The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About052394 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1994, 6:00 PM van FAemenmry Multi-Purpose Room 299L~ Mira Lore Drive Temeeula, California CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ford ROLL CALL: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer and Ford PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of IS minutes is pro~d__ed so membe~ of the public can sddre~s the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are ilmit~d to ~wee (3) minutes each. If yOU c~sire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink *Reques[ to Speaks form should be filled out and flied with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to spe~k, please come forward and sta/e your name and address. For ali other agenda items a sReques~ to Speaks form must be ~ed with the Plan-ing Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit ~r individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2.1 2.2 Approval of minutes from the Apr~ 2~, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Approval of minutes from the May 2, 1994 planning Commission meeting. 3. Director's Hearing Update Hann|nE Commission Meeting Location ChanZe from Vall Elementary, to Rancho California Water Distrlc~'s Board Room, 42135 W'mchester Road. Resolutions for Approving Planning Application No. 94-003S - A one forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign and a fifteen (1.~ foot high monument sign for the Ynez Car Care Center. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6. Case No: PA94-0028, Revised Hot Plan Appliesat: Norm Reeves Aeura Location: 26799 Ynez Road Proposal: To expand the existing showroom area and to additional service bays. Environmental Action: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 Planner: Craig Ruiz Recommendation: Approve CaM No: Location: Proposal; Enviwnm~ulal Action: Planner: Recommendation: S'~a Orthan~ kgula~ng Tmporary Signs City Of Temeo:h Am.n,d Adop Exempt Pursuant to L~G6I (b) (3) John Meyer Case No: Applicant: Location: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Sim~d~e Plan No. 263 and Change of Zone No. 5S89 Kemper Real Emte South of Winchester Road betwee~ Ynez and Margadta Road~ Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot Comm~x~ial Core, 810,000 square feet of O~ce/ln~tutionsl at and Mixed Use Residential with 298,0(}0 aquaz~ feet of retail with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning f~m R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agri~lmral 20 a~e ~ini~n~m lot size) to SP (Specific Plan). Envirommal Impact ~ve Jjnnnino Recordmend Approval 9. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Specific Pin No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5617 and Environmental Impact Report No, 348 Kemper Real Estate South of Winchester Road and east of Margadta Road Specific Plan proposing 206 Single-Family Residential units, 644 Multi- Family Residential units, 13.5 acres of Commercial, approximately 5 acres of Office, and 18.$ acres of Park and Retention with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) tO SP (Spedtic Han). Environmental Impact Report Steve Jiannino l~mmencl Approval Next meeting: June 6, 1994, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 W'mchester Road in Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 25, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 25, 1994, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PRESENT: 4 ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford COMMISSIONERS: Blair Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Mary Jo Shelton-Dutcher and Recording Secretary Gall Ziglet. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to approve the agenda as mailed. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair 2.1 Approval of Minutes from the March 7, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to AYES: NOES: PCMhNC4125194 approve the minutes of March 7, 1994. The motion carried as follows: 4 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford None 616194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: 2.2 APRIL 25, 1994 Blair Approval of Minutes from the March 21, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve the minutes of March 21, 1994. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Selyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. PA93-01S0, PAg3-0181,PA93o0182, PA93-0183, PA93-0184AND PA93-0185 Workshop to receive direction from the Planning Commission on the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement and the Environmental Impact Report. Commissioners Fahey and Hoegland and Chairman Ford stated they each had met individually with the developer to be briefed on the proposed project and to look at the location of the site. Saied Naaseh presented the staff report. Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:12 P.M. Bill Johnson, 255 Reburg, Riverside, owner and president of Johnson Machinery, provided the history of the property. Jim Fergus, 1081 Borden Avenue, Suite 105, Escortdido, provided an overview of the project. Jim O'Neil, 4521 Campus Drive, Irvine, discussed the key elements of the proposed plan. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. Ray Gianton, 33120 Vino Way, Temecula, said he is concerned about the proposed densities and the impacts the project may have on the environment. PCMINO4126/94 2 516194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 25, 1994 Robert Hummel, 32655 Bootlegg Road, Winchester, said he is concerned about the proposed densities, proximity of the project to the airport, infrastructure and buffering of five acre parcels. Gerald Onstoff, 39559 Avenida Arizona, Temecula, said the project offers no provisions for equestrian trails and no access to Santa Gertrudis Creek. David Robinson, 39600 Avenida Arizona, Temecula, said he is concerned about the proposed densities and circulation. Robert Bush, 32775 Bootleg Road, Temecula, said he is concerned about the proposed densities, buffering of five (5) acre parcels, improvements to infrastructure, location of the proposed project and the subsidence zone. Ken Barnes, 39695 Berenda Road, expressed concern about the impacts the project may have on the Santa Gertrudis Creek and the wineries. Cindy Bush, 32775 Bootlegg Road, Temecula, asked what will happen to the wine country agreement if this project is developed. She said she is concerned about the lack of schools, impacts the project could have on wildlife and traffic. She said she is concerned about disturbing the Indian artifacts which have been found on the property. Jim Fergus suggested the comments made by the public be reviewed by the developer with staff and the comments brought back to the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Fahey said although she feels what is being proposed is a good plan, however she cannot envision the proposed plan fitting into the area at this time. She said she feels the project is premature and she cannot forecast 10 or 20 years from now. Commissioner Fahey said she.does not feel there is adequate buffering in areas 2C and 4, and areas 5, 16 and 17 should be larger and more buffering around area 14. Commissioner Hoagland said he agrees with Commissioner Fahey's comments and the concerns addressed by the Planner. Commissioner Blair said she finds it difficult to envision the proposed project at this time. She said her concerns deal more with the overall issues of the project as follows: a better way of maintaining the natural configuration of the land (i.e. less densities and greater buffering); addressing of the air traffic in the area; providing for equestrian trails; and, consideration for the geological subsidence in the area. Commissioner Salyer said he feels there are a lot of serious issues involving the proposed project as follows: densities; lack of buffering with the surrounding environment; protecting of natural resources. Commissioner Salyer said he would PCMINI)4125/94 3 516194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 25, 1994 like to hear a response to every concern expressed by the public from staff and the applicant. Commissioner Salyer said he supports spreading out the multi-family dwellings and small parks being maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Chairman Ford said he feels the following should be addressed: the wine country agreement; Indian artifacts; equestrian trails; infrastructure requirements both on- site and off-site. Chairman Ford said he agrees with the remarks made by Commissioner Fahey regarding area 2C and 4. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. and continue this item off calendar. The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford None None PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Thornhill advised the Commission there may be a change in the Planning Commission meeting location to the Rancho California Water District Board Room on Winchester Road. Principal Engineer Ray Casey reminded the Commission the meeting for Highway 79 South was changed to May 11, 1994, 6:00 P.M., at Temecula City Hall Main Conference Room. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Steve Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on May 2, 1994, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary PCMIN04/25/94 4 5/6194 MINUTF~ FROM TH~ MAY 2, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION lv~-F-TING MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 2, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was held on Monday May 2, 1994, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PRESENT: 4 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford COMMISSIONERS: Salyer Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Mary Jo Shelton-Dutcher and Recording Secretary Gall Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Aooroval of Aoenda It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the agenda as mailed. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Director's Haarinq Update Report included as part of the agenda. Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford None Salyer NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM PCMINOS/02119~4 Planninq Aoolication No. PA94-0035 Proposal by Ynez Car Care Center for a 40' high freeway sign and a 15' high monument sign on Ynez Road. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02, 1994 staff report. He advised the Commission the applicant has re-submitted their application for the 15' sign which is reduced to 12', a height staff feels is appropriate for the location. Planning Director Gary Thornhill said the applicant wanted to address the Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair not to permit the applicant to speak on this item. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Salyer The applicant, Larry Gabele, provided the Commission with photographs of the proprosed sign location. He advised the Commission the only access to the property is shared jointly with Toyota of Temecula. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to direct staff to re-write the resolution and the findings to the recommendation and bring this item back before the Commission. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Salyer Planning Commission Location Change Inform Commission of change in location of meetings to the Rancho California Water District Board Room beginning June 1, 1994 Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to approve staff recommendation. PCMIN05/02/1994 2 06/11/94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Salyer PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PCMIN05102/1994 MAY 02. 1994 Chanoe of Zone No. 5570 Proposed change of zone request for three parcels from R-A-5 to R-3 and C-O. Located at the northeast corner of Ynez and Rancho Vista Road. