HomeMy WebLinkAbout060793 PC Agenda AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
June 7, 1993 6.'00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temeeula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fahey
ROLL CALL: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are
not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the
Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out
and filed with the Commission Secretand.
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 fled with the Commission Secretary before
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2.a. Approval of minutes for the Planning Commission meeting dated March 1, 1993
2. b. Approval of minutes for the Planning Commission meeting dated April 5, 1993
NON-PUBLIC HEARING
3. Case No.: Director's Hearing Cases Update
Applicant: City of Temecula
Location: City Wide
Proposal: April and May Update
Environmental Action: N/A
Planner: Debbie Ubnoske
Recommendation: N/A
4. Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendaflon:
Landscape Plan for Ynez Car Care Center (CUP No. 2)
J. Larry Gabele
Abutting the west side of Ynez Road and the east side of Interstate 15,
approximately 200 feet north of the intersection of Ynez Road and Solana
Way.
Landscape Plan for Ynez Car Care Center
N/A
Matthew Fagan
Review the landscape plan and take action pursuant to City Council
direction.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Hot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2, Variance No. 13
Ad Art Signs, Inc.
26631 Ynez Road (rear portion of Toyota of Temecula)
Temecula Valley Auto Mall Marquee - A seventy-three (73) foot high sign
with a three hundred-ten (310) square foot electronic message board
Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Recommend Approval
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Old Town Specific Plan
City of Temecula
Old Town Temecula
To adopt a Specific Plan adopting Land Use standards and design guidelines
in and around the Old Town area
Tiered Negative Declaration
Dave Hogan
Recommend Approval
5
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Environmental Impart Report No. 340
Bedford Properties/Douglas Wood and Associates
Southeast cbrner of Winchester and Ynez Roads
Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 263, a Specific Plan
proposing a 1,375,0C0 square foot eommeroial core, 298,000 square feet of
general retail, 810,000 square feet of office/institutional and possible multi
family residential uses on 201.3 acres.
Recommend Certification
Steve Jiannino/Debbie Ubnoske
Recommend Certification
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 93-0043, Plot Plan No. 243, Amd. No. 4, Amd. No.
4 and Variance No. 9
Bedford Properties/T & B Planning Consultants
Southeast comer of Ynez and Winchester Roads
Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial), a 340,400 square foot commercial center (Wai-mart) and a
Variance to reduce the number of loading zones from 7 to 2.
Environmental Impact Report No. 340
Steve Jiannino/Debbie Ubnoske/Matthew Fagan
Recommend Approval .
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Parcel Map No. 27323, Amd. No. 4
Bedford Properties/T & B Planning Consultants
Southeast corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads
A 10 parcel commeroial subdivision
Environmental Impact Report No.340
Steve Jiannino
Recommend Approval
Next meeting: July 19, 1993, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Yaange July's meeting date to July 19, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #2
MINUTES DATED
MARCH 1, 1993
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1, 1993
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday,
March 1, 1993, at 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Billie Blair.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Fahey
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske,
Senior Planner John Meyer and Minute Clerk Gall Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. AODroval of Aqenda
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
approve the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: 'F~rd, Fahey
PUBLIC HEARING
2.
Change of Zone No. 23
Proposed zone change for a 6.1 acre parcel from R-3-4,000 to C-O. Located on the
south side of Rancho California Road, approximately 450 feet east of the intersection
of Via Las Colinas and Rancho California Road.
Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
PCMIN03/O1/93 -I- 3/10/g3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1, 1993
Commissioner Hoagland asked if the applicant has a plot plan.
Safa Muhtaseb, 39930 Whitewood Road, Unit 106, Murrieta, owner and applicant,
stated that he is working on the zone change at this time and when completed, the
project will proceed to the engineering stage.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
close the public hearing at 6:20 P,M. and Recommend Adoption of the Negative
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 23 and Recommend Adoption of Resolution No.
PC 93-04 recommending Approval of Change of Zone No. 23.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Fahey
Outdoor Advertisine Display Ordinance
Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Chiniaeff Questioned why the provisions dealing with hardship cases
were eliminated.
Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh advised that because it is difficult to
determine what a hardship is, it leaves an opportunity for anyone to declare a hardship,
therefore the City Attorney recommends deleting the hardship clause.
Vice Chairman Blair opened the public hearing at 6:25 P.M.
Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned if theri~ is a "sunset" clause on non-conforming
signs.
Assistant City Attorney Cavanaugh advised that non-conformity creates an issue
where if the City required non-conforming signs to come down, the City would have
to compensate the owner.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
c~ose the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. PC 93-05
recommending the City Council adopt the Ordinance No. 93 - (next) relative to outdoor
advertising displays and deletion of language in Section 4(A) dealing with hardship
Cases.
PCMIN03101/93 -2- 3/10/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Fahey
MARCH 1, 1993
Amendments to the Ordinance Reoulatino Temoorarv SiGns
Dave Hogan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested the following modifications: 1 ) Item 4, Page 15, be
modified with a clearer definition of special events; 2) Old Town issues should be in
conformance with the Old Town Specific Plan; and 3) Page 16, E(1) should provide
examples of hardship cases.
Dave Hogan advised that the Old Town section will be superseded by the Old Town
Specific Plan when it is adopted.
Assistant City Attorney Cavanaugh advised that hardship cases will be evaluated by
staff.
Vice Chairman Blair opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M.
Commissioner Hoagland said that he feels that none of the recommended changes
should be made. He added that he feeds a proliferation and/or continued proliferation
of temporary signs takes away from the aesthetic appearance of the community and
274 days a year for allowable signage is excessive. Commissioner Hoagland
suggested leaving the ordinance as is until the comprehensive sign ordinance is
adopted. Commissioner Chiniaeff and Vice Chairman Blair concurred.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland,. seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
close the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. and recommend Denial of Resolution No. PC 93-
06recommending that the City Council amend portions of Ordinance No. 348 and 92-
16 pertaining to the regulation of temporary signs.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Fahey
PCMIN03/01/93 -3- 3/10/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1, 1993
Development Aoreement No. 92-1 (DA 92-1) Chanae of Zone No. 21 and Tentative
Parcel MaD No. 27314
A request to subdivide a 96.7 acre parcel into 4 parcels and a 48,4 acre remainder
parcel, a Development Agreement to ensure the development of the project as senior
housing, congregate care facility, skilled nursing, personal care, a nine hole private golf
course and dedication of a 2.3 net acre parcel to the City of Temecula, and a Zone
Change from RoR (Rural Residential) to R-3 (General Residential). Linfield Christian
School.
Vice Chairman Blair stepped down due to a conflict of interest based on the close
proximity of her personal residence with the proposed project.
Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested continuing this item until all Commission members
are present.
Commissioner Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:50 P.M.
Roger D. Prend, 3788 McCray Street, Riverside. representing the applicant, agreed to
continue the item for one month.
Carmine A. Latrecchia, 31533 Corte Pacheco, Temecula, expressed concern that the
access road, exits and enters off of Rancho Vista Road, which carries a high volume
of traffic traveling at high rates of speed. Mr. Latrecchia asked for consideration with
regards to the lighting of the sports fields. which will have a significant impact on his
personal residence. Additionally, Mr. Latrecchia asked that the project provide
adequate parking for special events.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
continue the public hearing on Development Agreement No. 92-1 (DA 92-1) Change
of Zone No. 21 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 27314 to the meeting of April 5, 1993.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Fahey
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
None
PCMINO3/01/93
-4- 3/10/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
None
MARCH 1, 1993
OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Blair declared the meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be Monday, April
5, 1993, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Linda Fahey
Secretary
PCMIN03/O 1/93 -5- 3/10193
MINUTES DATED
APRIL 5, 1993
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1993
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, April 5, 1993, 6:00 P.M., 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The
meeting was called to order by Commissioner Chiniaeff.
PRESENT: 3
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Tom Wood, Planning Director Gary Thornhill,
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, and Recording Secretary Gall Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Approval of Aaenda
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve
the Agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS:
Approval of Minutes for February 1, 1993.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve
the minutes of February 1, 1993.
The motion carried as follows:
Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
None
Blair, Fahey
4/9/93
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
PCMIN4/O5/93 -1-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 5, 1993
ADDrOval Of Minutes for February 22. 1993.
Commissioner Hoagland asked that the minutes reflect the meeting of February 22,
1993 was a special meeting.
Commissioner Ford asked that Page 4, Item No. 6, fourth paragraph, be corrected to
read "...conduct free tours...".
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked that Page 2, Items No. 2 and 3, be amended to reflect
that the public hearings were opened and there were no requests to speak.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve
the minutes of February 22, 1993, as amended.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
ApDroval of Minutes for March 1, 1993.
Commissioner Ford abstained because he was not in attendance at the meeting of
March 1, 1993.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
continue the approval of the minutes of the meeting of March 1, 1993 due to a lack
of quorum.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford
6:10 P.M. Commissioner Blair arrived.
PCMIN4/05/93
-2-
4/9/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 5, 1993
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3, Western Bypass Corridor
West side of Interstate 15, Four Lane Bypass Corridor.
Don Spagnola presented the staff report.
6:15 P.M. Chairman Fahey arrived.
Brent Muchow, representing NBS/Lowry, the consultant performing the alignment
study, gave an overview of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor.
Don Spagnola advised that two additional alignment proposals will be presented to the
Council: one will have a slightly different elevation for the north and south bound lane
and one will be without the bike lanes.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill advised that this is a receive and file item which
requires no formal Commission action.
Additional Extension Period For Plot Plan, Public Use Permits, and Conditional Use
Permits
Recommendation to amend Ordinance No. 348 to allow for two additional one year
extensions of time.
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report. Responding to the
Commission's concerns relating to extending the life of County projects that the
Commission has never reviewed, Ms. Ubnoske advised that no extensions of time had
been filed on the eight County transfer cases which the Council has acted on and there
are no outstanding County transfer plot plan cases. Ms. Ubnoske advised that it is
staff's opinion the five-year approval process would benefit businesses by providing
them additional time in which to obtain fu0ding and begin construction.
Commissioner Hoagland stated he feels the additional extension is too long.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to direct
the Planning Department staff to prepare a draft of the Amendment to Ordinance 348,
section 18.28, 18.29 and 18.30 for Planning Commission consideration.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Fahey
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
PCMIN4/05/93 -3- 4/9/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 5. 1993
Director's Hearina Cases Uodate
Pebble Ubnoske reviewed the list of Director's Hearing cases for February and March,
1993.
This is an informational item with no action required of the Commission.
Landscaoe Plan For Ynez Car Care Center (CUP No.2)
Proposed landscape plan for Ynez Car Care Center located 200 feet north of the
intersection of Ynez Road and Solana.
Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Gary Thornhill advised that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the height of the
screened plantings because he does not feel the landscape will be effective in
screening the bay doors. Director Thornhill stated it is staff's opinion that the impact
of the building can be properly mitigated with landscape screening.
Larry Gabele, 10706 Birchbluff Avenue, San Diego, provided a brief background on
why the landscape screen wall was designed. Mr. Gabele stated that the landscape
architect designed the landscape screen wall to reduce the view of the bay doors from
the street, however the architect was unaware during the design process that the
building was depressed six feet from the street level and a landscape screen wall will
have no significant impact to the view of the bay doors from Ynez Road. Mr. Gabele
stated that he is not requesting an elimination of landscaping, just a requirement for
"normal" landscaping. Mr. Gabele presented a letter signed by Mr. Dan Atwood of
Temecula Toyota supporting Mr. Gabele's request for a reduction in height of the
landscape screen wall.
Commissioner Hoagland stated that he feels if six foot landscape screening is not
effective in screening the building from the.street, staff should reevaluate the project
considering ten or twelve foot landscape screening.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated the landscaping requirements which were omitted from
the original design should be reinstated. He said he feels a substantial amount of
landscaping could be placed back in the street parkway; recommended Liquidamber
trees should replace the Holy Oak trees shown in the design plan; and the Sycamore
trees should be planted along the southerly property boundary line and extended half
way back the length of the property.
Chairman Fahey suggested that an evergreen variety replace the Liquidamber trees to
ensure year round screening.
PCMIN4/OS/93 -4- 419193
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 5, 1993
Commissioner Blair clarified that it was the Commission's desire to see very mature
trees planted.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue
approval of the Landscape Plan for Ynez Car Care Center (CUP No. 2) and direct staff
to work with the applicant to prepare a landscape plan which addresses the criteria
requested by the Commission.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PIJBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS
7. PA 93-0025, Minor Conditional Use Permit
Proposal to locate a 3,700 square foot billiards parlor in an existing building in the
Manufacturing Service Commercial Zone (M-SC).
Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report and advised the Commission that Page
7, (C.) should be corrected to read "Pursuant to Section 18.28(e) ..... ". Craig Ruiz
advised that staff had currently received only one letter of complaint and that from a
local "similar" business in the area.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M.
Mark Aspenson, WestMar, 27311 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103, Temecula, gave a
brief overview of the project. Mr. Aspenson advised that the tenants in the
development have all expressed their support of the project. Mr. Aspenson stated he
feels there is adequate parking for the project in the back of the building and the
project has been placed near that parking.
Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern that when the entire complex is rented,
there will no longer be adequate parking.
Mark Aspenson stated that the complex was designed with substantial parking for the
retail uses.
Bruce Wade, applicant, High Society Family Billiards, advised the Commission that he
owns several billlard locations and has not received a citation for selling alcohol to a
minor. Mr. Wade also said he does not sell alcohol unless the customer is playing a
game of pool.
PCMIN4/OS/93 -5- 4/9/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 5. 1993
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
close the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. and recommend AdOption of Resolution No. 93-
08, approving PA 93-0025, Minor Conditional Use Permit based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
None
Commissioner Chiniaeff restated that if parking becomes a problem for the center, the
City may restrict or require additional parking be provided, and this could possibly
impact future leases for the complex.
8. PA 93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit
Proposal to convert an existing teen night club to an adult night club located at 28822
Front Street, Suite 203, Temecula.
Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report.
Chairman Fahey questioned why the section on General Plan Consistency states that
the site will likely be consistent with the City's future adopted General Plan, when the
proposed use poses a threat to public health, safety and general welfare.
Debbie Ubnoske suggested that a policy be added requiring that the site be consistent
with the General Ptan's future Land Use component.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:30 P,M.
Chuck Bell, representing Industrial Developers, 113 East Bay Avenue, Newport Beach,
stated that the land use is contradictoR in Items 1 and 4 and the ap: :ant is
proposing the legal use under the zoning of the site, He stated that staff aid not
include what would be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, in drinking of
alcohol in moderation. Mr. Bell stated that he feels there is less use at the Teen
Center, than there was at the Teen Nightclub. He added that he feels the project is
a significant distance from the Skating Rink and the Teen Center. Mr. Bell corrected
the staff report description of the property by amending the 10,140 square feet to
4,800 square feet. Mr. Bell stated that the applicant has received no opposition from
existing tenants.
Stoney Mitich, 28822 Front Street, Temecula, said that he feels the skating rink and
the teen club are rarely used and the proposed club will not interfere with either of
these projects.
PCMIN4/05/93 -6- 4/9/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 5, 1993
Leroy LeBlanc, 44041 Quiet Meadow Road, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the
proposed project. Mr. LeBlanc stated that he experienced excessive noise and foot
traffic during the operation of the teen nightclub.
Don Alberts, 44089 Northgate Court, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the proposed
project. Mr. Alberts advised that he also was negatively impacted by the teen
nightclub. Mr. Alberts pointed out that he feels there was a relation to the opening of
the teen nightclub and the increase in graffiti in his housing development.
Stoney Mitich stated that during the operation of the teen nightclub, when there were
complaints from neighbors, the club operators worked with the neighbors to rectify the
problem.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the staff report indicates findings have been made
which show that the project is not a compatible use, with the youth activities currently
in the same area as the proposed project.
Commissioner Blair concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to close the
public hearing at 7:55 P.M. and AdOpt Resolution No. 93-08 denying PA93-0038,
Minor Conditional Use Permit, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff
report.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Chairman Fahey declared a recess at 7:55 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 P.M.
Development Aoreement No. 92-1 (DA 92-1 ), Chanae of Zone No. 21 and Tentative
Parcel MaD No. 27314
A request to subdivide a 96.7 acre parcel into 4 parcels and a 48.4 acre remainder
parcel, a Development Agreement to ensure the development of the project as senior
housing, congregate care facility, skilled nursing, personal care, a nine hole private golf
course and dedication of a 2.3 net acre parcel to the City of Temecula for a Senior
Citizen Center, and a Zone Change from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-3 (General
Residential) located at Linfield Christian School, east of Temecula High School, south
of Rancho Vista Road and North of Pauba Road,
Commissioner Blair stepped down due to a conflict of interest and excused herself
from the remainder of the meeting.
FCMrN4/OS/93 -7- 4/9/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 5, 1993
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report. MS. Ubnoske advised of
minor changes to the Public Works Conditions of Approval and changes made to the
Development Agreement by the Planning Department as follows:
Page 6, 4.(b); Page 14, 16.3(e); and Page 15, 19.(f).
Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern that the Development Agreement states
that the environmental impacts of the agreement have been reviewed and the negative
impacts have been mitigated, however no plot plan has been submitted.
Commissioner Ford requested clarification that the approvals being requested are for
the parcel map and zone change and that plot plans and C.U.Ps have to be submitted
with other documentation at a later date.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill clarified that the Development Agreement applies to
the Tentative Parcel Map and the Change of Zone and not to a Plot Plan.
Chairman Fahey expressed concern, that based on the conceptual plot plan, the
applicant may not be able to realize the proposed densities for the project when all the
issues adequately mitigated.
Commissioner Chiniaeff raised the issue of whether the target density would allow up
to 380 units. Planning Director Thornhill responded that the target density is 10, but
the provisions that will regulate specify anything over 240 units will have to be
completely mitigated with additional traffic studies and design.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M.
Kim Eldridge, 41090 Avenida Verde, Temecula, Director of Development at the Linfield
School, advised the Commission that the applicant understands that there will be a lot
of issues that will come up at the plot plan stage, however they are willing to work
with the City in whatever respect they want to make sure the project is compatible
with what the City wants. Mr. Eldridge told the Commission that the applicant is
interested in getting the entitlement now a9d is willing to address specifics at a later
stage.
Commissioner Hoagland stated he feels the idea of a senior center between two high
schools is an incompatible use. He also indicated concerns about approving the
development agreement in its present form because of ambiguities in the language.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he is not opposed to the concept for this project
but feels he does not have enough detail in the findings to make a decision on the
overall compatibility of the project.
Chairman Fahey stated that she has no problems with the concept of the proposed
project, however she is not satisfied with the language in the Development Agreement.
PCMIN4/05/93 -8- 419193
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL5, 1993
Commissioner Ford expressed a desire to eliminate the Development Agreement as
currently presented, and stated that he feels there is not enough information to give
a full environmental clearance. He suggested that a high density senior project with
supporting uses might be the appropriate zoning designation.
Assistant City Attorney Tom Wood suggested the Commission may wish to impose
restrictions on the zoning to reflect the senior citizen housing use and forward the
project to the City Council for action on the Negative Declaration, Tentative parcel Map
and the Development Agreement with their comments on the pros and cons of the
project.
Planning Director Thornhill advised the Commission they could refer this item back to
staff for clarification of issues regarding the Development Agreement or continue the
item and request the applicant to apply for a plot plan.
Assistant City Attorney Wood summarized that the intent of the Development
Agreement was to retain discretion with the City, to review specifics of the project and
to impose additional conditions to mitigate impacts, identified at the time the project
specifics are addressed. The property owner, in this way, may be granted a change
of zone, but the City may be assured that nothing other than a Senior Citizen project
can be built under that zoning.
It was moved by Chairman Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Ford to recommend to
the City Council Change of Zone No. 21 and Tentative Parcel Map 27314, Amendment
No. 3, provided the Development Agreement is rewritten to reflect the original
intention which was to restrict the project to a senior project, requiring full mitigation
of all issues at the plot plan stage.
The motion failed to carry for lack of a majority vote as follows:
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Fahey
NOES:
2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Hoegland
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Planning Director Gary Thornhill advised of the following:
Advised the Commission of the outcome of a Old Town Specific Plan meeting
for property owners. Director Thornhill advised that the next meeting will be
on April 7, 1993.
PCMIN4/05/93 -9- 4/9/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 5, 1993
Distributed a memorandum from Brian Loew, Executive Director of the Riverside
County Habitat Conservation Agency, regarding the listing of the California
Gnatcatcher as an endangered species.
Installation of the Sierra Tracking System has been completed at City Hall.
Invited the Commissioners to review the Draft Budget prepared for the Planning
Department.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Hoagland commented that he had read an article in the Planning Commissioner
Journal titled "How Well Do You Use Your Time" and Commissioner Hoagland complimented
staff on their ability to use the time spent at the meetings very well.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Fahey declared the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on
Monday, May 3, 1993, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula, California.
Chairman Linda Fahey
Secretary
PCMIN4/O5/93 * 1 O- 4/9/93
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
June 7, 1993
Direetor's Hearing Cases Update
The following nine (9) cases have been approved at the Planning Director's Hearing since April
15, 1993: three (3) Public Use Permits, one (1) Conditional Use Permit, one (1) Plot Plan,
three (3) Extensions of Time, and one (1) Tentative Parcel Map (reference Table 1 for a
description of approved projects). The new Approval Authority Ordinance has resulted in a total
of 39 projects to date that have been approved at the Planning Director's Heating that would
have previously been heard by the Planning Commission. The new approval process has
substantially reduced the number of Planning Commission meetings necessary for project
approval, as well as expedited the approval process for a number of minor applications.
Attachment:
1. Table 1 - Description of Approved Projects o Blue Page 2
THORNHO\DH~TATS.~7 I
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
TABLE 1 - DESCRHvI?ION OF APPROVED PROJECTS
THORNHG\DH-STATS ,6-7
TABLE 1 - DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED PROJECTS
The following represents the number of cases that have gone to a Director's Hearing since April
of 1993:
TOTAL#
OF CASES
1
Conditional
Use
Permit
3
Extensions
of
Time
~TYPE :OF jCASE:
PA No. 93-0018, Amendment No. 1, Conditional
Use Permit No. 5, Revised No. 1
Lou Kashmere
29115 Front Street
Revision to previously approved CUP for a
4,000_+ square foot drive through fast food
restaurant with play area. Restaurant proposes to
sell beer and wine. Deletion of one (1) gasoline
dispenser
PA No. 93-0060, Tentative Parcel Map 25349,
First Extension of Time
Gordon Silliker
Eastern terminus of Jeramie Drive
First Extension of Time for a subdivision of 8.2
acres into 3 parcels
PA No. 93-0048, Plot Plan No. 217
Herron & Rumansoff Architects
The northeasterly corner of Jefferson Avenue and
Sanborn Avenue
Extension of Time for construction of a two-story
retail/office building totaling 15,343 square feet
PA No. 93-0049, 1st Extension of Time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1090
Heritage Mobile Home Estates
East of La Serena Way, north of South General
Kearny Road
Extension of Time to add seven (7) additional
mobile home spaces to an existing mobile home
park of 1.8 acres of land
APPROVAL
DATE
April 22, 1993
April 29, 1993
April 29, 1993
May 19, 1993
THORNHG\DH-STATS .6-7
TOTAL #
OF CASES
TYPE OF CASE
3
Public
Use
Permits
1
Tentative
Parcel
Map
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103,
Amendment No. 1, Third Extension of Time
Marlborough Development Corporation
West side of Butterfield Stage Road, north of
Rancho California Road and south of La Serena
Way
Third Extension of Time for subdivision of
acres into lots
PA No. 93-0044, Public Use Permit
Lambs Fellowship
27570 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 225
To permit an existing church in an existing
building by granting a PUP.
PA No. 93-0051, Public Use Permit
The Lin~eld School
31930 Pauba Road
Expand one (1) permanent structure (900 square
feet) and replace one (1) temporary structure with
a permanent structure (3,600 square feet) at the
"Lower School" and build one (1) permanent
structure (3,600 square feet) at the "Upper School"
PA No. 92-0061, Amendment No. 1, Public Use
Permit No. 3, Revision No. 2
Ed Dufresne Ministries/World Harvest Outreach
41769 Enterprise Circle North Suite A104 & A105
1,504 square feet of lobby/bookstore space, and
3.550 square feet of assembly area to be used
Mon-Fri (after 7pro) and Sat & Sun (7am to 10pro)
Tentative Parcel Map No. 246915 Amendment
No. 3
Parviz Azar
The south side of Santiago Road,east of John
Warner Road and west of Lolita Road
To subdivide an existing 5.37 acre parcel into two
parcels
APPROVAL
DATE
May 27, 1993
April 29, 1993
May 13, 1993
May 19, 1993
April 15, 1993
THOP, NHG\DH-STATS
ITEM #4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commissioners
Planning Department
~ORANDUM
June 7, 1993
Landscape Plan For Ynez Car Care Center (Conditional Use Permit No. 2)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission continued this item at their April 5, 1993 meeting until May 3, 1993.
Staff was directed by the Planning Commission at the April 5, 1993 meeting to work with the
applicant to prepare a landscape plan which addressed the criteria requested by the Commission.
Staff met with the applicant and his landscape architect at the project site on April 13, 1993.
A revised landscape plan was submitted to Staff on April 21, 1993. Subsequently, the May 3,
1993 meeting was canceled. Staff has scheduled this item for the next available Planning
Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION
April 13. 1993 Site Visit by Planning Staff
Staff met with the applicant and his landscape architect at the project site on April 13, 1993.
The purpose of the meeting was to walk the site and riddress the concerns voiced by the Planning
Commission at the meeting on April 5, 1993. The Commission expressed that the service bays
and parking areas need to be screened. In addition, landscape materials used need to be
effective at screening the site in the present as well as the future. Rapid growing, mature trees
were recommended by the Commission.
Staff viewed the site from three vantage points. Vantage Point No. 1 was adjacent to Ynez
Road. north of the site (on the Toyota of Temecula site). Vantage Point No. 2 was also
adjacent to Ynez Road, south of the site (on the Temecula Jeep-Eagle site). Vantage Point No.
3 was at the rear portion of the Ynez Car Care Center, adjacent to Interstate 15. Vantage Point
No. 1 afforded views of the site which consisted of glass doors for the service bays and store
fronts. Staff recommended that additional trees be added which would provide immediate and
ultimate screening of this view. Two (2) 24" Sycamore trees have been added in this area on
the recent landscape re-submittal.
Vantage Point No. 2 included views which required substantially more screening than Vantage
Point No. 1 due to the fact that a vacant lot exists where a building is proposed. Due to this,
the rear portion of the existing buildings are visible from the street. Staff recommended that
additional trees be placed at the southeast corner of the site to mitigate potential negative views
from Ynez Road. Three (3) 24" box Rhus Lancea (these trees have been utilized instead of
Liquidambar to be consistent with the Ynez Road corridor) trees are proposed at street grade and
three (3) 15 gallon Sycamore trees are proposed adjacent to the Jeep-Eagle site. One 15 gallon
tree has been relocated at the eastern terminus of building "B" and one (I) additional 15 gallon
tree has been also been added in this area. Vantage Point No. 3 was at the rear of the site,
adjacent to Interstate 15. Potential view corridors are minimally seen by passing motorists.
Staff recommended that an additional tree be added at the southwestern portion of the site. This
has been reflected in the revised landscape plan (reference Attachment No. 4).
Effect of Additional Landscapin~
The landscaping will not totally screen the site within the first few years of the project.
However, the additional landscaping included on the revised plan will serve to provide some
immediate relief. The applicant provided a letter from their landscape architect, Paradigm
Landscape, Inc. (reference Attachment No. 2) which elaborates on the effect of the revised
landscape plan.
Letters Prom Adjacent Property Owners
The applicant has previously provided the Planning Commission a letter from the owner of
Toyota of Temecula at the meeting on April 5, 1993, which voiced their support for the
landscaping as proposed.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Minutes, April 5, 199:~ - Blue Page 3
Letter From Paradigm Landscape, Inc., April 14, 1993 - Blue Page 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APRIl, 5, 1993
R:\S\STAFFP, YTX2CI]P6-7.PC 6/1/93 vgw
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
APRIL 5, 1993
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Fahey
Hoagland
Director's Hearinc~ Cases Update
Pebble Ubnoske reviewed the list of Director's Hearing cases for February and March,
1993.
This is an informational item with no action taken by the Commission.
6. Landscape Plan For Ynez Car Care Center (CUP No.2)
Proposed landscape plan for Ynez Car Care Center located 200 feet north of the
intersection of Ynez Road and Solaria.
Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Gary Thornhill advised that the applicant is requesting to reduce the height of the
screened planrings to a lower height because he does not feel the landscape will be
effective in screening the bay doors. Director Thornhill stated it is staffs opinion that
the impact of the building can be properly mitigated with landscape screening.
Larry Gabele, 10706 Birchbluff Avenue, San Diego, provided a brief background on
why the landscape screen wall was designed. Mr. Gabele stated that the landscape
architect designed the landscape screen wall to reduce the view of the bay doors from
the street, however the architect was unaware during the design process that the
building was depressed six feet from street level and a landscape screen wall will have
no significant impact to the view of the bay doors from Ynez Road. Mr. Gabele stated
that he is not requesting an elimination of landscaping, just a requirement for "normal"
landscaping. Mr. Gabele presented a lettpr signed by Mr. Dan Atwood of Temecula
Toyota supporting Mr. Gabele's request for a reduction in height of the landscape
screen wall,
Commissioner Hoagland stated that he feels if six foot landscape screening is not
effective in screening the building from the street, then staff should reevaluate the
project with ten or twelve foot landscape screening.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated the landscaping requirements which were omitted from
the original design should be reinstailed. He stated that he feels a substantial amount
of landscaping could be placed back in the street parkway; recommended Liquid Amber
trees should replace the Holy Oak trees shown in the design plan; and the Sycamore
trees should be planted along the southerly property b8undary line and extended half
PCMIN4/05/93 -4- 4/9/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 5, 1993
the way back the length of the property.
Chairman Fahey suggested that an evergreen variety replace the Liquid Amber trees
to ensure year round screening.
Commissioner Blair clarified that it was the Commission's desire to see very mature
trees planted.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue
approval of the Landscape Plan for Ynez Car Care Center (CUP No. 2) and direct staff
to work with the applicant to prepare a landscape plan which addresses the criteria
requested by the Commission.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISS'IONERS:
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS
7. PA 93-0025, Minor Conditional Use Permit
Proposal to locate a 3,700 square foot billiards parlor in an existing building in the
Manufacturing Service Commercial Zone (M-SC),
Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report and advised the Commission that Page
7, (C.) should be corrected to read "Pursuant to Section 18.28(e) ..... ". Craig Ruiz
advised that staff had currently only received one letter of complaint and that from a
local "similar" business in the area.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearlAg at 7:15 P.M.
Mark Aspenson, Wes Mar, 27311 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103, Temecula, gave a
brief overview of the project. Mr. Aspenson stated that the tenants in within the
development have all expressed their support of the project. Mr. Aspenson stated that
he feels there is adequate parking for the project around the back of the building and
the project has been placed near that parking,
Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern that when the entire complex is rented,
there will no longer be adequate parking.
Mark Aspenson stated that the complex was designed with substantial parking for the
PCMIN4105/93 -5- 4~9~93
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
LETTER FROM PARADIGM LANDSCAPE INC., APRIL 14, 1~)~
R:\S\STAFFRPT~2CUPf-7.PC 6/1/93 vgw
April 14, 1993
J. Larry Gabale
4275 Executive Square
Suite 1040
La Jolla, CA 92037
SUBJECT: Additional Trees at Ynez Auto Center, Temecula
Dear Larry,
This letter is a follow up
1993. Per your request we will be
15 gallon trees (these trees will
exist in the surrounding area).
on our walk though on April 3,
adding 3 - 24" box trees and 6 -
be the same species that already
It is our professional opinion that if you add more trees or
change the species in the area there will be a distraction from
what you are trying to accomplish with the existing landscape.
In a two year period you should have all the screening you
where looking to accomplish. To avoid over planting and future
cost of removing any unwanted trees we feel the quantity listed
above would be the maximum amount of trees to be planted.
If you have any further question regarding this information
given to you, please feel free to contact me at (909)677-8684.
JG/amr
2(3871 Hobie Circle, 5te. B5 · Murrieta, CaLifornia 92502 · Ph: 909/677-8684 · Fax: 909/677-6943
License #007432
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 7, 1993
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2; Variance No. 13
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMEND Adoption of the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 249, Amendment No. 2;
ADOPT Resolution No. 93- recommending Approval of Plot
Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2, based on the Findings and
Analysis contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 93- recommending Approval of
Variance No. 13, based on the Findings and Analysis contained
in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Temecula Automobile Dealers AssociationlAd Art Signs, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Duane Contento, Ad Art Signs, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
To erect a free-standing sign for the Temecula Valley Auto Mall
which includes a three hundred-ten (31 O) square foot electronic
message board.
LOCATION:
Western portion of the Toyota of Temecula site, approximately
ninety-eight (98) feet north of the southern property line (26631
Ynez Road)
EXISTING ZONING:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
M-M (Manufacturing - Medium)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
Interstate 15
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE: Toyota of Temecula Auto Dealership
R:\S\STAFFRPT~249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (ACS)
Ynez Car Care Center
Toyota of Temecula
Interstate 15
PROJECT STATISTICS
Sign Height:
Option No. 1: Seventy-three (73) feet
Options No. 2 & 3: Seventy-five (75) feet
Height at Top of Message Board:
Approximately forty-three (43) feet
Square footage of "Balloon" portion of sign:
Approximately five-hundred eighty-eight
(588) square feet
Square footage of electronic message board: Three hundred ten (310) square feet
Total square footage of sign:
Eight hundred ninety-eight (898) square
feet
BACKGROUND
The Temecula Valley Auto Mall Marquee is a project in the City of Temecula Capital
Improvement Program (Fiscal Years 1993-1997). Classified as a Priority I, total City funding
for the project is 9280,000. This project was approved in concept by the City Council (5-0
vote) at the September 22, 1992 meeting. Staff is processing the application at the direction
of the City Council.
Plot Plan No. 249 (Temecula Valley Auto Mall Marquee) was submitted to the Planning
Department on September 15, 1992. This was a proposal for a seventy-three (73) foot high
sign (Option No. 1 of the sign). Prior to the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting,
Staff determined that a Variance request must accompany the Plot Plan application for the
total square footage of the sign (the balloon portion plus the electronic message board) and
the height of the sign. The sign as proposed is eight hundred ninety-eight (898) square feet.
Section 19.4 of Ordinance No. 348 (On-site Advertising Structures and Signs} states: "the
maximum surface area of a sign located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway shall
not exceed 150 square feet and shall not exceed a maximum height of 45 feet."
A flag test was conducted on April 1, 1993 to determine the appropriate height for the sign.
The results of the flag test are discussed below in the Analysis section of this report. Staff
requested that the applicant submit two (2) additional designs and color renderings of the sign
for the Planning Commission to consider. Staff requested this on order to give the Planning
Commission the opportunity to view different designs of the sign. The applicant submitted
two (2) additional renderings which were seventy-five (75) feet in height (Options No. 2 and
3).
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As mentioned above, three options for the proposed sign were submitted to the Planning
Department (these options focused primarily for the design of the balloon portion of the sign).
Option No. 1 (reference Attachment No. 4.E. 1 ) of the Temecula Valley Auto Mall Marquee is
seventy-three (73) feet high and Options No. 2 and 3 (reference Attachment No, 4.E.2 and
Attachment No. 4.E.3 respectively) are seventy-five (75) feet high. The sign faces
northbound and southbound traffic along Interstate 15. The faces of the sign are the same
for both elevations. Square footage for the balloon portion of the sign is approximately five-
hundred eighty-eight (588) square feet and three hundred ten (310) square feet for the
electronic message board. The dimensions of the electronic message board is ten (10) feet
high by thirty-one (31) feet wide. The top of the message board is approximately forty-three
(43) feet from grade.
ANALYSIS
The Siqn As A Capital Improvement Proiect
As mentioned above, the Temecula Valley Auto Mall Marquee is a City of Temecula Capital
Improvement Program (Fiscal Years 1993-1997). Classified as a Priority I, total City funding
for the project is $280,000. This was approved by the City Council (5-0 vote) at the
September 22, 1992 meeting. The source of the funds is the Redevelopment Agency. The
auto dealerships will be responsible for the purchase, installation, operation and maintenance
of the sign.
