Services, Inc., who is working on the financing for the purchase of the new City Hall. City of Temecula Proposed Annual Budget 1991 Adjustments per Council Direction Proposed Appropriations 1991 (May 29, 1990) Reductions: Planning Building & Safety Public Safety City Council $ 192,570 492,282 200,000 125,000 $ 13,188,999 City Council Other Outside Services Meetings in Town/Mileage City Manager Salaries & Wages Benefits Employer Taxes Finance Salaries & Wages Benefits Employer Taxes Personnel Salaries & Wages Benefits Employer Taxes Information Systems Salaries & Wages Benefits Employer Taxes Nondepartmental Rent Total Adjustments Proposed Appropriations 1991 (June 5, 1990) 2,000 3,000 13,172 3,951 191 14,066 4,220 204 2,927 878 43 9,431 2,829 3O 25,000 (1,091,794) $ 12,097,205