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. He advised the Commission he has received one letter in support of staff's recommendation from Sandra Foreman. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M. Karel Lindemans, 42740 Las Violetas, Temecula, president of the County Community Homeowners Association, expressed his support of the staff recommendation for denial. Mr. Lindemans said Ynez and Rancho Vista Roads need to be widened and the property is not suitable for development. Judy Moramarco, 29761 Camino Del Sol, Temecula, expressed concern regarding the existing traffic congestion and problems on Rancho Vista Road. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. and AdOpt Resolution No. 94-06 recommending denial of Change of Zone No. 5570 based upo~ the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Salyer Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5 Proposed church and day school located on the southeast corner of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane. 3 05/11/94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02.1994 Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. He advised the Commission of a change in the Conditions of Approval Items No. 68 and 69. Planner Fagan advised the Commission he received one letter opposing the proposed project from Dennis Fitz. Mr. Fitz's comments were with regard to the rural characteristics of the community and the lack of sufficient road and sewer improvements. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. Larry Markham, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the Church of Christ, advised the Commission the applicant concurs with the changes to the Conditions of Approval as proposed. Mr. Markham said the applicant is considering a trellised entry, similar to the Johnson and Johnson Real Estate office to replace the canopied entrance shown on the project rendering. Stacy Honn, 31290 Tommy Lane, Temecula, asked the Commission to deny the request. Mrs. Honn said the proposed project is located in a primarily rural- residential area and is not suited for a church. Roberta Mahoney, 31280 Tommy Lane, Temecula, advised the Commission the area surrounding the project site is primarily equestrian. Ms. Mahoney expressed concern for the safety of children who live in the area because of the increase in traffic, etc. Dennis Fitz, 39910 Jeffrey Heights Road, Temecula, expressed his concerns regarding the increased traffic in the area of the proposed project. Steve Honn, 31290 Tommy Lane, Temecula, said he does not feel a church is suitable to the rural environment. Mr. Honn expressed concern the church would increase the noise and traffic in the area. Doug Keup, 41615 Chaparral, Temecula, an eider of the Church of Christ, talked about the history of the church and the proposed hours of operation. Larry Markham said the applicant can provide a detailed landscape plan to staff to address the concerns of the property owners on Tommy Lane. He told the Commission any permanent structures to the site would have to come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fahey said she did not support approving the project with Calle Medusa as the only access and the entry detail. She suggested the church members meet with the neighboring residences and discuss their concerns. Commissioner Hoagland said he feels the proposed project is incompatible with the surrounding uses. PCMIN05102/1994 4 O5111194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02, 1994 Commissioner Blair said she appreciates the work the church has done, however, she feels the use is incompatible. Chairman Ford said he is concerned the church has not contacted the surrounding neighbors and he is not satisfied with the timing of the improvements. Chairman Ford advised he received a statement from Commissioner Salyer stating he would like to see the landscape and irrigation plan and expressing Concern about the modular design. Commissioner Salyer said in his letter he would not approve the proposed project. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland to deny the application based on the incompatibility of the project with the surrounding uses. The motion failed for lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. and continue this item off-calendar to allow staff and the applicant to work on the issues raised by the neighboring residences (i.e. traffic, landscaping, infrastructure and road access}. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Salyer Commissioner Blair said she liked the reference to the trellised entry on the Johnson and Johnson Real Estate Office. Plannine AoDlication No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit Proposal to revise previously adopted Conditions of Approval to expand hours of operation on Sundays and to allow the admittance of minors into the club. Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:40 P.M. Robert Jackson, The Planning Group, 205 W. AIvarado, Fallbrook, representing the applicant, concurred with the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Jackson advised the Commission the applicant employs six (6) full time security guards who are in attendance during all operating hours. PCMIN05102/1994 5 0511 1/94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02. 1994 Chuck Bell, 113 E. Bay Avenue, Newport Beach, representing the property owners, expressed his support of the applicant's request. Commissioner Hoagland asked staff to look at the wording of Condition No. 7 for clarification. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fehey to close the public hearing at 7:45 P.M~ and approve staff recommendation. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fehey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Salyer Chairman Ford declared a recess at 7:45 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:50 P.M. AYES: NOES: PCMIN05/0211994 Plannine Aoolication No. PA93-0191, Skateboard Ordinance Recommendation to adopt an ordinance which would prohibit skateboarding, rollerblading and similar activities in designated areas of the City. Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. Commissioner Hoagland suggested prohibiting skateboarding during business hours. He said the word "prohibited" on the proposed sign should be in red and larger lettering. Chairman Ford suggested 9(c) "use of safety equipment" be deleted. Commissioner Blair agreed with deleting 9(c). It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve staff recommendation, amending the signage and deleting Item No. 10.36.020 (C) on Page 9. The motion carried as follows: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoegland, Ford 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6 ~/1 1194. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02. 1994 ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Salyer 9. PA93-O 157 AND PA94-O002 Request to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a transportation, administration and maintenance facility for the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The facility includes storage of school buses and maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for maintenance operations and administrative offices. Located north of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road. Associate Planner Saied Naaseh presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Development, Temecula Valley Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, provided the Commission with an overview of the project. Michelle Bedard, 39857 Knollridge Drive, Temecula, expressed her concern with the traffic on Winchester Road presently and the impacts the project will have on the already heavily traveled Winchester Road. Ms. Bedard said she uses Rustic Glen to get to her personal residence and a signal is needed at Rustic Glen and Winchester Road to help get the cars out onto Winchester Road safely. Bruce Wecl<esser, 27441 Bolandra Court, Temecula, said he feels the proposed use is incompatible with the area. Mr. Weckesser said he feels the bus facility is more compatible with an industrial location. Planning Director Gary Thornhill said an E.I.R. was completed on the project and staff feels all the issues have been addressed regarding this site and the proposed project. Douglas Wood, the environmental consultant for the school district, explained the noise and air quality testing. Chairman Ford questioned Condition No. 7, which talks about parking spaces for visitors and requested the condition stipulate "Visitor Only" and be designated on site as such. Chairman Ford also asked for clarification of Condition No. 11. Commissioner Fahey suggested the language in Condition No. 11 be amended to state "...29 buses operating on-site...". It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 94-08 certifying the Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 94-0002) for Planning PCMIN0510211994 7 0511 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02, 1994 Application No. 93-0157; and Adopt Resolution No. 94-07 approving Planning Application No. 93-0157, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and amend Condition No. 7 to designate "Visitor" parking spaces and amend Condition No. 11 to clarify "....29 buses shall be operating on-site ..... ". The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoegland NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Ford ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Selyer Chairman Ford said he opposed the motion based on the number of buses and the location of the site. He said he is also concerned about the dam inundation study. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT Director Thornhill advised the Commission the first meeting in June will be held at the Rancho California Water District Board Room. Director Thornhill said the Old Town Local Review Board has been re-appointed. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Chairman Ford advised he received a letter from staff to Mr. Bill Harker regarding the light standards at the Senior Center, which will be changed to comply with the Old Town standards. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on May 23, 1994, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary PCMINO5/02/1994 8 0~i/11 ~4 ITEM #3 MEMORANDLrM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning May 23, 1994 Director's Hearing Case Update A Minor Public Use Permit (Planning Application No. PA94-0020) was approv~d on April 28, 1994 at the Planning Direetor's Hearing. Attachment 1. Planning Direetor's Hearing Action Agenda, April 28, 1994 - Blue Page 2 R:~DIP~IEAR~,fEMO~-23-94.DH ~/19/9~ ~/~ ] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S WEARING ACTION AGENDA APIilL 211, 1994 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HI~ARING RF~ULAR M~,F, TING APRH- 28, 1994 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY H/krJ~ MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive T~necula, CA 92390 CAIJ, TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMM~NTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so memben of the public can address to the Senior Phnner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakrs are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be ~ed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Recommendation: Planner: ACTION: I~nnlng Application No. 94-0020, Minor Public Use Permit Temecula United Methodist Church 27919 Front Street, Suites 105, 106, 108, 110, and 112. A church facility that will include approximately 2,040 square feet of assembly area, 825 square feet of classroom area, 287 square feet of nurser~ space and 138 square feet of office area in an existing building A Class 1 Categorical Exemption per Section 15301 (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Approval Matthew Fagan APPROVED ADJOURNMENT R:~DlItHEAR~AGENDA~4-28-94.AGN 5/19/94 klb ITEM #4 PLANNING COMMISSION lvI~.