HomeMy WebLinkAbout080690 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AUGUST 6, 1990 - 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
Hoagland,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the publlc~:a~ address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are
limited to three 13) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink taRequest to Spailke~ form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak~ form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three {3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes
1.1 Approve minutes of July 16, 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Plot Plan No. 1
Change of Zone No. 3
Advanced Cardiovascular System
West side of Ynez Road, immediately south of the Apricot
Road alignment
Construct a manufacturing facility on a 25.20, acre site
with associated office and parking as follows:
A. Construct a four story manufacturing
building with office space consisting of
270,780 gross square feet.
B. Construct a tri-level parking structure
consisting of 393 parking spaces.
C. Construct a 9,000 square foot hi-level
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
structure for service equipment housing
immediately west of the proposed q-story
building
Reconfigure and repave the existing parking
and asphalt areas to accommodate required
parking and landscaping.
Change the maximum height limitation
contained in the development standards for
the M-M { Medium Manufacturing ) zone on this
site from 50 feet to 75 feet (Change of Zone
Application No. 3).
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Tentative Tract No, 23209
AIba Engineering
West of Butterfield Stage Road, east of Walcott Lane, and
approximately 1.25 miles north of Rancho California Road.
To subdivide an 80 acre site into 257 parcels with a
minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet.
Recommend DENIAL to the City Council.
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Tentative Tract No. 23990 Plan No. 11222
Dean Alstrup
Generally between La Serena Way and Margarita Road; on
the south side of Via La Vida.
Subdivide 5.76 acres into 30 residential R-2 lots.
CONTINUE to the August 20, 1990 Planning Commission
Meeting.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Reason for
Appeal:
Recommendation:
Appeal No, 6
Appeal the Planning Department~s DENIAL of the Palm
Plaza Sign Criteria Program
Bedford Properties
Southwest corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads.
Sign Criteria program denied by Planning Department on
June 19, 1990.
UPHOLD the Denial.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
6. Interim Change of Zone Policy
Recommendation:
Review the temporary 3 month policy adopted by the City
Council regarding Change of Zone Applications. Make
Recommendations to the City Council regarding the interim
policy.
7. Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Monday, August 20, 1990, 6:00 PM, Vall Elementary School, 29915
Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
ITEM #1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
HELD JULY 16~ 1990
A regular meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was called to
order at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California at 6:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by
Chairperson Dennis Chiniaeff.
PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John
Thornhill, Principal Planner, John Middleton,
Manager and Gail Ziglet, Minute Clerk.
Cavanaugh, Gary
Senior Project
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes
1,1
Commissioner Chiniaeff entertained a motion to approve the
minutes of July 2, 1990 as amended. It was moved by
Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland and
carried unanimously.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. Substantial Conformance No. 7
Gary Thornhill presented staff's report. He stated that
the applicant, Nick Tavaglione Construction, is requesting
to amend two items on the approved map and condition of
approval No. 22. These items include eliminating communal
trash enclosures for individual trash collection,
re-configuration of four garages and eliminate the
condition of block walls separating property lines due to
the existence of walls already in place from adjacent
properties.
Mh~uxes WI6/90 -I- 08/01/90
Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990
The Commission reviewed the site plan. Ken Kaplan,
Superintendent, Nick Tavaglione Construction, 29605 Solano
Way, Temecula, California, pointed out the proposed areas
of change. Mr. Kaplan stated that they have proposed that
the Nomeowner's Association contract for individual trash
removal, that the re-configuring of garages would provide
easier access to the homeowner's individual garages and
that the six foot high block wall would run along an
already existing wrought iron and chain link fence,
therefore applicant has proposed to landscape and maintain
the areas between property lines upon obtaining an access
agreement from the adjacent property owners.
Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned an existing ordinance
stating that commercial zones and residential zones should
be separated by a block wall and felt that the west bound
wall should remain due to the proposed adjoining
commercial project. Mr. Thornhill stated that he would
look into that ordinance, and if an ordinance as such
existed, it could not be amended.
commissioner Ford suggested to staff that a condition of
approval be that the CC&R's include a provision for the
proper placement and removal of all trash containers.
Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh stated that the
Commission could not amend the CC&R's however, they could
suggest that the condition on the trash be consistent with
provisions in the CC&R's and if not, that a provision be
established.
Commissioner Hoagland moved to direct the Planning
Director to approve Substantial Conformance No. 7 as
submitted, with the amendment that the westerly block
wall remain. Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion
which was carried unanimously.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
3. Substantial Conformance No. 8
3.1
Gary Thornhill stated that the applicant, Meadowview
Homeowner's Association, proposes to add four tennis
courts to the existing homeowner recreational facility.
Minutes 7/16/90 -2- 08/01/90
Planhind Commission Minutes July 16o 1990
Commissioners Fahey, Hoagland and Chiniaeff abstained
from voting on the issue due to a personal interest, as
members of the Meadowview Homeowner's Association.
Mr. Cavanaugh advised the Commission members that they
could be included in a quorum to vote and Commissioner
Ford would direct staff.
After a brief discussion of the addition of the tennis
courts, Commissioner Ford instructed the Planning Director
to accept and approve Substantial Conformance No. 8 as
recommended.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. Plot Plan No. 2, a revised permit for County aDDroved Plot Plan
No. 11222
At the request of the Commission, this item was continued
from the July 2, 1990, Planning Commission meeting, to
allow staff to provide additional information relating to
the special review of parking.
Tom Sorentino, acting as Traffic Engineer for the City
through Wildan & Associates, reflected staff's concurrence
with the traffic studies prepared by Wilbur Smith and
Associates for Bedford Properties. He stated that with
the revisions, once the traffic mitigation measures are
complete, all intersections and street segments affected
by the center, would be expected to operate at acceptable
levels of service.
Commissioner Chiniaeff re-opened the public hearing.
Bob Davis, Traffic Engineer, Wilbur Smith and Associates,
2406 S. 24th Street, Phoenix, Arizona, addressed the
Commission on the results of the traffic studies. He
stated that the traffic studies were performed in July,
1989 and December, 1989. Both studies came to the same
conclusion, except that recommended improvements increased
in the December study to accommodate future traffic
requirements. Mr. Davis stated that with the proposed
partial opening of the center, prior to the completion
of the signal at the Winchester and Ynez Road
intersection, that intersection would not operate at
acceptable levels without the placement of a traffic
Mh~a~s 7/16/90 -3- Og/Ol/90
PI.,ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ULY 16, 1990
control monitor at peak hours of service.
Lana Milligan, representative of Mervyns Stores, 22301
Foothill Boulevard, Hayward, California, spoke in favor of
the partial opening of the center prior to the completion
of the Winchester and Ynez intersection traffic signal.
She stated that Merv~ns has worked closely with Bedford to
expedite any traffic mitigation measures and were hoping
for and prepared for a fall opening of their Temecula
store. She asked the Commission to assist them in
establishing this opening date.
Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the issue before the Commission
was to decide on the addition of square footage to the
center, and special review of parking, and what traffic
impacts it would have. The proposal for request for
modification of condition was not on the agenda and he
recommended that the Commission not act on it at this
time, however they could recommend that it be addressed on
the next agenda.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the reason the public
hearing was continued was so that staff could provide the
Commission with additional information on the traffic
impacts the expansion would create, but also the impacts
it would have on Winchester and Ynez Roads. He stated
that the Engineering condition reflects that all street
improvements relating to the project be completed prior to
occupancy. He questioned Mr. Cavanaugh as to whether or
not the Commission could add their own conditions and
require the applicant to install the traffic monitor at
the intersection of Winchester and Ynez Roads until the
signals are in place.
Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the Commission could do this,
however he advised that the item was not on the agenda and
therefore should be set-forth before the hearing.
Commissioner Chiniaeff requested applicant to move a trash
enclosure at the corner of Winchester and Ynez Road,
extend a landscape set-back the full length of the
proposed Apricot Road along the project and extend the
screen wall behind the buildings alongApricot Road to the
full height of the buildings.