Justification For Seventy-Three (73)/Seventy-Five (75) Foot Hiclh Siqn
Staff originally requested that the applicant provide justification for a 73 foot high sign. The
applicant submitted a letter to Staff (reference Attachment No. 6), stating four (4) reasons
for a 73 foot high sign. First, the applicant states the Overland Road overpass will be
installed, ultimately blocking views of the sign if the sign was lower in height. Preliminary
height estimates place the top of the overpass between 22 and 25 feet above the grade of
the freeway. Secondly, the entire sign (balloon and electronic message board) needs to be
visible and seventy-three (73) feet will accomplish this. Third, vegetation along the Interstate
15 freeway will obscure the electronic message board portion of the sign at heights lower
than 33 feet above grade, and lastly, due to the eleyation of the site itself (in relation to the
other auto dealerships), the sign will need to be 73 feet high. Upon submittal of Option No.
1, Staff requested that the balloon portion of the sign be reshaped to more closely resemble
the shape of an actual hot air balloon, Due to this request, the height of the balloon was
increased two (2) feet, to a total of seventy-five (75) feet.
Variance For Siqn Area
Parameters contained within Section 19.4.a. (On-Site Advertising Structures and Signs) of
Ordinance No. 348 allow signs located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right
of way line to a maximum height of forty-five (45) feet, with a surface area not to exceed one
hundred fifty feet (150). The proposed Temecula Valley Auto Mall sign options are seventy-
three (73) feet and seventy-five (75) feet high, with total sign area of eight hundred ninety-
eight (898) square feet. A variance request is necessary for the increase in total sign area and
height. Currently, there are eight (8) auto dealerships contained within the auto mall
R:%S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 3
(Temecula Acura, Griffin Oldsmobile-Cadillac-GMC Trucks-Pontiac, Paradise Chevrolet,
Temecula Dodge Chrysler, Temecula Jeep-Eagle, Temecula Mazda, Nissan of Temecula, and
Toyota of Temecula Valley) and more are anticipated within the area. The auto mall is located
approximately mid way between Rancho California and Winchester Roads. Access to the
individual auto dealerships is primarily off of Ynez Road, with two dealerships taking access
off of Motor Car Parkway. Due to the location of the auto mall and the limited visibility of the
dealerships along Interstate 15, Staff could make findings to support individual freestanding
signs along the freeway. Cumulatively, maximum freeway-oriented signage permitted for
each individual dealership under Ordinance No. 348 would exceed the amount of signage for
the proposed auto mall marquee. Visual impacts are minimized by permitting one sign for the
auto mall, as opposed to individual signs for each automobile dealership. A Condition of
Approval has been included which requires an agreement be recorded by the existing
dealerships and amended to include any future dealerships who would be utilizing the
Temecula Valley Auto Mall marquee, This agreement would restrict the dealerships from
applying for freeway oriented signage.
Variance for Sian Heiciht
Based upon the flag test (discussed below), the maximum height of the sign should be
approximately seventy-three (73) feet (if Option No. 1 js selected for approval) or seventy-five
(75) feet (if either Options No. 2 or 3 are selected for approval). The top of the sign would
not be visible southbound on Interstate 15 (north of Winchester Road) and northbound on
Interstate 15 (south of Rancho California Road), therefore, any increase in height of the sign
would not be warranted. Within the expanse of Interstate 15 between Winchester and
Rancho California Roads, the top of the sign (at 73/75 feet in height) will be visible to passing
motorists, A Variance is necessary due to the fact that the balloon portion of the sign would
not resemble an actual hot air balloon if it were smaller in height.
Sitincl of the Sicin/Results of the Flaci Test
Selecting a final location for the sign posed one of the greatest constraints on this project.
Not only were there physical constraints (an existing EMWD easement, an underground sewer
line and liquefaction potential), but also constraints raised by the concerns of the adjacent
property owners. The proposed sign location satisfies both adjacent property owners
(reference Attachment No, 9 and No. 10).
Staff requested that the applicant conduct a flag test and the test was executed on April 1,
1993. The flag was observed at three locations, and at heights of seventy-three (73), sixty-
eight (68), sixty-three (63), forty (40) and thirty-five (35) feet. The first three heights were
utilized to represent the top of the "balloon" section of the sign. The last two heights
represented the top of the electronic message board. The flag was first observed three-tenths
(3/10)of a mile north of the Winchester Road off ramp on southbound Interstate 15. The top
of the sign was visible over the overpass, however, it was too far away to be distinguishable.
The second observation point was 3/10 of a mile south of the Winchester Road off-ramp on
northbound Interstate 15. This proved to be within immediate proximity of the sign,
therefore, all elements of the sign would be visible to passing motorists. The third site to
observe the flag test was immediately off of the exit ramp at Rancho California Road and
northbound Interstate 15. The flag was clearly visible at seventy-three (73) feet (the top of
the balloon portion of the sign). The electronic message board was visible at forty (40) feet,
R:~S\STAFFF{PT~249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
4
however, a CALTRANS sign would obscure portions of the message board as motorists drew
closer to the sign,
Based upon the flag test, the following conclusions have been reached: The maximum height
of the sign should be approximately those requested at seventy-three (73) feet or seventy-five
(75) feet (depending upon the design of sign chosen). Due to the lack of visibility of the top
of the sign southbound on Interstate 15 (north of Winchester Road) and northbound on
Interstate 15 (south of Rancho California Road), any increase in height of the sign would not
prove to be effective in attracting motorists. Within the expanse of Interstate 15 between
Winchester and Rancho California Roads, the top of the sign (at 73/75 feet in height) will be
visible to passing motorists. A maximum height of approximately forty-three (43) feet from
grade for the electronic message board will also provide effective visibility to motorists within
this portion of the freeway.
Eastern Municil~al Water District (EMWD) Easement
The proposed sign is located directly on an existing EMWD easement and above a sewer line.
This issue was raised at the initial DRC meeting and the applicant was informed that some
form of clearance must be obtained from I=MWD prior to the project being scheduled for a
Planning Commission meeting. The applicant conducted a preliminary geotechnical study for
the site and forwarded this information along with footing designs for the sign to EMWD for
their review and approval. Staff received a letter dated May 18, 1993 (reference Attachment
No. 8) which states: "The District cannot approve the present design," however, the letter
further states: "We will allow you to continue the review process of the project but request
that you hold off on issuing the construction permit until the District has accepted the
design."
Liauefaction/Seismic Hazards
Based upon information contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (prepared by
Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers, Inc.) for this project, the potential for seismically
induced settlement is low, In addition, the report concludes the potential for compromise of
the site caused by subsidence appears to be low and the potential for compromise to the
ground surface and/or proposed structure, in the unlikely event of liquefaction is low.
Although the subject project site lies within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, the report
concludes that "no active faults are known to traverse the site."
Consistency With Ordinance No. 655 (Palomar Observatory) Liahtinq Ordinance
The City of Temecula is within Zone "B" as identified in Ordinance No. 655. Zone "B' is
between fifteen (15) and forty-five (45) miles from the Palomar Observatory. The exterior
illumination of the balloon portion of the sign and the electronic message board are considered
Class I lighting under Ordinance No, 655. This type of lighting is utilized for signs when color
rendition is important. The applicant proposes to utilize lamps which are above 4050 Lumens.
These types of lamps are allowed if they are fully shielded. The sign as proposed meets these
requirements. Staff transmitted the project to The California Institute of Technology for
comments regarding consistency of the project with Ordinance No. 655. Dr. Robert Brucatto
responded to Staff regarding the project stating that the project met the letter of the
Ordinance; however, it did not meet the "intent' of the Ordinance, which is to limit the
amount of light emitted into the sky.
R;\S\STAFFRPT~249PP.PC 6/2193 kib 5
CALTRANS Approval
Approval from CALTRANS is required for all advertising displays which are within 660 feet
from the edge of the right-of-way where the copy is visible from interstate highways. The
applicant has submitted the proposed sign to CALTRANS for review and has received their
approval (reference Attachment No. 11 ).
Electronic MessaQe Board
The electronic message board is approximately thirty-one (31) feet wide and ten (1 O) feet tall.
The message board will be in operation from sunrise until 11:00 pro. It is anticipated that the
sign will display the names of the automobile dealerships which have signed the agreement
discussed in the Variance section of this report, the products which they sell, and events
which are occurring at the auto mall. No moving objects are permitted on the sign.
EXISTING ZONING AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed sign is consistent with the existing Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zoning.
Signage (on-site) is a permitted use provided a plot plan has been approved. The proposed
sign is not consistent with Section 19.4 of Ordinance No. 348 (On-Site Advertising Structures
and Signs) and therefore a Variance request has been made concurrently with the Plot Plan
application. The Draft Land Use Designation for the project site is Service Commercial (SC).
Section IV. A.2.d. of the Land Use Element includes auto dealerships as a "typical use" for
the zone, and signage is a necessary component associated with this use. It is likely that the
signage will be consistent with the future General Plan due to the fact that it is consistent
with existing zoning and the typical uses permitted in the Service Commercial land use
designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been
prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects will not be considered to be
significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions
of Approval added to the project. These will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to
a level of insignificance, and therefore a Negative'Declaration should be adopted.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The Temecula Valley Auto Mall Marquee is a project in the City of Temecula Capital
Improvement Program (Fiscal Years 1993-1997). Staff is processing the application at the
direction of the City Council.
Plot Plan No. 249 (Temecula Valley Auto Mall Marquee) was submitted to the Planning
Department on September 15, 1992. This was a proposal for a seventy-three (73) foot high
sign (Option No. 1 of the sign), Prior to the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting,
Staff determined that a Variance request must accompany the Plot Plan application for the
total square footage of the sign (the balloon portion plus the electronic message board) and
the overall height of the sign. A DRC meeting was held on October 15, 1992. A flag test
was conducted on April 1, 1993 to determine the appropriate height for the sign. Staff
R:\S~STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 6
requested that the applicant submit two (2) additional designs and color renderings of the sign
for the Planning Commission to consider. The applicant submitted two (2) additional
renderings which were seventy-five (75) feet in height (Options No. 2 and 3).
The sign faces both northbound and southbound traffic along Interstate 15. Square footage
for the balloon portion of the sign is approximately five-hundred eighty-eight (588) square feet
and three hundred ten (31 O) square feet for the electronic message board. A variance request
is necessary for the increase in total sign area. The dimensions of the electronic message
board are ten (10) feet high by thirty-one (31) feet wide. The top of the message board is
approximately forty-three (43) feet from grade.
The proposed sign is located directly on an existing EMWD Easement and above a sewer line.
Staff received a letter from EMWD which states: "The District cannot approve the present
design," however, the letter further states: "We will allow you to continue the review process
of the project but request that you hold off on issuing the construction permit until the District
has accepted the design."
A Preliminary Geotechnical Report was prepared for this project and the report concluded the
potential for seismically induced settlement is low, the potential for compromise of the site
caused by subsidence appears to be low and the potential for compromise to the ground
surface and/or proposed structure, in the unlikely event of liquefaction is low, and although
the subject project site lies within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, no active faults are
known to traverse the site.
Staff transmitted the project to The California Institute of Technology for comments regarding
consistency of the project with Ordinance No. 655 (Palomar Observatory Lighting Ordinance).
Dr. Robert Brucatto responded to Staff regarding the project stating that the project met the
letter of the Ordinance, however, it did not meet the "intent" of the Ordinance, which is to
limit the amount of light emitted into the sky.
CALTRANS reviews all advertising displays which are within 660 feet from the edge of the
right-of-way where the copy is visible from interstate highways. The applicant has submitted
the proposed sign to CALTRANS for review and has received their approval.
FINDINGS
Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2 will be
consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable
time and in accordance with State, law due to the fact that the proposed sign is
consistent with the existing Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zoning. Signage (on-
site) is a permitted use provided a plot plan has been approved. The Draft Land Use
Designation for the project site is Service Commercial (SC). Section IV. A.2.d. of the
Land Use Element includes auto dealerships as a "typical use" for the zone, and
signage is a necessary component associated with this use. It is likely that the signage
will be consistent with the future General Plan due to the fact that it is consistent with
existing zoning and the typical uses permitted in the Service Commercial land use
designation.
R:\S\STAFFRPT',249PP,PC 6/2/93 klb 7
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, due
to the fact that the proposed signage is consistent with the existing (Scenic Highway
Commercial) zoning, the Draft Land Use Designation of Service Commercial and the
permitted uses of the surrounding area. It is likely that the signage will be consistent
with the future General Plan due to the fact that it is consistent with existing zoning
and the typical uses permitted in the Service Commercial land use designation.
Commercial uses exist within proximity of the site and are also proposed to be located
within the subject project area, each of which include on-site signage.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with Sections 9.53 (Development Standards for
the C-P-S Zone), 18.27 (Variances), and 18.30 (Plot Plans) of Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures
for impacts identified in the initial study for the project.
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, due
to the fact that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Surrounding property owners have expressed their satisfaction with the proposed
signage. In addition, potential signage for each individual dealership along Interstate
15 could equal or exceed the amount of signage proposed for the auto mall marquee.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built
environment as determined in the Initial Study prepared for Plot Plan
Amendment No. 2.
or natural
No. 249,
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not ~n
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project. The proposed sign is located over an existing Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD) easement. EMWD has reviewed the proposal and has given their approval for
the City to continue processing Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2.
Said findings are supported by exhibits and eovironmental documents associated with
these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Variance No. 13
The adjustment does not constitute a grant of special privileges that is inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property
is situated. The sign is considered on-site due to the fact that it is located within the
Temecula Valley Auto Mall. Currently, there are eight (8) auto dealerships contained
within the auto mall and more are anticipated within the area. Cumulatively, signage
permitted for each individual dealership under Ordinance No. 348 could equal and
possibly exceed the amount of signage proposed for the auto mall marquee. Freeway
exposure of the auto mall is limited due to the location of the Temecula Valley Auto
Mall (approximately mid-way between Rancho California and Winchester Roads). The
marquee will serve to identify the approximate site of the auto mall to passing motorists.
R:\S\STAFt=RPT~24~)PP,PC 6/2/93 klb 8
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with Section 18.27 (Variances) of Ordinance No.
348. The use is expressly authorized in the C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) zone.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the
community. An initial study was conducted for the project and a Negative Declaration
with mitigation measures is recommended for the project. In addition, the cumulative
impact of individual signage will be mitigated through the utilization of one collective
sign for all automobile dealerships.
R:~S~STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93
9
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 93 - - Blue Page 11
2. Resolution No. 93 - - Blue Page 17
3. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 22
4. Initial Study - Blue Page 26
5. Exhibits - Blue Page 43
6. Letter from ACS dated October 12, 1993 - Blue Page 44
7. Letter from Ad Art Justifying Height of Sign dated November 9, 1992 ~ Blue Page 45
8. Letter from Eastern Municipal Water District dated May 18, 1993 - Blue Page 46
9. Letter from ACS dated April 16, 1993 - Blue Page 47
10. Letter from J. Larry Gabele dated May 12, 1993 - Blue Page 48
11. CALTRANS permit dated May 17, 1993 - Blue Page 49
R:\S~STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2193
10
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -
R:\S~STAFFRPT\249pp.pC 6/2/93 klb I 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF PLOT PLAN NO. 249, AMENDMF, NT NO. 2 TO
CONSTRUCT A SEVENTY-THREE FOOT SIGN WITH AN
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 5.07 ACRES LOCATED AT 26631 YNEZ
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-
080-039
W!tFREAS, Ad Art Signs, Incorporated fried Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public heating pertaining to said Plot
Plan on June 7, 1993, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months foliowing incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, ff all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency f'mds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 612193 klb
12
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is fittie or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
2. The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each
of the following:
a. There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment
No. 2 as proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied
or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if'the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
R:XS\STAFFRPT\249PP.pC 6/2193 k[b
13
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
E. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan,
makes the following findings, to wit:
1. There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No.
2 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable
time and in accordance with State, law due to the fact that the proposed sign is consistent with
the existing Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zoning. Signage (on-site) is a permitted use
provided a plot plan has been approved. The Draft Land Use Designation for the project site
is Service Commercial (SC). Section IV. A.2.d. of the Land Use Element includes auto
dealerships as a "typical use" for the zone, and signage is a necessary component associated with
this use. It is likely that the signage will be consistent with the future General Plan due to the
fact that it is consistent with existing zoning and the typical uses permitted in the Service
Commercial land use designation.
2. There is not a likely probabLlity of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future General Plan, ff the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due
to the fact that the proposed signage is consistent with the existing (Scenic Highway
Commercial) zoning, the Draft Land Use Designation of Service Commercial and the permitted
uses of the surrounding area. It is likely that the signage will be consistent with the future
Genera/Plan due to the fact that it is consistent with existing zoning and the typical uses
permitted in the Service Commercial land use designation. Commercial uses exist within
proximity of the site and are also proposed to be located within the subject project area, each
of which include on-site signage.
3. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws,
due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Sections 9.53 (Development Standards for
the C-P-S Zone), 18.27 (Variances), and 18.30 (Plot Plans) of Ordinance No. 348.
4. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare, due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures
for impacts identified in the initial study for the project.
5. 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,
due to the fact that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Surrounding
property owners have expressed their satisfaction with the proposed signage. In addition,
potential signage for each individual dealership along Interstate 15 could equal or exceed the
amount of signage proposed for the auto mall marquee.
6. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built
or natural environment as determined in the Initial Study prepared for Plot Plan No. 249,
Amendment No. 2.
R:~S~STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 612193 klb 14
7. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project. The proposed sign is located over an existing Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD) easement. EMWD has reviewed the proposal and has given their approval for the
City to continue processing Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2.
8. Said findings are supported by exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
F. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the
logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been-added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2 to erect a seventy-three (73) foot high sign with
electronic message board located at 26631 Ynez Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-
080-039 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 3, attached hereto.
R:\S~STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
15
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day June, 1993.
LINDA L. FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of June,
1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
16
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
R:\S\STAFFRPT~249pp,pC 6/2/93 klb 17
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COlVlMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF VARIANCE NO. 13 TO PERMIT A SEVENTY-THREE
FOOT HIGH SIGN IN THE SCENIC HIGHWAY
CO/VlMF. RCIAL (C-P-S) ZONE LOCATED AT THE
WESTERN PORTION OF 26631 YNEZ ROAD
WHEREAS, Ad Art Signs, Incorporated Fried Variance No. 13 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Variance application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Variance on June 7, 1993, at
which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Variance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shah
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months follovdng incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the foliowing:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
R:~S\STAFFRPT\249PP,PC 6/2/93 klb 18
b. Them is litfie or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
A. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
B. The proposed Variance is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
2. The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
a. There is reasonable probability that Variance No. 13 as proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
C. Pursuant to Section 18.27.d. of Ordinance No. 348, no Variance may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the adjustment does not constitute a grant of special privileges
that is inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
the property is situated, and the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
D. The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Variance, makes the
following findings, to wit:
1. The adjustment does not constitute a grant of special privileges that is
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is situated. The sign is considered on-site due to the fact that it is located within the
Temecula Valley Auto Mall. Currently, there are eight (8) auto dealerships contained within
R:\S%STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
19
the auto mall and more are anticipated within the area. Cumulatively, signage permitted for
each individual dealership under Ordinance No. 348 could equal and possibly exceed the amount
of signage proposed for the auto mall marquee. Freeway exposure of the auto mall is limited
due to the location of the Temecula Valley Auto Mall (approximately mid-way between Rancho
California and Winchester Roads). The marquee will serve to identify the approximate site of
the auto mall to passing motorists.
2. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws,
due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Section 18.27 (Variances) of Ordinance No.
348. The use is expressly authorized in the C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) zone.
3. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of the community. An initial study was conducted for the project and a Negative Declaration
with mitigation measures is recommended for the project. In addition, the cumulative impact
of individual signage will be mitigated through the utiliTation of one collective sign for all
automobile dealerships.
E. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Variance proposed is compatible with
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and
a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Variance No. 13 for the erection of a seventy-three (73) foot high sign
with electronic message board, located in the Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) Zone, at the
western portion of Toyota of Temecula (26631 Ynez Road).
R:\S~STAFFRPT\249Pp.pC 6/2/93 klb
2O
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 7th day of June 1993.
LINDA L. FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of June,
1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONF. I~:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNFiILL
SECRETARY
R:\SXSTAgFRP'T~249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 21
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\S~STAFFRPT\249Pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 22
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2
Project Description: A two (2) sided, seventy-three (73) foot high sign with electronic
message board for the Temecula Valley Auto Mall located at the rear portion of Toyota
of Temecula (26631 Ynez Road)
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-080-039
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL
Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2 is a proposal for a two (2) sided seventy-three
(73) foot high sign with electronic message board for the Temecula Valley Auto Mall.
Hours of Operation shall be limited to between sunrise and 11:00 pm daily. Only those
dealerships contained within the Temecula Valley Auto Mall may advertise on the
electronic message board.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City 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 City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2 marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these
conditions.
5. Elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E.
R:~S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
23
Colors used in the construction of the sign shall be in substantial conformance with
that shown on Exhibit EE (color rendering).
Balloon Colors:
Burgundy (3630-49)
Raspberry (3630-133)
Vivid Rose (3630-78)
Vermillion (VT 0421 )
Indigo (VT 1920)
Deep Blue (VT 1207)
Blue (VT 1317)
Lt. Blue Violet (3630-319)
Electronic Message Board: Dark Terra Cotta
Balloon Basket:
Tan w/Black detailing, Gold Neon Outlining
Sign Supports:
Two toned: Ivory and Peach
"Auto Mall" portion:
White letters, Terra Cotta background
Letters and Stripes:
Lemon yellow (3630-115)
7. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any use allowed by this permit.
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT:
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Three
Hundred Dollars (~1,300.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty
Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Fifty Dollar (950.00) County administrative fee to enable
the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code
Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty*eight (48)
hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by
reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
All members of the Temecula Valley Auto Mall who chose to advertise on the
electronic message board portion of the sign shall submit an agreement with the City
of Temecula which will be recorded with the County Recorder. The agreement shall
stipulate that all members and future members will forego requesting any additional
freeway oriented signage as long as the Temecula Valley Auto Mall Marquee is
erected. The addition of any future advertisers on the electronic message board of the
Temecula Valley Auto Mall Marquee will cause the agreement to be amended. No
additional advertisers will be permitted to be displayed upon the Marquee until the
amended agreement is recorded,
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP,PC 6/2/93 klb 24
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
10.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
11,
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) shall approve the footing design allowing for
the continuing operation and maintenance of the sewer facility in the proposed sign
location.
12.
The applicant shall record an agreement with EMWD regarding operation and
maintenance of the sewer facility. Said agreement shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
13.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water
District's transmittal dated June 2, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~249PP,PC 612/93
25
Ea,ter. Mu.tcipa[ Water
June 2t 1992
~at~hew Fxqan, Assistant Planner
City of Tomsouls
Plannin~ Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Tomsouls, CA 92590
Subject: P.P. 249, Amendment No. 2/Variance No, 13
Tomsouls Auto Moll Narduse
Dear Mr. Fagan:
The District's =ngineering Department has been in contact with
A~art signs Inc. re~ardin~ design revisions to the marquee.
The District objects ~C t,.l'ta subject projsc~ design which indicates
the marquee would in=ru~e into the Distric~s sewer easement and
present definite maintenance related problems tc ~hs DiS=riot.
Therefore, ~ha District,s conditions of approval for the subject
project include marquee design revisions to the satisfaction of~he
District.
Very TrUly YourS,
.MUN~. We%or District
cc: Joe Van Sickle
John ~endarv/
Victor ~arreto
Carl Drucka
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
INITIAL STUDY
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 26
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
II.
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Numbers:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
6. Name of Proponent:
7. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Temecula Valley Auto Mall Marquee
Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2, Variance No. 13
Western boundary of Toyota of Temecula (26631 Ynez Road),
approximately ninety-eight (98) feet north of the southern property
line.
Seventy-five (75) foot high sign, with a three-hundred ten (310)
square foot electronic message board.
May 11, 1993
Ad Art Signs, Incorporated
19603 Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90745
(310) 523-9500
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section Ill)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geelogic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
F(:~S\STAFFRPT~249PP.pC 6/2193 klb 27
Yes Maybe N_.q
X
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
i, Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a, Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any
change in climate, whether locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality~ including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions. withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)?
Yes Maybe N__q
X
X
X
X
R:\S\STAFFRPT~249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 2E~
Yes Maybe
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthic organisms, and/or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals? ,
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area?
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels7
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare7
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area?
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
N._9.o
X
_.x
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2193 klb 29
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)?
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticicles, chemicals,
or radiation)?
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Homing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycl ists or
pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
Yes Maybe N__q
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:%S\STAFFRPT\249pP.PC 6/2/93 klb
3O
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? X __
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
b. Communications systems? __ __ X
c. Water systems? __ __ X
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? __ __ X
e. Storm water drainage systems? __ ~ X
f. Solid waste disposal systems? ~ __ X
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? __ __ X
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? __ __ X
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as .hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? __ __ X
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __ __ X
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ __X __
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? __ ~ __
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? __ __ X
Yes Maybe NO
_ _
R:%S\STAFFRPT%249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
20.
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site.'?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe
N._~o
R:XS\STAFFRPT\249PP.pC 6/2/93 klb 32
IlL DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Ea~h
l.a.
No. The proposal will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures.
Based upon information contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (prepared by
Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers, Inc.) for this project, the proposed sign location is
"underlain by engineered fill placed during the construction of the underlying sewer line. Outside
the sewer trench backfill the site is underlain by engineered fill placed during the grading of the
Toyota dealership." The report additionally concludes: "A moderaw potential for ground rupture
during a seismic event exists within the site," however, "the potential for seismically induced
settlement is low." In addition, the report states "the potential for compromise of the site caused
by subsidence appears to be low," and "the potential for compromise to the ground surface and/or
proposed structure, in the unlikely event of liquefaction is low." Although the subject project site
lies within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, the report concludes that "no active faults are
known to traverse the site." No impacts are foreseen as a result of this project.
1.b.
Yes. The proposal will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the
soil. All grading activity requires disruptions, displacements, compaction and overcovering of the
soil. Impacts are not considered significant due to the fact that the site has previously been graded
and paved, and the amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil
will beminimal (reference response l.a.). No significamimpacts are anticipated as aresultofthis
project.
Yes. As mentioned in response 1 .b., the topography of the site has already been modified into its
current configuration, and therefore minimum changes to the topography will be required for the
actualization of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
l.d.
No. Reference response 1 .a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in
this area.
No. The proposed sign will be located in an area which already has already been improved (the
rear of the Toyota site). In addition, the construction activities on the site will be minimal for the
realization of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in this
area.
1.f. No. Reference response 1 .e. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
l.g.
No. The proposal will not result in modifications to any wash. channel, creek, river or lake. None
exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
l.h.
Yes. The project will expose people who are working at the Toyota of Temecula site and property
to earthquake hazards since the project is located within an AIquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (the
Wildomar Fault), as well as being located within Southern California (an area which is seismically
active), however any potential impacts are not considered significant (reference response 1 .a). Any
potential impacts will be mitigated through design and construction of the sign which is consistent
with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report and Uniform Building
R:\SXSTAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 33
1. i.
Ai~r
2.a,b.
Water
3.a.
3.b.
Code standards. The project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as
landslides, mudslides, ground failure or liquefaction. No known landslides are located on the site,
and the potential for exposure of people to landslides is low due to the topography of the site and
the location of the sign. The same is true for mudslides. The above mentioned assumptions are
based upon information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report (dated August 12, 1992) and the Southwest Area Community Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report (adopted May, 1989). The potential for ground failure and
liquefaction is also low at site based upon information contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical
Report. As a result of the mitigation included in the project design, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal includes development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as
identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special Studies
Zone Map. As mentioned in response 1 .a., although the subject project site lies within an Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zone, the Preliminary Geotechnical Report concludes that "no active faults
are known to traverse the site." The Report also states: "the potential for seismically induced
settlement is low" and "the potential for compromise of the site caused by subsidence appears to
be low." The Report finally concludes: "the potential for compromise to the ground surface and/or
proposed structure, in the unlikely event of liquefaction is low." Therefore, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The sign itself will not result in any air emissions, nor in the deterioration of ambient air
quality, however, objectionable odors will occur during the construction phase of the project.
These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. No impacts are foreseen
in the long-run, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any
change in climate either locally or regionally. Due to the nature of the project (a sign), no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water
movements in either marine or fresh waters. The. project site is not located adjacent to either
marine or fresh water sources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal not will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
mount of surface runoff. The sign is proposed to be located in an area which has previously been
rendered impervious by the construction of a driveway and other harriscape. Existing drainage
conveyances currently accommodate runoff which is created by the previous project at this site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project
is not located within or adjacent to an identified floodway. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~249PP.PC 612193 klb 34
3.d.
No. The proposal will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody.
No major waterbodies are located in the subject project area, therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3.e.
No. The proposal will not result in any discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface
water quality. No significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters.
Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground
waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.g.
No. The proposal will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Reference
response 3 .f. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.h.
No. The sign will not result in the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies. No water service is required for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
3.i.
No. The proposal will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference response 3.c.
Plant Life
No. The proposal will not result in any change to the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants. The site has been previously modified with a driveway and bardscape. The
project is considered "infill" with development existing to the north, south, east and west. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.b.
No. The proposal will not result in a reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened,
or endangered species of plants. There are no unique or rare plants on the site, therefore,
threatened or endangered species will not be significantly affected (Reference response 4.a.). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The sign will not result in the introduction of new species to the site. No significant native
vegetation exists on the site, therefore, no significant impacts are expected from this project.
Development of the site will not result in the creation of a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species due to the fact that the project is considered "in-fill" and is surrounded by existing
development to the north, south, east and west. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
4.d.
No. The proposal will not result in a reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project since no prime farmland, farmland of
statewide or local importance, or unique farmland is located within the project site.
R:'xS\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2193 klb
35
Animal Life
No. Although the project site lies within the Riverside County Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan Preliminary Study Area, the project itself will not impact the habitat of the
Stephens Kangaroo Rat. There is no potential for the change in the diversity and number
(reduction) of the species, or in producing a barrier to the migration of Stephens Kangaroo Rat as
well as the deterioration of its habitat exists within the project area. A Stephens Kangaroo Rat Fee
was imposed as a Condition of Approval for the Toyota of Temecula project which exists at this
site. No other sensitive species have been identified upon the site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Noise
No. The proposal will not result in increases to existing noise levels. The project is not a noise
generating use. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b.
Yes. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the developmentJconstruction
phase. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100
feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure.
Thiss~urce~fn~isewi~~be~fsh~rtdurati~nandtheref~rewi~~n~tbec~nsideredsigni~~ant~ Due
to the proximity of the project site to the freeway and its location within the Scenic Highway
Commercial (C-P-S) zone, no significant impacts are anticipated either in the short- or long-run.
No. The proposal will not result in the exposure of people to severe vibrations, No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Light and Glare
Yes. The proposal will produce and result in light/glare, due to the fact that the balloon portion
of the sign will be internally illuminated and in addition, it will have an electronic message board.
The project as designed is consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Palomar Observatory Lighting
Ordinance). The type of lighting utilized for the electronic message board is allowed under
Ordinance No. 655 due to the fact that the lighting is fully shielded. Hours of operation of the sign
will be between daylight and midnight. CALTRANS has reviewed the proposal and has determined
that the sign meets their criteria for signage along an interstate. Due to these factors. no impacts
are foreseen from light and glare as a result of this. project.
Land Use
No. The proposal will not alter the present land use of the area, due to the fact that the project is
"in-fill" in nature. It is likely that the proposal will be consistent with the future General Plan land
use designation of Service Commercial (SC) for the site and is compatible with other development
in the area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as
described in the City's future General Plan. As mentioned in response 8.a., there is likely
probability that the proposal will be consistent with the future General Plan. The future General
RASXSTAFFRPT\249PP.PC 1S/2/93 klb
Plan land use designation for the site is Service Commercial (SC). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in the rate of use of a natural resource or the depletion
of any nonrenewable resource (electricity). The sign will be internally illuminated and includes an
electronic message board, However, due to the limited scale of the project, these impacts are not
seen as significant.
Risk of Upset
10.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or
disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
10.c.
No. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation
plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact and emergency response plan.
Although the structure has the potential to fall during an extremely severe earthquake, this will not
affect any of the above mentioned emergency response plans. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Population
11.
Housing
No. The project will not result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the
human population of the area. This project will not cause people to relocate. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.
No. Reference response 11. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate, and therefore,
additional housing needs will not be created. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement.
The sign is intended to increase the visibility of the Temecula Valley Automobile dealerships which
are located on Ynez Road. Ynez Road will be widened to it's ultimate right-of-way prior to the
realization of the project. No significant impacts are expected from development of the site.
13.b.
No. The project will not result in an increased demand for new parking. As mentioned in
response 13 .a., the purpose of the sign is to increase visibility of the automobile dealerships along
Ynez Road. Existing parking facilities at these sites were established based upon the need
generated by these uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 612/93 klb 37
13.c.
No. The proposal will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems, including public
transportation. Reference response 13.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
13.d.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods. Reference response 13.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
13.e.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists
currently in the proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
13.f.
Yes. The proposal will indirectly result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians. The sign is intended to increase the visibility of the automobile
dealerships along Ynez Road. Although increases to in traffic hazards are anticipated from
increased activity in the area (from the enhanced visibility of the auto mall), these impacts are not
seen as significant. Potential impacts will can be mitigated through the widening of Ynez Road.
Public Services
14. a,b. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire
or police protection. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.c.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
parks or other recreational facilities. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate into
the area or require additional housing. Therefore additional recreational facilities above those
provided on site will not be needed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
14.e.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.f.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Energy
15.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial mounts of fuel or energy. As mentioned
in responses 9.a. and 9.b., energy will be utilized for the lighting of the sign. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15.b,
Yes. The project will result in a subsequent increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
however, the project will not require the development of new sources of energy. As mentioned
in responses 9.a. and 9.b., energy will be utilized for the lighting of the sign. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.pC 6/2/93 klb
38
Utilities
16.a
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. The project site is within proximity of existing facilities. The project is seen as an
"in-fill" project with existing uses to the north, south, east and west. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
16.b.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
16.c.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water
systems. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.d.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary
sewer systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
16.e.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to storm water
drainage systems (reference response No. 3.b,c.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
16.f.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste
disposal systems. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.g.
No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system
improvements for any of the above. (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Human Health
17.a,b. No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
18.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public.
The project is considered irafill, with development located to the north, south, east and west. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18.b.
Maybe. The proposal may result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view. Some people may take exception to the scale and size of the sign. The applicant has
provided rational which illustrates that the size and scale of the sign as proposed is the minimum
necessary for the signage to be. The Overland Road Overpass will obscure the visibility of the sign
to motorists southbound on Interstate 15. A CALTRANS road sign will obscure the electronic
message to motorists northbound on Interstate 15 if the sign was to be any lower in height. Other
potential visual impacts have been mitigated through the use of earth-tones for the sign structure,
the use of "Terra-cotta" screens for the reader board will also provide visual relief. The balloon
R:%S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
39
portion of the sign has been designed utilizing actual hot-air balloons as models. Colors for the
balloon portion of the sign also reflect those used for hot-air balloons. Due to these design and
color choices, visual impacts have been mitigated to a level less than significant.
18.c.
Maybe. Reference response 18.b. Potential visual impacts have been mitigated to a level less than
significant.
Recreation
19.
No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities. The project site is at the rear of Toyota of Temecula, and is not being
used for either passive or active recreational purposes. Projects of this nature do not cause people
to relocate into the area or require additional housing. Therefore additional recreational facilities
will not be needed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
20.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the alteration or destruction of any paleentologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site. The sign will be located in an area which has already been graded
and covered with hardscape. The project site has been identified as having a low sensitivity for
archaeological resources and has not been identified as an area of sensitive paleontological
resources. This determination was based upon information contained in the City of Temecula
General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report dated August 12, 1993. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.b.
No. The proposal will not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object. Reference response 20.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
20.c.
No. The will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values. No "unique" ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.d.