~.TING LOCATION CHANGE FROM VAHj ELEMENTARy TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S BOARD ROOM 42135 WINCFI~.~TER ROAD EFFECTIVE JUNE 6, 1994 ITEM #5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning DATE: May 23, 1994 SUBJECT: Resolutions for Approving Planning Application No. 94-0035 - A one forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign and a fifteen (15) foot high monument sign for the Ynez Car Care Center Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving Planning Application No. 94-0035for a twelve foot high monument sign on Ynez Road based the Findings contained in the Resolution; and ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving Planning Application No. 94-0035 for a forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign based the Findings contained in the Resolution. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission, at their May '2, 1994 meeting, directed Staff to bring back resolutions with Staff recommendations for Planning Application No. 94-0035. Staff has provided two (2) resolutions - one for approval of a twelve foot high sign along Ynez Road and one for a forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign adjacent to Interstate 15. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 2 2. PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 5 R:%STAFFI~vI~36PA94.RES 5/19/94 vgw ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:~STAFFF~T%35PA94.RES 5/19/94 vgw 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. ~.__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TF2v!ECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94~035 - A TWELVE (12) FOOT HIGH MONUMENT SIGN FOR YNEZ CAR CARE CENTER LOCATED ALONG YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 921- WHEREAS, Larry Gabele filed planning Application No. 94-0035 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riveaide County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Plsnning Application No. 94-0035 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered planning Application No. 940035 on May 2, 1994; WHEREAS, the Commission considered aH facts relating to Planning Application No. 94-0035; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES REqOLVE, DF:rF.I?,MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. F~ A. The Planning Commission in approving Pl~nnlng Application No. 94-0035, makes the following findings, to wit: 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The sign provides design excellence in signage, and it serves to preserve and enhance the positive qualities of individual distric~ (the Ynez Road Corridor). Further, it contributes w a streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. Signage is a permitted use within a commercial zoning designation. The project site is located within the Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zone. The proposed signage is within the limits prescribed under Ordinance No. 348 and is consistent with the City's General Plan. The purpose of those documents are to protea the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3. The project conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. Signage is a permiRed use within a commercial zoning designation. The project site is loc.~ed within the Scenic Highway Commercial (C- P-S) zone. Adjacent uses are also located within the C-P-S zoning designation. R:\STAFFI~°T%35PA94.RES 5119/94 vgw 3 B. As conditioned pursuant m Section 4, Planning Application No. 94-0035 as proposed, conforms m the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. See~on 3. Environmental Conreliance. This project is a Categorical Exemption per Article 19, Section 15311 of the California Environm~mtal Quality Act Guidelines. This Exemption states: "Class 11 consists of conslroction, or placemellt of minor structures accessory to existing commercial facilities, including but not limited to on-premise signs." Section 4. PAS~!a~, APPROVED AND ADOI'rEI~ this 23rd day of May, 1994. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I ~Y CERTW'Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the p|annin~ Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 23rd day of May, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:%STAFFI~I'%35PAO4.RES 6119/94 vgw 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94.- R:%STAFFF~'r%35PA94.RES 5119/94 vgw 5 A]TACHMENT N0. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 9~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AlPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-003~ - A REQUEST FOR A FORTY (~0) FOOT HIGH, ONE HUNDREn laFrx' (150) SQUARE FF_J~'r IN AREA FIIEEWAy OIHI~rI'F_AJ SIGN LOCATED AT THE REAR PORTION OF THE YNEZ CAR CARE CENTER AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 921-720-008. WHEREAS, Larry Gabale ~ed planning Application No. 94-0035 in accordance with the City of Temeada General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; VI/JIE~REASi planning Application No. 940035 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the planning Commimsion considered Plnnning Application No. 94-0035 on May 2, 1994; VVI-IEREAS, the Commksion considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. 940035; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, D!~-rER1VIINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ C. The Planning Commission in lipproving Planning Application No. 94-0035, makes the following Findings, to wit: 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The sign provides design excellence in signage, and it serves to preserve and enhance the positive qualifies of individual districts. Further, it contributes to a streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the pwtection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The height selected for the sign is the minimum necessary for effective identification of the site. 3. The project conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign is the minimum necessary for effective identification of the site. D. As condi~oned pursuant to Seaion 4, Planning Application No. 94-0035 as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its pwposed site, and is compatible with the present and fotore development of the surrounding property. R:XSTAFFRF'r~35PA94.RES 5/19/94 vow 6 _S,~__'_,on 3. Environmental Compliance. This project is a C~tegorical Exemption per Article 19, Seaion 153 1 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This Exemption sr~: *Class I l consists of construction, or placement of minor stl'uctllres accessory to existing commercial facilities, including but not limited to on-premise signs.' Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOlq'w this 23rd day of May. 1994. STEVEN J. FORD 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, head on the 23rd day of May, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COM/vHSSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:%STAFFI!q'%35PA94.RES 5110/94 vow 7 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1994 Planning Application No.: PA94.-0028, Revised Plot Plan Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 94-__ approving PA94-0028, Revised Plot Plan, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and APPROVE Planning Application No. PA94-0028, Revised Plot Plan, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Norm Reeves Acura Daniel Rancourt, Walker Rancourt & Associates A revised Plot Plan Application to expand the showroom, office and storage area and to add 18 additional service bays to an existing automobile dealership. 26799, Yne~ Road C-P, General Commercial North: South: East: West: C-P (General Commercial) C-P (General Commercial) C-P (General Commercial) Interstate 15 (I-15) Service Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: General Commercial R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94.PC 5/18/84 klb SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Automobile Dealership Automobile Dealership Vacant Interstate 15 (I-15) BACKGROUND On December 12, 1987, the Riverside County Planning Director Approved Plot Plan No. 10239. The approval permitted automobile sales and service, and the associated structures for the use. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will expand the size of the approved automobile sales and service use. The project will add additional showroom, office and storage area, and 18 additional service bays. ANALYSIS The purpose of the expansion is to accommodate the relocation of the Honda dealership to the subject site. The primary issue for the project is parking. The project will provide a sufficient number of additional parking spaces, both on-site (see Lot A on Exhibit A) and off-site (see Lot C on Exhibit B) for the expanded use. The project has been conditioned to provide a reciprocal parking and access agreement to insure that the off-site parking is reserved for the applicant's proposed use. A second issue is landscaping. The project has been conditioned to enhance the existing landscaping along Ynez Road. Also, the project will replace and/or relocate interior landscaping that is damaged or removed as a result of construction activities. A final issue is architectural compatibility. To insure architectural compatibility, the project has been conditioned to require the new construqtion to match the existing structures for both materials and colors.. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The project site is zoned C-P (General Commercial) and the adjacent parcels are also zoned General Commercial. The proposed expansion of the dealership is consistent with the requirements of the C-P Zone and Sections 18.30 and 18.43 of Ordinance 348 which requires that the proposed use not pose a threat to public health, safety and general welfare of the community. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Service Commercial. The proposed expansion of the existing use is consistent with the Service Commercial designation due to the fact that the changes will not significantly alter the current use. R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94.pC 5/18/94 klb 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 (e)(2). SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with Section 9.1 (General Commercial Zone) of Ordinance No. 348. The use is also consistent with Sections 18.30 and 18.43 of Ordinance No. 348. Sections 18.30 and 18.43 require that the proposed use not pose a threat to public health, safety and general welfare of the community, to conform to the logical development of the land and to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. It is staff's opinion that the expansion is consistent with these requirements. FINDINGS PA94-0028, Revised Plot Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan due to the fact that the automobile dealership use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Service Commercial. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1, 18.30 and 18.43. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area and the use is similar to the surrounding automobile dealerships. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment since the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 (e)(2).. Attachments: Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 4 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Exhibits - Blue Page 13 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map D. Site Plan R:\STAFFRPT\21EIPA94,PC 5/18/94 kib 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94.pC 5118194 klb 4 ATFACI-IN~NT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF TWE~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFIR, CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0028 TO EXPAND AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE DF~LERSF~P BY ADDING ADDITIONAL SHOWROOM, OFFICE AND STORAGE AREAS AND 18 ADDITIONAL SERVICE BAYS ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 2.