Commissioner Chiniaeff entertained a motion to close the
public hearing. Commissioner Ford moved to close the
public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Fahey, which was
carried unanimously.
Minu~ 7/16190 --4- 08/01/90
PL,la~NING COI,~ISSION MINUTES ~ULY 16, 1990
Commissioner Ford moved to approve Plot Plan #2, revised
permit for County approved Plot Plan 11222, by Bedford
Properties, providing for an additional 12,734 square foot
retail building, reconfigure the building square footages,
with a total net gain in square footage of 15,947, for a
total of 429,175 square feet. The request for special
review of parking as shown on plot plan as follows;
amended by the extension of the landscape area along
Apricot Road, and extending the screen wall along Apricot
Road to the full height of the building. To change the
location of the trash enclosure at the corner of
Winchester and Ynez Roads and revise the Engineering
Department Condition of Approval on the street
improvements at Winchester and Ynez Roads to require
completion prior to occupancy of the center. The
modification of the Engineering Condition would read, that
prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued, the
developer may be allowed to occupy 60% of the leaseable
area of the commercial center prior to the completion of
the Winchester and Ynez Road traffic signals and with road
improvements from 1-15 to Ynez as provided by Assessment
District, #161, and as mitigation the City Engineer will
request that, at the expense of the developer, a traffic
monitor be placed at the intersection of Winchester and
Ynez Road prior to, during and after project opening,
until the improvements are completed. He closed the
motion adopting a negative resolution recommending to the
City Council that they approve the revised permit with the
conditions set-forth. Commissioner Fahey seconded the
motion which carried the following roll call vote.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair
OTHER COMMISSION BUSINESS
Commissioner Chiniaeff re-opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Ron Henderson, 31832 Poole Court, Temecula, California,
requested that two additional items be addressed relating to
Tentative Tract No. 23209, scheduled for the August 6, agenda.
He stated that the applicant has referred to a traffic study, and
he would like this study made available to the public, and also he
would like Butterfield Stage Road and it's completion addressed.
Minule~ W 16/90 -5- 08/01/90
PLM~ING COI~ISSION MINUTES JULY 16, ~990
Commissioner Hoagland asked staff where they are at on the general
plan. Mr. Thornhill stated that the City Manager has asked that
staff hold off until he has had an opportunity to discuss this with
the City Council. Mr. Thornhill stated that he will address this
item as soon as he is directed by the City Manager.
Commissioner Ford requested that staff look into issuing a master
geographical letter.
DIRECTOR8 REPORT
Mr. Thornhill advised the Commission that the City Manager has set
aside July 30, 1990, for a joint Planning Commission and City
Council workshop at Vail Elementary School, 7:00 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Chiniaeff entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting
at S:O0 P.M. Commissioner Ford moved to adjourn, seconded by
Commissioner Fahey and carried unanimously. Next scheduled
meeting to be held Monday, August 6, 1990, 6:00 P.M. at Vail
Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
Minutes 7/16/90 -6- 08/01/90
ITEM #2
MEMORANDUM
To:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Temecula Planning Commission
John Middleton, Engineering Department
August 2, 1990
CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 1
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems (A. C.S. ) has submitted additional information
regarding the phasing of the development. The Engineering Department proposes
to link the construction of public improvements on Ynez Road to the A.C.S. phasing
schedule. A condition has been developed to link tenant improvements to completion
of required public improvements.
The condition shall read:
33A
Design and construction of Ynez Road and the
construction of a signal at Ynez Road and Solona Way shall
be completed prior to the occupancy of Phase 2 building
improvements, or the completion of tenant improvements
exceeding sixty percent of the proposed 270,780 square
feet of building improvements.
Phase one tenant improvements shall be limited to 162,000
square feet of building area.
JM:ks
CITYENG\MIO
11:13 ~'.'14 699 2532 ACS R~CHO '?,P, e2
TEL: ~Y14)
Mx John M~ ddleton
CizV of Tem,~cula Offices
43]80 Bus]hess Park Dr. Suite 200
T~ms~ula, CA 92390
De~c Mr. Middleton,
Larry ~rkham informed me cf your conversation with him today. This
letter is In response to the requests ~or information ma~e by Kirk Williems
and yourself.
The buld out of Dutldt]~g E is planned to happen in three s~ages. The
tominS of [i~se sta~es and the e~suciated site head ~o~nts are lis~d below.
Stage
s=age
Suage
60% :992 completion
80~. 1995 Completion
100% 2997 compie~lun
2~90 max capacity
1100 employees
1400 employees
1800 employees
1800 employees
We currently employee 5~proxlr,lazely 900 people at thls site. I Bare
Li~ted the significant fiuct~tion~ In site head count and the associated
imam below. These rough perc~-tages '~ould work to estimate future head
_~unt loads also.
5:00 am E0
6:00 am 120
7:00 am 520
8:00 am 720
2:00 ~m 680
3:00 pin 770
4:00 r~ 370
5:00 ~m 150
12:00 am 20
employees on site
I ho~e this information proves useful to you.
any~h~n~ further. My phone number is 694-22~2. Thanks again
Eavid ~. Ol;on
· acilities Manager
Please call if you need
help.
Case No,:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 6, 1990
Plot Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 3
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLI CANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT I ON:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Advanced Cardiovascular System
Ehrlich Rominger
Construct a manufacturing facility on a 25.24
acre site with associated office and parking
as follows:
A. Construct a four story manufacturing
building with office space consisting of
270,780 gross square feet.
B. Construct a tri-level parking structure
consisting of 393 parking spaces.
C. Construct a 9,000 square foot hi-level
structure for service equipment
housing immediately west of the
proposed 4-story building
D. Reconfigure and repave the existing
parking and asphalt areas to
accommodate required parking and
landscaping.
E. Change the maximum height limitation
contained in the development
standards for the M-M IMedium
Manufacturing) zone on this site from
50 feet to 75 feet.
West side of Ynez Road, immediately south of
the Apricot Road alignment.
M-M - Medium Manufacturing
North: CPS - Scenic Highway Commercial
South: CPS - Scenic Highway Commercial
STAFFRPT\PP1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
East: Across Ynez, A-2-20 Heavy
Agricultural-20 acre minimum
West: Across 1-15, CPS - Scenic Highway
Commercial
North: Commercial under construction
South: Vacant - auto dealership approved
East: Vacant - proposed regional mall
West: Interstate 15
Site Size: 25.2~, acres gross
Manufacturing/Office
Square Feet: 270,780 sq.ft.
Total Parking Spaces: 1,102
Percentage Landscaping On-site: 38%
No. of Access Driveways: 2
No. of Large Existing Buildings: 2
Height of Existing Large Buildings: 21 ft.
No. of Small Existing Buildings: 2
Height of Small Existing Buildings: 2~ ft.
No. of Existing Parking Spaces: 826
Current No. of Employees: 681
No. of Employees at Buildout 1,80~
Plot Plan No. I was submitted to the City of
Temecula on April 6, 1990. The project was
initially reviewed by the Development Review
Committee on May 17, 1990. The project had
previously been reviewed by the County~s
Land Development Committee on a fast-track
basis, but with the incorporation of the City,
the project was delayed in favor of local
consideration.
Site and Area Settinq
Advanced Cardiovascular operates an
existing manufacturing facility on the site in
question. The existing operation covers the
majority of the 25.2~ acre site, and is
comprised of two ~2) major single story
manufacturing buildings {211,300 sq.ft. ), 2
double story buildings ~11,000 sq.ft.), a
series of small storage buildings and yards,
an extensive paved area used for on-site
circulation and parking, and a recreational
ball court. The applicant has indicated on
the site plan that 681 employees currently
work on the site and that there are 826
existing parking stalls on-site. The site is
almost entirely paved over at this time. The
area in the immediate vicinity of this project
SITE DESIGN:
is undergoing rapid urbanization. A q0+ acre
community commercial project is under
construction immediately to the north. Plans
for a regional shopping center and associated
uses are being formulated for a 230 acre site
immediately east of this project across Ynez
Road, although nothing has yet been
approved. The site to the south is currently
vacant, but a Toyota Auto dealership has
been approved for the site. The Ynez Road
corridor between Winchester Road and
Rancho California Road is only partially
improved at this time and has been
constructed in places with inadequate right-
of-way to accommodate full buildout.