No. The proposal will not result in restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area. None currently exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:%S\STAFFRPl~249PP.pC 6/2/93 klb 40
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT FINDINGS
Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's conti0ued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
Yes Maybe N_.q
X
X
_ __x
Y~s N__q
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 41
ENVIRONMENTAL DF, TI~RMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by:
R:XS',STAFFRPT~249PP.PC 6/2/93 klt~
42
AT'I'ACII1VIENT NO. 3
EXI"I~ITS
R:\S\STAFFRPT~249pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 4.~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 249, AMENDMENT NO. 2, VARIANCE NO. 13
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: JUNE 7, 1993
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B: DRAFt GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: SERVICE-COIVII~E-RCIAL (S-C)
EXHIBIT C: ZONING DESIGNATION: SCENIC I-HGHWAY COMMERCIAL (C-P-S)
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 249, AMENDMENT NO. 2, VARIANCE NO. 13
P.C. DATE: JUNE 7, 19~)3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 249, AMENDMENT NO. 2, VARIANCE NO. 13
EXHIBIT: D SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: JUNE 7, 1993
CITY OF TEMECULA
TAt ~
L
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 249, AMENDMENT NO. 2, VARIANCE NO. 13
EXHIBIT: E TYPICAL ELEVATION
P.C. DATE: JUNE 7, 1993
,t l :l_k', ECU'fi
VALLEy
'EMECU
VALLEY.,
./
AUTO' M,~'ALL
L
OPTION NO. 3
EXHIBIT 4.E.3 ' :
.... ,;,..~;-,-,----
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
LETTER FROM ACS DATED OCTOBER 12, 1992
R:\S\STAFFRPT~249PP.PC 6/2/93 k~b 4-,4
AOvsri"sd CBr:l|-vascu~ar Syste~ls, ire.
Te~ne=ula, CA 92591-4628
October 12, 1992
Mr. Gregory Erikson
Kemper Real Estate Management Company
28765 Single ON3( Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RB; Tomspule Valle~ Auto Mall ei~
Dear Greg:
Advanced Cardiovaecula~ SyStems, Inc. (ACS) does not object
to ~he appropriate use of signage in the area, The subject
sign is to be constructed on the northwest comer of the
Toyota dealership. This location is not acceptable to ACS
since it places the sign between our manufacturing campus and
the dealership. We recommend the southwest corner of the
Toyota property to construct the sign. This would more
properly identify =he location of the ranall businesses
associated with the auto dealers.
The seventy foot sign is cutside the guidelines of the CC&R
restrictions. Approval would represent a challenge in how to
analyze a future request. our concern in this area is not a
"show stopper" and we defer to your judgemerit concerning the
design.
Please keep ACS appraised Of the decision.
asking for our input.
David s. 01son
Facilities Manager
Thank you for
////o
CC
S. Johnson, ACS
D.Dixon, city of Temecula
B.Butler, Mesa Homes
autosign
ATTACH1VIENT NO. 7
LETTER FROM AD ART JUSTIFYING HEIGHT OF SIGN DATED NOVEMBER 9, 1992
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 45
November 9, 1992
Ms. Debbie Ubnuske, Senior Planner
Mr. Matthew Fagen, Assistant Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecuta, CA 92590
RE: JUSTIFICATION/RATIONAL FOR A 73' FOOT HIGH SIGN
RECEIVED
Ans'd, ........ -.-,-.
Dear Ms. Ubnuske and Mr. Fagan:
The pylon sign proposed at the Northwest corner of the Temecu]a
Valley Toyota Dealership in the Temecula Valley Auto Mall was
designed at 73'-0" over all height for the following reasons:
1. In the near future, a freeway overpass will be installed
blocking a substantial portion of the view to the Auto Mall
where the proposed sign is to be located.
The bottom portion of the display (electronic message sign)
will just about clear the height of the new freeway overpass
at 24'0" from the grade.
2. The overall design of this display depicts a realistic
pictorial of a hot air balloon that is elongated 28'-0" X
24'-0" hovering over the 10' X 30' electronic message sign.
The entire display should be seen by the "passer-by" prior to
approaching an off ramp to exit the freeway.
3. There are a considerable amount of trees and vegetation
that are existing in front of the sign. Due to normal growth
over a period of five years, we believe that if the sign is
under ?3' feet the vegetation will obscure vision of our sign.
4. Ad Art tried to find other locations that had higher land
elevations so we could make the sign shorter. Unfortunately,
the other locations were not possible for sign use. Due to
the low elevation of this sign. location, we need a tall sign
to make this sign visible from a considerable distance before
potential customers pass the off ramp to the auto mall.
Hopefully, you will find these adequate reasons as to why the sign
needs to be 73' feet high.
Sincerely,
Alex Horowitz, Account Executive
AH:s9
AD-ART/INCORPORATED 19603 S FIGUEROA ST. CARSON. CALIFORNIA 90745 PHONE (310) 523-9500 FAX (310) 538-1215
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
LETTER FROM EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT DATED MAY 18, 194)3
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 46
Lstern M. nicipal Water District
May 18, 1993
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention.:
Matthew Fagan
Regarding:
Plot Plan No. 249/Variance No. 13
Dear Mr. Fagan:
As requested, District staff is currently reviewing the subject
project.
The issues needing to be resolved are:
Operating and maintenance of the sewer in the proposed
sign location area.
(2)
The footing design with respect to the sewer soil bedding
surrounding the pipe.
The District cannot approve the present design until the above are
considered. Therefore, we offer the following recommendations in
your work with Adart Sign, Inc. We will allow you to continue the
review process of the project but request that you hold off om
issuing the construction permit until the District has formally
accepted the design.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Any further
questions concerning the proposed project, may be directed to me at
(909) 766-1860, extension 409.
very truly yours,
carl Drucke
Project Engineer
cc: Jack Gray, Adart Signs, Inc.,
Concurrence by:
Victor J,. Barreto
C. E. ~[ Subdivisions
Carson, CA 90745
Mail To: Post Office Box 8500 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 - Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
MMn C',FFir,,.' ?~iS S ~an lacinto Avenue. San lacinro · Customer Service/En~ineerinl~ Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet. CA
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
LETTER FROM ACS DA'I'ED APRIL 16, 1993
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 47
April 16, 1993
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.
26531Ynez Road
Temecula. CA 92591-4628
(714) 694-2400
RECEIVED
APR 20 1993
Ans'd ............
Mr. Matthew Fagen
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Auto Mall Sign
Dear Mr. Fagen:
We here at Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. agree on the
location in which you plan to place the Auto Mall Sign.
This location has been designated to the property of the Toyota
Dealership on the West corner facing Interstate 15.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dave Olson
at 909-694-2262.
Since~y~.L__'
Steven E j~inson
Vice President of Manufacturing
CC:
Dan Atwood, Toyota
Greg Erickson, Kemper Real Estate
Steve Palmet, Nissan
Dwayne Contento, Ad Art
Dave Olson, ACS
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
LETTER FROM J. LARRY GABELE DATED MAY 12, 1993
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 48
GABELE & HUFFMAN, CPA'S
Hay 12, 1993
Matthew Fagen
Temecula Planning Department
P. O. BoX 3000
Temeoula, CA 92390
VIA FAX# (909) 694-1999
RE: Auto Center Signage
Dear Matthew:
This letter is to confirm my suppor~ of the proposed seventy
foot auto center sign. I underetand that the planned location
this sign is the west end of the Toyota site approximately midway
between their north and south property line. Plea6e call me at
(619} 587-1985 if you have any further questions.
Ve~ tr ly you s,
~~r Care Center
4275 EXECUTIVE SQUARE, SUITE 1040, LA JOLLA. CALIFORNIA 92037 (6t9] 587-1985. FAX [619] 587-0420
ATTACHMENT NO. I1
CALTRANS PERMIT DATED MAY 17, 1993
R:~S\STAFFRPT\249PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 49
dl
I
J
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 7, 1993
Case No.: Old Town Specific Plan
Prepared By: David Hogan
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
Open the Public Hearing and receive public testimony on
the draft Specific Plan and proposed Negative Declaration;
2. Close the Public Hearing;
3. Approve the Negative Declaration; and,
4. ADOPT Resolution No. 93- entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE 93- ; ADOPTING THE OLD
TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
AND AMENDING CITY ORDINANCE 90-04."
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
The Old Town Specific Plan is an implementation program of the
General Plan and will guide the private development and public
improvement processes within the Old Town Area. The Specific
Plan for the Old Town'will establish regulations and programs to
address the following issues: land use, architecture and design.
economic development and business revitalization, historic
preservation, and public improvements and infrastructure.
LOCATION:
The Old Town Specific Plan area is generally located south of
Rancho California Road, east of Interstate 15, north of Santiago
Road/First Street, and west of Pujol Street, in the City of
Temecula, Riverside County, California.
EXISTING ZONING:
C-1 (General Commercial), C-P (Restricted Commercial), C-P-S
(Scenic Highway Commercial), M-SC (Manufacturing-Service
Commercial), R-1 (One Family Dwellings), R-2 (Multiple Family
Dwellings), R-3 (General Residential), R-R (Rural Residential), and
W-1 (Watercourse, Watershed & Conservation Areas).
OLDTOVVN~OTSp, PCl
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-1 (General Commercial), M-M (Manufacturing-Medium), and
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial).
C-P (Restricted commercial), R-R (Rural Residential), R-3 (General
Residential), R-4 (Planned residential), and W-2 (Controlled
Development Areas).
SP-180 (Rancho Highlands).
R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural, 20 acre Minimum Lot Size), and
I-P (Industrial Park).
PROPOSED ZONING:
SP (Old Town Temecula)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Commercial, residential, public, creekchannel (floodway), vacant
and undeveloped.
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Highway commercial and floodway.
Commercial, vacant, floodway, multiple family residential, and
vacant and undeveloped.
Freeway.
Light industrial and commercial, and vacant and undeveloped
hillside.
PROJECT STATISTICS
Gross Area:
Approximately 220 acres contained within the Old Town
Temecula Historic District.
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved the contract with Urban Design Studio to prepare the Old Town
Specific Plan (OTSP) in April 1992, in order to address historic preservation and building
reuse; economic revitalization and marketing; circulation, parking, and flooding issues; and
address building, landscape, and streetscape guidelines for the Old Town area. The process
for developing the Specific Plan for Old Town Temecula consisted of three distinct work
phases. These work phases are as follows:
Inventory and Analysis of Old Town Temecula.
Development and Selection of the Preferred Plan.
Preparation and Adoption of the Specific Plan.
To ensure community involvement in the preparation of the Specific Plan, the City Council
appointed the Old Town Steering Committee (OTSC) to oversee the process. The mission of
the OTSC was to work with the consultant and provide input into the Plan. The Old Town
Steering Committee consists of eleven (11) members representing local merchants and
residents, the City Council and Planning Commission, as well as the Old Town Local Review
Board, Economic Development Corporation, Temecula Town Association, and Old Town
Temecula Merchants Association.
OLDTOWN\OTSp. PC1 2
The Old Town Steering Committee, with the assistance of Urban Design Studio, have
developed goals, objectives and policies for the Specific Plan, selected preferred Land Use and
Circulation Plans, and have prepared land use regulations, design guidelines, and an
implementation program for the Specific Plan. A copy of the Old Town Specific Plan was
previously distributed to the Planning Commission on May 18, 1993.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Old Town Specific Plan is to prepare a Plan for Old Town Temecula that
enhances economic viability, preserves historic structures, addresses parking and public
improvement needs, and establishes design standards to enhance and maintain the character
and economic climate of Old Town (Goal 6, General Plan Land Use Element). The format and
organization of the OTSP is as follows:
II
Ill.
IV.
V.
Introduction
Development Framework
Land Use and Development Standards
Design Guidelines
Implementation Program
The key aspects of the goals and policies for the Old Town Specific Plan are as follows:
To create a high quality and distinct Western image and a functional,
vibrant and aesthetically pleasing Old Town for Temecula;
_ To develop Old Town to provide a variety of local and tourist oriented
retail services, office, cultural/civic, and residential opportunities;
To facilitate the efficient and safe movement of people and vehicles
within and through Old Town and provide safe, adequate, and
accessible parking; and,
To create technically sound and safe creek improvements which will
reduce the threat of flooding and adds to the vision for Old Town.
ANALYSIS
The Old Town Specific Plan represents a community-based preservation and revitalization plan
which implements the General Plan in the Old Town area. During the process, staff has
strived to maximize public involvement and to solicit the comments and concerns of local
merchants, property owners, and general public. All meetings of the Old Town Steering
Committee were open to the public and properly noticed. In addition, there was a storefront
workshop in Old Town and an evening public meeting. All of the public comments, concerns,
and suggestions which were provided to staff were reviewed and acted upon by the OTSC.
A summary of the public comment and the OTSC's response.are included in Attachment 2.
In addition to the concerns raised by the general public, there are a number of issues relating
to the implementation of the Plan which also deserve special consideration. These additional
implementation issues are listed below.
Consistency with the Ordinance 578
The Board of Supervisors approved Ordinance 578 establishing the Old Town Historic District
on October 14, 1980. The original boundaries for the Historic District were 6th Street,
Interstate 15, 2nd Street, and River Street (Murrieta Creek). The boundary of the Historic
District was expanded by the City Council on November 12, 1991. The boundary of the
Specific Plan is consistent with the Old Town Historic District boundary.
The Specific Plan will replace Ordinance 578 with similar provisions, including the retention
of the Old Town Local Review Board. The Plan will also create additional historic designations
for structures which were formerly outside the historic district. The Plan should improve the
development review process for the Old Town area by clearly defining how the OTLRB will
operate and by providing detailed design guidelines.
Implementation Prooram
Chapter V of the Specific Plan contains the Implementation Program for the Specific Plan
which consists of the following items: ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
The Economic and Promotional Strategy
The Old Town Historic Preservation Incentive Ordinance
Old Town Traffic Improvements
Old Town Infrastructure Improvements
Old Town Capital and Promotional Improvement Programs (1994-2000)
Improvement Project Financing Methods
A major component of the Implementation Program is the list of feasibility studies and
assessments, physical infrastructure improvements, and economic development programs
which will be needed to implement the Plan. The improvement program outlines a 6 year plan
to implement the Old Town Specific Plan.
Main Street Proaram
Much of the success of the Old Town Specific Plan will come from the efforts of a local main
street program. The main street program will addresses the overall marketing, advertising,
promotion, and business retention activities in the.Old Town area. The organization of the
future main street program was considered by the OTSC at its' April 8, 1993 meeting. The
Committee deferred this item to the Temecula Town Association ('I'FA) and the Old Town
Merchants Association (OTMA).
The Boards of Directors for both groups met on May 6, 1993 to discuss this issue. At the
meeting it was decided that the future main street organization should be based upon the by-
laws and charter of the OTMA with the involvement and assistance of the I'FA. The Boards
requested that City staff evaluate the Old Town Merchants Association Charter and determine
the feasibility of expanding it into a Main Street organization. This approach appear to be
feasible and would also ensure that currently active business people continues to be involved
in Old Town.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Staff reviewed the Specific Plan and compared it to the Draft General Plan. Staff finds that
the Specific Plan is consistent with, and directly implements the following goals and policies
of the General Plan:
O
Land Use Element
Circulation Element
Open Space/Conservation Element
Community Design Element
Economic Development Element
Goal 6, Policies 6.1 through 6.5
Policy 5.3
Policies 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, and 6.9
Policy 1.3
Policy 6.3
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Specific Plan is an implementation program of the City General Plan. A preliminary
evaluation of the Old Town Specific Plan indicated that the Specific Plan would have no
significant environmental impacts beyond those impacts identified and addressed in the EIR
for the City General Plan. It is recommended that the proposed Negative Declaration be
"tiered" with the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan.
The Planning Department prepared an Initial Environmental Study (IES) for the OTSP on May
5, 1993. The IES recommended that a Negative Declaration, tiered with the Environmental
Impact Report for the City General Plan, would address all the potential impacts of the Old
Town Specific Plan. The IES indicated that the Specific Plan would have no significant impact
on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted. The IES and Notice
of Intent for the Negative Declaration are included in Attachment 3.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The Old Town Specific Plan represents a broad-based community consensus on the future of
Old Town. The Plan provides the foundation for future activities of the City and the future
main street organization in and around Old Town Temecula. The Plan contains an
implementation program to guide the initial six years of public infrastructure and marketing
activities for the Plan.
FINDINGS
1. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the General
Plan which is currently being considered by the City Council, since the project will
implement the goals and policies of the General Plan.
The project complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local
ordinances, including Sections 65450 through 65457.
The project is closely related to the General Plan and the environmental documentation
(Negative Declaration) for the project is being tiered with the environmental
documentation (Environmental Impact Report) for the General Plan pursuant to Section
15152 of the CEQA Guidelines.
OLDTOWN\OTSP.PC1 6
The potential environmental impacts of the project were examined and found to be
comparable to the impacts associated with the General Plan, The impacts of this
project were found to be identical to the impacts identified in Environmental Impact
Report for the General Plan and the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the General Plan EIR are expected to mitigate any adverse
impacts which may result from this project,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE
the Old Town Specific Plan and ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 93- entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE
93- ; ADOPTING THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND AMENDING CITY ORDINANCE 90-04."
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution 93- - blue page ?
Ordinance 93- - blue page 10
Summary of the public comments on the Old Town Specific Plan - blue page 14
May 5, 1993, Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration and the Initial
Environmental Study for the Old Town Specific Plan o blue page 19
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION 93 -
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. P.C.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT ~ CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE 93- ; ADOFlING ~ OLD
TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING TItF. OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP, AND AMENDING CITY ORDINANCE 90-04.
WHEREAS, The maintenance and protection of historic Old Town Temecula has been
an important issue and concern to the citizens of Temecula; and
WltF. REAS, The City Council directed the preparation of a detailed Specific Plan for
Old Town Temecula; and
WltF. REAS, The Specific Plan for the Old Town will establish regulations and
programs to address the land use, architectural design, economic development, business
revitaliza~on, and historic preservation issues in and around Old Town; and
WHEREAS, the City Council appointed the Old Town Steering Committee to oversee
and assist in the preparation of a Old Town Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Old Town Steering Committee provided guidance and direction on the
substance and details of the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Old Town Steering Committee approved the Plan on April 8, 1993; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce; and
WI-IF. REAS, a public hearing were conducted on June 7, 1993, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in suppoit or opposition; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Specific Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, ff all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in appwving pwjects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of buiJding permits, that there is a reasonable pwbability that the Specific
Plan will be consistent with, and that there will be little or no probability of substantial detriment
to or interference with, the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
B. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends m the
City Council that the Council adopt the Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance of the City Council
for the City of Temecula adopting the Old Town Specific Plan, amending the Official Zoning
Map for the City of Temecula, and amending City Ordinance 90-04. The Specific Plan is
incorporated into this Resolution by reference and is marked Attachment "1" for identification.
The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and marked Attachment "2"
for identification.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared
for this pwject. The Initial Study identified no additional significant impacts beyond those
impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. Therefore, staff
has recommended a Negative Declaration be certified for this pwject.
Section3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __th day of
,1993.
LINDA FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
STATE OF CAI.FFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I F~,REBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecuh at a regular meeting thereof, held on the th day of
., 1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI41LI,
SECRETARY
OLDTOVVIN\OTSP.PC1 9
A'!'FACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE 93 -
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF TFFE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF
TES/IECULA ADOPTING ~ OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN,
AMENDING ~ OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR TFrF. CITY OF
TEMECULA, AND AMENDING CITY ORDINANCE 90-04.
TH]~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOHS I-IF_,~ggtY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Cede Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
That the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. There is a reasonable probability that this Ordinance will be consistent with
the general plan proposal now being considered and studied.
3. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future general plan if this Ordinance is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
4. That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of
Section 65450 et. seq. and local ordinances.
B. The maintenance and protection of historic Old Town Temecula is an important
issue and concern to the citizens of Temecula.
C. The Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 578 which provided for the
protection of historic resources and the creation of Historic Preservation Districts on October
23, 1979.
D. The Board of Supervisors designated portions of Old Town Temecula as a Historic
Preservation Districts on October 14, 1980.
E. The City Council adopted Ordinance 90-04, which adopted by reference
Riverside County Ordinance No. 578, which the Council has subsequently amended through
various City Ordinances.
OLDTOWN\OTSP. PC1 11
F. The maintenance and protection of historic Old Town Temecula is an important
issue and concern to the City of Temecula. As a result, the City Council directed the
preparation of a plan for Old Town Temecula to address land use, architectural design, economic
development, business revitaliTation, and historic preservation issues in and around Old Town.
Section 2.
adopted.
The Old Town Specific Plan, as identified in Attachment "1 ", is hereby
Section 3. The Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula is hereby mended to
change the Zoning Districts within the boundary of the Specific Plan as shown on Exhibit 1 of
Attachment 1, from C-1 (General Commercial), C-P (Restricted Commercial), C-P-S (Scenic
Highway Commercial), M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial), R-1 (One Family
Dwellings), R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings), R-3 (General Residential), R-R (Rural
Residential), and W-1 (Watercourse, Watershed & Conservation Areas), to "SP Specific Plan".
Section 4. Section 15 of Ordinance No. 90-04 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Ordinance Nos. 575 through 577, inclusive, and 579 through 581, inclusive, are
hereby adopted by reference."
Section 5. Section 19.10 of Article XIX of Ordinance No. 348, which was adopted
by City Ordinance 92-16, and amended by City Ordinance 93-12, is hereby repealed.
Section 6. Environmental Compliance An Initial Environmental Study was prepared
for this project. The Initial Environmental Study determined that no additional impacts beyond
those impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. Therefore,
a Negative Declaration is hereby certified for this project.
Section 7. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty
(30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTF. D, this day, the __ day of , 1993.
J. SAL MLT~OZ
MAYOR
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
OLDTOVVN\OTSP.PC1 12
STATE OF C,~IIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEIVIECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Ordinance No.93- .. was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City C{ilmcil of the City of Temecuh on the __ day of , 1993,
and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Temecuh on the day of ,1993, by the following roll call vote:
CO~CIIJvlElVlB~:
NOES:
CO~C~ERS:
CO~CILMI~MB~:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
OLDTO'v',q'J\OTSP.PC1 13
ATTACIEMENT NO. 3
SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC COMM~,NTS ON TIRE, OLD TOWN SPEC~IC PLAN
OLDTOWN~OTSP. PC1 I 4
ATTACHMENT 3
SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
The Old Town Steering Committee has received a number of comments and concerns through
out the process. Listed below are the public comments on the Plan and the OTSC's response.
GOALS AND POLICES
Include "residential" into the Overall Goal.
OTSC Decision: Add to Overall Goal.
Change the boundary of the pedestrian atmosphere area from 2nd to 6th and Mercedes
to the Creek, to 1 st Street to Rancho California Road and Interstate 15 to the Creek.
OTSC Decision: IVo change recommended,
Encouraging the use of graffiti resistant materials whenever feasible.
OTSC Decision: Add to Goals and Policies.
Eliminate of overhead utility lines throughout Old Town.
OTSC Decision: Add to Goals and Policies.
Amortize existing billboards and incorporate the signs into period structures and
facades.
OTSC Dec/s/on: Add to Goals and Policies with "when economicall), feasible ",
Include single and multiple family, hotel or bread, and breakfast uses in Old Town.
OTSC Dec/s/on: Add to Goals and Policies.
Provide appropriately located public restro~m facilities.
OTSC Dec/s/on: Add to Goals and Policies.
Provide additional pedestrian crossings over Murrieta Creek.
OTSC Dec/s/on: Add to Goals and Policies.
Provide parking areas at the north and south ends of the district with horse drawn
wagon/trolley serving Front Street during high traffic use periods.
OTSC Dec/s/on: Add to the Goals and Policies, with language that states it would
/deal/), not operate on Front Street,
Coordinate the Specific Plan with other City approved plans for Murrieta Creek.
OLDTOWN~OTSP. PC1 15
OTSC Decis/on: Add to Goals and Policies.
LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Old Town need some form of "anchor" like a couple of good restaurants or some other
local attraction.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan.
Encourage office uses in old town which are similar to the types of offices which were
active in the early 1900's.
OTSC Decision: Add to the Plan along side streets and on the second floors
along Front Street.
The area west of Mercedes Street should consist of residential appearing business and
professional uses.
OTSC Decision: Add to the Plan, but this area is not limited to these uses.
Change the designation of the property located at the corner of Main and Mercedes
Streets from Tourist Serving Residential to Tourist Retail Core.
OTSC Decision: Change the area between Mercedes Street, Interstate 15, and
the middle of the block between 4th and Main Streets from Tourist Serving
Residential to Tourist Retail Core.
Old Town cannot rely on tourism to thrive economically; local serving businesses
should be of primary concern and importance.
OTSC Dec/s/on: Do not include in the Plan. The Committee believes that a mix
of local and tourist serving uses are needed.
Small and individually owned businesses should be encouraged in old town.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan.
Need to provide public restrooms.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan,
Need public spaces for outdoor events and activities.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan; the exact locations will be evaluated and
selected after a detailed feasibility study.
Need to improve the security with additional lighting and/or foot patrols.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan.
OLPTOVVN~OTSP,PC1 16
CIRCULATION PLAN
The need to change the configuration of the traffic lanes on Front Street south of
Rancho California Road (as well as the configuration of the access to Moraga Road).
OTSC Decision: included in the P/an.
The need to put traffic signals at Main and Front Streets.
OTSC Decision: Not included in the Plan,
The need to put traffic signals at Santiago/First Street and Front Street.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan.
Front Street needs to be 4-lanes for Old Town to be economically successful.
OTSC Decision: Not be include~l in the Plan.
Need to provide additional parking so that smaller sites can be developed; preferably
in areas behind, or off of, Front and Main Streets or along Murrieta Creek.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan. Parking along Murrieta Creek will be
considered if it can be done without causing additional problems or adverse
impacts to the Creek.
Retain curb parking in Old Town.
OTSC Dec/s/on: Included in the Plan.
Streets should not be closed if existing businesses rely on those streets for their
access and customers.
OTSC Decision: IVo decision made by the Committee, this option should be
kept open.
Wooden pedestrian bridges across Murrieta Creek should be considered.
OTSC Dec/s/on: Wooden bridges are not precluded by the Plan, the precise
design of the future bridges will be made consistent with architectural design
for Old Town.
Investigate the feasibility of planting of trees in the middle of the turn around areas in
the cul-de-sacs along Marcedes Street.
OTSC Decision: Alot prohibited by the Plan.
Underground parking should be allowed.
OTSC Decision: Underground parking is not prohibited by the Plan.
OLDTOWN\OTSP.PC1 17
11.
Move the location of the proposed Sixth Street Bridge.
OTSC Decision: IVot included in the Plan.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Additional detail for the architectural standards along Pujol Street needs to be provided.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan.
All the streets in Old Town should be converted from asphalt to decomposed granite
or a similar material which gives the appearance of dirt streets.
OTSC Decision; Included in the Plan if it can be done safely and economically.
Building rehabilitation guidelines need to be provided for the area north of 6th Street
to ensure that these buildings are converted to the Old Town theme.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan.
Walkways need to made of highly durable materials to prevent high
maintenance costs and possible legal liability.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan.
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
The desirability of using the Old Town Merchants Association to be involved in
implementing the Plan.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan.
Need freeway signage to both announce and advertise Old Town Temecula.
OTSC Decis/on: Included in the Plan.
Businesses in Old Town need to stay open later.
OTSC Decision: Will be addressed by the Main Street Program.
Low interest loans should be provided for building facade improvements.
OTSC Decision: Included in the Plan.
Allow outdoor alcohol consumption during special events.
OTSC Decision: Not prohibited b~, the Plan,
18
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
THE INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
OLDTOWN~OTSP. PC1 19
City of 'remecula
Planning Department
Notice of Completion
Project Title: OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Lead Agency: City of Temecula
Street Address: 43174 Busbaess Park Drive
City: Temeeula, CA Zip: 92590
Project Location
Old Town Temecula, City of Temecula,
Riverside County.
Cross Streets: Front and Main Streets
Assessor's Parcel No.: Nutuerous parcels.
Section: __ Township: __S. Range: __W.
CEQA Document Type
[ ]NOP
[ ]Early Consultation
Contact Person: David Hogan
Title: Associate Planner
Phone: (909) 694-6400
Within 2 miles
Stare Hwy #: Interstate 15 and SR-79
Airports: None
Waterways: Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek and Santa Margarita River
Railways: None
Schools: Vail Elementary School
Total Acres: Approximately 220
pc]Negative Declaration [ ]Supplement
[ ]Draft E1R [ ]Subsequent EI2R
[ ]EIR (Prior SCH ~
pc]Other: Ne.o Dec is tiered with General Plan EIR
Local Action Type
[ ]General Plan Update
[ ]General Plan Amendment
[ ]General Plan Element
[ ]Community Plan
[ ]Other
[X]Speci~c Plan [ ]Rezone
[ ]Master Plan [ ]Prezone
[ ]Planne~. Unit Development [ ]Use Permits
[ ]Site Plan/Plot Plan [ ]Subdivision of Land
[ ]Annexation
[ ]Redevelopment
[ ]Costal Permit
pC]City Development Project
Development Type
[ ]Residential: Units Acres~ [ ]Water Facilities: Type
[ ]Office: Sq.ft..__ Acres__ Employees [ ]Transportation: Type
[ ]Commercial: Sq.ft..__ Acres__ Etuployees [ ]Mining: Mineral
[ ]Industrial: Sq.ft..__ Acres__ Etuployees [ ]Power: Type
[ ]Educational: [ ]Waste Treatment: Type
[ ]Recreational: [ ]Hazardous Waste: Type
[X]Other: A Plan to revitalize Old Town Temecula with special design guidelines, land use regulations
MGD
and upgraded infrastructure.
Project Issues Discussed in Document
[ ]Aesthetic/Visual
[ ]Agricultural Land
[ ]Air QualiLy
[X']Archeologicai/Historical
[ ]Coastal Zone
[ ]Drainage/Absorption
[ ]Economic/Jobs
[ ]Fiscal
[ ]Flood Plai~./Flooding
[ ]Forest I and/Fire Hazard
[ ]Geologic/Seismic
[ ]Minerals
[ ]Noise
pC]Population/Housing Balance
pqPublic Services/Facilities
[ ]Recreation/Parks
[ ]Schools/Universities
[ ]Septic Systems
[ ]fewer Capacity
[ ]Soil Erosion/Compaetion/Grad
[ ]Solid Waste
[ ]Toxic/HaTardous
[X]Traffic/Circulation
[ ]Vegetation
Present Land Use: A mixture of commercial, residential, open space and undeveloped land uses.
Current Zoning: General Commercial, Restricted Commercial, Manufacturing-Service Commercial,
[ ]Water Quality
[ ]Water supply/groundwater
[ ]Wetland/Riparian
[ ]Wildlife
[ ]Growth Inducing
[X]I ~-d Use
[ ]Cutuulative Effects
[ ]Other
Single Family Residential,
Multiple Family, Rural Residential and Watercourse.
General Plan Use: A Village Center Overlay with Community Commercial. Highway Tourist Commercial. Low Medium '
Residential, Medium Residential, High Density Residential, and Open Space Designations.
Project Description: The Old Town Specific Plan is an implementation program of the General Plan and will guide the private
development and public improvement processes within the Old Town Area. The Specific Plan for the Old Town will establish
regulations and programs to address the following issues: land use, architecture and design, economic development and business
revitalization, historic preservation, and public improvements and infrastructure.
Mail to:
State Clearinghouse, 140O Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613
Resources Agency
Boating/Waterways
Coastal Commission
CoastM Conservancy
Colorado River Board
Conservation
/ Fish and Game
Forestry
Office of Historic Preservation
Parks and Recreation
Reclamation
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
Water Resources (DWR)
Business, Transportation, & Housing Aeronautics
California Highway Patrol
/ Caltrans District No. 8
Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters)
Housing & Community Development
Food & Agriculture
Health & Welfare
Health Services
State & Consumer Services
General Services
OLA (Schools)
KEY
S=Document sent by lead agency
X=Document sent by SCH
· /=Suggested distribution
Environmental Affairs
Air Resources Board
APCD/AQMD
California Waste Management Board
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Delta Unit
SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB: Water Rights
Regional WQCB # (
Youth & Adult Corrections
Corrections
Independent Commissions & Offices
Energy Commission
Native American Heritage Commission
Public Utilities Commission
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Land Cormmission
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Other
Public Review Period (to be filied in by lead agency)
Starting Date May 5, 1993
Ending Date June 4, 1993
/
Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable):
Consulting Firm None
Address
City/State/Zip
Contact
Phone ( )
Applicant Cirv of Temecula
Address 43174 Business Park Drive
City/State/Zip Temecula, CA 92590
Phone ( 909 ) 694-6400
For SCH Use Only:
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date to SCH
Clearance Date
Notes:
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration
PROJECT:
Old Town Specific Plan.
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula.
LOCATION:
The Old Town Specific Plan area is generally located south of Rancho
California Road, east of interstate 15, north of Santiago Road/First Street, and
west of Pujol Street, in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California.
DESCRIPTION:
The Old Town Specific Plan is an implementation program of the General Plan
and will guide the private development and public improvement processes
within the Old Town Area. The Specific Plan for the Old Town will establish
regulations and programs to address the following issues: land use,
architecture and design, economic development and business revitalization,
historic preservation, and public improvements and infrastructure,
The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project described above.
Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that
this project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the
environment. As a result, the City Council intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project.
The Negative Declaration for the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) is tiered with the City of
Temecula's 1993 General Plan EIR (GPEIR). The Specific Plan is an implementation mechanism for
the General Plan and based upon the preliminary evaluation to the Initial Environmental Study, the
OTSP will generally not have any environmental impacts beyond those impacts described in the
GPEIR. The additional impacts discussed in this Negative Declaration are related to: Land Use,
Housing, Transportation/Circulation, Public Services, and Cultural Resources. The mitigation
measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project are included in the Initial
Environmental Study for the Old Town Specific Plan and/or the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the GPEIR which is included by reference as part of this document.
The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Dec~[aration is May 5, 1993 to June 4, 1993.
Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed
below at the following address: City of Temecula, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA
92590.
The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through:
X The Local Newspaper. _ Posting the Site. _ Notice to Adjacent Property Owners.
If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact
vid W. Hoean, Associate Planner
(Signature) ~ {Name and Title)
CEOA\OTSP.PND Rev~ed T 1,t2192
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND tIN'FORMATION
1. Name of Project:
Old Town Specific Plan
2. Case Numbers:
Not applicable
3. Location of Project:
The Old Town Specific Plan area is generally located south of
Rancho California Road, east of Interstate 15, north of Santiago
Road/First Street, and west of Pujol Street, in the City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California. The boundary is coterminous with the
Old Town Historic District Boundary.
4. Description of Project:
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to guide the private development
and public improvement processes within the Old Town Area. The
Specific Plan for the Old Town will establish regulations and
programs to address the following issues: land use, architecture and
design, economic development and business revitalization, historic
preservation, and public improvements and infrastructure.
The Specific Plan is an implementationprogram for the General Plan
and this Initial Environmental Study is tiered with the EIR for the
General Plan. A 'no ' answer means there is either no impact or no
additional impact beyond those idenH~ed in the General Plan E1R.
Only those potential impacts beyond the impacts addressed in the E1R
for the General Plan will be answered with a 'yes' or 'maybe. ' In
addition, only the 'yes' and 'maybe' answers will be discussed in
Part 111 of this Initial Environmental Study.
5. Date of Assessment:
April 28, 1993
6. Name of Proponent:
City of Temecula
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
43174 Business Park t)rive
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 694-6400
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations tO all the answers are provided in Section III)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe N__Qo
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures?
b,
Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil.'?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
_
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on-
or off-site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or similar hazards.'?
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any
change in climate, whether locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of g..round waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)?
Yes Maybe N_.Q
X
X
X
X
_X_x
X
X
X
X
Yes Maybe
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthie organisms, and/or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals?
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area?
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations7
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area?
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)?
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation)?
N__o
X
X
X
X
__x
X
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Homing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation system, including
public transportation?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in txafftc hazards to motor vehicles, bicycl ists or
pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the foliowing areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
i5. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water systems?
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks?