~ ACRES LOCATED AT 26799 YNI~,Z ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCI~.I. NO. 921- 080-056 WHEREAS, Daniel Rancourt, on behalf of Norm Reeves Acura, fried Planning Application No. PA94-0028 in accordance with the City of Temecnla General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WH1v, REAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0028 was processed in the time and m3nner prescribed by State and local law; WHF, REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0028 on May 23, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in supFen or in opposition; WHF~REAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0028; NOW, THI~,REFO RE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THF, CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI-I~)WS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in appwving Phnnlng Application No. PA94-0028 makes the following findings: A. 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 hw and City ordinances. 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. R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94.pC 5/18/94 klb 5 B. The Planning Commission, in approving proposed Planning Application No. PA94-0028, makes the following specific Findings, to wit: 1. PA94-0028, Revised Plot Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan due to the fact that the automobile dealership use iS consistent with existing ZOning Of General Commercial and the General Plan Land Use designation of Service Commercial. 2. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the requirements of Ordinsne, e No. 348. 3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria proscribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1, 18.30 and 18.43. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not represent a significant Change to the present or planned land use of the area and the use is similar to the surrounding automobile dealerships. 5. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment since the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301(e)(2). C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA94-0028, as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the prosent and futuro development of the surrounding property. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Staff has conducted initial environmental roview for the proposed project. Due to the size of the project, staff has determined that the project could not have a significant impact on the environment. Staff has further determined that, due to the size of the project, the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section .15301(e)(2). Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission heroby approves Planning Application No. PA94-0028 to expand an existing automobile dealership located 26799 Ynez Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-080-056 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached heroto. R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94.pC 5/18/94 klb 6 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this day of , 99_. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I ]:[F. RF..Ry 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 day of , 199__ by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNI-m ,L SECRetARY R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94.pC 5/18/94 klb 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94.PC 5/18/94 kJb ~ CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0028, Revised Plot Plan Project Description: The expansion of an existing automobile dealership to include additional showroom, office and storage areas, and 18 additional service bays. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-080-056 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Bght (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The project shall comply with the underlying conditions of approval for Plot Plan No. 10239, a copy of which has been attached, unless amended herein. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 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 voided by reason of failure of condition. General Requirements The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0028 is for the expansion of an existing automobile dealership to include additional showroom, office and storage area and to add 18 additional service bays. 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 Planning Application No. PA94-0028, Revised Plot Plan. 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. R:~STAFFRPT%25PA94.pC 5/18/94 klb 9 This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" and "B" approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0028, or as amended by these conditions. Landscape planrings shall conform substantially with Exhibit "B" approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0028,or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping along Ynez Road shall conform with the approved underlying landscape plans as to type, size, quantity, and location. 8. Building elevations shall conform substantially with the existing buildings on site. 9. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with those existing on site. 10. A minimum of 113 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. One Hundred Thirteen (113) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit "A". 11. A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 12. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 13. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 14. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans, except as amended herein. Any landscaping that is damaged as a result of construction activities shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 15. 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. FI;\STAFFRPT~28PA94.pC 5118194 klb 10 16. 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: "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. 17. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 18. The applicant shall record a Reciprocal Access Agreement to insure an adequate off- site parking for the project. The party(s) concerned in the shared use of off-street parking facilities shall evidence agreement for such joint use by a proper legal instrument recorded in the office of the County Recorder. 19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 20. 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. 21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 22. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction work. 23. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. 24. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94.PC 5/18/94 klb 11 25. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 26. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 27. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT No new conditions of approval OTHER AGENCIES 28. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated April 18, 1994, a copy of which has been attached. 29. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated April 15, 1994, a copy of which has been attached. R:\STAFFRP'~28PA94.pC 5/18/94 klb 12 Wa r April 18, 1994 Mr. Craig Ruiz City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 RECEIVED APR 19 199~ ~'d ......,, .... SUBJECT: Water Ava~ability Parcel Map 19145, Parcel 7 PA94-0028 Revised Permit Norm Reeves / Acura Dear Mr. Ruiz: 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 fights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager sB:sD:eb$6/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician J TO: FROM: RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL I~ALT!t CITY OF TEMECULA AI'IN: Craig Ruiz ~I~GOR DELLENBACI-'I, Environmental Health Specialist IV PLOT PLAN NO. PA94-002g (PP 10239) RECEIVED APR 2 0 Ans'd..- DATE: April 15, 1994 The Deparlment of Environmental Health has received and reviewed the Plot Plan N0. PA94-0028, (PP 10239) and will require uptht~ "will-serve" letters for water and sewer. The water purveyor is Rancho California Water District and sanitary sewer is provided by Eastem Municipal Water District. CH:dr (909) 275-8980 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING DATE: 12-18-87 RIVERSZDE COU!fff PLANNZNG DEPARTlENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Thomas E. Griffin 40274 Paseo Serena Rancho California, CA 92390 PLOT PLAN N0. 10239 Exh. A AMD #2 Project Description: Automative retail sales & service center Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-080-042 Area: Temecula The permittee shal 1 defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan 10239 Exh. A, Amd. #2. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise .it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, Amended ~2, or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one {1} year or more, this approval shall become null and void. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way~ The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the County Road Department transmittal dated 12-8-87, a copy of which is attached. PL0+ PLNt N0. 10239 Exhlbit A, Amended #2 Conditions of Approval Page 2 Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittal dated 12-3-87, a copy of which is attached. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District transmittal dated 12-17-B7 , a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 12-10-B7, a copy of which is attached.. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10} feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, 6 copies of a Shading, Parking, Landscapipg and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance 348, Section 18.12. A minimum of 75 parking spaces shall' be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Drdinance No. 348. Spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A, Amended #2. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of two (2) handicapped pa~king spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A, Amended-#2. 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, displa ing the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with 1 t less than I inch in height, which clearly and et ering not conspicuously states the following: PLOT PLAN NO, 10239 Exhibit A, ~nended #2 Conditions of Approval Page 3 16. "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed · away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning ." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall obtain ~t'earance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Environmental Health Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of building permits the following additional and/or r~vised plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval: L~Dd~r~n~:]rrig~tionand Sh~dtnq P~lans- [iqhting PiL~n_ Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B. a. Building material shall conform with all standards of Fire, Flood, Planning, and Building and Safety Departments. b. A1Y building materials shall be as shown on materials board Exhibit C. Roof: 50% Monier - roof tile (Villa-203) Glass: 50% Monier - roof tile (Villa-205} Walls: P-505 Agate Stucco - P-44 Pebble Grey Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from' ground view. material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Screening One (1) trash enclosure which is adequate to enclose a total of two (2} bins shall be centrally located within the project, and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens the bins from external view. OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR December 8, 1987 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92051 Re: (Acura Automobile Dealership) Plot Plan 10239 - Amend #2 Taam 1 - SMD #9 Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced item, the Road Department has the following recommendations: Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall complete the following conditions at no cost to any government agency: Sufficient right of way along Ynez Road shall be conveyed for public use to provide for a 50 foot half width right of way. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, or any use allowed by this permi t, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road oep.r ent the sumof S6,475.OO,owards impacts for signal requirements. (2.59;1 ,,475) Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this'permit, the applicant~rra~m construct the following at no cost to any government agency: 3. Ynez Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located 3B feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing paving as determined by the Road Commissioner within a 50 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along Ynez Road in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). 5. Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section 11.1. Plo~ Plan,10239 ' Amend #2 · ~ecemDer 8. 1987 Page 2 All work done within County right of way shall have an encroach- ment permit. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans. Asphaltic emulsion {fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.06 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37° 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the applicant shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. Lj:lh Principal Eng. Technician Coura y of Rixrex-side RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 12-03-87 TTN: avid W~hlgren a~m~l'l'NLa~~nitarian, Environmental Mealtb Svcs Plot Plan 10239, Amended No. Z, FAST TRACK The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan 10239, Amended No. 2, dated December 1,1987. Our comments will remain as stated in our previous memo dated November 20, 1987. SM:tac RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. David S. Wahlgren Riverside 11-20-87 10 9, Fast Track The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan 10239 - Fast Track and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to any building plan submittals, the following items will be submitted: ~. "Will-serve")letters from the water and sewsting agencies. If any hazardous materials are to be handled, stored or processed, the Hazardous MateriaLs Management Section of the Environmental Health Services is to be contacted for specific recommendations at (714) 369-1141. !'!OV 2 ~ !9'~7 PLA?,it;iNG RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT December 17, 1987 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 1 David Wahlgren Ladies and. Gentlemen: Plot Plan 10239 Fast Tract Plot Plan 10239 is a proposal to build an automobile retail sales and service center in the Temecula Valley area on the west side of Ynez Road and about 250 feet south of Solana Way. About 450 cfs of storm runoff approaches the site from the east. Existing storm drains have capacity for about half of the flow. The remainder overtops Ynez Road and traverses the property. The applicant's drainage exhibit proposes to build another pipe to collect the stormwater on the east side of Ynez Road and con- vey it to a freeway culvert. An existing catch basin on Ynez Road in front of the project would be removed. The Board of Supervisors has adopted the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of collecting drainage fees. Those fees are used to construct needed flood control facilities within the particular area. The Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and are normally not required of other types of new development'; Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff. These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti- gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff, the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans and Public Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation charge. Mitigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate. Following are the District's recommendations: l~s ~l~a m~tiaation charge shall be paid. The charge hall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The new development in this case includes a total of 2.59 acres. curren~ charge equal $ ~1 charge is payable Go the Flood Control Dist t m opriissuance of permits. Riverside County Planning Department Re: Plot Plan 10239 Fast Tract - 2 - December 17, 1987 The difference between the 100 year storm flow and the capacity of the existing storm drain system should be collected into a pipe on the east side of Ynez Road. The flows should be conveyed to an adequate outlet. Adequate inlet facilities should be provided to ensure that storm flows will not overtop Ynez Road. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements. The documents should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to issuance of permits. Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owner(s). The document(s) should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to issuance of permits. A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for review and ap- proval prior to the issuance of grading or building per- mits. A registered engineer must sign, seal and note his expiration date on plans and calculations submitted. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Stuart McKibbin of this office at 714/787-2333. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief Engineer JOHN H. KASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer 1) Markham & Associates 2) To-Mac Engineering 3) Thomas E. Griffin SEM:bjp 'Subject= PP 10239 Page 2 7. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintaine~ as fire lanes. 8. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. J. wpc~ntact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. · Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit th the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of 25~ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. lO. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in .Building.and Safety. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. WES ALSTON, Deputy Fire Marshal =IiVE::[)iDE COUn;V PL, nnine DEP, mX::IDilEn; DATE: November 19, 1987 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game NOV 3 0 1987 RECEIVED RIVEH~IUi-. ~UUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENlit0V ~ 4 19B7 LAFCO, S. Paisley U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson pjkLO,MA.R OBSER':.~IORY Rancho Water Dist. So. Calif. Edison So. Calif. Gas General Telephone CALTRANS ~8 Mt. Palomar Commissioner Bresson PLOT PLAN 10239 FAST TRACT (Tm 1} - E.A. 32105 - Thomas E. Griffin Jr. - Markham AssOc. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - ynez Road, E. of 1-15, SW of Solana Way C-1/C-p Zone - 2.59 Acres - REfitlEST: Auto retail sales service center - {RELATED CASE PM 19145} - Hod 119 - A.P. 921-080-~42 FTA-OOl-87 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case maD. A Land Division Connittee meeting has heen tentatively scheduled for November 3D, 1987. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to ASAP in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regardinq this item, David S. Wahlgren at 787-1363 Planner please do not hesitate to contact COMMENTS: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DATE: 11/24/87 SIGNATURE PLEASE print name and title Dr, gobert~J. Brucato/AR~i~n~ 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787'6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619m 342-8277 · ) CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY This case is viihim 30 miles of the Palomar Observatox7 and is therefore within the zone requiring the use of low-pressure sodium vapor lamns for street lighting, as stipulated by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. We request that the design for other types of outdoor lighting that may be employed on this property be made consistent with the spirit of the decision of the Board of Supervisors which is intended to mitigate the adverse effects such facilities have on Zhe astronomical research at Palomar. Beneficial steps to that end include: 1. Use the minimum amount of light needed for the task. 2. Orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. Turn off lights at 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in commercial applications, the associated business is open past that time, in which case the lights should be turned off at closing. Use low-pressure sodium lamps for roadways, walkways, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other similar applications. These lights need not be turned off at 11:00 p.m. For further information, call (818) 356-4035. Robert J. Brucato Assistant DirecEor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAN ~/NARD~NO, CA 92402' December 1, 1987 DEC 05 1987 RIVEHSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT G['O~GE DEUK/v~JIAN, Gm,wffter Development Review 08-Riv-15-4.98 Your Reference: PP 10239 Planning Department Attention David S. Wahlgren County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Mr. Wahlgren: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan 10239 located at Ynez Road, easterly of Interstate 15, southwesterly of Solana Way in the Rancho California area. 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. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Patrick M. Connally at (714) 383-4384. .Very truly yours, H. N. LEWANDOWSKI District Permits Engineer Att. cc: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department otm eferenoe) WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE: Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal do not appear to hav~ a significant effect on the state highway system, consideration must be given to the cumlative effect of continued development in this area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the c~.mlative impact of traffic and drainage should be provided prior to or with development or the area that necessitates them. It appears that the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal could have a significant effect on the state highway system of the area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the traffic and drainage impacts should be included with the development. This portion of state highway is included in the California Master Plan of State Highways Eligible for Official Scenic Highway Designation, and in the future your agency my. wish to have this route officially designated as a state scenic highway. This portion of state highway has been officially designated as a state scenic highway, and development in this corridor should be compatible with the scenic highway concept. It is ~ecognized that there is cOWsiderable public concern about noise levels adjacent £o heavily traveled highways. Land development, in order to be compatible with this' concern, may require special noise attenuation measures. Development of property should include any necessary noise attenuation. WE RECOMMEND: Normal right of way dedication to provide __half-width on the state highway. Normal street improvements to provide __half-width on the state highway. Curb and gutter, State Standard __along the state highway. Parking he prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs. __ radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway. A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns. A positive vehicular harrier along the property frontage be provided to limit physical access to the state highway. Vehicular access not be developed directly to the state highway. Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by existing public road connections. Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by driveways. standard Vehicular access shall not be provided within of the intersection at Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by a road-type connection. · Form 8-PD19 (Rev. 5/87) (Continued on reverse) Access points to the state highway be developed in a manner that will provide sight distance for mph along the state highway. / Landscaping ~long the state highway be low and forgiving in nature. A left-turn lane, including any necessary widening, be provided on the state highway at Consideration be given to the provision, or future provia)on, of signalization and lighting of the intersection of and the state highway. A traffic study indicating on- and off-site flow patterns and volumes, probable impacts, and proposed mitigation measures be prepared. Adequate off-street parking, which does not require backing onto the state highway, be provided. Pa~king lot be developed in a manner that will not cause any vehicular movement conflicts, including parking stall entrance and exit, within of the entrance from the state highway. Handicap parking not be developed in the busy driveway entrance area. Care be taken when developing this property to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the state highway. Particular consideration should be given to cuu~ulative-increased storm runoff to insure that a highway drainage problem is not created. Please refer to attached additiona! comments. WE WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE: A copy of any conditions of approval or revised approval. A copy of any documents providing additional state highway right of way upon recordation of the map. WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCE~: Any proposals to further develop this property. A copy of the traffic or environmental study, if required. A check print of the Parcel or Tract Map, if required. A check print of the Plans fOr'any improvements within the state highway right of way, if required. A check print of the Grading and Drainage Plans for this property when available. Board of Directors: Dallas A. Gray P~sjdent Richard D. Steffey Sr. Vic~ President James A. Darby Doug Kulberg Tom A, Leevers Jon A. Lundln T. C. Bowe Officers: Stan T. Mills General Manager Philllp L. Forbes Director of Finance Norman L. Thomas Director of Engineering Thomas R. McAliester Director of Operations & Majntena.uce Barbara J. Reed Director of Adrn/n3sLracion - District Secretary. Jeffrey L. Minklet T~urer Rutan and Tucker Legal Counsel December 7, 1987 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th. Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water and Sewer Availability Reference: Lot 54 of Parcel Map 20839 (Cal Oaks) Plot Plan 10237 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water and sewer 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 RCWD can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Senga P. Doherty Engineering Services Representative SD:dpm162 28061 NCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRIC_.T DIAZ ROAD * POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 * 714 676-43.~ DATE: November 9, 1987 RiVERSiDE counc,u PLAnninG DEPA=ICITIEnC TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game LAFCO, S Paisley U.S. Postal Servtce- Ruth E. Davidson Rancho California Water Southern Ca]if. Edison Southern Calif. Gas General Telephone Dept. of Transportation #8 Eastern Municipal Water Mr. Palomar Temecula Historical Dist, Sheriffs Dept. Commissioner Bresson 1987 PLOT PLAN 10266 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 32146 - Michael Nicholas - Markham & Associates - Rancho/Temecula District - First Supervisorial District - North of Sixth Street, East of Front Street - C-1/C-P Zone - 1.5 acres - {REQUEST PP Commercial Shopping Center) - Mod 11g - A.P. 922-020-014,015,016,017 'Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for January 21, 1988. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to january 7, 1988 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Dave Wahlqren at 787-1363 Planner COMMENTS: Mode of future delivery: centralized. Contact with U.S.P.S. Growth Coordinator required before construction for delivery location. DATE:/,~-7-~7SIGNATURE - -'~',,,~ PLEASE pri.t .ame a.d title ~ ~'r,<z ~',~ ~./+,~ ~-~ 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT%28PA94.pC 5/18/94 klb 13 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PA94-0028, REVISED PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT: A P.C. DATE: MAY 23, 1994 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94.PC 5/18/94 klb CITY OF TEMECULA cc BP ' O ""'i LM '~) VL M ~) _,./ BP CC EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION - SERVICE COMMERCIAL / ;ITE EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: C-P, GENERAL COMMERCIAL CASE NO.: PA94-0028, REVISED PLOT PLAN P.C. DATE: MAY 23, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94..PC 5/18/94 klb CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: PA94-0028, REVISED PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT: D P.C. DATE: MAY 23, 1994 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRFT~28PA94.PC 5/18/94 klb ITEM #7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 23, 1994 Case No.: Proposed Amendments to the Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs Prepared By: John R. Meyer RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 94- ordinance entitled: recommending adoption of an "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 348, 92-16, 93-12 AND 94-05 PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS.' APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: An Ordinance Amending the Standards for Temporary Signs. LOCATION: Citywide PURPOSE The purpose of this Staff Report is to forward proposed amendments to the Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. BACKGROUND The City Council approved the Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs and associated Fee Resolution on October 27, 1992. The commission last considered the modifications to the subject ordinance at its March 1, 1993 meeting. Subsequent to that, the Council approved the modifications on May 23, 1993. After a series of information letters and public outreach, enforcement of the ordinance began in October '93. At its November 23, 1993 meeting the Council heard complaints about the compliance program. On December 14, 1993 the City Council instructed Staff to do the following: Stop enforcement, except for temporary signs located in the public right-of-way and on vehicles; Work with two members of the local business community to recommend modifications to the allowable time periods for temporary signs and make a recommendation to the City Planning Commission; and, 3. Return any recommended ordinance amendments to the City Council. DISCUSSION On January 27, 1994, the City sent letters to Bruce Sparks (Whipper Snapper Furniture) and Debbie Kerns (Gently Used Furniture) requesting their recommendations on modifications to the subject ordinance. They were requested to meet with other local business owners in preparing the modifications. Local business owners met on April 5, to discuss changes to the ordinance. On April 14, 1994 staff met Mr. Sparks to receive their proposed changes. Attachment I shows the changes proposed by the local business owners representatives. In general, the recommendation proposes: Larger signs More signs Longer time periods for displaying signs Less "down" time between signs. Limitations on height and width of detached signs The business owners also recommended changes beyond the scope of Council direction, they include: Enforcement Policy, leave illegal sign alone unless responding to a specific complaint. No Permit required for Temporary Signs displayed for under 30 days. No regulation of Window Signs One A-frame sign per business, located on private property with property owner approval. ANALYSIS Staff recognizes the need for local businesses to have the opportunity to advertise special events and sales during the year. Staff is still concerned about the increased visual blight and clutter that may result in the community as a result of the proposed changes. It is staff's opinion that the proposed changes may not be in the best interest of the community. Initially, staff believed the existing ordinance, with its over-the-counter permit process with reasonable time frames and standards, would be easily complied with the business community. The feedback that staff has received from many local business owners is that they are the willing to comply with local ordinances so long as the regulations are applied equally, In fact, however, compliance and enforcement of the existing regulations has not been a smooth process. Many people who have addressed the Council cited the need for temporary signs is increased because of the poor economic times. Staff sees underlying land uses implications and lack of sufficient resources as reasons for problems associated with the ordinance. In light of the concerns expressed by the Council to work with the local business owners, staff has stepped back away from the existing ordinance and re-evaluated what is the purpose of temporary signs. During its initial meetings, the Temporary Sign Committee concluded: · That temporary signs are often needed during the initial start-up period for new businesses until the permanent signage is available. · That temporary signs are often needed during special .sales or promotional activities. · The permit process for temporary signs should be an easy, over-the-counter process. · That temporary signs can provide for unfair competition. · That all businesses need to be regulated equally. That temporary signs are not an alternative to a "cheap" low visibility site or poor marketing. That excessive signage creates the image of a low quality community and could result in visual blight and clutter. · That temporary signs can obstruct the view of other businesses and their signs. · That special standards are needed for Old Town Temecula. To this end staff is proposing a major overhaul of the ordinance as it applies outside of Old Town. Staff's intent is to adjust the ordinance to more realistically match resources available to enforce it, while continuing to meet the above purposes. The ordinance revisions will result in certain compromises by both the Community and the local business owners. Attachment 2 shows the changes proposed by the Staff. In general, the recommendation proposes: No distinction on the types of temporary signs (Promotional, Grand Opening, Interim or Special Events). One uniform banner per business. Sign area as follows: Businesses under 5,000 sq. ft.: 20 sq. ft. Businesses 5,001 to 20,000 sq. ft.: 32 sq. ft. Businesses Over 20,000 si3. ft.: 50 sq. ft. Banners must be attached to the building's tenant space, no higher than the top of the eave or parapet wall. NO time limit. No permit, no fee. No regulation of Window Signs. Maintain current list of prohibited signs (including A-frames). Maintain regulations for Temporary Special Event Signs The merits of these standards are as follows: Local business owners will be able to advertise grand openings, promotional event and similar items. Eliminates permit process and fee. Establishes "level" playing field. Provides for easy compliance and enforcement by eliminating time periods for displaying signs and time period between sign events. 