Area Improvements
A Mello-Roos Assessment District { No. 88-12 )
has been formed to provide infrastructure
improvements for this area. This assessment
district lies between 1-15 and Margarita Road,
approximately between Winchester Road and
Rancho California Road. The major
improvements associated with this district
include construction of the Apricot freeway
overpass, full-width construction of Ynez
Road, Overland Drive and Solana Way, flood
control improvements, and sewer and water
lines.
Infrastructure in the area is inadequate to
support this or surrounding proposals at this
time. All the area projects, working in
concert with the assessment district, will be
providing area improvements to support
proposed uses. This project has been
conditioned to construct on-site and adjacent
improvements prior to building occupancy in
the event the assessment district fails to do
so in a reasonable time.
Buildinq Layout
The additional proposed expansion of the ACS
facilities is constrained to some degree by the
existing buildings on-site which comprise
approximately 233,000 square feet of total
floor area. The proposed expansion will allow
a total building floor area of 522,080 square
feet to be constructed. The bulk of that floor
area will be contained within the two large
existing manufacturing buildings and the
3
proposed o, story manufacturing/office
facility.
The proposed building is located immediately
adjacent to Ynez Road. The north end of the
building is shifted at an architecturally
distinct angle away from the balance of the
building. This area is planned to be
primarily office space.
The required front setback from the street
right-of-way is 10 feet. This project is 62
feet back from the street right-d-way.
Parkinq Analysis
As submitted, the applicant has provided the
following parking detail:
Number of employees Imaximum) by
year 2000, = 1,80u,. The largest
number of employees on a shift is 2/3
of the maximum number { 1,80u,),
equaling 1,203.
The following spaces have been shown on the
plot plan:
Standard stalls
Compact stalls
Handicapped stalls
Ground With
Level Structure
700 876
1~ 208
18 18
862 1,102
Required
Loading Spaces: 7
Provided
The applicant has provided parking
calculations based on the "Manufacturing"
requirement of the Zoning Ordinance 18.1226.
This section requires two |2) spaces for
every three {3) employees on the largest
shift, plus one ~1 ) space for each company
operated vehicle.
Using the applicant provided employee
calculation of 1,804 for the year 2000, based
on Section 18.12. {26), the applicant would be
required to provide 802 stalls, plus 20 stalls
for the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Rideshare Program. The total of 822
stalls would be reduced by two percent {16
stalls) as allowed in Ordinance No. 3~8
Rideshare Program, lowering the total to 806
required stalls.
Under Section 18.12{22) of Ordinance 3~,8,
"Industrial Uses", parking would be
calculated using one of the following two
methods:
a. Where the number of employees can be
determined, "One space for every two
employees on the largest shift plus one
space for every vehicle kept in
connection with the use", no vehicles
are identified as being kept on site so
602 spaces would be required.
-OR -
b. Where the number of employees cannot
be determined, "One space for every
250 square feet of office area, one
space for every 500 square feet of
fabrication area, and one space for
1,000 square feet of storage area..
Given the applicant~s breakdown:
8q,000 sq.ft. = Office area
~,06,000 sq .ft. = Fabrication area
32,000 sq.ft. = Storaqe area
522,000 sq.ft.
A total of 1,180 parking stalls would be
required.
Under the calculation for Section 18.12 { 22 ) A,
the applicant exceeds the parking
requirement (without the structure) by 20L)
stalls. Under the calculation for 18.12{26),
the applicant exceeds the required parking
(without the structure) by 60 stalls. )n both
cases all handicap, bicycle, compact, and
rideshare stall spaces are in compliance with
City of Temecula Code requirements.
Under Section 18.12{22)B, the applicant
would be short approximately 75 spaces,
including the parking structure.
Based on Staff~s determination that the
ultimate number of employees cannot be
determined, Section 18.12{22)B will be
utilized. Under this Section the office,
fabrication, and storage area breakdown will
dictate parking requirements. This
necessitates the construction of the proposed
parking structure. This condition will
provide adequate stall space for the future
continued use of the site.
Access
Two access points serve the project from
Ynez Road. No access will be allowed onto
Apricot Road. Vehicular access extends
throughout the site along the northern edge
of the site, between the two existing
buildings and proposed Building '~E", and
throughout the southern area of the site
where the multi-level parking structure is
located.
Architecture and Landscapin~l
Landscaping is provided throughout the
project. Ordinance No. 3~,8 {Medium
Manufacturing) standards require a minimum
10% of the site must be landscaped. If plazas
and walkways are included, this project
proposes that 38.6% of the site be
landscaped.
The architectural style of the building is
modern and industrial in appearance. The
office portion of the building is set at an
angle against the bulk of the building, which
offsets the basic rectilinear design of the
structure. Articulation is achieved through
recessed panels and projections on the
building~s face. Certain entryways are
afforded special articulation with triangular
overhangs and balcony projections above
them. To a large degree, the appearance of
the building is dictated by the uses contained
within it, especially in terms of lack of
windows and the basic masslng of the
structure.
Staff believes the architecture is appropriate
for the site and the use and that it achieves
a level of aesthetic quality basically
commensurate with area development.
Bedford Properties has had input on the
architecture. The new building, in concert
with new landscape improvements, will likely
lead to an improved appearance over the
project as currently constructed. As noted
in the initial study, the structure will
dominate the Ynez corridor until the area
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
develops at higher intensity in the future.
That impact was not determined to be
significant.
Staff identified five major potential impacts to
the environment with the implementation of
the project. Those impacts were:
o Traffic generation and circulation
impacts
o Visual impacts resulting from building
mass and land use intensification
o Liquefaction/Seismic impacts
o Lack of adequate infrastructure
o Growth inducement
Staff expanded the scope of the initial study
and requested detailed information on the
potential impacts listed above. The initial
study, attached, explored these impacts and
Staff concluded that with proper mitigation,
these negative aspects to the development
could be reduced to a level of non-
significance.
The attached Expanded Initial Study analyses
each projected impact. Conditions of
Approval have been attached to mitigate these
impacts.
Transportation/Circulation
The Traffic Study for the project was
performed in February of 1990. An
addendure to the Study was submitted in
July, 1990, at the request of the Engineering
Department. The objectives of the report
were to review existing conditions, project
the A.C.S. plot plan impacts as well as
impacts from pending area development
projects and assess infrastructure needs to
meet those developing demands. The scope
of the study included an inventory of
existing conditions and flows, an evaluation
of background traffic, a roadway network
review relative to road and intersection
capacities and mitigation measures.
According to the Traffic Study, the following
intersections will be significantly impacted
(above 596 peak hour increase) with project
implementation:
o Ynez Road/Winchester Road
(21.2%-AM and 3.8%-PM);
o Ynez Road/Solana Way
{28.6%-AM and 6.1%-PM);
o Ynez Road/Rancho California Road
(7.8%-AM and 2.~,%-PM);
o Northbound 1-15 ramps/Winchester Road
{13.~%~AM and 2.5%-PM);
o Margarita Road/Solana Way
111.1%-AM and 1.9%-PM);
o Ynez Road/North Project Access
(~9.2%-AM and 8.9%-PM);
o Ynez Road/Center Project Access
{37.8%-AM and 6.7%-PM); and
o Ynez Road/South Project Access
(52.5%-AM and 11.8%-PM).
These impacts are considered significant by
the Staff. The major improvements which are
needed to support the project are being
constructed under the Mello-Roos Assessment
District, under which the project applicant
will be assessed. Road improvements along
the project~s Ynez Road frontage must be
completed prior to occupancy of the four
story structure. The intersections of Ynez
Road and Winchester Road and Ynez Road and
Solana Way should also be fully constructed
and signalized.
The Traffic Study incorrectly notes a third
point of access onto the subject property.
This third access was deleted upon advice
from the County Road Department after the
study was completed.