Yes Maybe N._Q
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes Maybe N._Q
e. Storm water drainage systems? __ __ X
f. Solid waste disposal system? __ __ __X
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvementS for any of the above? __ __ X
17. Human Health, Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health heard or potential health hazard? _ _ X
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? __ __ ._X_X
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __ __ __X
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ __ __X
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? __ __ X
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? __ __ __X
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site? __ __X __
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effectS to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object? __ X
c. Any potential to cause a physica/change which would affect
unique ethnic cultarnl values? X
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?____ X
llI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) is being prepared to implement the goals, policies and programs of the
City General Plan that apply to the Old Town Area. The majority of potential environmental impacts and
associated mitigation measures which could apply to the Specific Plan have been discussed and evaluated in
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City General Plan. As a result, this Initial Environmental
Study has focused on the impacts which were not adequately discussed within the General Plan EIR. The
probable environmental impacts of the OTSP which are discussed in the EIR for General Plan are as follows:
® Earth * Air · Plant Life
· Animal Life · Noise ® Light and Glare
· Natural Resources · Risk of Upset · Population
· Energy ® Utilities ® Human Health
· Aesthetics · Recreation · Water
In addition, the probable environmental impacts of the OTSP on the following impact issues are partially
discussed in the General Plan EIR. The components of these impact discussions which are not completely
addressed in the General Plan EIR are as follows and are discussed below:
· Public Services · Land Use ® Housing
· Transportation/Circulation · Cultural Resources
All private development or public construction within the Old Town area will have to be consistent with the
provisions of the Old Town Specific Plan. The subsequent development and improvement projects will receive
specific and appropriate environmental review during their respective approval processes. Except as discussed
below, all the environmental impact associated with the implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan have
been previously addressed in the EIR for the City General Plan and will not have an additional impact on the
environment. The following are the additional environmental impacts are associated with the OTSP.
Land Use
8.a.
Yes. The Old Town Specific Plan will result in some land use changes in Old Town Temecula.
Most of the existing commercial, residential and civic areas will generally remain in those land use
categories. The Specific Plan may result in new development on in Old Town. However, any
changes in land use will be consistent with both the General and Specific Plans and no additional
significant impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR are anticipated as a result of
this project.
8.b.
Housing
Maybe. The Old Town Specific Plan may result in some minor alteration of the land use in the
City's General Plan. The Specific Plan represents a supplemental Village Center Plan for a portion
of the General Plans area. As a result, the Specific Plan may result in some new development
which could be somewhat different from the basic underlying land use identified in the General
Plan. However, the overall land use changes in land use will be consistent with both the General
and Specific Plans and no additional significant impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan
EIR are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.
Maybe. The Old Town Specific Plan may have some impact on existing the housing stock in the
Old Town area. The overall supply of housing units in the Old Town area is expected to increase
over current levels even with the eventual replacement of the single family residential units along
Mercedes Street because the Specific Plan envisions second floor residential units in the Tourist
Retail Core. Any impacts on housing stock or units are anticipated to be positive. As a result, no
significant impacts are anticipated from this project.
CEQAXOTSP.I[/,S 6 Re~d IIFU'FZ
Transportation/Circulation
13.b
Yes. The Old Town Specific Plan may result in the additional demand for parking in the Old
Town area. At present, many areas in Old Town consist of older developments and buildings
which did not always require onsim parking facilities when they were constructed. According to
the Traffic Study for the Specific Plan, approximately 300 additional parking spaces will be needed
in Old Town at "bnild-out". However, the Plan contains programs to provide additional parking
facilities to satisfy both the current and future demand for parking in Old Town. As a result, no
significant impacts are anticipated from this project.
Public Services
14.e
Yes. The Old Town Specific Plan contains programs and policies which will probably result in
some additional incremental maintenance costs in the Old Town area. The Specific Plan includes
mechanisms to address the funding of these incremental public maintenance costs. It is expected
that the overall cost to the City for these additional services will be minimal and will be primarily
paid for by the merchants/property owners who will directly benefit by these improvements. As
a result, no significant impacts are anticipated from this project.
Cultural Resources
20.b
Maybe. The Old Town Specific Plan cot~tains programs and policies to protect the existing historic
structures with the Specific Plan area. However, it is possible that over time some historic
structures or sites may be affected by implementation of the Plan. One of primary goals of the
Specific Plan is to protect historic structures and to continue their rense. The overall impact of the
Specific Plan on local historic structures or sites will be beneficial because the Plan will encourage
and facilitate the continued use of these facilities and will provide dis-incentives to their removal.
As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated from this project.
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGN~'ICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species,- cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe N._.qo
X
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, defmitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS' IMPACT FINDINGS
Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code),
Yes
N__Q
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERSfiNATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in.t~e Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
m~ugate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by:
David W. Hotan, Associate Planner
Name and Title
May 3. 1993
Date
OLL, TOWN SPECIFIC PLAi,~
ITE
/ O' 2000' 4000' 6000',,,
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 7, 1993
Case No.: Environmental Impact Report No. 340 (EIR No. 340)
Temecula Regional Center
Prepared By: Steve R. Jiannino
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 93- recommending Certification of
Environmental Impact Report No. 340 and Addendure, Adoption
of Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approval of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Kemper Real Estate Management Company
REPRESENTATIVE:
Douglas Wood and Associates
PROPOSAL:
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan
No. 263. The project is a proposal for mixed use development
on 201.30 acres consisting of 1,673,000 square feet of
Commercial Retail Development, 810,000 square feet of
Office/Institutional uses, possible Multiple Family Residential
development of up to 300 units and a 375 room hotel.
LOCATION:
Southeast corner of the intersection of Ynez and Winchester
Roads.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre
minimum lot size)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: C-P-S
South: M-SC
East: A-2-20
West: C-P-S
(Scenic Highway Commercial)
(Manufacturing Service Commercial)
(Heavy Agricultural, 20 Acre
Minimum Lot Size)
(Scenic Highway Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Specific Plan No. 263 and C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
R;\S\STAFFRPT~340EIR.PC 6/2/93 tjs
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial Development (Costco Wholesale)
Vacant
Vacant
Commercial Development (Palm Plaza)
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan No. 263 and Change of Zone No. 5589 were submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on September 8, 1989. After completion of an initial environmental
study, the Riverside County Planning Department determined that an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) would be required for the project and processed a Notice of Preparation for the
Environmental Impact Report in November of 1989. The cases were transferred to the City
of Temecula in April of 1990.
The City of Temecula held a Scoping Meeting for EIR No. 340 on July 26, 1990, The Draft
EIR was transmitted for review and comment on June 7, 1991 with the review period ending
July 26, 1991.
With the processing of a nearby project, Specific Plan No. 1 (Campos Verdes) and EIR No.
348, additional information was received which required revised or updated studies to be
completed for this area. These studies have been included as addendum to Draft EIR No. 340.
The mitigation measures proposed in the addendure have been included in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340,
ANALYSIS
Table A is a listing of all the impacts identified in EIR No. 340 associated with the Regional
Center Specific Plan. The table further provides information on which impacts remain
significant after mitigation and refined Statements of Overriding Conditions.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\340EIR.PC 612193 tie 2
TABLE A
Impact
Noise
Climate and Air Quality
Agriculture
Seismic Safety
Slopes and Erosion
Wind Erosion and Blowsand
Flooding
Water Quality
Toxic Substances
Open Space and Conservation
Wildlife and Vegetation
Energy Resources
Scenic Highway
Cultural and Scientific
Resources
Circulation
Water and Sewer
Fire Services
Sheriff Services
Schools
Parks and Recreation
Utilities
Solid Waste
Health Services
Libraries
Light and Glare
Project Impact
After
Mitigations
Significant
Significant
Significant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant-
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Cumulative
Impact After
Mitigation
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Significant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Significant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Insignificant
Significant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Significant
Insignificant
Requires
Statement of
Overriding
Consideration
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
R:~S\STAFFRPT\340EIR,PC 6/2/93 tjs
Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas
Wood and Associates, Inc. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was widely circulated for
public comment in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. During the processing of the
Environmental Impact Report, Assembly Bill 471 lAB 471 ) and Assembly Bill 1791 lAB 1791 )
were passed in conjunction with Proposition 111, Gas Tax Increase and Congestjon
Management Program. AB 471 and AB 1791 required the establishment of a Congestion
Management Program (CMP) for counties which was implemented by Riverside County,
January 1,1992. The program requires all developments which generate more than 200 peak
hour trips to be reviewed for possible impacts on the CMP roadway system. Therefore, a
CMP analysis needed to be completed for this project. The designated CMP roadways within
the City of Temecula are Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Highway 79 (Winchester Road). The
developer has completed a CMP analysis which is currently being reviewed by the Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The CMP analysis is included as an addendum
to the EIR with all recommended mitigations being included in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for EIR No. 340.
Several additional comments, some of which required additional studies be performed, were
received during the review period of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. These studies
involved traffic and drainage issues and have been included in the addendure to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report. The proposed mitigations contained with the studies have been
included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. All comments and the
consultants responses to the comments along with the Draft Environmental Impact Report and
Addendure will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report.
The Environmental Impact Report indicates that even after implementing the proposed
mitigations, several significant impacts will remain. The remaining significant impacts will be
to Noise, Climate and Air Quality, and Agriculture. Several other cumulatively significant
impacts will occur if the other proposed Specific Plans for the region, Specific Plan No. 1
(Campos Verdes) and Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills), are developed. These
additional areas of significant impact will be Seismic Safety, Flooding, Wildlife and Vegetation,
Circulation and Traffic, Fire Services, Sheriff Services, Schools, Utilities and Libraries, The
Planning Commission and City Council will have to adopt Statements of Overriding
Considerations for these impacts in conjunction with Certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the' .significance of all the major impacts.
Following is a summary of impacts:
Seismic Safety The site does not contain any known active faults, but it is affected
by the nearby Wildomar Fault. Therefore, the site is subject to possible ground shaking
hazards. Construction of any improvements will have to incorporate building
techniques to mitigate for possible ground shaking.
A portion of the site lies within a potential liquefaction zone. As a mitigation measure,
any development within this area will have to comply with recommendations made
within detailed geology reports provided prior to issuance of grading permits for the
site.
R:~S~STAFFRPT\340E~R.PC 6/2193 tjs
4
In addition, a portion of the site also lies within the Dam Inundation Area for Lake
Skinner. Therefore, an evacuation route shall be developed for the area prior to
recordation of any final maps and a notice of the possible hazard shall be included in
all deeds recorded on the property. Completion of the proposed Assessment District
No. 161 improvements to the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel could remove the site
from the Dam Inundation Ares for Lake Skinner.
Seismic Ssfety is considered a cumulative significant impact, therefore a Statement
of Overriding Consideration is required for certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
AQricultural Lands Implementation ofthe Specific Plan will remove existing dry farmed
cropland from production. It will also result in the loss of future agricultural lands
designated as "Local Important Farm/and" and "Prime Farm/and" as indicated in the
City's Draft General Plan, agricultural resources. Development of the property could
theoretically hasten the conversion of other agricultural areas to urban uses by creating
economic pressures and increasing land value for development. However, from a
practical standpoint, this proje6t is surrounded by urbanizing or planned urban
development. There are no practical mitigations for this impact, with the exception of
no development, even though the impact is considered a significant impact. Therefore,
a Statement of Overriding Consideration will have to be adopted for this impact with
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
Climate and Air Quality Although impacts to air quality will occur during the grading
and construction phase of the project, the major impact to air quality will come from
vehicle exhaust after build out of the project. Mitigation measures have been added
to the project to lessen the impacts to the air quality. Some of these mitigation
measures include: watering graded surfaces and providing interim landscaping
(groundcover) of graded areas for dust emission control to lower impacts during
construction. Additional mitigations include: providing bike paths, completing required
on- and off-site road improvements, complying with Congestion Management Programs
and providing a job housing balance. While these measures provide feasible
mitigations for the increased traffic, the impact to air quality wilt still be significant.
The total number of vehicle trips generated from the project and surrounding projects
cannot be reduced sufficiently to enable the impact to be considered insignificant.
Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration will have to be adopted for this
impact in conjunction with certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
Noise Noise impacts will occur during grading and construction of the project,
although the major impact to noise will be from the cumulative effect of increased
traffic on the roadways from this project and additional development in the area.
Impacts during construction will be lessened by controlling the time construction
activities are allowed to take place. Even after implementation of feasible mitigation
measures, the cumulative noise impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration will have to be adopted for this
impact in conjunction with certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
Circulation This project impacts both on and off-site roadways. The size of the
project generates sufficient traffic to require the project to comply with the State
Congestion Management Program. The circulation pattern connects with proposed
R:\S~STAFI:RPT\340EIR.pC 6/2/93 tie 5
roadways that run through the City of Murrieta and the County of Riverside. The
Traffic Study included in the technical appendix of the EIR details the impacts to the
circulation system of all three jurisdictions. The analysis contains mitigation measures
and timing requirements for the completion of the improvements. These mitigations
have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of
Approval for the project. The cumulative impacts to circulation will remain significant
although the impacts will be lessened by adherence to the Conditions of Approval and
mitigation measures. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration must be
adopted for this impact in conjunction with the certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report for this project.
WildlifeNeQetation A biological study was completed for the site and no rare or
endangered plants or animals were observed or are expected to occur on the site. The
site is within the historic range of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat and is subject to the
mitigation fees established for protection of appropriate Stephen's Kangaroo Rat
Habitat.
Although the site is not habitat .for any rare or endangered species, the loss of the
habitat will add to the cumulative loss of wildlife habitat in the area. This cumulative
loss is considered significant even though the individual project impact is not
considered significant. The cumulative significant impact will require a Statement of
Overriding Consideration be adopted for this impact in conjunction with certification
of the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project.
Flood/Drainage A hydrology study was completed for the project which determined
the type of infrastructure necessary to handle an anticipated 100 year storm for the
project. Drainage will be carried through a system of drainage lines and parking lots
to existing culverts under Interstate 15 (I-15). An off-site detention basin is planned
to be constructed east of Margarita Road. Drainage analysis provided with proposed
development projects will determine when the detention basin must be constructed.
The drainage study indicates that the existing system under 1-15 and further
downstream can handle the drainage being proposed by this project. Compliance with
the proposed mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval will reduce the impacts
of the project but the cumulative impacts are still considered significant and a
Statement of Overriding Consideration needs to be adopted in conjunction with
certification of the Final Environmental Impect Report.
Erosion Erosion control measures are being required and proposed that will comply
with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. These
measures will include watering of the site during grading, street sweeping existing
surrounding roadways, landscaping of graded slopes, berming, and sand bagging
where necessary, The Mitigation Monitoring Program discourages any grading of sites
prior to development being proposed for the site. The site will not be allowed to be
mass graded which will help lessen erosion problems.
Detailed erosion control plans must be submitted and approved with issuance of
grading permits. The erosion control measures must comply with City and NPDES
standards. The impact, due to erosion, will not be significant with compliance to the
Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring program.
R:\S~STAFFRPT~340EIR.PC 612193 tjs 6
Public Facilities The project impacts public facilities due to the increased demand for
services from new development. These impacts will be reduced to a level of non-
significance by payment of appropriate fees and construction of required infrastructure.
The cumulative impacts are still considered to be significant and a Statement of
Overriding Consideration must be adopted for certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
10,
Utilities The utility providers for the area have determined that they can provide the
electricity, gas, and phone services to the site if the proper infrastructure is installed.
The utility companies will be providing information on conservation of energy to
encourage all users to conserve as much energy as possible. With construction of
buildings in compliance with Title 24 standards and the installation of appliances which
conform to Title 20 standards, the impacts to utilities will be reduced but the
cumulative effect will still be considered significant. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Consideration is required for certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report.
11.
Parks and Recreation/Ooen Space The project proposes increased landscaping areas
along the major streets. The majority of the project is for commercial or office
development with a possibility of multiple family residential units being constructed
above the other uses. The maximum number of multiple family residential units is
proposed to be 300 units. The project will be conditioned to comply with the City's
Quimby Ordinance to provide for the park requirements which will reduce the impact
to a level of insignificance.
12.
Cultural and Scientific Resources No cultural resources are anticipated to occur on the
site according to Chrjstopher E. Drover Ph.D., (see EIR No. 340, Appendix D, Technical
Appendices). However, if any cultural resources are encountered as a result of
grading, a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted and a mitigation program will be
adopted.
There is a possibility that paleontology resources could be discovered on the site.
Grading of the site shall conform to a mitigation program provided by a qualified
paleontologist.
Adherence to the paleontologists mitigation. program and the conditions of approval
will reduce the potential impact to a level of non-significance.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Section 15093 of CEQA decision makers must balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable adverse impacts in determining whether to approved a project.
If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts the adverse impacts may be considered
acceptable.
The benefits of the proposed project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts
based on the following overriding considerations:
Construction of the proposed project will create the opportunity for a new
Town Center for the City of Temecula.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\340EIR,PC 6/2/93 tjs
Construction of the proposed project will provide commercial uses that will
accommodate a share of the projected community and regional work force by
creating 7,289 to 8,126 long-term employment opportunities thereby enhancing
the jobs/housing balance for the area. Additional short-term construction-
related jobs will also be created.
Construction of the proposed project responds to the rapidly growing retail and
shopping center market demand by proposing the development of commercial
and office opportunities, major regional shopping, highway, mixed use and
community shopping ares, as well as a hotel and restaurants which will service
the local and visiting population.
Construction of the proposed project will bring a wide range of shopping
opportunities and commercial services closer to the heart of the Temecula
community thereby reducing traffic, noise and air quality impacts associated
with automobile trips headed for similar commercial destinations at a farther
distance.
The addition of major anchor tenants and smaller retail outlets will create
commercial competition which will provide shoppers with diverse and
competitive commercial and retail opportunities.
High density, affordable housing opportunities within the proposed
commercial/retail center may be created thereby responding to local housing
needs.
Provision of traffic mitigation measures will provide overall mitigation to address
the circulation impacts which are directly attributable to the proposed project
and which are indirectly attributable to the proposed project's incremental
contribution to cumulative traffic impacts and will therefore benefit the region
by adding capacity to critical intersections and roadways. The proposed project
contributes to the implementation of key portions of the City's Master Plan of
Highways.
Drainage facilities will be constructed to better contain and direct the flow of
stormwater runoff through and dowOstream of the project site.
The proposed project will provide funding for various regional infrastructure
elements through the City's Mitigation Fee Program.
Approval of a Specific Plan provides the necessary master planning to insure
provision of necessary infrastructure, desired amenides, and common landscape
and design elements which would not be possible if the property were
developed using a "piecemeal" approach.
R:%S\STAFFRPT%340EIR.PC 6/2/93 tie
8
Depending upon which project alternative is ultimately constructed, the
"Regional Center" or "Power Center", total project sales tax revenues are
anticipated to range between $13.7 to $15.4 million dollars over the first ten
years, and $2.3 to $2.8 million dollars annually thereafter, according to the
Fiscal Impact Report contained in the DEIR. There will also be additional
financial benefits to the City due to higher property tax collections.
Mitiaation Monitorina Prowlram
The Draft Environmental Impact Report includes the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring Program will be included as a Condition of Approval
for projects as a whole with several of the mitigations being included as separate Conditions
of Approval.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The Specific Plan is consistent with the intent of the Draft General Plan to create a Village
Center in this area. Even though several significant impacts will remain after implementation
of all the mitigation measures, the benefits of the project outweigh these impacts as reflected
in the Statements of Overriding Consideration. The project related unavoidable significant
impacts are in the areas of noise, climate, air quality and agriculture. The cumulative
unavoidable significant impacts, from development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan
No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, are in the areas of seismic safety, flooding,
wildlife and vegetation, circulation and traffic, fire services, sheriff services, schools, utilities
and libraries.
With adoption of the Statements of Overriding Consideration, the Environmental Impact
Report will be consistent with the City's Draft General Plan and State Law,
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 93- - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 16
A. Vicinity Map
B. Draft General Plan Designation
C. Zoning Designation
D. Site Plan
R:\S\STAFFRPT%340EIR.PC 6/2/93 tjs 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
R:\S\STAFFRPT\34OEIR,pC 6/2/93 tjs 10
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING
CERTWICATION OF ENVIRONM~.NTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 340 WITH ADDENDUM, ADOPTION OF THE
STATEM~.NTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND
APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF YNEZ AND WINCHESTER
ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO(S) 910-
130-046, 047; 921-090-001, 002, 003, 004, 005 AND 006.
WHEREAS, Douglas Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report
No. 340 (EIR No. 340) in accordance with the Riverside County and State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, said FIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said FIR on June 7, 1993, at which
time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended Certification of said FIR with Addendure, Adoption of Statements of Overriding
Consideration and Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COIVIMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes
the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Sectioh 65360, a newly incorporated city shah
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
R:\S~STAFFRPT~340EIR.PC 6/2/93 tis 11
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is Little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The Planning Commission in recommending Certification of the proposed FEIR,
makes the foliowing findings, to wit:
1. Seismic Safety The site does not contain any known active faults, but it
is affected by the nearby Wildomar Fault and Lies within a potential Liquefaction zone and the
Lake Skinner Dam Inundation Area. Mitigation measures proposed for the project will lessen
potential impacts, although with concurrent development of other proposed projects, seismic
safety is considered a cumulative significant impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Consideration is required for Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
2. Agricultural Lands Implementation of the Specific Plan will remove
existing dry fanned cropland from production. It will also result in the loss of future
agricultural lands designated as 'Zocal Important Farmland" and "Pn'me Farmland" as indicated
in the City's Draft General Plan, agricultural resources. There are no practical mitigations for
this impact, except no development, even though the impact is considered a significant impact.
Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration ~vill have to be adopted for this impact with
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. Climate and Air Oualitv Although impacts to air quality will occur
during the grading and construction phase of the project, the major impact to air quality will
come from vehicle exhaust after build out of the project. Mitigation measures have been added
to the project to lessen the impacts to air quality. While these measures provide feasible
mitigations for the increased traffic, the impact to air quality will still be a significant impact.
The total number of vehicle trips generated from the project and surrounding projects cannot be
reduced sufficiently to enable the impact to be considered insignificant. Therefore, a Statement
of Overriding Consideration will have to be adopted for this impact in conjunction with
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\340EIR.PC 6/2/93 tie
12
4. Noise Noise impacts will occur during grading and construction of the
project, although the major impact to noise will be from the cumulative effect of increased
traffic on the roadways from this project and additional development in the area. Impacts during
construction will be lessened by controlling the time construction activities are allowed to take
place. Even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the cumulative noise impact
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Consideration will have to be adopted concerning the noise impact in conjunction with
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
5. Circulation This project impacts both on and off-site roadways. The
Traffic study included in the technical appendix of the EIR details the impacts to the circulation
system and contains mitigation measures and tuning requirements for the completion of
necessary improvements. These mitigations have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring
program and the Conditions of Approval for the project. The cumulative impacts to circulation
will remain significant although the impacts will be lessened by adherence to the Conditions of
Approval and mitigation measures. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration must
be adopted for this impact in conjunction with the certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report for this project.
6. Wildlife/Ve~,etation A biological study was completed on the site and no
rare or endangered plants or animals were observed or are expected to occur on the site. The
site is within the historic range of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat and is subject to the mitigation
fees established for protection of appropriate Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat.
Although the site is not habitat for any rare or endangered species, the loss
of the habitat will add to the cumulative loss of wildlife habitat in the area. This cumulative loss
is considered significant even though the individual project impact is not considered significant.
The cumulative significant impact will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration be
adopted for this impact in conjunction with certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report for this project.
7. Flood/Drainage A hydrology study was completed for the project which
determined the type of infrastructure necessary to handle an anticipated 100 year storm for the
project. The drainage study contains required mitigation measures for lessening the impacts of
the project. Cumulative impacts are still considered significant and a Statement of Overriding
Consideration needs to be adopted in conjunction with certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
8. Erosion Erosion control measures are being required and proposed that
will comply with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
These measure will include watering of the site during grading, street sweeping existing
surrounding roadways, landscaping of graded slopes, berming, and sand bagging where
necessary.
The impact, due to erosion, will not be significant with compliance to the
Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring program.
R:\S\STAFFRPT%340EIR.PC 6/2/93 tjs
13
9. Public Facilities The project impacts public facilities due to the increased
demand for services from new development. The impacts of the project will be reduced to a
level of non-significance by payment of appropriate fees and construction of required
infrastructure. The cumulative impacts are considered to be significant and a Statement of
Overriding Consideration must be adopted for certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report.
10. Utilities The utility providers for the area have determined that they can
provide the electricity, gas, and phone services to the site ff the proper infrastructure is installed.
With construction of buildings in compliance with Title 24 standards and the installation of
appliances which conform to Title 20 standards, the impacts to utilities will be reduced but the
cumulative effect will still be considered significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Consideration is required for certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
11. Parks and Recreation/Open Space The project proposes increased
landscaping areas along the major streets. The project will be conditioned to comply with the
City's Quimby Ordinance to provide park requirements, which will reduce the impact to a level
of insignificance.
12. Cultural and Scientific Resources No cultural resources are anticipated
to occur on the site according to Christopher E. Drover Ph.D. (see Appendix D, Technical
Appendices). However, ff any cultural resources are encountered as a result of grading, a
qualified archaeologist shall be consulted and a mitigation program will be adopted.
There is a possibility that paleontology resources could be discovered on
the site. Grading of the site shall conform to a mitigation program provided by a qualified
paleontologist.
Adherence to the paleontologists mitigation program and the conditions of
approval will reduce the potential impact to a level of non-significance.
13. Mitigation Monitorint Program The Draft Environmental Impact Report
includes the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. The Mitigation
Monitoring Program is included as a Condition of Approval for the projects as a whole with
several of the mitigations being separate Conditions of Approval for the project.
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends certification of FEIR No. 340 with Addendure, adoption of Statements of
Overriding Consideration and approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on 201.6 acres
of land located at the southeast comer of Ynez and Winchester Roads and known as Assessor's
Parcel No(s) 910-130-046, 047; 921-090-001. 002, 003, 004, 005 and 006.
R:\S%STAFFRPT%340EIR.PC 6/2/93 tjs 14
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 1993.
LINDA L. FAHEY
CHA/RMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of June,
1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING CO1VIMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:\S~STAFFRPT\340EIR.PC 612193 tjs I 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:%S\STAFFRPT%340EIR.pC 6/2/93 tjs 16
CITY OF TEM'ECI~A
CASE NO.: EIR No. 340
EXHIRIT: A
P.C. DATE: June 7, 1993
VICINITY MAP
,S\STAFFRPTX340EIR.EXH 5/25/93 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: EIR No. 340
EXHIBIT: C
P.C. DATE: June 7, 1993
ZONING MAP - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
:\S\STAFFRPT%340EIR.EXH 5/25/93 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: EIR No. 340
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE: June 7, 1993
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
S\STAFFRPT\340EIR.EXH 5125193 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
Legend
Retail/Office/
Hotel / institu~ional
Retail Commercial
Core/Support Retail
Retail/Office
Subtotal
~,,7
':~',...
71.97 AC
97.80 AC
5.49 AC
175.26 AC
26.04 AC
201,3 AC
CASE NO.: EIR No. 340
EXm'n[T: D SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: June 7, 1993
STAFFRPT~340FIR.EXH 5125193 klb
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 7, 1993
Case No.:
Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4, Planning Application No.
PA93-0043 (Change of Zone), Variance No. 9
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 93- recommending Approval of Plot
Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4, based on the Findings and
Analysis contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval,
ADOPT Resolution No. 93- recommending Approval of
Planning Application No. 93-0043 (Change of Zone), based on
the Findings and Analysis contained in the Staff Report.
ADOPT Resolution No. 93- recommending Approval of
Variance No. 9, based on the Findings and Analysis contained in
the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Kernper Real Estate Management Company
REPRESENTATIVE:
T & B Planning Consultants
PROPOSAL:
Change
of Zone:
A re-designation of a 35.6 acre site from R-R
(Rural Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial).
Plot Plan:
A proposal for approximately 340,034 square feet
of commercial/retail space to include a 125,584
square foot Wal-Mart (and a 30,000 square foot
expansion to the Wal-Mart). The Wal-Mart
elevations are being considered with the proposal,
with elevations for the remainder to be addressed
through subsequent development plan submittals,
Variance:
From Section 18, 13 of Ordinance No. 348 from
seven (7) to two (2) loading spaces for the Wal-
Mart component of the Plot Plan.
LOCATION:
Southeast corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture)
A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Commercial Shopping Center (Palm Plaza)
PROJECT STATISTICS
WaI-Mart: 125,584
WaI-Mart Expansion: 30,000
Commercial: 59,500
Shops: 69,700
Pads (Retail shops): 31,000
Pads (Restaurant): 20,250
Pads (Financial): 4,000
Total: 340,034
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
Parking Spaces Required
Under Ordinance No. 348:
1,871
Parking Spaces Provided
On Site Plan:
2,013
Site Acreage: 35.6
BACKGROUND
Plot Plan No. 243 was submitted to the Planning Department on November 4, 1991. Plot
Plan No. 243 was a proposal for 273,584 square feet of commercial/retail space which
included a 125,584 square foot WaI-Mart. Accompanying this Plot Plan was an application
for a fifteen (15) parcel subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323). A Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on November 21, 1991. Staff raised the
following issues (reference Attachment No. 6): the site was over parked by 579 spaces; there
were vehicular circulation conflicts; greater pedestrian circulation linkages were needed; an
additional drive aisle was needed to break up the expanse of parking in front of WaI-Mart; and,
the landscape plan was inconsistent with the site plan. Site design concerns included
clustering of Pads 1, 2 and 3, orienting Shops 2, Commercial 2 and Shops 3 in an east/west
fashion, and bringing the parking closer to the source of the uses. Subsequent to the DRC
meeting, the application was deemed incomplete.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP,PC 6/2193 klb 2
Amendment No. 1 to Plot Plan No. 243 was submitted to the Planning Department on
December 24, 1991. Amendment No. 1 was a proposal for 320,309 square feet of
commercial/retail space which included a 30,000 square foot expansion to the WaloMart.
Outside of the addition of one Pad site and the expansion area for the WaI-Mart, no
substantive changes were made to the site plan in relation to the original submittal. Staff
discussed Amendment No. 1 with the applicant on January 3, 1992 (reference Attachment
No. 7). Staff informed the applicant that the width of the one-way drive aisles in front of
Wal-Mart were inconsistent with Ordinance No. 348. The applicant submitted a request for
a variance for the width of the proposed one-way drive aisle on January 21, 1992. A DRC
meeting was held on February 13, 1992 to further discuss Amendment No, 1. At that time,
Staff's original concerns regarding the site design were re-iterated,
The Planning Commission gave input to the applicant regarding the design of the project at
a workshop on May 4, 1992. This input was given as part of their review of the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan. The Commission identified the southeast intersection of Ynez
and Winchester Roads as a major entry to the City and stated that something "special" should
occur at this corner (reference Attachment NO. 8). They also discussed the aesthetic impact
to the community of siting the Wal-Maff in its current configuration and mention was made
to relocate the Wal-Mart off the corner. Staff has conveyed this direction to the applicant on
numerous occasions during the review process.
Subsequent to the May 14, 1992 workshop, no contact was made with Planning Department
Staff by the applicant until March 8, 1993. At this time, the applicant decided to seek
approval for the Plot Plan ahead of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (S.P. 263),
which was also in process. Prior to this point, it was the applicant's intent to seek approval
of the project concurrently with the Specific Plan. The applicant submitted a Change of Zone
application on March 8, 1993 (Planning Application No. 93-0043) requesting a re-designation
of the project site (35.6 acres) from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial).
Amendment No, 2 to Plot Plan No. 243 was submitted to the Planning Department on March
8, 1993. Amendment No. 2 was a proposal for 340,434 square feet of commercial/retail
space. A sixth pad site was included on the site plan as well as a water feature at the corner
of Ynez and Winchester Roads. Pads 4 and 5 were clustered around the water feature
(relocated from Amendment No. 1 ). The Wal-Mart was moved approximately 160 feet south,
with Shops 1 and Commercial 1 located in the area 'previously occupied by the WaI-Mart. The
alignment of the main drive aisle off of Ynez Road was also changed. A service station, with
associated car wash was included at the southwest portion of the site. An in-house Staff
meeting regarding the project was held on March 16, 1993 and a DRC meeting (Amendment
No. 2) was held on March 24. Staff raised issues pertinent to the site plan, elevations,
landscape plan, tentative map, variance request and change of zone request at this meeting.
Staff's original concerns were once again re-iterated to the applicant; the site was overparked,
there were conflicts between trucks and autos, there were other circulation conflicts, greater
pedestrian circulation linkages were needed, an additional drive aisle was needed to break up
the expanse of parking in front of WaI-Mart, and the landscape plan was inconsistent with the
site plan. In addition, the following items were discussed: consistency with the General Plan,
consistency with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, and consistency with Ordinance
No. 348. A letter was mailed to the applicant on March 24, 1993 enumerating all of Staff's
concerns (reference Attachment No. 9).
R:~S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 3
Variance No. 9 was modified subsequent to the March 24, 1993 DRC meeting. The
Department of Public Works concluded that the width of the one-way drive aisles were
sufficient to meet City standards and therefore a variance was not required, However, staff
determined that the issue of loading spaces for the WaFMart had not been resolved. The
applicant is proposing two (2) loading spaces for WaI-Mart. Section 18.13 of Ordinance No.
348 requires seven (7) spaces for a building the size of Wal-Mart. Variance No. 9 was
modified to reflect a request for a reduction in the number of loading spaces required per
Ordinance No. 348.
At the March 24, 1993 DRC meeting, the applicant requested Staff to place the project on
the next available Planning Commission agenda. The project was scheduled and notice of
public hearing was made for the Planning Commission meeting on May 3, 1993. Staff
requested changes to the site plan, elevations, landscape plan, tentative map, variance
request and change of zone request. Amendment No. 3 was submitted to the Planning
Department on April 2, 1993. Orientation of structures on-site remained the same as
Amendment No. 2; however, total square footage of the project was reduced to 338,784.
Amendment No, 3 addressed some of Planning Staff's concerns; however, many outstanding
issues still remained (reference Attachment No. 11: all highlighted items still remained
unresolved). Staff informed the applicant they would be unable to support the project, and
the applicant requested that the items be continued off-calendar until all of the outstanding
issues could be addressed (reference Attachment No. 12)°
Staff subsequently met with the applicant on two occasions to further discuss Planning
Department concerns. Amendment No. 4 was submitted to the Planning Department on May
17, 1993. The project proposes 340,034 square feet of commercial/retail area. The Wal-
Mart building footprint was changed to reflect their new store layout; however these changes
are not substantive in contrast to Amendment No. 3. Nine (9) pads are included on the site
plan (in contrast to 6 which were on Amendment No. 3). Four pads are clustered around the
water feature at the corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads. The remaining pads are located
adjacent to the entryways for the site. The plans which are before the Planning Commission
(Amendment No. 4) have addressed most of Planning Staff's concerns. Staff has included
Conditions of Approval for the project to address any additional outstanding concerns. These
Conditions of Approval will be discussed throughout the Analysis section of this Agenda
Report,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4
Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4 is a proposal for a 340,034 square foot
commercial/retail development which includes a 155,584 square foot Wal-Mart (30,000 of
which is for a future expansion), 59,500 square feet of commercial area, 69,700 square feet
of shops area and 55,250 square feet of freestanding pad area. Staff is recommending that
the Planning Commission consider the entire site plan and the Wal-Mart elevations at this
time. Elevations for the remaining structures shall be approved on a case by case basis after
the Planning Commission approves design guidelines for the project. Staff has conditioned
the Plot Plan for the applicant to submit the design guidelines prior to the issuance of the first
building permit after the WaI-Mart. Staff will review all future projects of the commercial,
shops and pads if the square footage of these projects are within ten (10) percent of the
square footage of the original approval. All other proposals which are not within ten (10)
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 612193 klb 4
percent of the approved square footage have been conditioned to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. In addition, if the applicant chooses to alter the footprints on the site plan or
alter the approved uses, those modifications must be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Variance No. 9
Variance No. 9 was filed on January 21, 1992 and is a request for a reduction in the number
of loading spaces required under Section 18.13 of Ordinance No. 348 for the Wal-Mart facility
from seven (7) to two (2),
Planning ADolication No. 93-0043 (Chanae of Zone)
Planning Application No. 93-0043 (Change of Zone) was submitted on March 8, 1993, and
is a proposal to redesignate portions of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 910-013-046 and 910-
013-047 from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial). Although these
two parcels comprise approximately 149.39 acres, the total amount of area to be
redesignated from this request is 35.6 gross acres. The applicant has chosen to redesignate
this site to accommodate the proposed commercial development.