3 A trade off between A frames and window signs (windows signs do not have the inherent visibility/safety concerns that A-frames have). Although this will result in some businesses using temporary signs for permanent identification and/or display temporary signs year round, the uniform size of the signs will decrease visual clutter. Maintaining regulations for Temporary Special Event Signs allows for advertisement of community activities. CONCLUSION The proposed amendments to the Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs would amend portions of Sections 19.9 of Article XIX, Ordinance 348 as recommended by the local business owners representatives or by staff. The Commission may consider recommending either proposed modifications, or recommending to the Council to leave the existing ordinance in place. Regardless of which recommendation the Commission chooses, it may wish to further recommend to the Council that the Ordinance be actively enforced until a new City Sign Ordinance is developed. This task is in the Planning Department's 1994-95 FY Workprogram and should be completed within an 8-12 month time period. During this time period tha compliance with, and results of the Ordinance regulating Temporary Signs can be monitored. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Staff has reviewed the General Plan and compared it with the proposed amendments to the Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs. During the review, staff was unable to identify any policies or programs which would prohibit the proposed ordinance amendments. As a result, staff finds the proposed amendments to be inconsistent with the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This Ordinance amendment will expand the use of temporary signs for limited periods in existing commercial and service districts. As a result, the proposed Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs does not have the potential to cause significant impacts on the environment and the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3). FINDINGS There is a need to improve the competitiveness of service and commercial businesses and maintain the aesthetic quality of all areas in the City. The overuse of temporary signs results in visual clutter, the deterioration of the City's commercial and service districts, and the inefficient use of business advertising resources. The proposed amendments to the Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs will provide for effective identification. The proposed amendmentsto the Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs are consistent with the General Plan. 5. The proposed amendments to the Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs are consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan. Attachments: Resolution - Blue Page 6 Combined Redline/Strike-out Draft of the Temporary Sign Regulations, as proposed by the local business owners representatives - Blue Page 9 Draft standards recommended by staff - Blue Page 10 Exiting Ordinance Regulating Temp Signs - Blue Page 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION ATrACI-IlV~-NT NO. 1 PC I~E~OLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECUIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 348 AND 92-16 PERTAINING TO TRE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS. WREREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 was adopted by reference certain portions of the non-codi~ed Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348 ("Land Use Code"), by the City Council for the City of Temecula; and WREREAS, City Ordinance No. 92-16, 93-12 and 94-05 were adopted by the City Council for the City of Temecula; and WREREAS, City Ordinance No. 92-16, 93-12 and 94-05 were amended portions of Ordinance No. 348 and provided standards for the provision of temporary signs within the City of Temecula; and WHEREAS, these regulations do not contain adequate provisions for the use of temporary signs; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City/"I~l!, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on March 23, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TRT~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES REqOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby finds that the proposed Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs will provide for the establishment of regulations for temporary signs. Section 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds that the proposed amendments to the Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs are consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan when it is adopted. Section 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further fmds that the proposed amendments to the Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs are consistent with the General Plan when it is adopted. Section 4. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds that the proposed Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs does not have the potevslal to cause a significant impacts on the environment end has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Seclion 15061 Co) (3). Section 5. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City Council that the Council adopts the proposed Ordinance Regulating Temporary Signs. The Ordinance is inenrporated into this P~solution by this reference and marks! Attachment "2" for identification. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 1994. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I HERI~-RY 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 23rd day of March, 1993 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTACHMENT NO. 2 COMBINED REDLINE/STRIKE-OUT DRAFT OF THE TEMPORARY SIGN REGULATIONS, AS PROPOSED BY THE LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS REPRESENTATIVES 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 DRAFT AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF HANDOUT ON THE ORDINANCE REGULATING TEMPORARY SIGNS is located and sham comply with the following requirements: The maximum height to the top of any sign shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. requirements: The dimensions of any sign shall not exceed any the following ( 1 ) The surface area shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet. (2) The height (vertical dimension) shall not exceed three (3) feet. (3) The width (horizontal dimension) shall not exceed f'tfteen (15) feet. c. Special event signs may be allowed for any period up to forty-five (45) days. The Director of Planning may allow one time extension, for any period up to an additional thirty (30) days, with good cause. It is the responsibility for the proponent of the extension to justify why the extension is appropriate. 3. Special event signs for special community-wide events, such as the Tractor Races and Wine and Balloons Festival, may be allowed additional supplemental and/or directional tempora~ signage at the discretion of the Director of Planning. All supplemental temporary signs should follow the criteria and standards contained in Sections 1 and 2 above. Supplemental directional signage should not exceed thirty two (32) square feet on arterial roadways and twenty four (24) square feet on minor roadways. The appropriate sizes and locations for all supplemental and/or directional temporary signs shall be determined by the Director of Planning. F. Hardship Provision. The Director of Planning may approve a Hardship Situation Temporary Sign Permit in cases of extreme hardship and unusual circumstances relating to the property where the business is located, including off-site construction activities that may disrupt the public's access to the business. Hardship Situation Temporary Signs shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of the Temporary Sign Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. 1. The proponent of a request for a hardship situation temporary sign shall be responsible for clearly demonstrating that an extreme hardship and unusual circumstance exists, and that the extreme hardship and unusual circumstances warrants the approval of a hardship situation temporary sign, and that strict implementation of the Temporary Sign Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. 2. The DirecWr of Planning may issue a Temporary Sign Permit for a hardship situation for any period up to six (6) months. Determination of the number, size, and location of temporary signs for hardship situations shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning. IEMPSlGN.CMP 6 (02/22/94} HANDOUT ON lnE ORDINANCE REGULATING TEMPORARY SIGNS 3. Any hardship temporary sign permit issued shall be conditioned to ensure that said permit does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area and to protect the public health, safety or weftare. Section 19.10. TEMPORARY SIGNS IN HISTORIC OLD TOWN TEMECULA. No person shall erect, place or install any temporary sign in Historic Old Town Temecula in viohtion of the provisions of this Article. A. Permit Required. A Temporary Sign Permit shall be required prior to the placing, erecting, or installing of any promotional, special event, grand opening, or interim sign. All such temporary signs shall comply with the provisions of this ordinance and all other applicable laws and ordinances. An application for a permit shall be made on the forms and in the manner specified by the Director of Planning and shall be accompanied by the required fees or removal bond set by resolution of the City Council. The foliowing procedure shall govern the application for, and issuance of, all temporary sign permits under this Article: 1. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of a completed application for a Temporary Sign Permit, the Director of Planning shall either: a. Issue the Temporary Sign Permit, if the sign(s) that is the subject of the application conforms in every respect with the requirements of this Article; or b. Deny the Temporary Sign Permit ff the sign(s) that is subject of the application fails in any way to conform with the requirements of this Article. The Director of Planning shall specify in any denial the section or sections of the Article with which the sign(s) is inconsistent. 2. In addition to the temporary sign standards listed in this section, the Director of Planning may attach to any Temporary Sign Permit conditions of approval deemed necessary to ensure the compatibility with the surrounding area and to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. These standards do not apply to the Highway Tourist Commercial District of the Old Town Specific Plan. The Temporary Sign Regulations in Section 19.9 are used in this area. B. Old Town Local Review Board. The Director of Planning is hereby authorized to consult with the Old Town Local Review Board to prepare any supplemental requirements regulating the size, shape, materials, color, or character of temporary signs in Historic Old Town Temecula that the Director deems necessary to maintain the chaxaeter of Old Town. C. Prohibitions. All Temporary signs not expressly permitted by this Ordinance are prohibited, including but not limited to the following: Portable signs, including, but not limited to animals, human beings, A-Frames, T-Frames, and those of a similar nature located in the public right-of-way or on public property. TEHPSIGN.CHP 7 (02/22/9~) HANDOUT ON THE ORDINANCE REGULATING TEMPORARY SIGNS 2. Portable signs, including but not limited to animals, human beings, A- Frames, T-Frames, and those of a siroilar nature located on private property, except as permitted by the Old Town Specific Plan. 3. Vehicle mounted signs. 4. Pennants and streamers. 5. Promotional signs, except as permitted by this Section. 6. Interim signs, except as permitted by this Section. 7. Special event signs, except as permitted by this Section. 8. Grand opening signs, except as permitted by this Section. 