Public improvements should be fully
constructed in the area to avoid adverse
temporary impact; however, it may not be
reasonable to make project occupancy
contingent on all the area~s needed road
improvements. Staff has attempted to
provide a reasonable level of required
improvements for this project. The
construction of the Apricot alignment is not a
condition of this project.
Visual Impacts
In considering potential aesthetic impacts
resulting from this project, staff concluded
8
that two small viewsheds had the potential for
impact:
1. The Interstate 15 corridor
2. The Ynez Road corridor.
Staff requested that a cross section be
submitted which depicted roadways, building
heights, lineal distances and landscape
treatments to evaluate the degree of view
blockage, particularly along 1-15 since it has
been designated a scenic corridor under the
Southwest Area Community Plan {SWAP).
After conducting several site inspections and
reviewing the information submitted by the
applicant, the staff has concluded that no
major visual impact will occur along 1-15.
The proposed ~, story structure is 75 feet tall
{approximately 50 feet taller than existing
buildings on the site, however, the building
is set back from the freeway approximately
600 feet, thereby reducing the view blockage
significantly from the freeway.
The westerly view from Ynez Road will be
blocked to a large degree due to the 62 foot
setback from the right-of-way line
{approximately 7~, feet from the curb). This
structure will dominate the western view
along Ynez Road for approximately 600 feet.
This view blockage along a short distance of
Ynez Road should not constitute a significant
impact, especially with landscape installation
as condjtioned.
Liquefaction and Seismic impacts
The project site is in proximity to several
major fault systems capable of generating
substantial ground shaking episodes.
Additionally, the area in the immediate
vicinity is recognized as having liquefaction
potential. A geotechnical report was
prepared in May, 1988, in anticipation of this
project. The report has been included in the
Expanded Initial Study prepared for this
project.
The scope of the study included an analysis
of soil conditions, building design factors and
foundation support alternatives, liquefaction
potential, groundwater depth and soil
9
preparation and compaction requirements.
Test borings reached as far as 70 feet. It
was determined that the Wildomar-Elslnore
Fault system encroaches on the southernmost
corner of the property, and crosses
Interstate 15 approximately 1,000 feet south
of the subject property. All structures must
be a minimum of 50 feet from the AIquist-
Priolo Zone.
After additional information was supplied, the
report was accepted as adequate by the
County Geologist on May 20, 1988. Mitigation
measures for seismic related impacts have
been attached.
Adequate Infrastructure Availability
Mello-Roos Assessment District No. 88-12 has
been formed to provide improvements
discussed in the Area Improvements section
of this report. The most obvious needed
improvements are related to roadway and
traff)c control installations. Other needed
improvements include flood control and sewer
and water lines.
A utility availability summary was prepared
by J. F. Davidson Associates and has been
included in the Expanded Initial Study.
Water {Rancho Water), sewer {EMWD), gas,
electric, and telephone service were
discussed. Conditions have been attached
regarding flood control, sewer and water
service, and roadway improvements.
Growth Inducement
This project is not expected to induce growth
to a degree of significance. It will, however,
stimulate local employment opportunities
which will likely lead to a population influx
for skilled labor and management personnel.
Semi-skilled and low-skilled labor will likely
be drawn from the local labor pool, which
provides benefits to the City and reduces
impact to regional air quality.
Generally speaking, all new development
induces further growth. Commercial and
industrial development encourages local
housing growth. This factor is perceived by
10
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
FINDINGS:
Staff as a positive impact in terms of local
employment and the subsequent reduction in
regional travel for area residents. No
significant negative impact is expected.
The land use currently on this site is fully
consistent with SWAP land use designations
and policies. The Southwest Area Community
Plan has been adopted as a policy guide by
the City, which assists in projecting probable
consistency with the future General Plan.
Based on compliance with Ordinance No. 348
provisions, consistency with SWAP, and on
the expanded initial study performed for this
project which found no significant negative
impacts, Staff recommends that the project be
found to be consistent with the City's future
General Plan.
There is a reasonable probability that
Plot Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No.
3 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or
interference with the future General
Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies
with State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of the lot configuration,
circulation patterns, access, and
intensity of use.
The project as designed and
conditioned will not adversely affect
the public health or welfare.
The project is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The harmony
in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and
coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties,
11
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
through appropriate building mass
reduction techniques and landscape
installation, and distance from planned
adjacent structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse
effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a
significant change to the present or
planned land use of the area.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic.
The project as designed and
conditioned will not adversely affect
the built or natural environment as
determined in the expanded initial
study performed for this project.
10.
The design of the project, the type of
improvements, and the resulting street
layout are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access
through or use of the property within
the proposed project.
11.
That said findings are supported by
minutes, maps, exhibits and
environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
The Planning Department Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend to
the City Council the following:
ADOPTION of a Negative
Declaration for Plot Plan No. 1
and Change of Zone No. 3;
APPROVAL of Change of Zone
No. 3; and
3. APPROVAL of Plot Plan No. 1;
based on the analysis and findings contained
in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
12
!iiii ,,,,i, .
iil~ .~'
Ii
~ " / ~
\ \
/ \ ·
O
N
0 ~
NORTH ~,,~
~ ~ c
N;;;0 : , '
\
-r
""0 /
~ ~,~ / \
/
N
~'~ ~
0
EHRLICH-RO~INGER
ARCHITECTS
89161.01
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 1
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This approval shall be used within two {2) years of the City Council approval
date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 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 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, and shall comply with
Ordinance No. 655.
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
inches.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven {7 ) copies of parking, landscaping, shading and irrigation plot
plan tothe Planning Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set
forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 348.
A minimum of 1,102 parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with
Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3L~8. The parking area shall
be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three
inches on four {~,) inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 11 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for he handicapped 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
STAFFRPT\PP1
10.
11.
12.
13.
end of the parking space at a minimum of height of 80 inches from the bottom
of the sign to the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign
shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not
less than one { 1 ) inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states 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 surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue
paint of at least three (3) square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of
the Department of Building and Safety.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the freeways, streets, and within the parking areas.
This project site is within a significant groundshaking zone. Mitigation shall
be the application of the proper Uniform Building Code standards in the
development of this project. Mitigations outlined in the approved Geotechnlcal
Report shall be adhered to. Evidence of compliance with those conditions shall
be presented to the Building and Safety Department prior to the issuance of
building permits.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of
any building permit by the Temecula Department of Building and Safety, a
California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended
structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification
shall be based upon, but not limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and
geotechnlcal conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development
is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
Forty-four Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided in convenient locations
to facilitate bicycle access to the project area in accordance with Ordinance
No. 3~,8 requirements.
15.
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 planrings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with
the Director of Building and Safety.
16.
Prior to 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 irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
17.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
18.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in 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 by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new
building and parking structure.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
19.
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All
questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to
the Engineering Department.
20.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements,
traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the
project to be resubmitted for further consideration.
21.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
22.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall post with the
City a Flood Mitigation Fee based on the current fee schedule per Riverside
County Flood Control Master Drainage Plan.
23.
Drainage is involved on this development, and its resolution shall be as
approved by the City Engineer's Office, including the payment of the
appropriate drainage fee to Riverside County.
The developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities
including existing facilities, or by securing a drainage easement.
25°
26.
27°
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
35.
The Development shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the
use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. ~,60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the
shall provide adequate facilities as approved by Engineering Department.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit four {~)
copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall
address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit four ~,)
copies of a comprehensive grading plan to Engineering Department. The plan
shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be
additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. The plan shall be
drawn on 21~" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City maintained road right-of-
way.
No rough grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being
substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters, and approval by the
City Engineer.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of
a grading permit.
All street dedications shall be offered to the public and shall continue in force
until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free
of all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer.
Sufficient right-of-way along Ynez Road shall be confirmed to exist or
conveyed for public use to provide for a public street for public use to
provide for a 67 foot half width right-of-way.
Construction and design of the improvements for Ynez road shall be bonded
for in the event that the Mello-Roos does not construct the required
improvements, in accordance with County Standard No. 100, Section
A(110/134).