ANALYSIS
SITE PLAN
Site Desiqn
The Planning Commission and City Council have both expressed concerns that the intersection
of Ynez and Winchester Roads is a significant gateway to the City and that something
"special" should occur at this site, Both bodies further expressed a concern with a Wal-Mart
situated in this location. Of primary concern is the scale of the building and associated
signage and the visual impact on people coming off of the freeway. The Planning
Commissioners indicated alternative locations for the Wal-Mart: directly across from COSTCO
(along Winchester Road) or just to the east of K-Mart.
Staff conveyed these concerns to the applicant; however, they were not addressed in the site
design re-submittals. As an alternative to mitigating visual impacts, the applicant proposes
to utilize landscaping and enhanced architectural features on the WaI-Mart. Landscaping is
included adjacent to the Wal~Mart, in the parking lot and along the perimeter of the project.
Architectural features which have been incorporated in the Wal-Mart elevation include:
awnings, pilasters, tile insets and wall projections. The plan includes the siting of four pads
and a plaza area around a water feature at the corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads. The
pads comprise 22,250 square feet in area.
Amendment No. 4 of Plot Plan No. 243 is currently before the Planning Commission for
consideration. Previous site designs were reviewed by Staff for consistency with Planning
Commission/City Council direction, consistency with the draft General Plan, consistency with
the draft Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, and consistency with Ordinance No. 348.
The WaI-Mart building has been moved approximately 160 feet to the south (since the first
submittal); however, it is still located fairly close to the corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads.
The current design contains features which have been incorporated into the site through the
Development Review Committee meeting process. Because the site lies within a Village
R:~S\STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 5
Center Overlay, Staff has requested that the applicant incorporate designs which would be
in conformance with the Goals and Policies contained within the Land Use and Community
Design Elements of the draft General Plan. The applicant has accomplished many items which
meet the intent of the Village Center Overlay. However, the vast expanse of parking existing
in front of the WaI-Mart still remains and is inconsistent with the Village Center Overlay
policies. Staff has conditioned the project to break up this expanse with an additional north-
south, landscaped drive lane. Elements which attain the intent of the Village Center Overlay
include: a land use pattern and intensity that encourages alternative modes of transportation
(including transit, bicycling and walking); architecture; landscape design and site planning
which emphasizes a pedestrian scale; safe and convenient access between uses; and
adequate public gathering areas or plazas.
Pedestrian Amenities
The applicant has provided some pedestrian amenities on the site plan. Pedestrian linkages
have been provided within the site and to the perimeter of the site. Throughout the site,
landscaping end benches have been incorporated to provide pedestrians the opportunity to
rest. In addition, a Condition of Approval has been added to the project to insure that further
pedestrian amenities are added to each individual project as they are submitted for approval.
Parking
Ordinance No. 348 requires 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor
area (for regional shopping centers). The proposed Specific Plan requires five (5) parking
spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. One thousand eight hundred seventy-one (1,871)
parking spaces are required for the site under Ordinance No. 348 and 1,701 parking spaces
are required per the draft Regional Center Specific Plan.
The applicant proposes to provide two thousand thirteen (2,013) parking spaces for the
overall project. The applicant has included that number of parking spaces due to the
perceived needs of retailers on the site. The site is over-parked by 142 parking spaces (in
relation to Ordinance No. 348 standards) by 312 parking spaces (in relation to the draft
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan standards) and by 136 parking spaces in relation to
the standards utilized for the Plot Plan.
Relating to the screening of the parking lots, Staff reguested that the perimeter parking spaces
be deleted to provide more of a "buffer" between the site and Ynez and Winchester Roads.
Deletion of these parking spaces would soften potential visual impacts of the development and
provide additional areas for pedestrians. This would result in the elimination of approximately
sixty-six (66) parking spaces, In addition, Staff requested that a north-south drive aisle be
placed mid-way in the parking lot located in front of the Wal-Mart site. This request was
made in order to enhance public safety, improve circulation, and address aesthetic concerns
(to break up the expanse of asphalt). The applicant has not accommodated this request;
therefore, Staff has included a Condition of Approval which requires that the drive aisle be
constructed. It is estimated that approximately eighty-four (84) parking spaces would be
eliminated from the site plan if this drive aisle is constructed. This is in addition to the sixty-
six spaces which are on the perimeter.
Based upon Staff's recommendations, one hundred and fifty (150) parking spaces would be
eliminated; however, the site will still be overparked. Due to the nature of the uses on the
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 612193 klb 6
site (which have the potential to be off-set from one another), and since a reciprocal parking
and access agreement is required as a Condition of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No.
23737, Amendment No, 4, this will not present a significant impact to the parking needs on
the site.
Automobile, Truck and Pedestrian Circulation
As mentioned in the parking section of this Analysis, Staff has requested that a north-south
drive aisle be placed mid-way in the parking lot located in front of the WaI-Mart. The
applicant has supplied a letter from Nasland Engineering (reference Attachment No. 13) which
provides a rationale for uninterrupted drive aisles in front of WaI-Mart. Nasland stated two
main reasons in support of unbroken drive aisles. First, they state: "The longer aisles tend to
cause shoppers to park sooner and not traverse the parking lot unnecessarily." Secondly,
they assert: "the cross drive approach causes an increase in the number of auto versus auto
confrontations in the parking lot along with vision problems cause by required landscaping that
would increase the probability of accidents," Staff does not concur with the rationale
contained in the letter. Public safety, as well as adequate circulation is a concern for the site.
The parking aisles in front of WaI-Mart range in length from four hundred (400) to five
hundred (500) feet. A north-south drive aisle will provide motorists and emergency vehicles
the ability to move between parking aisles without cutting across vacant parking spaces. The
current configuration will create a scenario whereby cutting across vacant parking spaces is
the only alternative to changing parking lanes.
Staff has also requested that turning movements for automobiles and trucks be illustrated on
the site plan. Of particular concern are automobile movements at the entry points and at
intersections within the site, These movements are illustrated on the site plan at various
intersections. The project has been conditioned to provide for striping on the site to clearly
demarcate the turning movements permitted at these points. Truck turning radii have been
provided on the site plan and Staff has determined that the areas provided for maneuvering
of trucks are adequate.
To provide a greater buffer between the pedestrian and the street, staff requested that the
sidewalk along Ynez Road be moved back approximately eight (8) feet from the street. The
applicant has relocated the sidewalk.
Bus turnouts have been provided on the site plan. One turnout has been located along Ynez
Road and one has been provided adjacent to Winchester Road. Both of these locations meet
the intent of the recommendations contained in a transmittal received from the Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA).
Phasinq of Improvements
According to the applicant, the project will be constructed in three phases. Phase 1
improvements include the Wal-Mart and Commercial 1. Under Phase 1, the project is
conditioned to install all perimeter landscaping and street improvements along Ynez and
Winchester Roads. The parking lot associated with the two above mentioned buildings will
be constructed with the Wal-Mart project. In addition, plans for the water feature have been
conditioned to be submitted to the Planning Department prior to occupancy of WaI-Mart and
constructed within six (6) months after occupancy, Phase 2 improvements include Pads 3
through 9, Shops 1,2 and 3 and Commercial 2. A future service station (which requires a
R:~S\STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 7
conditional use permit with the concurrent sale of beer and wine) is also included in Phase 2,
Pads 1 through 3 comprise Phase 3. Staff has included a Condition of Approval which
requires the applicant to submit a detailed construction phasing plan for approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit for WaI-Mart. This will serve to help clarify the improvements
required at each phase of development in order to meet City standards,
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Landscaping on the site utilizes the recommendations contained in the draft Regional Center
Specific Plan as well as the criteria required under Ordinance No. 348. Staff has requested
additional landscaping for a variety of reasons. First, various elements on the site needed to
be screened to minimize visual impacts. A row of Eucalyptus sideroxylon 'Rosea' (Red Iron
Bark) have been utilized at the rear portion of the Wal-Mart to minimize visual impacts
associated with the east elevation of the project, and are conditioned to be installed with the
WaI-Mart project. The trees are located off the site and are to be planted "temporarily" until
the rest of the Specific Plan area is developed. The entire site has also been screened through
approximately thirty-seven (37) foot wide landscaped parkways along Ynez and Winchester
Roads.
Deciduous trees have been included along the west elevation of the WaI-Mart. These trees will
provide cooling and shade in the summer. In addition, they will also afford sunlight in the
winter months.
During the review process, the entry features along Ynez and Winchester Roads were found
to be inconsistent with the draft Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Plan calls for
seventy-five (75) wide radius treatments at the major entry ways and forty-five (45) wide
radius treatments at minor entry ways. As proposed, the major entry features include Phoenix
Dactylifera (Arabian Date Palms) and "boulevard theme and common area shrub masses" to
include shrubs, sub-shrubs, groundcover and vines. The radius treatments of major entryways
are approximately forty-five (45) feet. Minor entry statements include Lagerstroemia indica
(Crepe Myrtle) trees, along with the above mentioned "boulevard theme and common area
shrub masses." The radius treatments of minor entryways are approximately thirty-eight (38)
feet. Enhanced paving areas have been included at both the major and minor entryways. The
applicant has chosen to modify the Specific Plan in order for the entry statements to be
consistent with the site plan/landscape plan.
Shading requirements prescribed under Ordinance No. 348 have been met. Fifty (50) percent
of all spaces are required to be shaded (overall, 54.4 % of the parking area is shaded). Tree
coverage is determined by the appropriate crown diameter of each tree at fifteen (15) years.
Staff has requested additional trees be included in the parking area. This is due to the fact
that trees in shopping centers are routinely pruned in such a manner such that the fifteen (15)
year canopy is never realized. Staff has included a Condition of Approval which requires
landscaped diamonds within the parking lot to be spaced at intervals no greater than one per
every five (5) parking spaces.
ELEVATIONS/ARCHITECTURE
Staff has met with the architect for the project on several occasions to discuss concerns
relative to elevations and building massing, A color reduction of the color and material board
has been included as Exhibit H. The precise location of these colors and material on the
R:\S~STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2193 klb 8
building are included on the color elevations (reference Exhibit E). Staff requested wrought
iron fencing be used at the garden center; however, the applicant has chosen to provide
tubular metal fence instead. For base elements on the WaI-Mart, the applicant originally
proposed to use Split face veneer, then changed this to Split face concrete and ultimately
ended up with sandblasted block. Tile embellishments have also been included along the west
elevation of Wal-Mart.
Because the Wal-Mart application is moving ahead of the rest of the center, Staff has
conditioned the project to require that design guidelines be prepared for the remainder
commercial, shops, and pads. This will give the Planning Commission and Planning Staff the
opportunity to address the ultimate design of the site and its relationship to the Wal-Mart
project in greater detail. Building facades will be required to be differentiated at the human
level. This will be accomplished by including similar architectural elements of the center.
Floor Plan
The applicant has provided Staff with a copy of the floor plan for the proposed WaI-Mart
(reference Exhibit F) . The exhibit is a miffor image of the floor plan of the proposed Wal-Mart.
Variance Reauest
Variance No. 9 is a request for a reduction in the number of loading spaces required under
Section 18.13 of Ordinance No. 348 for the Wal-Mart facility from seven (7) to two (2). Staff
has determined that due to the configuration of the Wal-Mart parcel, special circumstances
exist which deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that
are under the same zoning classification. Under a strict interpretation of Section 18.13 of
Ordinance 348, seven loading and standing spaces are required for the Wal-Mart. The shape
of the parcel provides for parking in the front of Wal-Mart, with the structure situated at the
rear portion of the parcel. Additionally, the future expansion of the WaI-Mart will be located
at the rear portion of the parcel. This provides area for two (2) loading spaces and three (3)
standing spaces. The applicant has submitted a letter from Wal-Mart dated February 19,
1992. In his letter, the applicant states: "Wal-Mart utilizes a unique computerized distribution
control center. This centralized distribution system allows WaI-Mart deliveries to be scheduled
in a more efficient manner, making use of off-peak hours, averting stacking problems and
fewer deliveries overall compared to other retailers." A Condition of Approval has been
included to insure that a maximum of five (5) loading vehicles be allowed on the Wal-Mart
Parcel at one time. The WaI-Mart parcel will be able to accommodate the trucks while they
are stacking without any conflict with motorists and pedestrians on the remainder of the site.
Therefore, the general health, safety and general welfare of the community is maintained.
ZONING AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Current zoning for the site is Rural Residential (R-R). The applicant has submitted a change
of zone request concurrently with the Plot Plan, requesting a redesignation of the site from
Rural-Residential (R-R) to Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S). The project as proposed is
consistent with the development standards and criteria contained in Article Ixb of Ordinance
No. 348 (C-P-S zone).
Currently, the Land Use designation contained in the draft General Plan is Professional Office
(P-O). Staff is requesting that the City's Draft General Plan Land Use Map show the project
R:~S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 9
area as C-C (Community Commercial). The draft General Plan also shows this area to be in
Village Center and Specific Plan Overlay zones. The applicant is processing The Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan for the area which includes the project site. The Specific Plan
will be modified upon adoption of the Plot Plan so that any and all inconsistencies will be
rectified. Therefore, the project as proposed will ultimately be consistent with the Specific
Plan, The project as conditioned is consistent with Village Center Overlay concepts contained
within the General Plan. Goal 5 in the Land Use Element calls for: "a land use pattern and
intensity that encourages alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling and
walking." Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element states: ".,.architecture, landscape design and
site planning which emphasizes a pedestrian scale and safe and convenient access between
uses." Policy 5.6 further calls for: "adequate public gathering areas or plazas." Village Center
Concepts (Chapter 10, Section III.C. of the draft General Plan) state: "in a Village Center, the
parking facilities should not be the dominant visual image of the project." Although there are
no specific design guidelines contained within the General Plan, the project as conditioned
meets the goals and policies of the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4, Planning Application No. 93-0043 (Change of Zone),
and Variance No. 9 are consistent with Environmental Impact Report No. 340 and Specific
Plan No. 263. The EIR analyzed the potential impacts of a retail development at this location.
The analysis indicates that several significant impacts for development of Specific Plan No.
263 will remain after all the proposed mitigation measures are incorporated in the project.
Therefore, the City Council will have to adopt Statements of Overriding Considerations for
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 340. The Mitigation Monitoring
Program for EIR No. 340 will be included as a Condition of Approval for the underlying map
(Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4) which is being considered concurrently
with the development proposal.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Plot Plan No, 243, Amendment No. 4 is a proposal for a 340,034 square foot
commercial/retail development which includes a 155,584 square foot Wal-Mart (30,000 of
which is for a future expansion), 59,500 square feet of commercial area, 69,700 square feet
of shops area and 55,250 square feet of freestanding pad area. Variance No. 9 was filed
along with Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4. and is a request for a reduction in the
number of loading spaces for the Wal-Mart facility from seven (7) to two (2). Planning
Application No. 93-0043 (Change of Zone) was submitted to redesignate the project site from
R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial). In addition, Tentative Parcel
Map, No. 27323, Amendment No.4 was filed along with the Plot Plan.
Issues which were addressed during the Development Review Committee (DRC) process
centered on site design, pedestrian amenities, parking, site circulation, phasing of
improvements, landscaping and elevations/architecture. There is a reasonable probability that
the project as proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered at
this time. Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4, Planning Application No. 93-0043 (Change
of Zone), and Variance No. 9 are consistent with Environmental Impact Report No. 340 and
Specific Plan No. 263.
R:~S~STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 10
FINDINGS
Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion in the preparation of the General Plan. The
General Plan is being prepared in accordance with the timelines established under
State Law.
There is a reasonable probability that the land use proposed will be consistent with the
General Plan proposal being considered because the proposed use is consistent with
the proposed Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zoning and the recommended Draft
Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. Community Commercial uses
usually comprise 10 to 50 acres of land and include buildings in excess of 100,000
square feet. As proposed, the project encompasses 35.6 gross acres in land area and
proposes approximately 340,034 square feet of floor area.
There little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future
General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, because the
proposed uses are consistent with those which are found within proximity of the site.
The Draft Land Use Plan identifies Community Commercial uses to the east of the site,
Business Park uses to the north of the site, and Professional Office uses to the south
of the site. Community Commercial uses exist to the west of the site (Palm Plaza),
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of State
Law and local ordinances because the proposed use complies with California
Governmental Code Section 65360, Sections 9.53 (Development Standards for the
C-P-S Zone), and 18.30 (Plot Plans) of Ordinance No. 348.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed plot
plan, as conditioned complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, because the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures for impacts
identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan.
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, because the proposed uses are consistent with the draft General
Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, because access to the project site is from publicly
maintained roads (Ynez and Winchester Roads).
The project as designed and conditioned may not adversely affect the built or natural
environment, however, it is a component of the Temecula Regional Center which will
adversely impact the built or natural environment as determined in the Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243Pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 11
10.
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
11.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Plannine Application NO. 93-0043 (Chanae of Zone)
There is a reasonable probability that the zone change from R-R (Rural Residential) to
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) will be consistent with the future General Plan.
The recommended Land Use designation in the draft General Plan for the site is
Community Commercial. It is likely that C-P-S uses will be similar in function to those
recommended in the Community Commercial land use designation,
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future General Plan being considered if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, because the proposed uses are consistent with those which are found within
proximity of the site. The Draft Land Use Plan identifies Community Commercial uses
to the east of the site, Business Park uses to the north of the site, and Professional
Office uses to the south of the site. Community Commercial uses exist to the west
of the site (Palm Plaza). While the C-P-S zoning will ultimately be inconsistent with
the City's General Plan upon its adoption (it will be an interim zoning designation), this
inconsistency will be rectified upon the adoption of the City's zoning map.
Variance No. 9
There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the existing size and configuration
of the subject property. The configuration of the Wal-Mart parcel creates special
circumstances. The shape of the parcel provides for parking in the front of Wal-Mart,
with the structure situated at the rear portion of the parcel. Additionally, the future
expansion of the Wal-Mart will be located at the rear portion of the parcel. This
provides area for two (2) loading spaces and three (3) standing spaces. The strict
application of Ordinance No. 348 will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity that are under the same zoning classification. Under
a strict interpretation of Section 18. 13 Of.. Ordinance 348, seven (7) loading and
standing spaces are required for the Wal-Mart. Due to the shape of the parcel and the
future expansion of WaFMart insufficient area for exists for seven (7) loading spaces.
This creates a hardship for the applicant.
The granting of this variance will be compatible with the general welfare of the public.
Although the applicant proposes to provide two (2) loading spaces (Ordinance No. 348
requires seven loading spaces), adequate area is proposed on the site for vehicles to
stand as to avoid undue interference with the public use of streets and alleys.
Stacking areas have been included on site for additional trucks. The Wal-Mart parcel
will be able to accommodate the trucks while they are stacking without any conflict
with motorists and pedestrians on the remainder of the site. The project as proposed
meets the intent of Section 18.13 of Ordinance No. 348.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2193 klb 12
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
PC Resolution No. 93- - Blue Page 14
PC Resolution No. 93- - Blue Page 20
PC Resolution No. 93- - Blue Page 25
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 28
Exhibits - Blue Page 45
DRC Comments (November 21, 1991) - Blue Page 46
Letter Dated January 6, 1992 - Blue Page 47
Minutes from Planning Commission Workshop (May 4, 1992) - Blue Page 48
DRC Comments (May 24, 1993) - Blue Page 49
Letter regarding Loading Docks (February 19, 1992) - Blue Page 50
Staff Concerns/Issues Outstanding for Amendment No. 3 - Blue Page 51
Continuance Request (April 23, 1993) - Blue Page 52
Drive Aisle Letter from Nasland Engineering (April 8, 1992) - Blue Page 53
Correspondence - Blue Page 54
R:~S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 812193 klb
13
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243Pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 14
A~I'AC~ NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. ~3-
A RESOLUTION OF TIFF. PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF PLOT PLAN NO. 243, AM'ENDMENT NO. 4 TO
CONSTRUCT 340,034 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMF-RCIAL/RETAHJ SPACE TO INCLUDE A 125,584
SQUARE FOOT WAL-MART AND A 30,000 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION TO THE WAL-MART ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 35.6 GROSS ACRES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF YNEZ AND WINCHESTER
ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 910-
130-046 AND 910-130-047
WHEREAS, Kernper Real Estate Management Company fried Plot Plan No. 243,
Amendment No. 4 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plan on June 7, 1993, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission heating, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DE~ AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
foliowing findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period
of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, ff aH of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
R:\S'~STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
15
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is fitfie or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
2. The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of
the following:
a. There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment
No. 4 will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
R:\S\STAFFRPTX243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 16
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
E. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan,
makes the following findings, to wit:
1. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion in the preparation of the General
Plan. The General Plan is being prepared in accordance with the timelines established under
State Law.
2. There is a reasonable probability that the land use proposed will be
consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered because the proposed use is
consistent with the proposed Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zoning and the recommended
Draft Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. Community Commercial uses usually
comprise 10 to 50 acres of land and include buildings in excess of I00,000 square feet. As
proposed, the project encompasses 35.6 gross acres in land area and proposes approximately
340,034 square feet of floor area.
3. There Little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, because the
proposed uses are consistent with those which are found within proximity of the site. The Draft
Land Use Plan identifies Community Commercial uses to the east of the site, Business Park uses
to the north of the site, and Professional Office uses to the south of the site. Community
Commercial uses exist to the west of the site (Palm Plaza).
4. The proposed use or action compLies with all other applicable requirements
of State Law and local ordinances because the proposed use complies with California
Governmental Code Section 65360, Sections 9.53 (Development Standards for the C-P-S Zone),
and 18.30 (Plot Plans) of Ordinance No. 348.
5. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and .intensity of use, because the proposed plot
plan, as conditioned complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
6. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the pubLic
health or welfare, because the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures for impacts
identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
7. 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, because the proposed uses are consistent with the draft General Plan and
Ordinance No. 348.
8. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, because access to the project site is from publicly
maintained roads (Ynez and Winchester Roads).
R:~S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2193 klb I 7
9. The project as designed and conditioned may not adversely affect the built
or natural environment, however, it is a component of the Temecula Regional Center which will
adversely impact the built or natural environment as determined in the Environmental Impact
Report prepared for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
10. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
11. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and heroin incorporated by reference.
F. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the
logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was
completed for Specific Plan No. 263. Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4 is consistent with
the development proposals and standards of Specific Plan No. 263. The potential environmental
impacts of this project were analyzed in Environmental Impact Report No. 340 in that the
proposed development is a portion of the proposed 1,375,000 square foot Retail Commercial
Core area as analyzed for Specific Plan No. 263 and EIR No. 340.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4 at the southeast comer of Ynez
and Winchester Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No(s). 910-130-1M6 and 910-130-047
subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 4, attached hereto.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 7th day of June, 1993.
HNDA L. FAHEY
CHAIR_MAN
R:~S\STAFFRPT~243pP.PC 6/2/93 kJb 1 E~
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of June,
1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 612/93 klb 19
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
R:~S\STAFFRPT\243pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 20
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-00,13 (CHANGE OF
ZONE), CHANGING THE ZONE PROM R-R (RURAL
RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY
COMMFRCIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
SO~AST CORNER OF YNEZ AND WINCHESTER
ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS
910-130-046 AND 910-130-047
WHEREAS, Kemper Real Estate Management Company ~ed Planning Application No.
93-0043 (Change of Zone) in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on June 7, 1993,
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Change of Zone;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE C/TY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes
the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period
of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
21
a. Them is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. Them is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
A. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
B. The Manning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Change of
Zone, makes the following findings, to wit:
1. There is a reasonable probability that the zone change from R-R (Rural
Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) will be consistent with the future General
Plan. The recommended Land Use designation in the draft General Plan for the site is
Community Commercial. It is likely that C-P-S uses will be similar in function to those
recommended in the Community Commercial land use designation.
2. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future General Plan being considered if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, because the proposed uses are consistent with those which are found within proximity
of the site. The Draft Land Use Plan identifies Community Commercial uses to the east of the
site, Business Park uses to the north of the site, and Professional Office uses to the south of the
site. Community Commercial uses exist to the west of the site (Palm Plaza). While the C-P-S
zoning will ultimately be inconsistent with the City's' General Plan upon its adoption (it will be
an interim zoning designation), this inconsistency will be rectified upon the adoption of the
City's zoning map.
C. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was
completed for Specific Plan No. 263. Planning Application No. 93-0043 is consistent with the
development proposals and standards of Specific Plan No. 263. The potential environmental
impacts of this project were analyzed in Environmental Impact Report No. 340 in that the
proposed development is a portion of the proposed 1,375,000 square foot Retail Commercial
Core area as analyzed for Specific Plan No. 263 and EIR No. 340.
R:~S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb
22
Section 3. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning
Application No. 93-0043 (Change of Zone) to change the zoning on 35.6 acres of land from
Rural-Resident'ml (R-R) to Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) on property located at the
southeastern corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads and known as portions of Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 910-130-046 and 910-130-047.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 7th day of June, 1993.
LINDA L. FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a, regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of June,
1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNtIILL
SECRETLY
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2193 klb 2~
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
R:\S\STAFFRPT%243pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 24
ATFACtIMENT NO. 3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VARIANCE NO. 9, RF. DUCING TIlE LOADING SPACE
REQLrlREMENTS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER ORDINANCE
NO. 348 FROM SEVEN (7) SPACES TO TWO (2) SPACES
FOR WAL-MART ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 35.6 GROSS
ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
YNEZ AND WINCHESTER ROADS AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 910-130-046 AND 910-130-047
WHEREAS, Kemper Real Estate Management Company fried Variance No. 9 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Variance application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Variance on June 7, 1993, at
which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Variance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes
the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period
of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
R:\S%STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 25
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding i~ a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Variance
makes the foliowing findings, to wit:
1. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the existing size and
configuration of the subject property. The configuration of the Wal-Mart parcel creates special
circumstances. The shape of the parcel provides for parking in the front of Wal-Mart, with the
structure situated at the rear portion of the parcel. Additionally, the future expansion of the
Wal-Mart will be located at the rear portion of the parcel. This provides area for two (2)
loading spaces and three (3) standing spaces. The strict application of Ordinance No. 348 will
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that are under the
same zoning classification. Under a strict interpretation of Section 18.13 of Ordinance 348,
seven (7) loading and standing spaces are required for the Wal-Mart. Due to the shape of the
parcel and the future expansion of Wal-Mart insufficient area for exists for seven (7) loading
spaces. This creates a hardship for the applicant.
2. The granting of this variance w"dl be compatible with the general welfare
of the public. Although the applicant proposes to provide two (2) loading spaces (Ordinance No.
348 requires seven loading spaces), adequate area is proposed on the site for vehicles to stand
as to avoid undue interference with the public use of streets and alleys. Stacking areas have
been included on site for additional trucks. The Wal-Mart parcel will be able to accommodate
the trucks while they are stacking without any conflict with motorists and pedestrians on the
remainder of the site. The project as proposed meets the intent of Section 18.13 of Ordinance
No. 348.
Section 2. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Variance No. 9 to reduce the loading space requirements as prescribed under Ordinance No. 348
from seven (7) spaces to two (2) spaces for the Wal-Mart on a parcel containing 35.6 gross acres
located at the southeast coruer of Ynez and Winchester Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 910-130-046 and 910-130-047.
R:~S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 26
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 1993.
LINDA L. FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of June,
1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
PEG COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-HLL
SBCRETARY
R:XS\STAFFRPT',243PP.PC 612193 klb 27
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~S~STAFFRPT\243pp.pC 6/2/93 klb ~)8
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4
Project Description: A Plot Plan for approximately 340,034 square feet of
commercial/retail space to include a 125,584 square foot WaI-Mart (and a 30,000
square foot expansion to the WaI-Mart}, approximately 59,500 square feet of
commercial space, approximately 69,700 square feet of shops space and
approximately 55,250 square feet of pad space.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130-046 and 910-130-047
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOTE: Conditions of Approval which follow pertain to the WaI-Mart Building and the
remainder buildings on site. The following are the numbers of the Planning Department
Conditions of Approval which apply exclusively to the WaI-Mart: 5.E, 6, 7, 13, 14, 22, 24,
26.A., 26.B., and 26.C. Any uncertainty as to whether a Condition of Approval applies to
WaI-Mart, will be addressed by the Director of Planning,
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4 is a proposal for approximately 340,034 square
feet of commercial/retail space to include a 125,584 square foot WaI-Mart (and a
30,000 square foot expansion to the Wal-Mart), approximately 59,500 square feet of
commercial space, approximately 69,700 square feet of shops space and
approximately 55,250 square feet of pad space (Exhibit D).
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any 'claims, action, or proceeding against the
City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or
annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or
legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4. The City of
Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City 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 City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
R:\S~STAFFRPT\243PP,PC 6/2/93 klb
29
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 4 marked Exhibit D, and as amended by these
conditions.
Landscaping of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Exhibit
N, and as amended by these conditions.
Conceptual landscape plans for Pad 5 or 6 (whichever applies for a plot plan
first) shall show the courtyard between these two pads.
B. All ground mounted equipment shall be screened form view by landscaping.
The developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaped areas
within the site and within the right-of-way for Ynez Road and Winchester Road.
De
Landscaped diamonds (approximately thirty-six square feet in area) shall be
located within the parking lot, at intervals no greater than one diamond per
every five (5) parking spaces.
E. Trees planted in front of the Wal-Mart shall be a minimum of 48" box.
Building elevations for the WaI-Mart only shall be in substantial conformance with that
shown on Exhibit E, and as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used in the construction of the Wal-Mart only shall be in
substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E (color elevations) and Exhibit
H (material board) and as amended by these conditions.
LOCATION MATERIAL
Main Building Stucco
Accents Stucco
Accents Stucco
Cap Trim Stucco
Grille, Awning and Trim Metal
Accent Tile
Base of Pilasters Sandblasted Concrete
Block
Base of Pilaster Sandblasted Concrete
Block
Roof Clay Tile
COLOR
Frazee 4360 W
Frazee 4350 W
Frazee 4342 M
Frazee 5423 M
Frazee 4995 A
Frazee 4115 N
Sandblasted - Orco Med.
Weight, Black #100
Sandblasted - Orco Med.
Weight, Greys
MCA Peach Buff F-47
A minimum of 1871 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348.
R:~S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2193 klb
30
9. Handicapped parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12 of
Ordinance No. 348.
10.
Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12 of
Ordinance No. 348.
11.
The applicant shall submit development plans for all commercial, shops and pads with
the appropriate filing fee to the Planning Department for approval. Staff will review
all future projects of the commercial,shops and pads if the square footage of these
projects are within ten (10) percent of this approval, there are no alterations the
footprints on the site plan nor any alterations to the approved uses. Approvals for all
other proposals which are not within this ten (10) percent margin, including alterations
to the building footprints on the site plan or resulting in alterations of the approved
uses at the discretion of the Planning Director shall be approved by the Planning
Commission.
12.
At the time of approval of each development plan, the Director of Planning shall
determine the extent of parking Idt improvements and associated landscaping required
for each plan.
13.
An additional twenty-four (24) foot wide, two-way, north-south trending drive aisle
shall be added to the site plan. Said drive aisle shall meet all of the requirements
under Ordinance No. 348 and all City of Temecula standards pertaining to parking lot
safety.
14.
No more than a maximum of five (5) loading vehicles which are servicing the Wal-Mart
may be on the WaI-Mart parcel at one time,
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT AFTER WAL-MART:
15.
The applicant will submit design guidelines for the remainder of the site to the Planning
Department. These design guidelines shall include but not be limited to architectural
guidelines, guidelines for signage, pedestrian amenities (types), and a color palette for
exterior of buildings within the center. The design guidelines will be approved by the
Planning Commission.
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT:
16,
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Dollars
(9900.00) which includes the Eight Hundred, Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, in compliance
with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Fifty
Dollar (950.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code
of Regulations 15094. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required
above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of
condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
R:\S%STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 31
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
17.
Construction landscape plans shall be submitted for approval along with the
appropriate filing fee for landscaping within the right-of-way for Winchester Road and
Ynez Road.
18.
The applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 (SKR Mitigation) by paying the fee
required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels
proposed for development). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the
provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
19.
The developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program
which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met
and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall pay all
costs associated with review of the program, as well as, all monitoring activities.
20.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
21.
Development plans and appropriate filing fee(s) for Pads 1 through 9, Shops 1 through
3 and Commercial 1 and 2 shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review
and approval. All development plans shall call out areas for bike racks, street
furniture, lighting and pedestrian amenities identified in the design guidelines for the
center.
22.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval for Wal-Mart and shall be
accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Said landscape plans shall be consistent
with the underlying Plot Plan and shall utilize drought tolerant materials.
23.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval for each development for Pads 1
through 9, Shops 1 through 3 and Commercial 1 and 2 and shall be accompanied by
the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of
the plants shall be shown. Said landscape plans shall be consistent with the
underlying Plot Plan and shall utilize drought tolerant materials.
24.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Wal-Mart, the applicant shall submit a
construction phasing plan to the Planning and Public Works Department for review and
approval.
25.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~243PP,PC 6/2/93 klb 32
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
26. Prior to the occupancy of WaI-Mart:
All perimeter improvements along Ynez (approximately 37 feet from curb) and
Winchester (approximately 37 feet from curb) Roads shall be fully installed and
completed in conformance with the site plan marked Exhibit D and landscape
plans marked Exhibit N.
B. All major entries shall be installed and completed.
The applicant shall submit plans for the water feature along with appropriate
filing fee to the Planning for review and approval. The water feature shall be
installed and operational within six (6) months of occupancy of Wal-Mart.
27.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage or a Sign Program shall be
submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
28.
The courtyard between Pads 5 and 6 shall be completed prior to issuance of the
occupancy permit for Pad 5 or 6 (whichever requests occurs first), or as approved by
the Planning Director.
29. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
30.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans.
31.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free
of weeds, disease, or pests, The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and
in good working order.
32.
A maintenance bond, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the
Department of Planning. Said bond shall be accompanied by a landscape maintenance
agreement.
33.
Each parking space reserved for the 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 end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22
inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
R:~S\STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 33
"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 telephone
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.
34.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
35.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
36.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the
Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula
Code.
37.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
38. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of Public Works 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 appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
39.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) construction shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-
of-way.
40.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~243Pp.PC 612/93 klb 34
41.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
42.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
43.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
Caltrans;
Community Services District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
44.
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval.
45.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
46.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and
shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and
liquefaction.
47.
An erosion control plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works.
48.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and the Department of Public Works for review.
49.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the
grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2193 klb
35
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control
measures as approved by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of
permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already
credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
A drainage study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The drainage study shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to approved storm drain facilities as directed by the
Department of Public Works. Onsite runoff shall be conveyed into the public
right-of-way to the extent practicable.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
C. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
De
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and
floodway.
The existing drainage facilities for conveyance and mitigation of the runoff
cannot exceed 1900 cfs. Additional drainage facilities shall be provided to
mitigate any additional runoff due to this development; ie. construction of the
retention basin as proposed by the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
A drainage easement shall be obtained fr0.rn the affected property owners for the
release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of
the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for
review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated
on the precise grading plan.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to
the subject property.
The long drive aisles in front of Wal-mart, in the parking lot, shall be split with at least
one additional north/south drive aisle as approved by the Department of Public Works.
R:%S\STAFFRPT%243PP.PC 612/93 klb 36
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
Private roads and Precise Grading Plans MUST be designed, reviewed, and approved
by the Department of Public Works to meet City Public Road Standards or otherwise
approved by the Department of Public Works. This should include but may not be
limited to:
A. Minimum paved road widths shall be 32 feet.
B. Knuckles being required at 90° 'bends' in the road.
C. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards.
D. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required.
90° parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located a
minimum safe distance from intersections,
At entrances to the project, identify configuration, stacking distance, and turn-
around ability for revieW, and approval by the Fire Department and the
Department of Public Works.
G. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90°).
H. Concrete sidewalks shall be provided per City Standards as required.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of
streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will
apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited
for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
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 enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the
release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy
of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for
review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated
on the grading plan.
An Encroachment Permit shall be required from Caltrans for any work within their
right-of-way.
R:\S~STAFFRPT~243PP,pC 6/2/93 klb 37
PRIOR
62.
63.
64.
65.
TO THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
Improvement plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of
an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting
utility facilities, street lights, and parkway trees within the right-of-way as directed by
the Department of Public Works.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or
precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207/207A and
401 (curb and sidewalk),
Street lights shall be designed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
De
Meandering concrete sidewalks and associated parkway improvements shall be
designed and approved by the Planning Department and the Community
Services District along Ynez and Winchester Roads in accordance with City
Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Public Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing existing
topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline
grades as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage from the site shall be directed to an underground
storm drain system.