Temporary street widening and striping will be required on Ynez Road if
ultimate improvements have not been constructed prior to occupancy of the
first phase. A street widening and striping plan shall be prepared and
submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
Prior to occupancy of the first phase, a traffic signal shall be constructed at
Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway. The signal shall be constructed per the
City standards, special provisions, and the approved Traffic Signal Plan.
36.
37.
38.
39.
u,O.
u,1.
q3.
q5.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the Standards of Ordinance 461 and as approved by the City
Engineer.
All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit.
A signin9 and stripin9 plan shall be designed by a reglstered traffic
engineer, and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer,
and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered traffic and civil
engineer, and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer,
for the following intersections and shall be included in the street improvement
plans with the second plan check submittal: Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway.
A minimum 300 foot left turn lane shall be provided for northbound Ynez Road
and the southern A.C.S. entrance.
A minimum 100 foot right turn pocket with required right-of-way shall be
constructed for southbound right turn movements on Ynez Road into most
southern driveway.
Plans for traffic signal interconnect shall be designed, and approved by the
City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer, and shown on the street
improvement plans in the following location(s): Ynez Road and South Access
Drive and all signals north to Winchester.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined
by Riverside Transit Authority and/or the City Engineer.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
traffic engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City
Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic
circulation, as required by the City Traffic Engineer or the City Engineer.
All signing and stripin9 shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan.
The applicant will design the northern entrance to prohibit all left turning
movements entering and exiting {ie. right turn in and out only). This is due
to the close proximity of the entrance to the future Apricot Street Connection
with Ynez Road.
If a fair and equitable share of the developePs cost of transportation
improvements has not been determined at the time a Certificate of Occupancy
is needed, the developer shall be required to deposit $10,000 into a City
established Road Benefit Funds. The developer is also required to sign an
agreement with the City to either pay an amount or receive a refund equal to
the difference between his estimated fair share and the amount of deposit with
the City.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
50.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum based on the current fee schedule as
mitigation for traffic signal impact.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
51.
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 1 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area.
Prior to buildinq plan submittal:
52. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies.
53.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the
Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch (Jon
Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been
cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185).
Waste reduction management.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure
established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3,000
GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which
must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job
site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped
system ( 6"x~"x2 1/2x2 1/2 ), will be located not less than 25 feet or more
than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along
approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be
available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
6
55.
56.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans
to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire
hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the
fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered
civil engineer and the local water company with the following
certification: "l certify that the design of the water system is in
accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County
Fire Department."
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
f. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Buildinq E, ~, Story Buildinq
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire
flow of 1,500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the buildingIs). A statement
that the buildingIs) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be
included on the title page of the building plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must
be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation,
as required by the Uniform Building Code.
A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprlnklered must
appear on the title page of the building plans.
Building to meet "High Rise Standard" per Riverside County Ordinance
Section 801.
57. Parking Structure
58.
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to install a Class I I I Standpipe
System. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval
prior to installation.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $1~13.00
to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum
of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
7
59.
60.
Final Conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of Conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering Staff.
8
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 6, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Tract No. 23209
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council DENY Tentative Tract No. 23209, based on
the analysis and findings contained in this staff report.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Owner:
Applicant:
Engineer:
Proposal:
Location:
Area Plan:
Zoning:
Surrounding
Zoning:
Surrounding
Land Uses:
Laverda Edmond
AIba Engineering, Inc.
Alba Engineering, Inc.
To subdivide an 80 acre site into 257 parcels with a minimum lot
size of 8,000 square feet.
West of Butterfield Stage Road, east of Walcott Lane, and
approximately 1.25 miles north of Rancho California Road.
2-1~ dwelling units per acre
RT-Mobile Home Subdivision (also permits conventional dwelling
units)
North:
South:
East:
West:
RA-5 and RA-2 1/2, Residential Agricultural
S-P, Specific Plan {Margarita Village)
A-1-10, Light Agriculture and R-R, Rural
Residential
R-T, Mobile Home Subdivisions and Mobile Home
Parts
North:
South:
East:
West:
Scattered single family residential
Vacant - Masterplan undergoing grading
Vineyards and vacant land
Single family residential, undergoing grading with
some construction underway.
Project
Information:
Density: 3.21 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 80 acres
No. of Units: 257
STAFFRPT\TT23209
ANALYSIS
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 was continued from the County Planning Commission
Hearing of December 20, 1989, at the request of the applicant and the City of
Temecula. The County Planning staff was concerned that the proposed subdivision
was incompatible with the vineyards east of the site and was not consistent with the
Southwest Area Community Plan design policy, requiring buffers to minimize land
use conflicts between agricultural land uses and other land uses.
County staff pointed out that the Margarita Village Specific Plan south of the site
stipulates densities of one { 1 ) dwelling unit per acre and 0.7 dwelling units per acre
adjacent to the vineyards. County staff also requested that the applicant redesign
the project with lots of at least 10,000 square feet, gradually transitioning to 20,000
square feet adjacent to the vineyards east of the site. The applicant refused to
redesign the project, and County staff prepared a recommendation of denial.
Subsequent to the continuance from the hearing of December 20, 1989, the applicant
met with County planning staff. The applicant agreed to incorporate sloped
landscaped buffers 20 to 0,0 feet wide along Butterfield Road and 20 to 50 feet wide
along the portion of La Serena way which is visible from Butterfleld Stage Road.
Block walls are included at the tops of the landscaped slopes. These provisions
satisfied the County staff, and a recommendation was made at the Planning
Commission hearing of February 7, 1990, to adopt the Negative Declaration, to
approve a waiver of the required lot length to width ratio for Lots 76, 102,103, 136,
137, and 10,1, and to approve Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amendment No. ~. The
County Planning Commission recommended that the City of Temecula adopt the
Negative Declaration, approve the waiver of lot length to width ratio, and approve
the Tentative Tract.
AREA SETTING
The 80 acre site lies in hilly terrain containing steep slopes in several areas and is
traversed by several well-defined washes. There is an existing single family
residential development and another development under construction west of the
site. There are vineyards east of the site south of La Serena Way. Seven of the
proposed lots are directly across the future alignment of Butterfield Stage Road from
the vineyards. The rest of the site south of La Serena is separated from the
vineyards by a wedge shaped portion of Tentative Tract 23103. The area east of the
site and north of La Serena Way is vacant land zoned Rural Residential. There are
scattered residences on large lots north of the site, and the Margarita Village
Specific Plan is south of the site. The site is near a designated Stephen~s Kangaroo
Rat habitat and areas of sensitivity for archaeological and paleontolegical resources.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal is to subdivide an 80 acre site into 257 single family residential lots.
The minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. Lot sizes range from 8,000 square feet to
16,000 square feet.
As a buffer between the proposed project and the vineyards east of the project site,
2
the proposed map shows landscaped slopes 20 to ~,0 feet wide along Butterfleld Stage
Road and 20 to 50 feet wide on both sides of La Serena Way. The map indicates a six
foot block wall at the top of the landscaped slopes. Portions of ~,3 of the proposed
lots are contained in the landscaped slopes which are to become a landscape easement
maintained by a homeowner~s association.
A waiver from the subdivision design standard that lot depth shall not exceed 2 1/2
times the lot width for lots of 18,000 square feet or less is requested for six of the
proposed lots. One of the six lots is located on a cul-de-sac. The others abut
straight or slightly curved streets.
SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS
ACCESS
Access to the site from paved and maintained streets is taken from La Serena Way on
the westerly side of the site, and from Butterfield Stage Road on the easterly side
of the site. The nearest major arterial street with freeway access is Rancho
California Road.
TRAFFIC IMPACT
A traffic study was not submitted to the County for the project in question.
Therefore, information is not available regarding estimates of project generated
traffic and traffic impacts on the levels of service of streets in the vicinity. The
Southwest Area Community Plan suggests a target Level of Service C and a target
peak level of Service D. The project could be inconsistent with the Area Community
Plan on the basis of project generated peak hour traffic impacts on Rancho California
Road at Highway 15. The County Road Department specified a fee of $150 per lot for
traffic signal improvements. A traffic study is still needed in order to determine the
distribution and volumes of existing traffic, projected future traffic, and traffic
generated by the proposed subdivision.
GRADING
Tentative Tract Map No. 23209, Amendment No. 4, indicates that the project as
designed would require over two million cubic yards of excavation on the site. There
would be 2,158,759 cubic yards of cut, 2,037,969 cubic yards of fill, and 120,790
cubic yards of earth exported from the site. An average of approximately 7,900
cubic yards of earth per lot would be moved on the site, and an average of
approximately ~,70 cubic yards of earth per lot would be exported from the site. This
amount of excavation constitutes a substantial alteration of the existing terrain.
Staff suggests that topographic alteration to this extent substantially alters the
character of the site and diminishes the character and flavor of the community as a
whole.
It should be noted that a substantial amount of grading will occur in conjunction with
the construction of Butterfield Stage Road regardless of how the subject property
is developed.
3
DRAINAGE
Several drainage courses traverse the property, and the site is subject to storm
run-off from several small watersheds. The developer proposes to intercept off-site
runoff and convey it through the site in a storm drain system. The tract is located
within the Mutt/eta Creek/Santa Certrudis Valley and Temecula Valley Area Drainage
Plan. Drainage fees must be paid to the County Road Commissioner at the time of
recordat/on of the final map. Drainage easements must be obtained from affected
property owners for off-site drainage facilities. Said easements must be recorded
prior to recordat/on of the final map.
Proposed parcels 360 through 171 are shown on the map as being located downslope
from several parcels of Tract No. 22148. The slopes shown do not reflect the
existing grading of the parcels in Tract 221~,8 or the proposed pad elevations of
Parcels 160 through 171 on the subject Tentative Tract Map. The non-existent
slopes shown on the map in Tract 22148 should be deleted in order to avoid raising
unnecessary concerns regarding drainage.
KANGAROO RAT HABITAT
A biological survey revealed that the Stephens Kangaroo Rat occupies parts of the
site. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits for the site, the secretary of
the interior must have approved the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
Plan and issued a Section 10 la) permit for incidental taking of Stephens Kangaroo
rats. A report documenting the amount and quality of the species habitat subject to
disturbance or destruction by the proposed tract must be submitted and approved
by the Planning Director. Any disturbance to the site requires appropriate federal
permits, including grading, dlsking, clearing, and construction.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT
The proposed density of 3.2 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area
Community Plan {S.W.A.P. ) designation of 2-4 residential units per acre. All of the
proposed lots contain at least 8,000 square feet of total area and conform to the
minimum lot width and depth requirements of the RT zone. However, the usable area
of u,3 of the proposed lots is reduced by the landscaped slope easement and the block
wall. Fifteen of the lots have less than 7,200 square feet of usable area. Some
parcels have as little as 6,000 square feet of usable area. Eight of the proposed lots
do not have 100 feet of usable lot depth. Lots with less than 7,200 square feet of
usable lot area are not consistent with the intent of the SWACP designation of 2-4
units per acre. This intensity of development may not be consistent with the Future
General Plan given the natural topography and adjacent vineyard.
PROJECT NOT CONSISTENT WITH SWACP POLICIES
SWACP General Design Policy states that adequate buffers shall be encouraged in
order to minimize land use conflicts between agricultural operations and other land
uses. The vineyards east of the site are part of the citrus/vineyard/rural policy
area. One of SWACP goals for this policy area is to preserve the rural lifestyle and
wine making atmosphere of the area. A landscaped slope 20 to 40 feet wide and a
block wall are inadequate as a buffer between a rural vineyard area and the proposed
257 lot subdivision. A development of lesser intensity would be more compatible for
a site in proximity to a vineyard and adjacent to areas zoned for 1/2 acre lots and the
portion of the Margarita Specific Plan containing one acre lots abutting the
southeasterly side of the subject property.
PROJECT NOT COMPATIBLE WITH MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
The proposed tract is not compatible with the Margarita Village Specific Plan south
of the site. The Margarlta Village Specific Plan stipulates densities of 0. 7 to 1.0 unit
per acre adjacent to the vineyards.
LAND USE
The proposed intensity of residential development is inappropriate for the property
in question. The hilly terrain of the site and the proposed amount of excavation in
excess of two million cubic yards of cut and fill indicate that residential development
of a substantially lower density than that proposed would be more appropriate. The
location of the site adjacent to a vineyard also suggests a lower intensity of
development pursuant to SWACP policies encouraging buffers between agricultural
operations and other land uses and preservation of the rural life style and wine
making atmosphere of the vineyard areas.
FINDINGS
Due to its hilly terrain and the adjacent agricultural use, the site is not
physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The proposed intensity of development is inconsistent with Southwest Area
Community Plan {SWACP) policies encouraging adequate buffers between
agricultural uses and other land uses and preservation of the rural lifestyle
and wine making atmosphere of the adjacent vineyard area.
The proposed tract is not compatible with the Margarlta Village Specific Plan
south of the site in that the specific plan stipulates densities of 0.7 to 1.0
dwelling unit per acre adjacent to the vineyards.
The proposed subdivision is technically consistent with the requirements of
the R-T zone regarding lot area and dimensions and conforms to the density
of 2-L~ units per acre as designated in the SWACP. However, the landscape
easement along Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way reduces the usable
lot area of fifteen lots to less than 7,200 square feet of lot area and the usable
depth of eight lots to less than 100 feet. A total of 18 lots do not have
adequate usable lot area and/or usable lot depth to satisfy the minimum
requirements for lot area and dimensions in the R-T zone. Said 18 lots are not
in conformance with the intent of the SWACP land use designation of 2-~ units
per acre.
Six of the proposed lots do not conform to subdivision design standard that
lot depth shall not exceed 2 1/2 times lot width.
5
There is a possibility that the proposed subdivision will be inconsistent with
the policies and land use designations of the City~s General Plan when it is
adopted. The City has 30 months from the date of incorporation to adopt a
General Plan. There is a possibility that the proposed subdivision could
constitute a substantial detriment to or interfere with the City's General Plan.
Since no traffic study was conducted for the project, the volumes,
distribution, and impacts of project generated traffic on the streets in the
vicinity are undetermined. It is possible that cumulative traffic impacts could
result in levels of service inconsistent with the requirements of the Southwest
Area Community Plan and/or the new City General Plan when it is adopted.
It would be inappropriate to adopt a Negative Declaration and approve
Tentative Tract No. 23209 in the absence of a traffic study.
Tentative Tract No. 23209 is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act
regarding passive use of solar energy that the proposed lots have significant
southern exposure which allows for passive heating opportunities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council DENY Tentative Tract No, 23209 based on the
analysis and findings contained in this staff report.
6
IAN ..... m!;
)OO ~
'rENTA, T IVE, 'FR~,CT
t20 "'% 20. DEL MAR CT. " '
21. COLINA VERDE
I ~' 22 CIELO DE ~UL
~-,
,-' 23. CAMPO VERDE I
' ~ I "' / v~l.~. ~
CALLE / CH~Pd~:
, ~' .':~ ',~ a>.,~ ="~ .......
/ .....
%< s
~ ' EREN, q ,
q~ .................................'
SITE,
LA
;~,~;~? Hart
"' '2"" ~'THE
RL~NA~ VINEYARD
VIC Ik~ IT ~ NAP
Winery
..~.
Callaway
Vineyards
App. ALBA 'COIiSULTING
UM 80 AC. INTO 257
A, ma SKINNER LAKE
Sec. E9 T. 7S,,R. 2W. ~*s Bk. 914
LOTS
Sup.Dtst. Is~
LOCATIO NAL MAP
P~.31
C,i,::ulltlon LA SERENA WY. --SECONDARYm 88'
Element BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD.--NRTERIAL-- riO'
Fkl I~. Pg. 55C Date 11/20/89 Dnvm By ~/TE~'.
800' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT .o 8CALE
ILI~A IY.
RD,
!
ITEM #~,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Temecula Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
August 6, 1990
AGENDA ITEM NO. ~,
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Tentative Tract No. 23990
Dean AIstrup
Generally between La Serena Way and Margarita Road; on the
south side of Via La Vida.
Subdivide 5.76 acres into 30 residential R-2 lots
The applicant, Dean Alstrup, has requested a two week continuance for this project
based on his inability to attend the August 6, 1990 meeting. He has requested that
the project be continued to the August 20, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Staff
recommends that the request for the continuance be granted.
GT:ks
PLANN I NG\M5
iTEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANN)NC COMMISSION
Aijgust 6, 1990
Case No.: Appeal No. 6
Recommendation: Denial
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
P R OPOSA L:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
STFRPT\APPL6
Bedford Development Company
Markham and Associates
The proposal is a sign program for Palm Plaza which
includes one monolith sign 36 feet in height adjacent
to 1-15, one monolith sign 20 feet in height adjacent
to Winchester Road, and three monolith signs 20 feet
in height adjacent to Ynez Road.
Adjacent to 1-15, south of Winchester Road and west
of Ynez Road.
C-P-S, Scenic Highway Commercial
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S - Scenlc Highway Commercial
M-M - Manufacturing Medium
A-2-20 - Heavy Agriculture
1-15
Not requested.
Vacant, Shopping Center under construction.
North: Commercial
South: Manufacturing
East: Vacant
West: 1-15
Number of Acres:
Number of Businesses:
Number of
Free-standing Signs:
41
27
1 sign 36 feet in
height with 84
square feet of face
area.
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Size of Wall Signs:
L) signs 20 feet in
height with 28
square feet of face
area.
10% of surface area
of front and side
walls, 5% of surface
area on rear walls.
Plot Plan No. 38, the proposed sign program for the
Palm Plaza shopping center at the southwesterly
corner of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, was
submitted on May 18, 1990. The Planning
Department notified the applicant in a letter dated
May 31, 1990 that the proposed sign program does
not comply with the provisions of Ordinance
regarding the permitted number of free-standing
signs, the permitted face area of wall signs, and the
prohibition of signs mounted on or above roofs.
The applicant responded on June 8, 1990, that due
to the size of the site, Palm Plaza should be
considered as multiple shopping centers on eight
parcels. At this time the applicant deleted one of
the two freeway signs and two tenant pylon signs
which had been included in the original proposal.
The Planning Department did not concur with the
applicant~s interpretation regarding the number of
"shopping centers" in Palm Plaza, and Plot Plan No.
38 was denied on June 19, 1990.
The applicant filed an appeal to the Planning
Commission on June 29, 1990 within the 10 day
appeal period. The appeal included a revised sign
program which corrected the portion of the wall sign
criteria which did not comply with Ordinance No.
3~,8. However, the sign program still shows more
free-standing signs than the Ordinance permits.
The applicant has pointed out that the cinema sign
shown in Exhibit F is not a roof-mounted sign. It is
a wall sign affixed to a substantial architectural
feature of the building and is therefore permitted
by Ordinance No. 3~,8. Staff concurs.
The locations of the proposed free-standing signs
are shown on the Site Plan, Exhibit 1. Please note
that there are no sign types B or E or Exhibits B or
E because they were deleted from the sign program.
The major components of the proposed sign program
are as follows:
1. Three curvilinear entrance monuments
ANALYSIS:
four feet in height and 20 feet in width
with the name and logo of Palm Plaza
(See Exhibit A) , one at each driveway
on Ynez Road.
One monolith sign 36 feet in height and
13 feet in width and containing 84
square feet of sign copy per side
located adjacent to 1-15 {See Exhibit
C).
Four monolith signs 20 feet in height
and eight feet in width with 28 square
feet of sign copy per side, one
monolith located on Winchester Road
and one at each of the three driveway
on Ynez Road (See Exhibit D) .
Wall mounted signs with a maximum
area equal to 10% of the building fascia
area on the fronts and sides of
buildings and 5% of the building fascia
area on the rear. Wall signs will
consist of individual channel letters.
The maximum letter height for up to
three anchor tenants, inc)uding
Mervyn~s and K-Mart, is five feet.
The maximum letter height for major
tenants with 10,000 to 19,999 square
feet IBuildings 10 through 22) is 36
inches on front and side walls and 30
inches on rear walls. The maximum
letter height is 30 inches on Buildings
12 through 16, 19, 21; and 24 inches
on Buildings 3 through 9 and 23
through 27. The permitted colors are
teal blue, blue, yellow, orange, red,
black, and white. Only one color is
allowed per sign face.
The site is at the same elevation as the
streets and the freeway it abuts and
presents no unusual obstacles to sign
visibility.
The proposed sign program is
consistent with Ordinance 3u,8
standards regarding the height of
free-standing signs and sign face area
for free-standing and wall mounted
signs, The sign program is not
consistent with Ordinance 348
standards regarding the number of
free standing signs. The specific
areas of compl lance and non-compliance
are delineated below.
Number of Free-standinq Siqns
Section 19.~,{a.L~) permits a shopping
center with more than one street
frontage to have two free-standing
signs provided that they are not
located on the same street, are at least
100 feet apart, and the second sign
does not exceed 100 square feet in
surface area and 20 feet in height.
The proposed sign program is not in
compliance with Section 19.~,{a.~,) in
that it includes a total of five free-
standing signs.
Definition of Shoppinq Center
Section 19.2{m) of Ordinance 3~,8
defines a shopping center as a parcel
of land not less than three acres in size
on which there are four or more
separate businesses that have mutual
parking facilities. The definition does
not include a maximum area or number
of separate businesses. Therefore,
Palm Plaza, which is located on
contiguous parcels which share
reciprocal access and parking, is
considered one shopping center and is
allowed only as many free-standing
signs as one shopping center.
Heiqht of Free-standinq Siqns
Section 19.LHa.1,2) of Ordinance 31~8
stipulates a maximum height of ~,5 feet
for signs within 660 feet of the freeway
right of way and 20 feet for other
locations. The proposed sign program
complies with the height restrictions
by providing for a 36 foot freeway
oriented signs and signs 20 feet in
height in other locations.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Face Area of Free-standing Siqns
The sign program indicates 84 square
feet of freeway sign face area and 28
square feet of face area on the other
free-standing signs. The program
complies with the maximum face areas
of 150 square feet for freeway signs
and 50 square feet for other free-
standing signs per Section
19.4{a.1,2).
Face Area of Siqns Affixed to Buildinqs
The maximum face area of wall mounted
signs is 1096 of the building surface
area on front and side walls and 5% of
the building surface area on rear walls
{Section 19.4{b.2). The proposed
sign program complies with these
restrictions.
Location on Buildinq of Affixed Siqns
Section 19.4{ b. 1 ) prohibits signs on or
above the roof of a building or
projecting above the parapet of a
building, and states that a mansard
style roof shall be considered a
parapet. Although the sign program
contains no wording referring to roofs,
the Exhibits do not include any
depictions of signs which are not
affixed to walls which are part of major
architectural features of the buildings.
The sign program, therefore, complies
with Section 19.4{ b. 1 ).
1-15 is an eligible State Scenic
Highway. General Land Use Policy
8{f) in the Southwest Area Community
Plan states that the size, height and
type of on-site outdoor advertising
displays within scenic corridors shall
be the minimum necessary for identi-
fication. The Planning Commission may
wish to consider more specific size and
design guidelines for scenic highway
corridor signage.
Pursuant to Section 15311 of the
California Environmental Quality Act,
5
FINDINGS AND
SUPPORTING FACTS:
the proposed sign program is
categorically exempt from the
requirement for environmental review.
Finding
On-site advertising signs are
permitted in the C-P-S zone subject to
approval of a plot plan.
The proposed sign program is not in
compliance with the requirements of
Ordinance 3~,8 regarding the number of
free-standing signs for a shopping
center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
1. Deny Appeal No. 6; and
Deny Plot Plan No. 38 based on
the analysis and findings
contained in this Staff Report.