A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets is
required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide
for adequate detour during construction.
A signing and striping plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Winchester Road and Ynez Road and
shall be included in the street improvement plans.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 3E}
66.
67.
68.
69.
70,
71.
72.
Plans for traffic signals shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by the Department of Public Works for the following intersections and shall be
included in the street improvement plans;
Southerly access to the project from Ynez Road
Easterly access to the project from Winchester Road
Upgrade the existing traffic signal at the northerly access to the project on Ynez
Road aligned with Palm Plaza entrance
Traffic signal interconnection shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer to show
2" rigid metal conduit with pull rope, and #5 pull boxes on 200-foot centers along
Winchester Road, Margarita Road, and Ynez Road. This design shall be shown on the
street improvement plans and must be approved by the Department of Public Works,
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact the Department of Public Works for
the design requirements.
Bus bays and shelters shall be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the
Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander
through private property.
All required fees shall be paid.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public
Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping,
traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (streets and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
f. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
g. Erosion control and slope protection.
R:~S\STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 39
73.
74,
75.
76.
PRIOR
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be undergrounded, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
All conditions of the grading permit and encroachment permit shall be complied with
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
Apricot Road shall be vacated.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Fire Department;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works; and
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been
submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions,
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV stand.ards.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to
be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an
interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established
by the date on which The Developer requests its building permits for the project or any
phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public
Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with
executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the
Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to
exceed $10,000. The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in
the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive
R:~S\STAFFRPT'~243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 40
PRIOR
84.
85,
86.
87.
88.
89.
any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation
of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic
mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
A Transportation Demand Management program will be required.
All Conditions of Approval as part of the underlying Parcel Map 27323 shall be
complied with to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
All necessary onsite improvements shall be provided. Future proposed construction
phasing, upon submittal, shall be reviewed to adequately mitigate circulation and
drainage concerns to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Caltrans
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the
public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
Winchester Road, from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, shall be fully
improved within a 134 foot full width dedicated right-of-way as per the Assessment
District 161 plans including a 14 foot wide raised median in accordance with City
Standard No.100A, Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to provide for the
proposed deceleration lane at the right in driveway. These improvements are subject
to Caltrans' approval.
R:~S\STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2193 klb 41
90. Ynez Road, from Overland Drive to Rancho California Road, shall be fully improved
within a 134 foot full width dedicated right-of-way as per Community Facilities District
88-12 plans including a 14 foot wide raised, landscaped median, in accordance with
City Standard No. 100A and as approved by the Planning Department, the Community
Services District, and the Department of Public Works.
91. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersection and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
92. The Developer shall reimburse the City for the existing improvements along Margadta
Road for the portion between from Winchester Road to Solana Way, since these
improvements mitigate the traffic requirements of the proposed project. These
improvements were recently provided by the City's Capital Improvement Project.
93. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Winchester Road and Ynez Road with the
exception of access as shown on the approved site plan or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
94. Adequate signing and striping shall be provided for Winchester Road and Ynez Road,
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
95. Traffic signals shall be installed for the following intersections;
Winchester Road and Nicholas Road
Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Southerly access to the project from Ynez Road
Easterly access to the project from Winchester Road
Upgrade the existing traffic signal at the northerly access to the site on Ynez
Road aligned with Palm Plaza entrance
96.
97.
98.
99.
Traffic signal interconnection with shall be installed along Winchester Road, Margarita
Road, and Ynez Road as approved by the Department of Public Works,
Bus bays and shelters shall be provided at all existing and future bus stops as
determined by the Department of Public Works.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc,, shall be recorded if they are located within the site boundary.
All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded
as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements; drainage
R:\S\STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2193 klb 42
100.
easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared
by the Developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and City
Attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any
record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party
thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City, The CC&R's shall be reviewed and
approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be submitted to the following
Engineering conditions:
A. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the Developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of
Planning, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions
as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect
the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC&R's and Articles 0f Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association
are subject to the approval of Planning, Department of Public Works, and the
City Attorney. They shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permit. A
recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and
related facilities.
The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and
maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition
required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving
reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the Owner's sole
expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City
ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure
any such expense not promptly reimbursed.
(1)
All parkways, open areas, on-site slopes and landscaping shall be
permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable
to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to
Planning and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of
building permit.
(2)
Reciprocal access easement and parking and maintenance agreements
ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives
or parking areas, private storm drain, sewer, water facilities and all other
utilities shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded
prior to the issuance of building permit,
R:\S~STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 43
101.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans, and City
standards, including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk,
drive approaches, drainage facilities, parkway trees and street lights on all interior
public streets, signing, striping, traffic signal interconnect, traffic signals, median
reconstruction, and existing facilities.
102. The Developer shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local and private
streets with arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works.
103. 32 foot private interior circulation roads shall be constructed as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
104.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied only as directed by the Department of
Public Works at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform
to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT (TCSD)
105.
Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to commercial
development shall be maintained by an established Commercial Property Owner's
Association.
OTHER AGENCIES
106.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated
April 5, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
107. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood
Control District's transmittal dated April 26, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
108.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March 23, 1993,
a copy of which is attached.
109.
The applicant shall comply with the rec'ommendations set forth in the Eastern
Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California transmittal
dated November 21, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
110. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated November 19, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
111.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the State of
California Department of Transportatjon transmittal dated April 13, 1993, a copy of
which is attached.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 44
TO:
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. DATE:
T: Steve Jiannino
~~ir~nmental Health Specialist IV
PLOT PLAN NO. 243, AMENDED NO. 2
RECEIVED
APR 13/993
Anti.
o4-o5: ' .......
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Plot
Plan No. 243, Amended No. 2 and has no objections. Sanitary
sewer and water services should be available in this area.
PRIOR TO ~ BUILDING PLAN RE~/IEW for health clearance, the
following items are required:
"Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and
sewering agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted, including a
fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing
schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law.
For specific reference, please contact Food
Facility Plan examiners at (714) 358-5172.
A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services
Materials Management Branch 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)
d. Waste reduction management
SM:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can
be applicable at time of Building Plan review for
final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
KENNETH L EDWARDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RECEIVED
r ? R 1993
Ans'd ............
The District does not notrnaily recommend ¢oi~litions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporateS dties. The District also does not
plan ched~ ~ land use case~, or provide State Division of ReaJ Estate letters or oft~' flood hazard rapone for such cases. District
¢omme~sJrecommendation~ for auch ceses are norm=ily limited to items Of spedtic interest to the District including District Master Drainage Ran
radiities, ~ regional flood ComTol and drainage facilities which ceuid be considereS a logical Component or exlef~sion Of a master plan system.
and District Area Drainage Ran fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provideS,
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following ¢t~N~eS comments do not in any way constitute or imply District
approval or endorsemere of the proposed project with respect to flood heard, public health and safety or any othar such is.sue:
["'~This project would not be impacteS by District Master Drainage Ran tadlities nor are other radiities of ragionai interest proposed.
r"l This project involves District Master Ran f~cilities. The District will accept ownership of suc~ facilities o~ writtan request of the City. Fadlities
must be constructeS to District standards, and District plan chec~ and inspection will be requireS for District _N:ce__ptance. Ran ched<,
inspection and administrative fees will be requireS.
i~This project proposes channels, storm dr=ins 36 inahes or larger in diameter, Or other radiities that could be ¢~sidered ragionai in nature
and/or a logical exlensicm of the adopted Master Drainage Ran. The District would con~dar N'~"-ptiog
ownership of such facilities on wriTtan request Of the City. Facilities must be ¢onstrd~eS to District standards, and District plan ctle(:k and
ir~on will be requireS for Diatrict -,'~'~ance. Ran ChedK, inspeotjon and administrative fees will be requireS.
r'~Tnis project is locateS within the linits of the Distfict's Area Drainage Ran for which dr=inage
fees have been adopteS; applicable fees should be paid to the Rood Control District or City prior to final approval of the project, or in the case
Of a paroe~ map or sabdivisino pnot to recordation of the final map. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of recordation,
Or if befenred, at the time of issuance of the a~uai permit.
GFNFRAI INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge EJimination System CNPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
Clearance fOr gra,lng, rec~-dation, Or othar final approval, ,should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been grantee a
permit or is shown to be exempt.
ff this profect involves a Federal Emorgency Management Agency (FEMA) mal:~oed flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to
provide all studies, caJculatio~s, plans and other information requireS to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant
obtain a Conditional Letter Of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recetdation or othe~ final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) prior to oo::upancy.
If a naturaJ watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project the City should require the applicant to Obtain a Section 1601/1603
Agreement from the California Department of F)sh and Garne and a Clean Water ACt Section 404 permit from the U.S. Atrny Corps of
Engineers, or writlen cG"respondence irom these agerides indicating the projec~ is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Wate~ AOt Section
404 Water QuaJity Certification may be requireS from the local C=iifomia Region=i Water Quality Contrd Board prior to ts.~anos Of the Corps
Ven/truly yours,
DUSTY WILLIAMS
Senior Civil Engineer
.ate: 4- ~(~- ~
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST ~N IACI~ AVENUE · P~S, ~RNIA
(~4) ~7-31~3
GLEN L NEWM~
~RE C~E~
March 23, 1993
TOI
ATTNm
RE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPT
PLOT PLAN 245 AMENDED
#2 (PM 27~23)
With respect to t~e conditions of approval for the above refer-
anted plo~ plan, the Fire Department recommends the following
fire protection measures be prorifled in accordance with Riverside
~ounty Ordinances and/or recognized ~ire protection ~t~nd~rds:
I. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire
flow for the remodel or conltructiOn of all commercial
bullflings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546.
2. Provide or show
delivering 4500 GPM
operating pressure,
combustible material
there ext;ts a water system capable of
for a 3 hour duration at 20 FSI residual
w~ich must be available before any
is placed on the ~ob site.
5, A Combination of on-site and off--site super fire hy-
drants, on a looped system f6">c4~x2 !/2"x2 1/2">, will be
located not less than 25 feet or m~re than 165 feet from an~
portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travel~ays. The required fire flow shall be available from
an~ ednacent nydrant(~) in the system.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point
the permit process to reflect change~ in design~ con-
struct%on type, area separation or built-in fire protection
mea,~ures.
[~ TS,.~ECULA OFFICE
41(2(}2 C~unt,/C.~ntce D~,,~, ~ulae 235, T~m;ull, CA
0'14) 694-~070 · I~AX (714)
PLOT PLAN 245 AMFNDED #1 (PH 27525)
PAGE 2
5. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the ~ater
~ystem plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shaIl
conform to the fire hydrant types, location ann spacing; and
the system shall meet the fare flow requirements. Plans
s~atl be ~igned/approved by a registered civil engineer arid
the local ~ter company with the
certify that the design of the ~ater system is in accordance
with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County
Pire Department"°
6. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all build-
ings. The post indicator valve ~nd fire department connec-
tion shall be located t~ the front~ within ~0 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum o~ 25 ~eet from the builOing(s). A
statement that the building(s) will be automatically fare
sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
7. Install a supervised waterflo~ monitoring fire alarm
system. Plans must be submittsd to the Fire Department
approval prior to ~nstallation~ as per UBC.
8. A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sprinklered mus~ apprear on the title page of the building
plans.
~. Certain designated areas will be required to be main-
tained a~ fire lane=.
i0. Prior ~o the i~uance ~f building permits, t~e developer
shall deposit, with the City of Tsmecula, a check or money
order equaling the sum ~f $-2~ per square foe; as mitigation
for fire p~otectlon impacts. Thi~ amount must be submitted
separately from the plan check fees,
I1. Walmart shall be responsible to install a fire alarm
system. Plans mus~ bm submitted ~o the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation.
12. Final conditions will be addrmssed when building plans
are reviewed in the bull0ing and Safe~y Office.
All
ferreO
que~;tions regarding the meaning of conditions shalt be re-
tO the Pl~nning and Engineering Staff.
~AYMOND H. RE~IS
Chief Fire Department Planner
by
Michasl E. Gray,
Pir~ Captain Special
California Eastern
Archaeological Information
Inventory ..... Center
iNYO
MONO
RIVERSIDE
Eastern Information Center
Department of AnthropolOgy
University of California
Riverside. CA 92521
(714) 787-5745
November 21, 1991
City of Temecula
Development Review Committee
City Hall
43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Rhoades:
Please find enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the
Development Review Committee. This transmittal, which is listed below, is
scheduled for review at the November 21, 1991 meeting. If you have any
questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at (714) 787-5745 and
specify the transmittal number and the date on which we submitted our comments.
TPM 27323/PP 243
AP# 910-013-023
Sharon Rushing
Information Officer
ed
Enclosure/
California Easte,
Archaeological Information
Center
Inventory i::. , .ONO
,
Eastern Informahon Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
(714) 787-5745
CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW
FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Date: A_/rF./X~/'~/
TO: City of Temecula Development Review Committee
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation:
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Archaeological
Inventory have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely
affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cuLturaL resources and contains or is adjacent
to known cuLturaL resource(s). A Phase I st~K~f is rec~ml~ef~.,d,
Based u~x~n existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural
resources, A Phase % study is
A Phase I cultural resource stum~,f (MF- ) identified one or more cultural resources,
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However,
d~je to the nature of the project or prior ~mta recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural
resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended.
A Phase ! cultural resource stuch/(Mr- 2.~2~) identified no cultural resources. Further study
is not recon,nended.
There is s Low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not rec~nmefxied.
Zf, durin~ construction, cultural resources are encom,ntered, work should be halted or diverted in
the immediate area While a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommer~Jations.
The su~:mission of a cultural resource marmgement report is reconmtended fottowi~ guidelines for
Archaeological Resource Marmgement Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic
Preservation, Preservation Piannin9 Bulletin 4(a), Oecenber 1989 or those report guidelines adapted
by Riverside County.
Phase I - Survey,
Phase II - Testing [Evaiuate resource significance and integrity of known resources and/or
resources identified from a field survey.]
Phase Ill * [Propose z~ditionaL {nvestigatio~ if required, evaluate project inN>acts, and
propose ~asures to mitigate potential adverse effects.]
CONMENTS:
If you have any questions, please give us a call.
SinCerely, '
rma e
ff7'A
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENC
1825 THIRD STREET · RIVERSIDE, CA 9P507o3484 · BUS. [714} 684..0850 FAX [714] 684-1007
Y
November 19, 1991
Mr. Mark Rhoades
Temecula Planning Department
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: PM 27323
Dear Mark:
We currently provide service to the site mentioned above via Route
23 and we are requesting that a bus turnout or a pad for a bus stop
be incorporated into the general design as the size of the planned
project will negatively impact our level of service unless this
amenity is constructed.
Ideal sites for the bus turnouts would be at the following
locations:
Eastside corner of Ynez Road nearside entrance to main parking
lot.
Southside corner of Winchester Road nearside entrance to Wal-
Mart building
If possible, we would also like to request that pedestrian walkways
and wheelchair curbs be constructed near the turnout locations
specified above. I can indicate the exact locations for the
turnouts as the project progresses.
~hank you fur hh= oppo~tunihy to- review and cc~r~,ent on this
project. Your efforts to keep us ~pdated on the status of this
request will be very much appreciated. Please let us know when
this project will be completed.
Should you require additional information or specifications, please
don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely~ ....
~arbara Bray
Transit Planner
BB:jsc
PDEV#129
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
AIIN: Matthew Fagan
FRO~ironmental
DATE: 11-2 1-9 1
Health Specialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. 243
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No.
243, and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water
services should be available in this area. Prior to any
building plan review for health clearance, the following
items are required:
"Will-serve" letters from the appropriate
water and sewerinS agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted, including a
fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a
plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance
with the California Unlform Retail Food Facilities
Law. For specific reference, please contact
Food Facillty Plan e×amlners at (714) 358-5172.
A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services
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
Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance
with AB 2185)
d Waste reduction management
SM:dr
co: Jon Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered,
be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final
Environmental Health Service clearance.
can
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINI~SS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P,O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (909) 383-5959
pETE WILSON, Governor
April 13, 1993
Development Review
08-Riv-79-R2.498
Planning Department
Attention Mr. Steve Jiannino
City of Temecula
City Hall
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Your Reference:
TPM 27323
PP 243
RECEIVED
9. O 1893
Ans'd ...........--
Dear Mr. Steve Jiannino:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed
Tentative Parcel Map 27323 and it Plot Plan 243 located On this
southerly side of Highway 79 (Winchester Road) and easterly of
Ynez Road in Temecula.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments
have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items
noted under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the State highway right of
way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only.
Final approval of street improvements, grading and drainage will
be determined during the Encroachment. Permit process.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Ahmad
Salah of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-5908.
Very truly yours~
Brsnch Chief
Development Review
Attachment
_C_AL.fRANS DEVELOPMENT R !EW FORM ?ROVIDE TO APPLICANT
YCXJR REFERENCE DATE
8TEV'EN WISNIEWSEI
PLAN CHECImR
( CO RTE PM)
WE REQUEST THAT THE ITEMS C"a~CEED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN 'J:lu~ CONDITIONS 0.
APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT:
NORMAL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO PROVIDE HALF--WIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY.
JCURH AND GUTTER# STATE STANDARD AS7 I ~PE 1B~2--8 ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY.
PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY BY THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF NO pARICING SIGNS.
J35 FT RADIUS CURIt R[TdRMS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTIONS WITH THE STATE ItIGHWAT. STATE STANDARD
NSP A88t CASE-A WHEELCHAIR PJUqPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE CIJRB RETURNS AS DEFINED IN THE HIGHW;
DESIGN MANUAL, SECTION 105.4 (2).
A POSITIVE VEHICULAR HARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO LIMIT ,HYSICAL ACCSSS TO T~
STATE HIGHWAY.
VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HIGHVAYo
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PtlBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS.
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY
STANDARD DRIVEldAYS
VEHII~I,AR ACI~SS ~ NI3T B~ FROVIDrn WITHIN
OF T14E INltRSF, CTION AT
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A ROAD--TYPE CONNECTIOH.
VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE pAVED AT LEAST WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAy.
_ZACcESS POINTS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A NANHER THAT WILL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR ~
MPH ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY ·
/.TaANDSCAPING ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL PROVIDE FOR SAFE SIGHT DISTANt'~t CCMPLT WITH FIXED DHJ/CT SET BA
AND BE TO STATE STANDARDS.
LEFT--TURN LAHEf INCLUOING SHCULDERS AND ANY IIECESSART WIDENINGr SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE STATE HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC STUDY INDICATING ON AND OFF--SITE FLO~ PATTERNS AND VDLLIMES~ pROBABLE IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITICAT!
MHAS1JRES SHALL BE PREPARED.
PARI:ING SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A HAMMER THAT WILL NOT CAUSE ANY VEHICIJLAR FqOV~ENT CONFLICTS~ INCLUOING PARICI:
STALL ENTRANCE AND EXIT t WITHIN ... OF THE E31TRANCE FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY.
i_/C. ARE SHALL BE TAlCiN WHEN DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY TO PRESERVE AND pERpETUATE THE EXISTING DHAINAGE PATTE~
OF THE STATE HIGHWAY. PARTICULAR C/3NSZDEHATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO CLMULATIVE INONF. ASED STORM RUNOFF TO INSIj:
THAT A HIGHWAY DRAINAGE PROBLEM IS NOT CREATED.
V// PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL Cf~MMEHTS. PROVIDE 'TO APPLICANT.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS IS A CONCEI~TUAL REVlw. W ONLY. FINAL APPROVAL WII
BE DETERMINED DURING Tnr. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PROCESS.
CONSTRUCTION/DEHOt, ITION WITHIN PRESENT OR PROPOSED STATE RIGHT Of tdAT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE ( I ,E ,ASs=ESTOSt PETROCHENICALSt ETCo ) AND NIT|GATED AS PER REQUIRENENTS OF REGULATORT AGENCIES,
rfiTHEN PLANS ARE SUBNITTEDt PLEASE CQt~FORN Tn THE REIXIIRENENTS OF THE ATTACHED n~NDOUTn. THIS WILL EXPEDITE
THE REVIE'd PROCESS AND TINE REQUIRED FOR PLAN CNEC]~o I~DP.O~TIDE T0 APZ:).T,;C~tLI~.
__ ALTNCUGN THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DEAINAGE GENEI~ATED BY THIS PROPOSAL DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEHt CONSIDERATION MJST HE GIVEN TO THE CUNULATIVE EFFECT OF CQNTZNL~D DEVELOPHENT
IN THZS AREA, ANY NEASURES RECESSARY TO NITIF, ATE THE C3,1~LATIVE INPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE SHALL BE
PROVIDED PRIOR TO Oa WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEN·
C~:)NSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISION f ON FUTURE PROVISION t OF SIGNILIZATZON AND LIGHTING OF THE
THIS PORTION OF THE STATE NIGHUAY IS INCLUDED IN THE CALIFORNIA M~STER PLAN OF STATE HIGHUAYS ;-LZGtBLE FOR
THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHUAY HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHUAY~ AND DEVELCPNENT
IN THIS CORRIDOR SHCULD BE CQNPATIBLE WITH THE SCENIC HIGHWAY CONCEPT ·
IT ZS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE PUBL/C CONCERN ABOUT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HEAVILY TRAVELLED
HIGHWAYS° LAND DEVELGPNENTt IN ORDER TO BE CONPATIBLE WITH THIS CORCERNt ~Y RE,IRE SPECIAL NOISE ATTE~TI~
H~SURES. DE~L~HENT OF THIS PR~ERTY SH~LD INCL~E ~Y NECESSARY NOISE ATTENTION ·
CALTRANS DISTRICT 8
DEVELOPMENT P,£VIEW BRANCH
P.O. ~ox 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
A cOPy QF ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR REVISED APPROVAL
A copy OF ANY DOOJNENTS PROVIDING ADO [TICHAL STATE HIGH1JAT RIGHT OF UAT UPON RECORDATION OF THE MA~.
ANY PROPOSALS TO FURTHER DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY.
COPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIRONNENTAL STLI~Y.
CHEC~ PRINT OF THE PARCEL OR TRACT NAP.
CHEC[ PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY INPROVENENTS UITNIH OR ADJACENT TO THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT
CHEC[ PRINT OF THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY UHEN AVAILABLE.
Date: April 13, 1993
Riv-79-R2,498
(CO-Rte-PM)
TPM 27323
(Your Reference)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed for Highway 79
(Winchester Road) in this area and was signed by representatives of both
caltrans and the City of Temecula in 1991. The MOU called for 1/4 mile
intersection spacing for both sides of Highway 79 from 1-15 to Margarita
Road. Limited access driveways (i.e. right-in, right-out only) at 1/8
mile spacing were to be allowed on the north side only, unless
previously approved.
The proposed right-in only drive for this proposal does not meet the
requirements of the MOU. Caltrans would like some correspondence from
the City of Temecula, supporting and justifying this access before we
consider the opening.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
R:\S\STAFFRPT%243pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 45
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE:
PLOT PLAN NO. 243, AMD. 4; PA93-0043 (CHANGE OF ZONE);
VARIANCE 9
VICINITY MAP
JUNE 7, 1993
I ,,/~
/
CITY OF TEMECULA
ITE / ,
L
EXHIBIT B: FUTURE GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (P-O)
SITE
Ri R
I/ //I
// /
// //
\ , I
EXHIBIT C:
CASE NO.:
P.C. DATE:
EXISTING ZONING
DESIGNATION: RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-R)
PLOT PLAN NO. 243, AMD. 4; PA93-0043 (CHANGE OF ZONE);
VARIANCE NO. 9
JUNE 7, 1993
CITY OF TEMECULA
YNEZ
ROAD
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE:
PLOT PLAN NO. 243, AMD. NO. 4
JUNE 7, 1993
SITE PLAN
j.-?
e
I"
i '
EXHIBIT E
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: F
P.C. DATE:
PLOT PLAN NO. 243, AMD. NO. 4
JUNE 7, 1993
FLOOR PLAN
f"m/Zrrl
N ~
~, r-
"1~ ~
rrl -.f-
m
l-
/"1'1
m
~>
m
EXHIBIT G
I| I
RE~;:tL EST3TE
REGIONAL CENTER
PHASE ONE
COLOR SCHEDULE
1
BUILDING STU~ COLOR
2
STUCCO ACCENT COLOR
STUCCO ACCENT COLOR
SANDBLASTE~_~'~BLOCK CO_LOR 7
JOB# 47-14-9'1'
MAY 21,1993 _
__archtects_nc.
SANDBLASTED CONCRs- I · BLOCKCOLOR 8
EXHIBIT H
530 .St. Jot'r's Pbce Heme:, Cc~ 92343 714 652-443 _
CITY OF TEMECULA
Roads
PROJECT TOTAL
71,97 AC,
97.80 AC,
5.49 AC.
175.26 AC.
26,04 AC,
201, 3 AC.
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: I
P.C. DATE:
PLOT PLAN NO. 243, AMD. NO. 4
TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN
JUNE 7, 1993
CITY OF TEMECULA
(Boundaries a~ Conceptual)
SITE ~--~
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: J
P.C. DATE:
PLOT PLAN NO. 243, AMD. NO. 4
VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY
JUNE 7, 1993
CITY OF TEMECULA
sC
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: L
P.C. DATE:
PA93o0043
JUNE 7,1993
CHANGE OF ZONE
CITY OF TEMECULA
IAM~ 09/NE~HIJ~
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27323, AMD. NO. 4
EXHIBIT: M
P.C. DATE: JUNE 7, 1993
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
DRC COMMENTS (NOVEMBER 21, 1991)
R:\S%STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 8/2/93 krb 46
ATTACHMENT "A"
DRC COMMENTS FOR NOVEMBER 21, 1991
Plot Plan No. 243 and Parcel Map No. 27323
Comments and Concerns
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Parking spaces 1648 required, 2227 provided.
How will truck access be provided to the rear of the site?
Identify existing uses which are adjacent to the site.
Provide clarification for activities at rear of the development {adjacent).
Show a 25 foot wide transportation corridor easement on Winchester Road.
Loading spaces behind shops 2 and 3 are inadequate, utilizing required drive aisle
for ingress and egress.
All required drive aisles are required to be minimum 24 feet wide.
Backing movements are not permitted into major drive aisles.
Delineate method of transition from parking spaces to future development on the
south side of the site.
Concern with circulation conflicts at carious intersections, especially lane adj. to
main drive aisle to the north.
Check loading areas.
Providing pedestrian circulation to the uses and between the uses. Provide a
sidewalk the length of the drive aisle directly in front of WaI-Mart.
Prove North/South and EastRVest drive aisle within the parking lot.
Denote handicapped spaces, bicycle racks, trash enclosures and shopping cart
bins.
Landscape Plan
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Landscape plan and site plan are inconsistent.
Tree wells in interior parking lot cannot be treated as minimum landscape area
requirement.
How will vacant land(s) to Southwest and to the East (the rear portion of the site)
be treated?
Pink flowering locust has "aggressive roots", and may not be an acceptable
parking lot tree.
What are the vacant areas around pads 3.
Landscape finger is needed west of pad 3.
Landscape plan should delineate parking on north side of pad 4.
Minimum planter dimension shall be 5 feet (per ordinance).
S'~PLANNING',24*3COMM.PP
Page 2
DRC Comments
Site Desion
2.
3.
4.
Cluster pads 1, 2, and 3 to the northerly portion of the site.
Orient shops 2, Circuit City, and shoDs 3 in an east/west fashion.
Bring parking closer to source of the uses.
Provide pedestrian corridors, live w/specimen trees from intersection to Wal-mart
which accentuates the view.
Other
1. Provide Staff with AQMD ride-share plan.
Ei'~PLANNING'~243COMM.PP
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
Lr=l I ~:R DATED JANUARY 6, 1992
R:~S\STAFFRPT%243pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 47
C_ity of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
Ronald J. Parks
Mayor
Patrlcia H. Birdsall
Mayor Pro Tern
Karei F. Llndemans
Couocilrnnernber
Peg Moore
Councilmember
J. Sal Mu~oz
Councilmember
David F. Dixon
Ci~/Manager
(714J 694-1989
FAX (714J 694-1~9
January 6,1992
Mr. Greg Erickson
Bedford Development Company
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Plot Plan No. 243/Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323
Dear Greg:
This letter will serve to provide direction relative to Plot Plan No.
243/Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323. As a result of our meeting on
January 3, 1992, the following materials will need to be supplied to staff
in order to continue our review of the subject project:
Three copies of the conceptual site plan, tentative parcel map and
landscape plan, which incorporate the changes requested by staff.
These changes were enumerated in the meeting and have been
included as Attachment "A" to this letter. In addition, you noted
chan. ges requested by staff on a site plan. It is requested that you
return this site plan with your resubmit-tal. Upon resubmittal, staff
shall utilize these items as a "checklist" in reviewing the plans.
A justified rationale for the. number of loading spaces that are
requested by individual users' on the site which differ from the
number of spaces required per Ordinance No. 348. This rationale
should include quantifiable data from the users which would warrant
any deviation from the ordinance.
An application submittal and payment of fees for a variance of the
required width of one way drive aisles from 24 feet to 18 feet. In
addition, you must supply adequate justification for the variance
request.
These applications are still deemed to be incomplete. Upon resubmittal,
staff shall conduct a review of the amended conceptual site plan, tentative
parcel map and landscape plan and arrange a meeting with you to discuss
any concerns. Should you have any questions, please call Matthew Fagan
at (714) 694-6400.
Sincerely,
Assistant Planner
Gary Thornhill
Director of Planning
klb
Enclosure
ATi'ACHMENT "B"
PLANNING STAFFS COMMENTS FOR JANUARY 3, 1992
The City of Temecula Planning Department has reviewed the amended plans for Plot
Plan No. 243 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323 and has the following comments:
Plot Plan No. 243
1. Site Plan
A revision block needs to be included on the site plan.
Amendment numbers shall be listed on the site plan.
A 25 foot transportation corridor easement does not need to be included
along Ynez Road.
Bicycle racks must be shown on the site plan per Ordinance No. 348.
Trash bin enclosures need to be indicated on the site plan.
24 foot wide drive aisles are required per Ordinance No. 348 (Section
18.12 (7)).
Check setbacks for pads 1, 2 and 3 (they must be consistent with the
Specific Plan).
Delineate proposed property lines on the site plan.
Site Plan and elevations are not consistent.
Parking conflicts exist as a result of the proposed configuration.
Create additional internal traffic route. Circulation layout is not
acceptable to the Public Works Department.
Entry point west of "shops 2" is not permitted and shall be removed
from the site plan.
Delineate loading spaces for pads 1-5.
Loading space requirements:
1. WaI-Mart 7
2. Circuit City 3
3, Shops 1 1
4. Shops 2 4
5. Shops 3 1
6. Pad I 1
7. Pad 2 1
8. Pad 3 1
9. Pad 4 1
10. Pad 5 2
S\PLANNING\27323.TPM
Plot Plan No. 243
Page 2
Entry on Winchester is a major entry, must be consistent with entry on
Ynez Road per Specific Plan.
1. Landscape Plan
Accent trees along major drive aisles should create a path-a sense of
"enclosure".
Entry monument wall on landscape plan.
Provide landscaping along east elevation of Circuit City,
Tentative Parcel MaD No. 27323
2.
3.
4.
A revision block must be included on the map.
Amendment number's shall be listed on the map.
Show future 25 foot transportation corridor along Winchester Road.
The entrance on Ynez Road shall be shown and wholly constructed as a portion
of phase I development.
Previous D.R,C. Comments
The following numbered comments from the previous D.R.C. meeting have not been
addressed relative to the project resubmittah
Site Plan
2.
3.
4.
5.
Parking spaces 1837 required, 2094 provided.
Identify existing uses which are adjacent to the site.
All required drive aisles are required to be minimum 24 feet wide.
Backing movements are not permitted into major drive aisles,
Delineate method of transition from parking spaces to future development on
the south side of the site.
Concern with circulation conflicts at carious intersections, especially lane adj.
to main drive aisle to the north.
Check loading areas for pads 1-5.
Providing pedestrian circulation to the uses and between the uses. Provide a
sidewalk the length of the drive aisle directly in front of Wal-Mart.
Provide North/South and East/West drive aisle within the parking lot.
Denote handicapped spaces, bicycle racks, trash enclosures and shopping cart
bins.
S~PLANNING~27323.1'PM
Plot Plan No. 243
Page 3
Landscape Plan
Tree wells in interior parking lot cannot be treated as minimum landscape area
requirement. Provide calculation (%) of landscaping on site.
How will vacant land(s) to Southwest and to the East (the rear portion of the
site) be treated?
Pink flowering locust has "aggressive roots", and may not be an acceptable
parking lot tree.
Site Desian
2.
3.
4.
Cluster pads 1, 2, and 3 to the northerly portion of the site.
Orient shops 2, Circuit City, and shops 3 in an east/west fashion.
Bring parking closer to source of the uses.
Provide pedestrian corridors, live w/specimen trees from intersection to Wal-
mart which accentuates the view.
S~I~LANNING\27323.TPM
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP (MAY 4, 1992)
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP,PC 6/2/93 klb 48
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
the possible necessity for a school site.
urban form.
MAY 4.1992
PCMINS/4192
the location of the specific plan to the Murrieta City boundaries.
concurrent processing of tentative maps with the specific plan.
John Meyer presented a update on the general plan process.
Gary King briefly commented on TCSD's concerns with the proposed park site
in the Campoe Verde specific plan.
Chairman Hoagland declared a recess at 7:00 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:10 P.M.
Batty Brunnell, T&B Plianning Consultants, 3242 Halliday Street, Santa Ana,
representing Bedford Properties, provided the project summary on the three
separate Specific Plan applications.
Bob Davis, Wilbur Smith Associates, traffic engineer for all three projects,
addressed the traffic aspects of the three Specific Plans and how they tie into
the City's general plan effort.
The following concerns were expressed by the Commission:
Commissioner Blair expressed a concern that the potential location of the
WalMart store is at a major intersection (gateway) into the community and
suggested that staff try to reposition that store within the development area for
less visual impact. Gary Thornhill advised that staff continues to address the
location of the "big box" users within the development area.
Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed the following concerns:
that the location of the recreational amenities in the Campos Verde
specific plan in closer to the residential development.
transportation and circulation in the Winchester Hills development ties
together with the entire specific plan.
Commissioner Fahey expressed the following concerns:
potential impact of the location of high density housing in the area of
Margarita which already has abundant high density housing.
detail on alternative designs for high density housing.
Barry, County plan shows Commercial. You reassess when project is being built.
Ford, Did you model trips on General Kearney, what impact it does have to North
and No. West by not allowing those trips to go up through that area. Please do that,
and next presentation, have those trips.
Bob Davis, Mass Transit and vacancy rate were not included and this is worst traffic
situation.
Fahey, did not like design, looks like a giant parking lot. Concept works,
design doesn't appeal to her.
Barry said uses and structures could be shifted around. Large site and long period of
build out. Landscape plans appear smaller than they are. 20 year time frame.
Hoagland, WH three parcels, not a part. Why?
Barry, not owned by Mesa or Bedford. County said to plan these parcel as they were
a part owned, we will provide adequate access to those parcels. They have been
contacted and they do not want to sell to Bedford.
Billie Blair, Address times and phasing,
Barry, individual projects would be assessed when major tenants came in.
Demographics would set time table.
Billie, This is a window to City, and the project, WaI-Mart, would be in the Regional
Center, how does it make sense, at what location? At Corner of Winchester and Ynez
corner. Major arterial. Mega foods, signs, and doesn't feel that is what she would
like that representation of the City to be.
Barry, wide landscape zones, significant entry treatments at this location. Created
opportunities for theme buildings. Usually big box users are at front. A lot of shading
landscaping to mitigate view.
Billie, WaI-Mart would not be a good candidate for corner view,
Gary: Difficult design problem. Big Box user uses tend to congregate around one
another. We were, and are, concerned with WaI-Mart because of future views,
however; I do think because of the pattern of development along this corridor, that
this is probably the most logical place to continue that kind of pattern, big box users.
That is just an opinion. Make this Center a pedestrian oriented project.
Most likely the place for big box users. It is a good looking design so far, but we still
have some concerns on the view impact.
Billie: Does a Wal Mart require that kind of visibility, Gary? Do they require that kind
of visibility? Gary, I can't answer for the corporation, but it doesn't hurt.