SW: ks
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Site Plan with Free-Standing Sign Locations
Exhibit 1A - Project Entrance Monument
Exhibit 1B - Deleted from Sign Program
Exhibit 1C - Freeway Monolith Sign
Exhibit 1D - Secondary Monolith Sign
Exhibit 1E - Deleted from Sign Program
Exhibit 1F - Signs Affixed to Buildings
Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Map
6
EXHIBIT NO. 1
,",-"""~:~ ~"~~ - ~.~,~..~ i~ :~i~
EXHIBIT
PROJECT ENTRANCE SIGN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT
BLANK
EYNIBIT ::Btw
P A L M P L A Z A~ .,, ,~., ~...,.,
Ironmare
Ilsmml
EXHIBIT
t
PRIMARY TENANT SIGN MONOLITH
THERE WILL BE (2) SIGNS OF THIS TYPE, THE SOUTHERN-MOST
ALONG INTERSTATE 15 WILL IDENTIFY (2) ANCHOR TENANTS
ONLY (MERVYN'S & K-MART). THE OTHER SIGN MONOLITH,
LOCATED BEHIND (WEST OF) BUILDING 17, WILL IDENTIFY UP
TO ( 4 ) MAJOR TENANTS.
8'--0'
/
6' -6°
MERV~S
i%
EXHIBIT D
SECONDARY TENANT SIGN MONOLITH
THERE WILL B~- (4) SIGNS OF THIS TYPE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON
THE APPROVED PLOT PLAN. EACH SIGN MONOLITH WILL
IDENTIFY A MAXIMUM OF (4) TENANTS.
INTENTIONALLY LEFT
Ex'NIBIT "E"
BLANK
,<
R
_J
EXHIBIT NO. 2
84 FOXGrOVE CIR.
85. ADAM CIR.
64 VI~: MON|ARO
65 VIA MONSARAIE
66 HM IkqIREE
67 C0~IEI~SA
68 ,CURIE 'I~AI~INA .:.:'
li~,':CO~IE GARI~(~"
70 CAfiOLWOOD CI
WIIISP[IUN(I WIND C1 '
72 OLI) SPIHNG5
73 IONDON D|I
~5 NOI IIN(;HII L fill
Z6 UIIA[W{,)(I|)
79 CAt!E
80 BUFFY WY
81 CORIE FLAMENCO
82 AlllENA LN
83 MIMOSA DR /.~.
~ ,,./ /
'p'e~ or
, -< ommerce
Counrk
Admin. Ctr.
TE
CIR ·
C{.
tos ~.
W~nch tjare \
AUTO
CENTEl
brary
"~!
Ci't~'I Bon:~r Patrol ,
Area HQ
J. _,', ,e
VICINITY M QP
Ctr.
.|~(~
0 Mt
~>
·
ITEM #6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Temecula Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
August 6, 1990
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION POLICY
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On May 8, 1990, the Planning Staff advised the City Council that a number of change
of zone applications were pending and that an interim policy to consider these
requests might be needed.
On May 8, 1990, the City Council adopted a temporary policy for 3 months which
required zone change requests to be accompanied by complete development permit
requests, for example; tract maps or plot plans. The Council asked forthe Planning
Commission's input on this matter by the end of the three month period. Minutes
from the meeting of May 8, 1990 have been attached.
Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider the options of:
Receiving and acting on zone change applications without a General Plan
and without development permit requests.;
Maintaining the temporary policy of requiring development permit
applications in conjunction with all zone change requests;
3. Variations of either of the above options.
GT:ks
PLANNING\M7
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFF REPORT
POLxcz ~TAT~,fU~mT~
AB# TITLE: on,aPPLXca ib s DEPT HD.
HTG ' ';~;' ~ ? ' ~"~:~ CITY ATTY
DEPT CITY NGR
RECOMMaNDATXON=
That the City Council Review and Consider the current
County initiated policy of accepting and acting on Zone Change
Applications without associated development proposals, prior to
adoption of the City*s New General Plan.
BACKGROUND=
The City currently is accepting and taking action on a wide
spectrum of applications. The appropriateness of Change of Zone
Applications is particularly difficult to analyze without
accompanying development applications, such as subdivisions or
commercial centers. While not binding on the property or the
property owner, development applications enable the City to
fully consider future impacts and infrastructure needs arising
from land use policy decisions.
It can be expected that passage of the City's new General
Plan will be followed by logical rezonings compatible with the
designations, goals, and objectives of that new General Plan.
It is the staff's suggestion that requiring development
projects, in conjunction with Change of Zone Requests, presents
a City with a mechanism to fairly consider zoning applications
prior to General Plan adoption. This polic~ avoids each extreme
of either prohibiting zone changes altogether until General Plan
adoption, or considering too many rezoning requests without
needed base data and analysis.
ZONE.001
May 8, 1990
City Council Minutes
COUNCIL BUSINS88
11. POliCY Statement - Chanqe of Zone ADDlications
Ross Gellet, Planning Director, recommended the adoption of a
policy of not accepting and acting on Zone Change applications
without associated development proposals.
Mr. Geller explained that since the Councll had chosen not to
adopt the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), it is difficult to
analyze zone change applications, such as subdivision or
commercial centers, without accompanying development
applications.
Councilmember Mufioz spoke in favor of this item, stating that
the only way to assess the impact of zone changes would be to
know the planned development. Councilmember Mufioz pointed out
that certain plans may not be in the City's best interest,
i.e. liquor stores too close to residential areas, etc.
Councilmember Lindemans said this requirement would put a
burden on land speculators. Mr. Lindemans suggested adopting
SWAP as an interim plan, might be a more suitable alternative
to thi,s problem.
Mayor Parks asked staff if the City has received several zone
change applications. Staff answered that numerous zone change
requests have been received and the only way to properly
evaluate them is to have a general plan.
Dennis Chiniaeff, 29321 Via Norte, stated that in his opinion
a requirement such as this would undermine the concept of
zoning. He said this would seem to be a premature action.
Councilmember Mu~oz said the commission has to have control
over land use. He questioned the motives of developers who
would not reveal their contemplated land use, and stressed the
importance of being "above board" on these issues.
Tom Huntington, 30252 Santa Cecilia, questioned the
effectiveness of such a ruling, pointing out that it would be
very easy to submit a plan for proposed use, get the zone
change and never develop the property as planned.
Mayor Parks pointed out that even with a zone change, a
project must come before the Planning Commission for approval.
Mayor Parks also stated that when a general plan is adopted,
certain areas can be designated for specific zoning.
N|nutes\5\8\90 -6~ 05/22/90
city
Council Minutes
May 8, 1990
Councilmember Birdsall asked if adopting the SWAP as an
interim plan would alleviate some of these concerns. Ross
Geller responded that it would take care of about half of the
problems.
Pia Oliver, 27919 Front St., objected to this issue, stating
that it is a great advantage to be able to purchase property
with zoning in effect, as opposed to property which still has
to go through this process. She stated that much more time
would be involved, therefore making property less attractive.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by
Councilmember Birdsall to continuethis item for three months.
Councilmembers Lindsmarts explained the reason for specifying
three months is to give the planning commission an opportunity
to look at this policy.
Nayor Parks suggested adopting the policy for the same period
of three months, giving the staff a method to handle the
question of zone changes until the planning commission can
respond.
Councilmember Lindemans withdrew the motion and Councilmember
Birdsall withdrew the second.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by
Councilmember Munoz to approve the recommended policy for a
period of three months.
The notion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindenans,
Moore, Mufioz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Ross Geller advised Council that he will
recommendation on this matter from the Planning
back to the City Council agenda in 90 days.
bring a
Commission
12. Debt advisory Committee
City Manager Aleshire reported that this item was put on the
agenda at Councilmember Lindenans' request. Mr. Aleshire
recommended that staff not create a Debt Advisory Committee at
this the, but consider it at a later date. Mr. Aleshire
IIInutes%.S%8%90 -7- 05/22/~0