R:\WIMBISRVG\MINUTES\MINWHCVR 5/27/93 klb
4
Linda Fahey: Question, does all of them have to be designed with parking in front and
box in back? Gary, is there a way to put box in front and parking in back. Gary, they
are around 140,000 square feet users, very large buildings, the closer to the front the
more imposing it becomes. It's a design problem, they require a Fwy Access. It
probably should be on side by Costco. Beef up corner entry treatment.
Dennis Chiniaeff: Bigger issue is not WaI-Mart or proposed use here, what do we
intend for Specific Plan for this area. Is it as it says, a Regional Center? There are
many concepts of Malls. That is the basic decision. Do we want to have an
additional power center on the other side of the street, and something special behind
it, or as you enter the Community, something special. That is where we are headed.
I hope the Specific Plan addresses both kinds of issues. Something special for the
Community.
Linda Fahey: Interesting that Site plans are going through at same time as SP.
Gary: Plot Plan cannot proceed until the Specific Plan is approved.
Dennis: Can SP be approved without the General Plan? Yes, per Gary, you make a
finding that it is likely to be consistent with GP.
Billie: Two other possibilities that would work equally as well. Turn plan and put
WaFMart at upper corner it would be of some value across from Costco, or flip it so
WaI-Mart would be at back of plan. Either one of those options would seem to make
a far more agreeable approach to the City.
Steve Ford: Major entry points to the City, People need to have a favorable image
as your coming off freeway, it is the entrance to City. Alternate without WaFMart,
bringing the amenity from the back to the front, moving the things that are not the
amenity to the sides and the rear.
Dennis, To have something special as the entry to the City.
Barry, would this function, If shifted? Closer 1~o residential section.
Billie, Bedford has done a fine job with Rancho California with the Hotel, and the
office building as an entrance to the City, and it would seem to do just as fine a job
at this intersection, and so far that hasn't happened. Does not want to see big blue
sign as your enter City.
Gary, I was insistent on trying to create a pedestrian core that was relatively away
from the major corridor, so that you could create a sense of place, not on a major
road. I directed them to create that kind of setting. It's difficult, with large right of
way median on Ynez Road, corner was mayor concern, we would like to move big box
uses away from that corner and reserve it for something a little more special but I
don't know what that is, and some of that direction is going to have to come from the
Commission.
R:\WIMBERVG\MINUTES\MINWHCVR 5/27/93 klb
5
Linda Fahey: Way to design big box users, need more creativity. Need to screen with
landscaping, berms, hills, a lot more than on other side of street.
Barry, landscaping and trees would mitigate.
Billie, big users need big signs and you can't mitigate those signs. When you enter
the City, it is not what you should see first. On a large structure, you a large will
have a large sign.
Barry, you will not have a giant pole sign.
Dennis: The hardest part of this project is how to determine how to handle the boxes,
My opinion, the hardest part is to have the wherewithal to say no to the first guy who
wants set to the tone. That is why the issue of looking at what the Regional Center
is really going to be, in the Temecula Community, is the issue to look at.
General Plan is setting the Community's policies about how this property is going to
be developed, setting the tone of what the community is looking for, This is one of
the most major properties, at that point in time you have to make that decision, then
everything else follows on behind. To prematurely judge what it is going to be,
through the adoption of the Specific Plan, before you adopted the GP, may well short
circuit the approval of Community.
CV: Provide recreational activities in where the people are, rather than the edge,
which tend to be more community oriented. Park is in flood basin. Don't see that
park as a major offset as a provision of recreational activities for that project. Move
some of that out into the residential areas.
WH: Make sure transportation and circulation ties together with everyone else.
Land Use compatible.
Linda Fahey, High density along Margarita, redistribute where high density is located,
Puts additional apartments along Margarita. This concern has been mentioned on
everything Commission has done so far. SP- high density, Design some different
types of design, be more creative, alternative p~oducts. We already have quite a few
plain complexes.
Cavanaugh: I would like to add something on a conceptual basis. Adding something
on the GP. Although there is a requirement that the SP has to be consistent with the
GP, a more broader investigation analysis is that the SP is basically just that, it's a SP,
and what it does is, it implements the General Plan. We don't have a General Plan,
we have guidelines that we have with SWAP, which may or may not, be our future
GP, bu~ conceptually, I think the commission needs to be aware that when you are
looking at SP, you are looking at well, how's that going to implement the general, big
picture. I hear some of the Commissioners say, what is it going to look like, what do
we really want to see in all these specific areas. The first question is, what does your
general plan want to be like, first. Then, is this going to implement and carry out the
policies of that GP? If your answer to that questions is yes, the SP goes forward,
R:\WIMBERVG~MINUTES\MINWHCVR 5/27/93 klb
6
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
DRC COMMENTS (MARCH 24, 1993)
R:%S%STAFFRPT\243pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 49
March 24, 1993
5lZ. lq
1909) 694-1989 · FAX (909) 694-1999
Mr. Batty Bumell
T & B Planning Consultants
3242 Flalladay, Suite 1130
Santa Aria, CA 92705
SUBJECT:
Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting Comments For Plot Plan No.
243, Amendment No. 2, Variance No. 9, Change of Zone No. PA93-0043, and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 2 located at the southeast
comer of Ynez and Winchester Roads
Dear Mr. Bumell:
This letter shall serve to provide comments relative to Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 2,
Variance No. 9, Change of Zone No. PA93-0043, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323,
Amendment No. 2. As a result of the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on
March 24, 1993, the following items need to be submitted to the Planning Department in order
for Staff to continue its review of the subject project:
Planning Department
1. An amended site plan which incorporates the following items:
a. Provide sidewalks adjacent to the streets on the southern and eastern borders.
Increase the landscape area along Winchester and Ynez by at least i0'. This will
require the deletion of parking spaces along the perimeter. No structures or
parking may encroach into this area with the exception of overhangs, trellises,
patios, etc.
Relocate the sidewalk (at least 8' from curb) on Winchester and along Ynez from
Overland to Winchester (North).
Create a north/south drive aisle separating the expanse of parking (east/west) in
front of the Wal-Mart.
Stagger the building footprints for Shops 1, Commercial 1, Shops 2, Commercial
2, and Shops 3 to create depth and interest for the motorist and pedestrian.
R:XS\STAFFRPT~43PP-2.LTR 31Z5193 klb
J.
k.
i.
r.
S.
t.
u.
v.
w.
Delete one (1) monument sign per street frontage. Only one sign is permitted per
street frontage for centers as per Section 19.4 of Ordinance No. 348.
Increase the number of parking lot landscaping diamonds (more than every 60').
Provide typical dimensions.
Add pedestrian llnk~ges as follows: from the individual pads to pcrkneter
sidewalk, Pad 1 to Shops 1, Yncz Road to Shops 3, through the center (west to
east between Wal-Mart and Shops 2) and behind the center along the street.
Dcmarcate areas where shopping carts will bc stored, both in the parking lot and
location during the day/night.
Specify the location of bike racks for Pads 1,2,3,and 6, plus Shops 1 and 3.
Dcmarcate a two hundred (200) foot stacking from the order box for Pad No. 2.
Specify the location of benches, trash receptacles, Light standards and other
furniture.
Provide a phasing plan for development and improvements.
Place a note on the site plan describing what will be located where the future
expansion area is until it is ultimately developed.
Specify how the main entrance off of Winchester Road functions. Illustrate
movements of autos, trucks, etc.
Reduce the one-way entrance off of Winchester Road from twenty-eight (28) feet
to a lesser width which is acceptable to both the Depaa,uent of Public Works and
the Riverside County Fire Department.
Delete any reference of a service station at the southwest coruer.
Place a vicinity map on the site plan.'
Indicate overall dimensions of the property.
Specify dimensions of setbacks and dimension of buildings.
Specify lighting system (street, outdoor).
Enumerate all revisions in the revision block.
Place the words "Amendment No. 3" in a conspicuous area on the site pla~.
R:~S\STAFFRF~243PP-2.LTR ~/25193 k,ro
An mended tentative map which incorporates the following:
a. Gross and net acreage of all of the parcels.
b. Grading which is consistent with the proposed grading for Specific Plan No. 263.
c. The 25 foot Transportation Corridor shown as an easement.
d. A lot line, shown about 300 feet east of Ynez Road; the current eastern boundary
of Lot 115.
e. Enumerate all revisions in the revision block.
f. Place the words "Amendment No. 3" in a conspicuous area on the map.
An mended conceptual landscape plan which incorporates the following:
a. All elements must be consistent with the site plan and Specific Plan No. 263.
b. Driveway entrance landscape designs which are consistent with Specific Plan No.
263 - ie. seventy-five (75) foot radius cut for main entrances and forty-five (45)
foot radius cuts for minor entrances.
c. Include tree/shrub choices which are listed in the future Regional Center Specific
Plan (SP 263).
d. Provide a number of parking spaces which are consistent with site plan. Revise
the shading percentages.
e. Enhance areas in front of Shops 1, Commercial 1, Wal-Mart, Shops 2,
Commercial 2, Shops 3 and Pads 1-6 with shrubs, trees, planters, etc. Include
a greater variety of plant types.
f. Enhance all pedestrian walkways with-morn trees to provide a shade canopy, and
planters to make these areas distinctiv& Allow for pedestrian entrance/exit at
suitable intervals (if these areas are enclosed by curbing).
g. Provide more trees/tree wells in parking lot (morn than 1 per 60', 1 per 30' is
recommended).
h. Include a walkway for people to enter the rear of Shops I.
i. l=,nhance the perimeter of the site with more landscaping treatment. This applies
to the area where the parking spaces were deleted from the site plan.
R:~$~STAFFRFI~243PP-2.LTR 3125193 klb
Amended elevations which incorporate the following:
a. Enhance the east elevation of Wal-Mart (the reax of the site). Provide more
articulation to break up the blank expanse of wall.
b. Use of split face veneer. Demarcate where Split face No. 1 and No. 2 will be
used.
c. Include doors on the west elevation i_f the tire center is a drive through.
d. Change the words "metal fence" to read "wrought iron" fence.
e. Call out which stucco accent/trim colors will be used and where. Provide a color
rendering for the Wal-Mart.
f. Specify the material(s) used at the entrance ways (below and adjacent to the
doors).
g. Include a four (4) inch fie feature at five (5) foot high level along the west
elevation of Wal-Mart at a maximum of ten (10) foot intervals.
h. Remove the gap behind the grill feature on the pilaster.
i. Provide a roof plan. All roof-mounted equipment will need to be screened from
the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of one thousand three-
hundred twenty (1,320) feet.
j. Furnish greater detail of what will occur in the space b~tween the tire and garden
centers.
An Amended Change of Zone exhibit which incorporates the following:
a. Delete the reference to Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323.
b. Demarcate the precise Change of Zofie location.
c. Include a legal description for the Change of Zone request which is consistent
with the area depicted on the exhibit.
d. Call out existing land use and proposed land use.
e. Add the date that the exhibit was pre~pared.
f. Demarcate the area which is R-R and the area which is A-2-20.
6. The following additional items need to bc addressed:
a. Provide details of all cnhanccd paving treatments.
b. Provide details of all architectural features on the site.
c. . Provide details of coruer of Ynez and Winchester Roads (water feature, etc.).
Include a rendering for this site.
d. Provide details of entry monumentation.
e. Provide detail of how trash enclosure will be screened.
PubLic Works Department
7. The Plot Plan shall be revised to indicate the foLiowing:
a. More dimensions shall be shown e.g., street radii, street widths
(32'), parking lots typical dimensions, etc.
b. Stacking distance at entrances to Ynez and Winchester shall be identified and
analyzed in the site specific traffic study addendum.
c. It is recommended that the long drive aisles in front of Walmart be
split with at least one additional north/south drive aisle.
d. Separate truck receiving area from through vehicular traffic behind
Shop 2, per our discussion in the DRC meeting.
e. An adequate turning radius or knuckle is required for truck turning
movements behind Shop 3.
f. Need to redesign skewed intersection of through drive with parking aisle near Pad
3.
g. Verify adequacy of truck turning radius in the street behind
Walmart pad.
h. Drive aisle immediately north of 48' main interior street shall be
a minimum of 24' wide and striped (arrows) for two-way traffic.
i. Show all proposed interior stop sign locations.
j. Eliminate direct access to the easterly parking area north of Shop
i from the entrance.
k. Increase stacking distance in the drive through for Pad 1.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~243PP-2.LTR 3/.~/93 klb
Dedicate additional right-of-way for deceleration
Winchester Road or reduce width if adequate.
configuration to be approved by Calms.
lane along
Access and
Adequate right-of-way shall be dedicated for sidewalk behind the
deceleration lane.
Sidewalks shall be provided, within the site and public fights of
way to incorporate for a pedestrian friendly environment.
o. Stacking distance at the drive through shall be indicated.
The Traffic Study shall be updated to specify the extent of required
off site improvements considering this plot plan proposal only per
Applicant's request.
8. The following comments shall be complied with on the tentative parcel map.
a. Apricot shall be vacated prior to recordation of the map.
b. A drainage study and Preliminary Soils Report shall be submitted.
c. Bus Bay locations shall be determined upon RTA's approval.
Provision for off site improvements shall be conditioned per the
requirements of the Environmental Impact Report and the Urban
Core Projects traffic studies indicating the required fLrst year or
18% of the development of The Regional Center.
Reciprocal access, parking and drainage agreements shall be
approved and recorded prior to map recordation.
Staff will be expediting the processing of the above referenced plans. The Wal-Mart elevations
will be addressed at this time; all other Commercial, Shops and Pads (location and size) will be
recommended for conceptual approval. Design ghidelines will be required for the remainder
Commercial, Shop and Pad sites.
Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 2, Variance No. 9, Change of Zone No. PA93-0043,
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 2 axe deemed to be incomplete at this time.
Please submit ten (10) copies of the amended site plan, three (3) copies of the amended
conceptual landscape plan, five (5) copies of elevations and floor plans and five (5) copies of
amended grading plans along with the other requested materials to the Planning Department.
Upon submittal of these items, Staff will conduct its review and prepare the item for a Planning
Commission hearing.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Matthew Faga~ at (909) 694-6400.
~-~~~
Debbie Ubnoske
Senior Planner
CC:
Ray Casey, Department of Public Works
Greg Ericson, Kemper Real Estalte
R:\S~STAFFRPT1243pp-2.LTR 3a5/93 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
Lb; I ER REGARDING LOADING DOCKS (FEBRUARY 19, 1992)
R:\S\STAFFRPT~243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 50
WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Direct Dial NO.
(501) 273-4262
WAL. MART®
701 SOUTH WALTON BLVD. · BENTONVILLE, AR 72716 · 501-273-4000
Direct Zlp Code
72716-0480
February 19, 1992
Debbie Ubnoske, St. Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Wal-Mart Loading Docks
Plot Plan 243, TPM 27323
Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
Greg Erickson Of Bedford Properties has conveyed your concerns about the City
ordinance loading dock requirements for our store.
Apparently, your ordinance is based on square footage. Wal-Mart has over 1700 stores
nationwide; 20 in California of the same size proposed for Temecula.
Unlike other retailers who receive from several distributors, Wal-Mart utilizes a
unique computerized distribution control center. This centralized distribution
system allows Wal-Mart deliveries to be scheduled in a more efficient manner, making
use of off-peak hours, averting stacking problems and fewer deliveries overall
compared to other retailers. While Wal-Mart has not conducted studies, through
experience we have found this system to work.
Our goal is to have truck deliveries made quickly, without waiting since this reduces
operating costs. We have noted that Bedford has allowed for over-flow truck parking
on the site plan. While this is unnecessary with our distribution system, back-up
alternatives are always welcome.
Thank you for your time and attention to t~is matter.
Very truly yours,
WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Robert M. Bedard
Real Estate Manager
RMB:mjb
cc: Greg Erickson
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
STAFF CONCERNS/ISSUES OUTSTANDING FOR AMENDMENT NO. 3
R:%S%STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 klb 5 I
Planning Department
1. An amended site plan which incozporates the following items:
require the deletion of parking spaces along the perimeter. No structures or
parking may encroach into this area with the exception of overhangs, trellises,
patios, etc.
Relocate the sidewalk (at least 8' from curb) on Winchestor and along Yne, z from
Overland to Winchester (North).
Create a northtsouth drive aisle separating thg expans,, of parling [east/west) in
front of the Wal-Mart.
Stagger the building footprints for Shops 1, Comnmrcial 1, Shops 2, Commercial
2, and Shops 3 to create depth and intere~ for the motorist and pedestrian.
Delete one (i) monument sign per street frontage. Only one sign is permitted per
street frontage for centers as per Section 19.4 of Ordinance No. 348.
Provide typical dimensions.
Add pedestrian linkages as follows: from the individual pads to perimeter
sidewalk. Pad I to Shops I. Ynez Ro:td to Shops 3. through the center (west to
east hetween Wal-Mart attd Shops 2) and behind the center along the street.
Demarcate areas where shopping carts will he stored, both in the parking lot and
location during the day/night. ~6~i::i~ii~ii:~i ~ii :~i~ ~
j. Specify the location of bike racks for Pads 1,2,3,and 6, plus Shops 1 and 3.
k. Demarcate a two hundred (200) foot stacking from the order box for Pad No. 2.
Specify the location of benches. trash receptacles. light standards and other
furniture. Additional street furniture ks needed.
Provide a phasing plan for development and impro,.ernents. Phasing plan must
he consistent with Tentative Map. Pads 4 & 5 must be included in Phase 1.
Panels 1, 2, 6 & 7 shah be completed in Phase 1. All improvements shah be
R:\S\STAFFRPTX243pp-2.LTR 4121193 klb
U.
V.
W,
Place a note on the site plan describing what will be located where the future
expansion area is until it is ultimately developed.
Specify how the main entrance off of Winchester Road functions. Illustrate
movements of autos, trucks, etc.
Reduce the one-way entrance off of Winchester Road from twenty-eight (28) feet
to a lesser width which is acceptable to both the Department of Public Works and
the Riverside County Fire Department.
Place a vicinity map on the site plan.
Indicate overall dimensions of the property.
Specify dimensions of setbacks and dimension of buildings.
Specify lighting system (street, outdoor).
Enumerate all revisions in the revision block.
Place the words "Amendment No. 3" in a conspicuous area on the site plan.
An amended tentative map which incorporates the following:
a. Gross and net acreage of all of the parcels.
b. Grading which is consistent with the proposed grading for Specific Plan No. 263.
c. The 25 foot Transportation Corridor 'shown as an easement.
d. A lot line, shown about 300 feet east of Ynez Road; the current eastern boundary
of Lot 115.
e. Enumerate all revisions in the revision block.
f. Place the words "Amendment No. 3" in a conspicuous area on the map.
An amended conceptual landscape plan which incorporates the foilowing:
R:\S\STAFFRPT~43PP-2,LTR 4/~1/93 ILIb
All elements must be consistent with the site plan and Specific Plan No. 263.
Ent~' features (lvlajor and Minor) are not consistent with th6 Specific P'hm. This
will affect the placement of Pad 1, the drive through lane for Pad 2, ami a portion
of parking adjacent to the major enhance off of Ynez.
Driveway entrance landscape designs which are consistent with Specific Plan No.
263 - ie. ~venty-~ve (75) foot radius cut for main entrances and forty-tire (45)
foot radius cuts for minor entrances.
Include tree/shrub choices which axe listed in the future Regional Center Specific
Plan (SP 263).
Provide a number of parking spaces which axe consistent with site plan. Revise
the shading percentages.
Enhance areas in front of .Shops 1, Commercial 1, Wal-Mart, Shops 2,
Contmercial 2, Shops 3 and Pads 1-6 with shrubs, trees, planters, etc. Inchtde
a .gn:ater variety of plant t~pes.
Enhance all pedestrian walkways with more trees to provide a shade canopy, and
planters to make these areas distinctive. Allow for pedestrian entrance/exit at
suitable intervals (if these areas am enclosed by curbing).
Provide mo~ trees/tree wells in parking lot (more than I per 50'. I per 30' is
recommended).
Include a walkway for people to enter the rear of Shops 1.
Enhance the perianeter of the site with tnom landscaping treatment. This applies
Io the area where the parking spaces were delet~l from the site plan.
Amended elevations which incorporate the following:
a.
Enhance the east elevation of Wal-Mart (the rear of the site). Provide more .
articulation to break up the blank expanse of wall.
Include doors on the west elevation Lf the tire center is a drive through.
Change the words "metal fence" to read "wrought iron" fence.
R:\SXSTAFFRPT~243PP-2.LTR 4/21/93 Idb
e. Call out which stucco accent/trim colors will be used and where. Provide a color
rendering for the Wal-Mart.
f. Specify the material(s) used at the entrance ways (below and adjacent to the
doors).
g. Include a four (4) inch tile feature at five (5) foot high ]evol along the w~'t
elevation of Wal-Mart at a maximtim of ten (10) foot intorvals.
h. Remove the gap behind the grill feature on the pilaster.
i. Provide a roof plan. All roof-mounted equipment will need to be screened from
the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of one thousand three-
hundred twenty (1,320) feet.
j. Fumish greater detail of what will occur in the space between the tire and garden
centers.
The following additional items need to be addressed:
a. Provide details of all enhanced paving treatments.
b. Provide details of all architectural features on the site.
c. Provide details of comer of Ynez and Winchester Roads (water feature, etc.).
Include a rendering for this site.
d. Provide details of entry monumentation.
e. Provide detail of how trash enclosure will be screened.
R:\S~STAFFRPT~43PP-2.LTR 4121/93 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
CONTINUANCE REQUEST (APRIL 23, 1993)
R:\S%STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93 kJb 52
Kernper Real Estate Management Company
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200, Ternecula, California 92591 · 714/676-7290 · Fax: 714/694-5687
April 23, 1993
RECEIVED
APR 2 ~ 199it
I
Mr. Matthew Fagan
Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
RE: EIR #340, C.Z. #93-0043, TENTATIVE MAP #27323
PLOT PLAN #243, AND VARIANCE #9
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We respectfully request that you remove the above referenced cases from the May 3, 1993
Planning Commission agenda and notify the previously noticed property owners accordingly.
The reason for this request is to allow us more time to work with City staff to further refine
several elements of the plot plan.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Csaba F. Ko
Vice President
CFK:mdf
ATTACHMENT NO. 13
DRIVE AISLE L~-J I ER FROM NASLAND ENGINEERING (APRIL 8, 1992)
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243PP.PC 6/2/93
/,NASLAND ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING
393-002.1
April 8, 1992
Kernper Real Estate Management
28765 Single Oak Drive
Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92590
Attn: Darice Roesner
Dear Darice:
Nasland Engineering has reviewed the Wal-Mart portion of your Conceptual Site Plan for
the Palm Plaza II shopping development, as requested by representatives from Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. The parking and drive aisle configurations maximize the use of available space
for parking, while providing the most efficient traffic flow pattern around the Wal-Mart
parking lot. However, it has come to our attention that the City of Temecula staff has
requested that your engineering consultant add a cross-driveway to shorten the overall
unbroken length of the drive aisles.
Nasland Engineering has discussed this option with Bruce Kernmet, Engineering Manager
with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and must advise against the cross-driveway for t~vo reasons.
First, in our experience, this approach tends to increase the number of trips each automobile
makes around the parking area near the front of the store as shoppers tend to search several
aisles for a parking stall near the front of the store. This area has a high concentration of
pedestrians as well as the required handi-cap parking stalls and the unnecessary increase in
traffic will increase the possibility of an injury to shoppers as they attempt to enter and exit
the store. The longer aisles tend to cause shoppers to park sooner and not traverse the
parking lot unnecessarily.
Second, the cross drive approach causes an increase in the number of "auto verses auto"
confrontations in the parking lot along with vision problems caused by required landscaping
that would increase the possibility of accidents. Also, this configuration would cause
confusion to drivers at to which direction the traffic should flow. These situations result in
a lower level of safety than would be advisable and the cross driveway should be avoided.
Sincerely,
Arthur Scott
Sr. Design Engineer
AS/jr
3350 Chicago Avenue, Riverside, Caliiornia c~2507 · oOo-78j-3~U0 ° FAX o0a-784-33og
COMM, I
~t
· WAL" MART
.\
II
I/ili I1 ]tl[lllllltL~
ATTACHMENT NO. 14
CORRESPONDENCE
R:\S\STAFFRPT\243pp.pC 6/2/93 klb 54
Februazy8,199~
Mr.& Mrs. Jac. k Anderscm
39731 Barberry
Temec-I~ Ca. 92591
Mr. Thornhill,
We are wrifing to you in regards to lhe p~oposedplan for WAI2v'xART coming to
Temecul& We have been told ~t ~e are a few council members who are opposed
~ happaring We urge you to consider lhe ben~.~ ~ WALMART being in Temecula
would br/n~
WALMART is fiae n, rnher I retailer in America riSht now. Norcistwm's is ~ dose
b~a~d. 'l"'n~k d ~he tax revmues WALMART would bring to lhl= c~y. At leeat cne
rr~lllc~ dollars ~n tsxe~ would be collec~d fzom atom in a years time. Studies ~w
30% of the shoppers com~5 to T~necuh's p~lm pl,~,,~ are Muraleta resideal3. Just H~nk of
how many olher surmunc cixys would come Xo spend their h Temecu (Hemet,
Failbrook, M~ree, WHdom~, Rainbow Canyen, Lake Elshmre e~.) If WALMART is
declined permi43 to stazt bu/J,4~5 in Temeculs, you can bet Mumeta will be m~re than
hap~ ~o accommodate ~he~r pl~* W buikL Would we wsnt to push away a major anchor
~nour community? We would aainknot Alsa, wi~h~he kindoflax rev~nue WALM.4~T
wouki bring to our c~y, we could flnally getthe overpmm we so~neecL We nil
know it takes money to get any~h~s done, especially now with ~ae ecmomy just star~g to
pull out offa sb-,.:- Tn~nk of~fiejobs an overpass could c~eate for ~he strugg~
construaicn workers. Not ~o mentic~ the many jobs WALMART would cr~,-~ for
.umy unemployed people in our ~
We r~lly believe ~ WAI,2vIART comh~5 to Temecula would be a great asset iv our
COrnmX/D~y and mnir~ our fah- C/ty ~Danchdly ~h~.
RECEIVED
FEB 1 O 1993
Ans 'd ............. ,
February' 8, 1993
Stephanie 9raBlia
26431 Ynez R& ~B
Temeetfla, C~ 92591
~ Mr Tbornh,'ll,
I am writlnE lo you in reBards to the p, uF,~edplanfer WAL1vIARTcom~5to
Temecul~ I bave been told ffiat there are a few council members who are opposed io ~his
h.~pmin& I urSe you 1o ccmider the bendlt~ lhat WALMART b~5 in Temecula would
briz~.
WALMART is the number I trailer in America xiSht now. Nordstrom's is very dose
b~hind. Thinkoflh~tsxr~muesWALMARTwould~,iu~olixiscity. Atlm~tosm
milllOs1 dolh~ in laxes w~llld be coll___~(l_ ~m lhem in a y~rs time. Sindim shnw li~
30% of ~e b3ppn~ corninS to Temecula's Palm Plaza are Murri~ta residm~ Just ~ink of
how many oiher sux,~mdin~ city*s w~uld come to spend Ibeir dollms in Temecuk(Hemet,
Fallbrook, M--~fee, V~r~domar, Rainbow ~ Lake Blsinore e~ ) If WALMART is
declinedpermitz io start buildinS in Temecula, you clm bet Murrieta will be mare itum
happy ~ ace~vnn~date lheir plans to bull& Would we want lo push away a m~or anchor
in our communit~ Iw~uld ffiinknot Also, wigaihe kind oftax revmue WALMART
wouldb, iuStvourcity, we could finally Set ii~e overpsss we so desperateb/ need. Weall
pulloutofi~sl, mqp. Thlnkof~hejobsanoverpsemcouldcrea~for~hestru~
construetim workers. Not to ramlice lhe many jobs WALMART v,~uld crea~ for ~e
msny un_~r~loyed people in our ~
Ireallybelievetb-tWALMARTcominSloTemeculawouldbeal;estassettoo~
o~,-m~ity and make our fair ciW ~mmciallysUunSer.
RECEIVED
FEB 1 O 1993
Februmy 8, 1993
Karrie Anderscn
39731 Barberry
Temecuh, Cs_ 92591
I am ~'it;,,S to you in regards to the proposed plan for WALMART coming to
Temecula. Ihavebee~ltold~h-tthe~eareaf~wcouncilmemh~rswhoareopposedtolhis
h,,npeni~. I urge you Io consich~r line benefiis that WALMART being in Temecula would
bfin~
WALMART is ~e number I rel~ler in America fight now. Nordstmm's is very close
bd~i~d. Th/-k o~ lhe tax rewnues WALMART would bring to ibis city. At lesst c~e
miHicm c~olh~ in taxes ~uld be collected from them in ayesrs time. Studies show that
3(1% of the shoppers comi,g ~ Temecula's Palm Piaza are Murrieta resideni~. Just ~k of
how many oiher surroundin~ cites would come in spend li~eir dollars in Temecuk(Hemet,
Farook, M~ifee, W'~domar, Rainbow Canyon, Lake Elsinore etc.) If WALMART is
ded~ed permi~ t~ tort building in Temecula, you can b~t Murrieta will be more than
happy to accommodate lheir plans to build. Would we want to push away a major anchor
in our c~mmunily7 I w~uld ~i~Ic not ~ wiih lhe kind of tax mvmue WALMART
would hlag to our city, we could fmally get the overl~ss w~so desperatdyneed. We all
pull ou~ of i~ sl,m,p., 7'nl, U ofitx~jobs an ovenlmss could e~eate for the struggling
ccnsm~jcm w~rkers. Not to mentic~x ihe m~y jobs WALMART would crea~ for li~e
many ramemployed people in our
I really believe t~,t WALMART comi~S lo Teme,~da would be a great asse~ Io our
Karrie ~
RECEIVED
FEB 1 g lg93
Ans'd..,-.-. .......
FebminT 8, 1993
Sl~phanie Bragtia
264~1 YnezRd. ~B
Temec-!~ Ca. 92591
Deer ~z]z]~ COmmle~
I am wri~S to you in regards to lhe proposed plan for WALMART coming to
Temec:ula. I have been told ~mt ihere are a few council mmnhers who are opposed to fi~is
baptym~ng I urge you to consider lhe beneffs that WALMART being in Temecula would
brin&
WALMART is the number 1 ~,t~ler in America riSht now. Nord, U,m's is very dose
behind. Think of the tsx revenues WALMART would ~ to t~is city. At least one
milllos1 dollars in taxes wauld be collected from thmn in a yeszs time. Studies show
30% of the shoppers com~_,g to Temeeula's Palm Plaza are Murrieta reelden're. lust th'mk' of
how many other surmzd~S cites would came ta spend their dollars in Temec, d- ,/liemet,
Fallbrook, Msnlfee, W'ddom~r, Rainl0ow Can'ycn, Lake l~lsh~ore etc.) If WALIvIART is
declined permi~ to start buildin~ in Temecula, you can bet Mumeta will be male
h~uF/in accommodate their plans to build. Would we want to push away a majaf anchor
in olxr COmmnZlity? I would ~-,~lr aot. Also, with rise kind oftsac revmue WALMART
would briz~ to our cily, we could ~m-Ily get fi~e overpass we so desperately need. We alI
pull out of ira slump. T~ of lhe jobs an overpass could create for the
caasiructian w~rker~ Not to meatiota ~e m~yj.o~ WALMART would create for the
many unemployed people in our are~
I really believ~ flint WALMART cami~ to Temecula v~uld be a great asset iv our
co--,,uniiy and make otr fair city financially sucker.
FebruaryS, 1993
Katrie Anderson
39731 Barberry
Temecula, Ca. 92591
RECEIVED
FEB ! 993
Dem' pimpring Commim~On,
I am writing to you in r6~rds to the proposed plan for WALMARTco-,;-Eto
Temecula. I hav~ bsen told that the~s are afew council mmb~rs who aro oppomi to ~a
h.mq~nin~ I urge you to consider the benrills ~ WALMART being in Temecula would
bring
WALMART is ene number I relailer in America fight now. Nurd~atau's is vm3r dose
b~hlnff T[.'~k of lhe tax revenues WALMART would bring to this city. At least coe
miIlicsl dollar~ in ~ would be colleci~i from them in a yea~ ~;-,e. Studies show thst
30% of ~ shoppers comlns to Temecula's Palm ph,,~ are MurrieXa resident. Just ~k o~
how ~,,,,y other surroundin~ city's would come to spend their dollars in Temecuts.(Hemet,
Farook, Menifee, Wildomsr, Rainbow Canyen, Lake ~l,~ore eta) If WALMART is
happy to accommodate their plans to build. Would we want to push away a msjor ,mchur
in our community? Iwould~i-k not Also, withthe kindoflax revenue WALMART
would bring to our ciiy, we could finally gstthe ov~rpass wo so despera~lyneed. We all
know it takes money to l~t ~ done, espedally now wi~ the economy just ~ to
pull oulofila sl~m~p.. TYnir ofthejobs an ovsrpass couldcreals forthe strugSiing
constnnicn worlnn~ No~to menrico the manyj.obs WALMART would creale f~or ale
m~my unemployed people in our ares.
I really believe gnat WALMART coming to Temeeula would be aSreat asset to our
commnnity aad make our fair ~y Snan,~,aly ,~u,,ger.
sincere,
I~7~e Andcram
RECEIVED
FEB 1 15 1993
Ans'd ............
F~bmany 8, 1993
39'731 n~
Temecnl~ Ca. 92591
WALMART is Jhe number 1 retails in America right now. Nor&a.m's is very close
b~i~cL Their of~he mx rev~,,_~ WALMART would b,lug to ml. city. At lesst me
millkin dollars in taxes would be colleci~d from ihsm in ay~srs time. Studies showJbat
30o~ofJ~eshoppen~JoTmnec~'sPalmPJazaareMun'iemremidmm. lu~t~k~kof
how msny ogaer surrounding city's would come to spend their dollars in Temeculs. (Hemet,
Fallbr~k,M~ee, W'~domar, Rajnbow~Lalw Elsinore ejc~) If WALMART is
h~py to wmoda~e their plans t~ buil& Would we want to push away a ram:or anchc~
inour communit~ We w~uldm~nUnot Also, wiihfi~e ldndofJaxrevemue WALMART
w~uldbr~gtn our c~y, we could fmally get the ov~x~um we so~need. Weal[
know it t~kes mc~ey to Set ~ythjng done, espechdlynoww~xeeumomy justs~t~ug~
pullou~ofi~alun~J. Th~i~ofthejobs~mov~pssscouldcre3~forJhesWuggiing
mas'an~ca w~kers. Not ~ mm~m Jhe ninny jobs WALMART ~uld create for the
mm~r tinemployed people in our area
We reslly believe h~ WALMART co~nS to Tesnecula wuuld be a great asset in our
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 7, 1993
Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4
Prepared By: Steve Jiannino
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 93- recommending Approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 based on
the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
KRDC, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
PROPOSAL:
A 13 parcel commercial subdivision with two remainder parcels
of 58.1 acres.
LOCATION:
Southeast corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: C-P-S
South: A-2-20
East: A-2-20
West: C-P-S
PROPOSED ZONING: C-P-S
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Commercial Shopping Center
PROJECT STATISTICS
GROSS ACREAGE:
58.1 acres
NUMBER OF PARCELS: 13
R:~S\STAFFRPT\27323TPM,PC 6/2/93 tjs 1
REMAINDER PARCELS: 2
RANGE OF LOT SIZES: .5 acres to 13.0 acres
BACKGROUND
Parcel Map No. 27323 was submitted to the City on November 4, 1991 in conjunction with
Plot Plan No. 243 (Wal-Mart). The site is included as a portion of Specific Plan No. 263 which
is currently being reviewed by the City. Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was prepared
and circulated for comment in conjunction with Specific Plan No. 263. Tentative Parcel Map
No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 and Plot Plan No. 243 are consistent with Environmental
Impact Report No. 340.
The developer has chosen to move forward with Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323,
Amendment No. 4 and Plot Plan No. 243 prior to completion of Specific Plan No. 263 which
has necessitated the submittal of a Change of Zone request to process the projects.
Environmental Impact Report No. 340 has evaluated the impacts of the overall project,
Specific Plan No. 263, which includes review of the impacts associated with this type of
project at this location.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 is a request for a 13 parcel commercial
subdivision with two remainder parcels at the southeast corner of Ynez and Winchester
Roads. The parcels are designed to be consistent with the proposed building areas for Plot
Plan No. 243. The size of the parcels and the proposed building areas are as follows:
R;\S%STAFFRPT\27323TPM.pC 6/2/93 tie 2
IParcel No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Uae Type
Retail
Restaurant
Retail
Retail
Restaurant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Financial
Retail
Retail
Parcel Size Pad Building
(Acreage) Square Footage
.8 1 6,000
.9 2 3,000
.8 3 5,000
.6 4 5,000
1.5 5 6,500
1.6 6 8,550
.5 7 2,200
.7 8 4,000
2.1 9 15,000
4.5 Shops 1 & 50,700
Commercial 1
13.0 Wal-Mart 155,584
7.5 Shops 2 & 3 78,500
Commercial 2
Future Pad .....
11 Retail
12 Retail
13 1.1 .....
Remainder 22.5 Remainder
Parcels Parcels
A twenty-five (25) foot easement for a transportation corridor is being provided along the
south side of Winchester Road. This easement is for the possible development of a future
transportation system.
ANALYSIS
The parcel map is consistent with the proposed C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) zoning
for the site and Plot Plan No. 243, The parcel conforms to the proposed building pad areas
of Plot Plan No, 243.
The project proposes the subdivision of 35.6 acres of a 58.1 acre site into 13 commercial
parcels with two remainder parcels of 22.5 acres. The project will provide for the ultimate
street improvements for the southeast corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads. The only public
roadways within the project are Ynez and Winchester Roads with access to the interior
parcels being provided by private driveways and a Reciprocal Easement Agreement.
The access points along Ynez Road into the project align with the driveways into Palm Plaza
to the west side of Ynez Road. Prior to providing a full access driveway north of Parcel 13
a traffic signal will have to be installed. The access points along Winchester Road will have
RAS\STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2/93 tie 3
to be approved by CalTrans. The access point furthest east conforms with the existing
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CaITrans and the City of Temecula. The
right-in-only access with the deceleration Pane does not comply with the MOU and therefore
may not be approved by CalTrans.
The project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 263, Plot Plan No. 243, and the environmental
analysis completed in Environmental Impact Report No. 340 for Specific Plan No. 263. The
project must comply with the mitigation measures proposed within Environmental Impact
Report No. 340 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for Environmental Impact
Report No. 340.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the future General Plan
in that the area is designated for Specific Plan. The City's Draft General Plan Land Use Map
shows the project area with Village Core and Specific Plan overlays. Specific Plan No, 263
is being processed for the site in conformance with the Specific Plan overlay requirement.
The proposed project is also consistent with Specific Plan No. 263.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 is consistent with Environmental Impact
Report No. 340 and Specific Plan No. 263. The EIR analyzed the potential impacts of a retail
development at this location. The analysis indicates that several significant impacts for
development of Specific Plan No. 263 will remain after all the proposed mitigation measures
are incorporated in the project. Therefore, the City Council will have to adopt a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 340. The
Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340 will be included as a Condition of Approval for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the City's Draft
General Plan in that the project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 263 which is cur~'ently
being reviewed and processed by City staff. The proposed zoning is compatible with current
zoning to the north and west of the site.
FINDINGS
Tentative Parcel Mao No. 27323, Amendment No. 4
There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment
No. 4 will be consistent with the City of Temecula's future General Plan, which will
be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State Law. Tentative Parcel
Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 conforms with existing applicable, development
standards and Specific Plan No. 263.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the
City's future General Plan, since the project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 263
and surrounding developments to the north and west.
R:\S\STAI:FRPT\27323TPM.pC 6/2/93 tjs
4
10.
The proposed subdivision complies with State Planning and Zoning laws. Reference
local Ordinance No. 460 and California Governmental Code Section(s) 65,000-66,009
(Planning and Zoning Law).
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the proposed
Specific Plan No. 263 in that the project is an commercial subdivision which is
consistent with the land use designation of RCC (Retail Commercial Core) and the
zoning for Planning Area 2 contained within the Specific Plan. Tentative Parcel Map
NO. 27323, Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the proposed zoning for the site (C-P-
S) which has no minimum lot size requirement.
The Planning Commission has considered the effect of its action upon the housing
needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of
the residents and available fiscal and environmental resources (Government Code
Section 66412.3) and finds that the project is consistent with SWAP and the future
General Plan. Additionally, since the project is a commercial subdivision, it will provide
possible job opportunities which will benefit the job/housing balance in the City.
The proposed project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 263 and Environmental
Impact Report No. 340. EIR No. 340 indicated that even after feasible mitigation
measures were incorporated into the project, substantial impacts would remain. The
City Council in certifying EIR No. 340 will have to adopt Statements of Overriding
Consideration establishing the benefits of the project over the remaining unmitigatable
impacts.
The project has acceptable access by means of dedicated right-of-way. The project
as designed and conditioned provides access to all buildable lots.
The design of the subdivision provides to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities (Government Code Section 66473.1) by
providing design and zoning standards for natural heating and cooling within Specific
Plan No. 263.
The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for this type of project in
that the development of the site will not create major slope conditions and that access
and infrastructure can be provided to the site as shown in Specific Plan No. 263, EIR
No. 340, and as conditioned.
The design of the proposed subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems. The project is consistent with Specific Plan No.
263 and EIR No. 340 which did not indicate any serious public health problem would
result from the proposed development.
R:\S\STAFFRPT%27323TPM.pC 6/2/93 tie
5
Attachments:
Resolution No. 93- - Blue Page 7
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 13
Exhibits o Blue Page 29
A. Vicinity Map
B. Draft General Plan Designation
C. Zoning Designation
D. Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4
R:%S~STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2/93 tie 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
R:~S\STAFFRPT\27323TpM.pC 6/2/93 tie 7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27323, A.M~.NDMENT
NO. 4 TO SUBDIVIDE 58.1 ACRES INTO 13 COMMERCIAL
AND 2 REMAINDER PARCELS AT TILE, SOUTItEAST
CORNER OF YNEZ AND WINCItFSTER ROADS AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO(S). 910-130-046 AND
910-130-047
WHEREAS, KRDC, Inc. f'ded Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Parcel Map on June
7, 1993, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or
opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended Approval of said Tentative Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, TIlE PLANNING COM1VIISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shah
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months follo~)ing incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency f'mds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
R:\SXSTAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2/93
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
2. The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of the project
and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each
of the following:
a. There is reasonable probability that Tentative Parcel Map No.
27323, Amendment No. 4 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or wt~ch will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action does comply with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following findings are made:
specific plans.
That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
3. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
type of development.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2193 ~s 9
4. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development.
5. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements
are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that
alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction.
E. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative
Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323. A~nendment No. 4
1. There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323,
Amendment No. 4 will be consistent with the City of Temecula's future General Plan, which
will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State Law. Tentative Parcel Map
No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 conforms with existing applicable city zoning ordinances,
development standards, and Specific Plan No. 263.
2. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference
with the City's future General Plan, since the project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 263
and surrounding developments to the north and west.
3. The proposed subdivision complies with State Planning and Zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinance No. 348, Ordinance No. 460 and California Governmental Code
Section(s) 65,000-66,009 (Planning and Zoning Law).
4. Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the
proposed Specific Plan No. 263 in that the project is an commercial subdivision which is
consistent with the land use designation of RCC (Retail Commercial Core) and the zoning for
Planning Area 2 contained within the Specific Plan. Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323,
Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the proposed zonhlg for the site (C-P-S) which has no
minimum lot size requirement.
5. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of its action upon the
housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of the
residents and available fiscal and environmental resources (Government Code Section 66412.3)
R:~S\STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2/93 tjs
lo
and f'md that the project is consistent with SWAP and the future General Plan. Additionally,
since the project is a commercial subdivision, it will provide possible job opportunities which
will benefit the job/housing balance in the City.
6. The proposed project is consistent with Specific Plan No, 263 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 340. EIR No. 340 indicated that even after feasible
mitigation measures were incorporated into the project, substantial impacts would remain. The
City Council in certifying EIR No. 340 will have to adopt Statements of Overriding
Consideration establishing the benefits of the project over the remaining unmitigatable impacts.
7. The project has acceptable access by means of dedicated right-of-way. The
project as designed and conditioned provides access to all buildable lots.
8. The design of the subdivision provides to the extent feasible, for future
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities (Government Code Section 66473.1) by
providing design and zoning standards for natural heating and cooling within Specific Plan No.
263.
9. The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for this type
of project in that the development of the site will not cream major slope conditions and that
access and infrastructure can be provided to the site as shown in Specific Plan No. 263, FIR no.
340 and as conditioned.
10. The design of the proposed subdivision and type of improvements are not
likely to cause serious public health problems. The project is consistent with Specific Plan No.
263 and FIR No. 340 which did not indicate any serious public health problem would result
from the proposed development.
F. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Tentative Parcel Map is compatible with
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was
completed for Specific Plan No. 263. Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 is
consistent with the development proposals and standaids of Specific Plan No. 263. The potential
environmental impacts of this project were analyzed in Environmental Impact Report No. 340
in that the proposed development is a portion of the proposed 1,375,000 square foot Retail
Commercial Core area as analyzed for Specific Ran No. 263 and FIR No. 340.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4 for the
subdivision of a 58.1 acres into 13 commercial and 2 remainder parcels at the southeast coroer
of Ynez and Winchester Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No(s). 910-130-0456 and 910-
130-047 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
R:\S~STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2/93 tjs
11
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 1993.
LINDA L. FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
I ItEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of June,
1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-ffIL
SECRETARY
R:\S%STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 612193 tie
12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\S~STAFFRPT\27323TpM,pC 6/2/93 tie 13
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No.: 27323, Amendment No. 4
Project Description: A 13 parcel commercial subdivision with two remainder parcels
of 58.1 acres at the southeast comer Ynez and Winchester Roads.
Assessor's Parcel No(s): 910-130-046, 047
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL REQ~S
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions
listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act
and City Ordinance, upon written request, ff made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecnla, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 4, which action is brought within the
time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City
of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in defence. If the City fails to
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to
defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved
by the Planning Director.
TIffs project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific
Plan No. 263.
The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within FAR No. 340 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved
for EIR No. 340.
The developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaped areas within the
site and within the fight-of-way for Ynez Road and Winchester Road.
R:%S\STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2/93 tjs
14
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee 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.
A qualified vertebrate paleontologist shall resurvey the site and develop a Paleontologic
Resoume Impact Mitigation Monitoring Program prior to issuance of grading permits.
The qualified Paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of
excavations and, ff necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will
depend on the rate of excavation, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of
fossils. The Program shall be consistent with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
EIR No. 340.
10.
A soil sampling and chemical analysis program shall be completed to determine if near
surface soil contains hazardous substances in excess of EPA limits. In the event that any
hazardous materials are found on-site, qualified authorities shall be immediately contacted
to determine the proper disposal of the hazardous materials.
11.
The applicant shall demonstrate, by submittal of a written report, that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
12. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
A. A copy of the Final Map
B. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
C. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
(1)
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory
recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
(2)
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 340 was prepared for this project
and is on ~e at the City of Temecula Planning Department.
(3) This project is within a 100 year flood hazard zone.
R:~S~STAFFRPT~27323TPM.PC 6/2/93 tie 15
(4) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
(5) This project is within a Subsidence Zone.
D. A copy of the Recorded Easement Agreements CREA's)
(1)
REA's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
REA's shah include liability insurance and methods of maintaining parking
areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and al/landscaped and open
areas including parkways. The REA shall provide for shared parking,
shared ingress and egress, and master drainage and flood control.
(2)
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a
corporation, association, property owner' s group or similar entity has been
formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly
owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas
and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be
sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to
control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features
of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded REA's
which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or
dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of
maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded REA's shah permit
enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of
Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such
sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for
public purposes.
(3)
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to
such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common
areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting
membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities.
13.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified
in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
14.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified
in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27323TPM.PC 6/2193 tjs
16
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS
15.
All the Conditions of Approval shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Directors
of Planning, Public Works, Community Services and Building and Safety.
16.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified
in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
GENERAL REQtlREMENTS
17.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map or site plan all
existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review
and revision.
18.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all on-site flat work and
improvements) construction shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road fight-of-way.
19.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
20.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site.
21.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of
an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERN~FS
22.
The final grading plan shall be prepared by'a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
23.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Poliutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shah be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been fred or the
project is shown to be exempt.
R:%S\STAFFRPT~27323TPM.PC 612193 tie 17
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
The Developer shall receive written clearance fwm the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Caltmns
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to Department
of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils
conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered
structures and pavement sections..
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plans. The report shall
address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
An erosion control plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted
to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed free condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformante with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or easements for any off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works
at no cost to any agency.
R:%S\STAFFRPT\27323TPM,PC 6/2/93 ~s
18
32.
33.
A Drainage Study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The drainage study shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
A. Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to approved storm drain facilities as directed by the
Department of Public Works. Onsite runoff shall be conveyed into the public
right-of-way to the extent practicable.
B. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
C. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
D. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the improvement plan.
E. The existing drainage facilities for conveyance and mitigation of the runoff cannot
exceed 1900 cfs. Additional drainage facilities shall be provided to mitigate any
additional runoff due to this development; ie. construction of the retention basin
as proposed by the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
Private roads and Precise Grading Plans MUST be designed, reviewed, and approved by
the Department of Public Works to meet City Public Road Standards or otherwise
approved by the Department of Public Works. This should include but may not be
limited to:
A. Minimum paved road widths shall be 32 feet.
B. Knuckles being required at 90° 'bends' in the road.
C. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards.
D. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required.
E. 90° parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located a
minimum safe distance from intersections.
F. At entrances to project, identify configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around
ability for review and approval by the Fire Department and the Department of
Public Works.
G. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90°).
H. Concrete sidewalks shall be provided per City Standards as required.
R:XS\STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2/93 l~js
19
34.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or
through the site. In the event the Department of public Works permits the use of streets
for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply.
Should the quantifies exce. tA] the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for
drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
35.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage paRems; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
36.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release
of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the
drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review prior
to recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the grading
plan.
37.
An Encroachment Permit shall be required from Caltrans for any work within their right-
of-way.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
38.
Improvement plans, including but not limited to, streets, parkway trees, street lights,
driveways, drive aisles, parking lot lighting, drainage facilities and paving shall be
prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer on 24" x 36" mylar sheets and approved by the
Department of Public Works. Final plans (and prof~es on streets) shall show the
location of existing utility facilities and easements as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
39.
The following criteria shah be observed in the design of the improvement plans to be
submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimfim over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A, 208,
and 401 (curb and sidewalk).
Street lights shall be designed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Meandering concrete sidewalks and associated parkway improvements shah be
designed and approved by the Planning Department and the Community Services
District along Ynez and Winchester Roads in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400 and 401.
R:~S~STAFFRPTX27323TPM.PC 6/2/93 tjs 20
E. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
F. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
appwved by the Department of Public Works.
G. Public street improvement plans shall include plan proffies showing existing
topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
H. randscaping shall be limited in the coreer cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to pwvide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
I. All concentrated drainage fwm the site shall be directed to an undergwund storm
drain system.
40. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be undergrounded, with easements pwvided as required, and designed and constructed
in accordance with City Cedes and the utility prorider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or
security systems shad be pre-wired.
41. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
42. All conditions of the grading penit and encroachment permit shall be complied with to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
43. A constraction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP
44. Apricot Road shall be vacated on the final Map.
45. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
46. The Developer shall construct or post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing
the construction of the following public/private improvements within 18 months in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to appwval by the Department
of Public Works.
A. Street improvements, which may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and
other traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities.
R:\S~STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 612193 tjs 21
C. Landscaping (slopes and parkways).
D. Erosion control and slope protection.
E. Sewer and domestic water systems.
F. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
G. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
47.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality
Rancho Ca/ifornia Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Caltrans
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
48.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public
Works.
49.
The Developer shall reimburse the City for the existing improvements along Margarita
Road for the portion between Winchester Road to Solana Way, since these improvements
mitigate the traffic requirements of the proposed development. These improvements were
recently provided by the City's Capital Improvement Project.
50.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of
the final map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such
agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision.
Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2/93
given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
51.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Winchester Road and Ynez Road and so noted on
the fmal map with the exception of access as shown on the approved site plan or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
52.
A signing and striping plan shall be prepared a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works for Winchester Road and Ynez Road shall be
included in the street improvement plans.
53.
Hans for traffic signals shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works for the following intersections and shah be included
in the street improvement plans;
Southerly access to the project from Ynez Road
Easterly access to the project from Winchester Road
Upgrade the existing traffic signal at the northerly access to the project on Ynez
Road aligned with Palm Plaza entrance
54.
Traffic signal interconnection shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer to show
2" rigid metal conduit with pull rope, and #5 pull boxes on 200-foot centers along
Winchester Road, Margarita Road, and Ynez Road. This design shah be shown on the
street improvement plans and must be approved by the Department of Public Works.
55.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact the Department of Public Works for
the design requirements.
56.
Bus bays and shelters shall be designed and approved at all existing and future bus stops
as determined by the Department of Public Works.
57.
An agreement to secure the implementation ~f a Transportation Demand Management
program shah be executed.
58. Comer property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
59.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
60.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map ff they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities
located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and
shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 612/93 tie 23
easements shall be kept free of buiMings and obstructions."
61.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject
property.
62.
The Developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as
established, per acre, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the Developer
choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a
written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
63.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by
the Developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and City
attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any
record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto,
and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by
the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be submitted to the following Engineering
conditions:
A. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the Developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of
Planning, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions
as am required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect
the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association
are subject to the approval of Planning, Department of Public Works, and the
City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A
recorded copy shall be provided to th6 City.
The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and
related facilities.
The CC&R's shall provide that the property shah be developed, operated and
maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CC&R's shah provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition
required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving
reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the Owner's sole
expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City
ordinances. The property shah be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure
R:\S%STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2/93 tie 24
any such expense not promptly reimbursed.
(1)
All parkways, open areas, on-site slopes and landscaping shall be
permanen~y maintained by the association or other means acceptable to
the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to Planning
and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits.
(2)
Reciprocal access easements and parking and maintenance agreements
ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or
parking areas, private storm drain, sewer, water facilities and all other
utilities shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded
concurrent with the map.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUH,IHNG PERMITS
65.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Depaxtment of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
66.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
67.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to
be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the
date on which the Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to Dexteloper. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond 16 secure payment of the Public Facility fee.
The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The
Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess
of those now esthnated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or
the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
R:~S\STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 612193 tjs 25
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
68. A Transportation Demand Management program will be required.
69.
All necessary onsite improvements shall be provided. Future proposed construction
phasing, upon submittal, shall be reviewed to adequately mitigate circulation and
drainage concerns to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
70.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Caltrans
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
71.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
and shah continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public
Works.
72.
Winchester Road, from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, shah be fully
improved within a 134 foot full width dedicated right-of-way as per the Assessment
District 161 plans including a 14 foot wide raised median in accordance with City
Standard No.100A. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to provide for the
proposed decelemtion lane at the fight in driveway. These improvements are subject to
Caltmns' approval.
73.
Ynez Road, from Ove~and Drive to Rancho California Road, shall be fully improved
within a 134 foot full width dedicated right-of-way as per Community Facilities District
88-12 plans including a 14 foot wide raised, landscaped median, in accordance with City
Standard No.100A and as approved by the Planning Department, the Community
Services District, and the Department of Public Works.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27323TPM.PC 612193 tjs
26
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
Landscaping shall be limited in the coroer cut-off area of all intersection and adjacent to
driveways to provide for minimum sight distance as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
The Developer shall reimburse the City for the existing improvements along Margarita
Road for the portion between from Winchester Road to Solana Way, since these
improvements mitigate the traffic requirements of the proposed project, These
improvements were recently provided by the City's Capital Improvement Project.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Winchester Road and Ynez Road with the
exception of access as shown on the approved site plan or as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
Adequate signing and striping shall be provided for Winchester Road and Ynez Road as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Traffic signals shall be installed for the following intersections;
Winchester Road and Nicholas Road
Winchester Road and Murfieta Hot Springs Road
Southerly access to the project from Ynez Road
Easte~y access to the project from Winchester Road
Upgrade the existing traffic signal at the northe~y access to the site on Ynez
Road aligned with Palm Plaza entrance
79.
80.
81.
82.
Traffic signal interconnection with shall be installed along Winchester Road, Margarita
Road, and Ynez Road as approved by the Department of Public Works.
Bus bays and shelters shall be provided at all existing and future bus stops as deterrained
by the Department of Public Works.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be recorded if they are located within the site boundary. All offers
of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by
the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road
right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements; drainage easements shall be
kept free of buildings and obstructions.
R:\S%STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 6/2/93 tie
27
83.
Ali improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans, and City
standards, including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, drainage facilities, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public
streets, signing, striping, traffic signal interconnect, traffic signals, median
reconstruction, and existing facilities.
84.
The Developer shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local and private streets
with arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works.
85.
32 foot private interior circulation roads shall be constructed as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
86.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied only as directed by the Department of
Public Works at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform
to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
87.
Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to commercial development
shall be maintained by an established Commercial Property Owner's Association.
OTHER AGENCIES
88.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in
the Riverside County Health Department's transmittals dated April 7, 1993 and
November 21, 1991, copies of which is attached.
89.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the
County of Riverside Fire Department's letter dated March 23, 1993, a copy of which is
attached.
90.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated March 23, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
91.
The applicant shah comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated November 19, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
92.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the California
Department of Transportation transmittal dated November 14, 1991, a copy of which is
attached.
R:%S\STAFFRPT\27323TPM.PC 612/93
28
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TO: CITY OF -iEMECULA
DATE: 11-21-91
Health Specialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN N0. 243
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No.
243, and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water
services should be available in this area. Prior to any
building plan review for health clearance, the following
items are required:
"Will-serve" letters from the appropriate
water and sewering agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted, including a
fixture schedule, a flnish schedule, and a
plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance
with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities
Law. For specific reference, please contact
Food Facility Plan examiners at (714) 358-5172.
A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services
Materials Management Branch (Jon Mohoroski,
358-5055), wlll be required indicating that the
pro3ect has been cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance
with AB Z185)
d. Waste reduction management
SM:dr
co: Jon Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered,
be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final
Environmental Health Servlce clearance.
can
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
HRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST .~,,N laX:INTO AVENUE · PERKIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 6S7-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FLRi~ CHIBF
TO:
ATTN:
CITY OF T~CULA
PLANNING DEPT
pARCEL MAP 27323
l'q.a:rch 23, 1993
WIth respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land
division. the Fire DeparCmenc recommends ~he ~ollowlug fire protection
measures be provided J3x accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire pronecttofi s~andards:
Fire protection measures will be oddtossed with the related Ptor Plan ~143.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shell be referred
the Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND M. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Micheal E. Gray
MEG/tm
~3 1NDIO OYHC~
79-733 C~unrf Club .Dv~c, Sulk f, Indk~, CA 92101
[6Z9) MZ-S&~ · FAX (61~) 77~-i/072
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
E
FIRE D PARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * tmHRRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657~3183
GLEN ~'. NEWMAN
F/RE CLUES
March 23, 1993
ATTNt
RE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PL.ANNIN8 DEPT
PLOT PLAN 24= AMENDED #2
(PM 2732=)
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above refer-
anted plot plan; the Fire Department recommends the followin~
fire protection measures be provided ih accordance with Riverside
County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection ;tandarde:
i. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fare
flow for the remodel or con~tr~tion of all ~ommer~lal
buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546.
2. Provide or show there exists a water system capaDle of
delivering 4500 GPM far a ~ hour duration it 20 PSI residual
operating pressure, which must be available before anV
comDustible material is placed on the job site.
S. A combination uf on-site and off-site super fire
drants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2 1/2'x2 1/2"), will De
located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any
portion o~ the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from
any adjacent hydrant(s] in the system.
4. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point
in the permit process to reflect changes in design, con-
struction ~ype, area separation or bull~-in fire protection
measures.
l~lO O~qCE
Dd~, ~ F, ]~i~, CA 92201
FAX (619) 77~2072
[3 TF..M~CULA OFlqCE
41002 Coun~/Cxntc~ Ddt~, ,~sie 22~, Tmt;r~a, CA 923~1
fTl~) 69+~O70, FAX (714~ 694,~076
fel-red
F'LOT PLAN 245 AMENDED #i (PM
PAGE 2
5. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the eater
~ystem plans to the Fire Department for review. Plan. shall
cmnform to the fire hydrant types, location an~ spacing; and
the system ~hall meet the fare flow requirements. Plans
shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company with the following certification: "I
certify that the design of the water system is An accordance
~ith the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County
Fire Department".
6. Install a complete fire Sprinkler system in all build-
ings. Thm post indicator valve an~ fir~ de~rtment connec-
tion ahall be l~cated to the front, ~ithin 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 fee~ from the b~ilding(s). A
~tat&ment that the building(s) will be automatically fare
sprinkled must be included on the title page ~f the ~uilding
plans.
7. Install a supervised ~aterflo~ munitoring fire alarm
sy.tam. Plans must be submitted to the Pire Department for
approval prier to ins~allatlon~ as per UBC.
8. A s'~t~ment that the building ~ill be automatically fire
sprinklered must apprear on the title page of t~e building
plans.
Certain designated areas will be requ£red to be main-
rained as fire lane=.
10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer
shall deposit, with the City af TemeCula, a check ar money
order equaling the sum of $.25 per square foa: as mitigation
for fire prot~ctlon impacts. Thi~ amount must be submitted
~_~ra_Lte~i from the plan check fee..
11. ~almart shall be responsible to install a fire alarm
sy;tem. Plans must bo submitted-to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation.
12. Final conditions ~ili be addressed when building plans
are revie~e~ in the building and Safety Office.
ques~tions regarOing the meaning of conditions shall be re-
to the Planning aria Engineering Staff.
RAYMOND H. ~IS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Michael E. Gray,
~ire C~ptein SQecialist
John F, Hemaigar
RECEIVED
HAR 2 6 lgg3
March 23, 1993
Ans'd ............
¢¢i~. Steve Fiannino
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Water Availability
Parcel Map No. 27323, Amendment No. 2
Plot Plan No. 243, Amendment No. 2
PA93-0043 Change of Zone
Palm PlaTa Phase II
Dear Mr. Fiannino:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICY
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Development Engineering Manager
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
r~uv 2 }_ 1~9__~
RTA
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
18P5 THIRD STREET · RIVERSIDE, CA 9P507-3484 · BUS. i7141 684-0850 FaX 1714) 684-1007
November 19, 1991
Mr. Mark Rhoades
Temecula Planning Department
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: PM 27323
Dear Mark:
We currently provide service to the site mentioned above via Route
23 and we are requesting that a bus turnout or a pad for a bus stop
be incorporated into the general design as the size of the planned
project will negatively impact our level of service unless this
amenity is constructed.
Ideal sites for the bus turnouts would be at the following
locations:
Eastside corner of Ynez Road nearside entrance to main parking
lot.
Southside corner of Winchester Road nearside entrance to Wal-
Mart building
If possible, we would also like to request that pedestrian walkways
and wheelchair curbs be constructed near the turnout locations
specified above. I can indicate the exact locations for the
turnouts as the project progresses.
Thank you fur the oppertu~ihy to. review and cc~r~,ent on this
project. Your efforts to keep us updated on the status of this
request will be very much appreciated. Please let us know when
this project will be completed.
Should you require additional information or specifications, please
don't hesitate to contact me.
"~'~Barbara Bray ~
Transit Planner
SS:jsc
PDEV#129
STATE OF. CALIFORNIA--BUSiNESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTN~ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNtA 92402
TDD (714) 383.4.609
PETE WILSON,
November 14, 1991
Planning Department
City of Temecula
City Hall
Attention Mr. Mark Rhoades
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Rhoades:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27232 located at the northeast corner of
Ynez Road and Winchester Road.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments
have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items
noted under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the State highway right of
way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only.
Final approval of street improvements, grading and drainage will
be determined during the Encroachment Permit process.
If additional information is desired, please call Ms.
Minerva Rodriquez of our Development Review Section at (714
4384.
383-
Very truly yours,
Attachment
AHMAD SALAH
Development Review Engineer
Riverside County
CAI,~RANS DEVELOPMENT RE~
TpM ZTZ
Y~R REFERENCE
PLAN CHECKER
APPROVAL ~OR THIS PROJECT:
FORM
REQUEST THAT THE ITEMS CHECKED BELOW BE
NORMAL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO PROVIDE
NORMAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE
CURB AND GUTTERt STATE STANDARD NG-A
· P__ TIDE To :APPLICANT
DATE
v-79
( Co RTE PM)
INCLUDED IN TME CONDITIONS OF
7 HALF-wIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY,
HALF--WiDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY ·
TYl~E A2-8 ALONG THE STATE HIGHUAY.
PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY BY THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF NO PARKING SIGNS.
35 FT RADIUS CURB RETURNB SHALL BE PROVIDED AT iNTERSECTIONS WITH THE STATE HIGHWAY · STATE STANDARD NG-B#
CASE-A WHEELCHAIR RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE CURB RETURNS AS DEFINED IN THE HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL~
SECTION 105.4 (2).
A POSITIVE VEHICULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO LIMIT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE
STATE HIGHWAY,
VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HIGHWAY,
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS,
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY STANDARD DRIVEWAYS.
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL SE PROVIDED BY A ROAD--TYPE CONNECTION,
VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT LEAST WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY,
ACCESS POINTS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WILL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR
HPH ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY.
LANDSCAPING ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL PROVIDE FOR-SAFE SIGHT DISTANCEt COMPLY WITH FIXED OBJECT SET BACK
AND BE TO STATE STANDARDS.
LEFT--TURN LANE, INCLUDING SH~LDERS AND ANY NECESSARY WIDENINGf SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE STATE HIGHWAY,
A TRAFFIC STUDY INDICATING ON AND OFF--SITE FLOW PATTERNS AND VOLUMESt PROBABLE iMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
MEASURES SHALL BE PREPARED,
__ PARKING SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WILL NOT CAUSE ANY VEHICULAR MOVEMENT CONFLICTSt INCLUDING PARKING
STALL ENTRANCE AND EXIT t WITHIN OF THE ENTRANCE ER) THE STATE HIGHWAY ·
r'~ CARE SHALL BE TAKEN WHEN DEVELOPING THiS PROPERTY TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUATE THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN
OF THE STATE HIGHWAY. PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO CUMULATIVE INCREASED STORM RUNOFF TO INSURE
THAT A HIGHWAY DRAINAGE PROBLEM IS NOT CREATED ·
V PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL COHMENTS. Pic~OVZDFl TO APP.T. jICANT,
PLEASE BE ADVISED TMAT TMIS IS A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ONLY. FINAL APPROVAL WILL
BE DETERMINED DURING THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PROCESS.
CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION WITHIN PRESENT OR PROPOSED STATE RIGHT OF WAY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE ( i ,E,ASBESTOS,, PETROCHEMICALS,, ETCo ) AND MITIGATED AS PER REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATORT AGENCIES,
rf~HEH PLANS ARE SUBMITTED/ PLEASE CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTACHED eI~'T~ANDOUTIe, THIS WILL EXPEDITE
THE REV]EW PROCESS AND TIME REGUIRED FOR PLAN CHECK, ll:)ic~OV']'DI~ TO AP~)T,ZCAltqT,
ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEMf CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT
IN THIS AREA, ANy MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE SHALL BE
PROVIDED PRIOR TO OR WITH DEVELOPHENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEM,
CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISION,. OR FUTURE PROVISION,, OF BIGNILIZATION AND LIGHTING OF THE
'~HIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY 1S INCLUDED IN THE CALIFORNIA MASTER PLAN OF STATE ~hGHWAYS ELIGIBLE FOR
OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHWAY DESIGNATION AND ZN THE FUTURE YOUR AGENCY NAY WISH TO HAVE THIS ROUTE OFFICIALLY
DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY.
THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHUAYt AND DEVELOPMENT
IN THIS CORRIDOR SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SCENIC HIGHWAY CONCEPT,
!FT 1S RECOGNIZED THAT THERE iS CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HEAVILY TRAVIELLED
HIGHWAYS, IAND DEVELOPMENTS. IN ORDER TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THIS CONCERNt NAy REQUIRE SPECIAL NOISE ATTENUATIOR
MEASURES, DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD INCLUDE ANY NECESSARY NOISE ATTENUATION,
CALTRANS DISTRICT 8
DEVELO~ENT P,~VIEW BRANCH
P,O, B,Ix 231
SAM ~RNARDIROf CA 92402
~// A C~PY OF ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR REVISED APPROVAL,
A COPY OF ANY DOCLMENTS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY UPON RECORDATION OF THE MAP,
,2~JIY PRDP(:~ALS TO FURTHER DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY,
V/ A cOPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVII~:WMENTAL STUDY.
V/ A CHEC~ PRINT OF THE PARCEL OR TRACT MAP.
A CHEC~ PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS U1THIN ON ADJACENT TO THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF &AT.
A CHEC~ PRINT OF THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY WHEN AVAILABLE,
Date: November 14, 1991
RIV-79-R2.498
(Co-Rte-PM)
TPM 27232
(Your Reference)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
1. The driveway shown approximately 660 feet northeasterly of
Ynez Road will not be allowed.
Per the construction drawings by Assessment District 161 and
the Memorandum of Understanding between the.city and state,
access to the State Highway along the southerly side shall be
at 1/4 mile spacing.
The project transmittal sheet from the City of Temecula indicates
this case number is Parcel Map No. 27232. The Tentative Parcel Map
submitted to this office indicates a map number of 27323. These
documents must agree and must be revised to meet that requirement.
The Hydraulics Engineering Department requires a Hydrology Study
that outlines how on-site and off-site flows approaching the
property are to be handled.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
April 07, 1993
RECEIVED
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT.
43174 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92590
ATTN: Steve Jiannino:
APR 1 zi 1993
Ans'd ............
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27323, AMENDED NO. 2: THAT
CERTAIN PARCEL OF LA/~D SITUATED IN T~E CITY OF TEMECULA,
COUNTY OF RIV~MSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF
LOTS 115 AND 117, TOGETHER WITH ADJOINING STREETS, AS SHOWN
ON A MAP OF THE "TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY" ON FILE IN
BOOK 8, PAGE 359 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
(10 LOTS)
Dear Gentlemen:
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed
Tentative Parcel Map NO. 27323, Amended No. 2 and
recommends:
A water system shall be installed according to plans and
specifications as approved by the water company and the
Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the
water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a
minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along
with the original drawing to the City of Temecula. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and
the size of the main at the junction of the new system to
the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects
with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and
Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11,
Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public
Utilities Commission of the State of California, when
applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered
engineer and water company with the following certification:
"I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative
Parcel Map NO. 27323 is in accordance with the water system
expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and
that the water services, storage, and distribution system
will be adequate to provide water service to such Parcel
Map".
John M. Fanning, Director
4065 County Circle Drive · Riverside, CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316., FAX (909) 358-5017
(Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · Riverside, CA 92513-7600)
City of Temecula Planning Dept.
Page Two
Attn: Steve Jiannino
April 07, 1993
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it
will supply water to such Parcel Map at any specific
quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any
other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a
responsible official of the water company. The plans must
be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at
least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of
the final map.
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California
Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the
subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements
to be made prior to the recordation of the final map.
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water
District and shall be connected to the sewers of the
District. The sewer system shall be installed according to
plans and specifications as approved by the District, the
City of Temecula and the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted
in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the City
of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe
diameter, specifications and the size of the sewers at the
junction of the new system to the existing system. A single
plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines
shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The
plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer
district with the following certification: "I certify that
the design of the sewer system i~ Parcel Map No. 27323 is in
accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the
Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal
system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated
wastes from the proposed Parcel Map."
City of Temecula Planning Dept.
Page Three
Attn: Steve Jiannino
April 07, 1993
The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's
office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for
the recordation of the final map.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be
completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map.
Sincerely,
~"a~~.S. IV
Department of Environmental Health
SM:dr
(909) 275-S980
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27323TpM.pC 6/2/93 tie 29
CITY OF TEMECULA
CO
~ PeOCIECT SITE
I
CASE NO.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323
EXIrrRIT: A
P.C. DATE: June 7, 1993
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
~L
CASE NO.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE: June 7, 1993
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323
EXHIBIT: C ZONING MAP - PROPOSED C-P-S
P.C. DATE: June 7, 1993