9. Flashing or rotating temporary signs. 10. Off-site temporary signs. 11. Temporary roof signs. 12. Temporary signs on public property or in the public right-of-way. D. Promotional Signs in Historic Old Town Temecula. Promotional signs in Historic Old Town Temecula are permitted in the Community Commercial, Tourist Retail Core, Community Commercial & Tourist Support, and with at0proved commercial uses in the Tourist Serving Residential Districts and shall comply with the requirements of the Old Town Specific Plan. Window signs which are consistent with the provisions of the Old Town Specific Plan do not require a permit. In addition to window signs, the OM Town Spedtic Plan allows Portable A-Frame Signs: 1. A-Frame Signs are allowed only on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. 2. The maximum size of any A-Frame sign may not exceed 3.5 feet in height and 2 feet in width. 3. Portable A-Frame signs may not be illuminated and may not be located on public property or within the right-of-way. E. Grand Opening and Interim Signs in Historic Old Town Temecula. Grand opening and interim signs in Historic Old Town Temecula are permitted in the Community Commercial, Tourist Retail Core, Community Commercial/Tourist Support Districts, with approved commercial uses in the Tourist Serving Residential District, and shall comply with the requirements listed below: 1. For each use or business activity; up to one (1) sign may be allowed. Except for a use or business activity with frontage on two or more arterial streets, then up to two (2) signs may be allowed. 2. Grand opening signs may be permitted once in the first ninety (90) days of business operation. 3. Interim signs are for interim and emergency purposes and shall contain only the business name and logo. No interim sign may be permitted unless an application for a permit to construct a permanent sign has been fried with the Department of Building and Safety. TEHPSIGN.CNP 8 (02/22/96) HANDOUT ON THF: ORDINANCE REGULATING TEMIN3RARY SIGNS 4. All Grand opening and interim signs shall be attached to the building where the use or activity is located and shall comply with the following requirements: a. The maximum height of the top of any sign shall not exceed the top of the cave line or parapet wall of the building where the use or activity is located. The dimensions of any sign shall not exceed any the following requirements: (1) The surface area shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. (2) The height (vertical dimension) shall not exceed three (3) feet. (3) The width (horizontal dimension) shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the business or store frontage, whichever is smaller. c. Grand opening and interim signs may be allowed for any period up to forty-five (45) days. The D'irector of Planning may allow one time extension, for any period up to thirty (30) days, with good cause. It is the responsibility for the proponent of the extension to justify why the extension is appropriate. Special Event Signage in Historic OM Town is regulated by the standards contained in Section 19. 9. E of this Ordinance. However, color and design standards contained in the Specific Plan. F. Hardship Provision. The Director of Planning may approve a Hardship Situation Temporary Sign Permit in Historic Old Town Temecula in cases of extreme hardship and unusual circumstances relating to the property where the business is located, including off-site construction activities that may disrupt the public's access to the business. Hardship Situation Temporary Signs shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of the Temporary Sign Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. 1. Thl proponent of a request for a hardship situation temporary sign shall be responsible for clearly demonstrating that an extreme hardship and unusual circumstance exists, and that the extreme hardship and unusual circumstances warrants the approval of a hardship situation temporary sign, and that strict implementation of the Temporary Sign Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classLfication. 2. The Director of Planning may issue a Temporary Sign Permit for a hardship situation for any period up to six (6) months. Determination of the number, size, and location of temporary signs for hardship situations shall be at the discretion of the D'irector of Planning. 3. Any hardship temporary sign permit issued shall be conditioned to ensure that said permit does not constitute a grant of special priv~ege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vic'mity and in the same zone, to ensure compatibility with the TEHPSIGN.CNP ~ HANDOUT ON THE ORDINANCE REGULATING TElVlI~RARY SIGNS surrounding area and the Old Town Specific Plan, and to protect the public health, safety or weftare. DEFINITIONS t. "Temporary Sign" means a sign which is made of cloth, bunting, plastic, vinyl, poster board, painted windows, or other similar materials, and which is located on site of the business use or activity, and is erected or phced for a prescribed period of time to promote, advertise, announce, or provide the following information: (1) Designates, identifies, or indicates the name of the business, owner, or occupant of the premises where the sign is located; or, (2) Advertises the business conducted, the services available or rendered, or goods produced, sold, or available for sale upon the premises where the sign is located. For the purpose of this Ordinance, temporary signs do not include For Sale, Lease or For Rent Signs (which are regulated by Section 19.5), Temporary Political Signs (which axe regulated by Section 19.7), or seasonal window displays that contain traditional holiday characters and messages and which are intended to create or enhance holiday character of an area and do not reference or display service available or rendered, or goods produced, sold or available for sale. u. "Promotional Sign" means a temporary sign intended to attract attention to a use or activity for a limited number of events as identified in this ordinance. v. "Window Sign" means any written representation, emblem or other character, or sign which is painted, attached, glued, or affixed to a window or is otherwise easily visible from the exterior of the building where the advertised product or service is available. w. "Interim Sign" means a temporary sign intended to provide interim signage while the permanent signage is being fabricated, repaired, or prepared for installation. x. "Special Event Sign" means a temporary sign for special community activities or seasonal events. By way of example only, such activities or events may include charitable and community fund raising events, Christmas tree sales, the tractor races, or the annual Temecula wine and balloon festival. y. "Grand Opening Sign" means a temporary sign, beating the words "Grand Opening", or some similar message to announce the opening of a new business. z. "Temporax-J Sign Event" means any number of consecutive days, up to thirty (30), for the display of any promotional sign." aa. "Portable Sign" means a sign not designed to be attached to a building or structure, vehicle or trailer. Examples of portable signs include, but are not limited to: A-Frames, also known as sandwich boards and T-Frames, also known as spring-loaded TEHPSIGN.CHP 10 (02/22/9~) HANDOUT ON THE ORDINANCE REGULATING i'EMPORARY SIGNS signs. bb. "Vehicle Mounted Sign" means any temporary sign attached or mounted on any vehicle or trailer, whether or not the tires and wheels are still attached, and whether or not any such vehicle has an engine or other internal combustion machine contained within it. "ec. "Historic Old Town Temecula" means all the land use districts within the Old Town Specific Plan, except for the Highway Tourist Commercial and Community Commercial Districts." dd. "Attached temporary sign" means a temporary sign which is mounted, placed, or attached only to the permanent building where the business activity is conducted. ee. "Detached temporary sign" means a temporary sign which is partially attached to a permanent building, attached to a temporary structure such as a pole or pipe, or any combination of the above. Detached temporary signs do not include portable or vehicle mounted signs. ft. "A-Frame" means a portable advertising device which is commonly in the shape of an "A" , or some variation thereof, is located on the ground, is easily moveable, and is usually two-sided. ENFORCEMENT Violations It shall be unlawful for any poEon to violate any provision of this ordinance. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor as bereinafter specified. Such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance is committed, continued, or permitted. Any person so convicted shall be, (1) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fme not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for a f~rst violation; and (2) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a f'me not exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for a second infraction. A third and any additional violation shall constitute a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable by a free not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or six (6) months in jail, or both. Notwithstanding the above, a first offense may be charged and prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Payment of any penalty herein shall not relieve a person from the responsibility for correcting any violation. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and ff for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance. TEHPSIGN.CHP ~ (02/22/94) ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXISTING ORDINANCE REGULATING TEMP SIGNS 11 ORDINANCE REGULATING TEMPORARY SIGNS (ORDINANCE NO. 92-16, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NOS. 93-12 AND 94-0~ PURPOSE This handout contains the combined provisions of City ordinances regulating temporary signs. The purpose of this handout is to provide the tempoFary sign regulations into a single unified and combined format to facilitate the application, permit, and approval processes. This handout contains the complete integrated copy of the City of Temecula's Temporary Sign Regulations as adopted in Ordinance 92-16 and amended by Ordinances 93-12 and 94- 05. The organization of this handout is as follows: · Temporary Sign Regulations outside of Historic Old Town Temecula (Section 19.9); · Temporary Sign Regulations for Historic Old Town Temecula (Section 19.10); · Definitions (portions of Section 19.2); and, · Enforcement and Severability provisions. This handout also contains additional information which further clarifies or explains the City's temporary sign regulations or standards. This additional information is shown in Italics. LEGISLATIVE HIRTORY The City of Temecula's original ordinance allowing temporary signs was Ordinance 92-16. Ordinance 92-16 created Section 19.9 and 19.10, and amended Section 19.2 of Article XIX of Ordinance No. 348. This Ordinance received it's Second Reading by the City Council on October 16, 1992. Ordinance 92-16 was amended in 1993 by Ordinance 93-16 which received it's Second Reading on June 8, 1993. Ordinance 93-12 amended Subsections C, D, and E of Section 19.9, amended Subsections D, E, and F of Section 19.10, and added additional definitions to Section 19.2. Ordinance 94-05 adopted the Land Use and Zoning regulations for the Old Town Specific Plan and amended portions of Ordinances 92-16 and 93-12 to make the Temporary Sign Ordinance consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan. The Ordinance amended portions of Sections 19.2 and 19.10 and received its Second Reading on February 22, 1994. INDEX OF REGULATIONS BASIC TEMPORARY SIGN [ CITYWIDE [ OLD TOWN TEMECULA ORDINANCE PROVISIONS (Except Old Town Temecula) (In TRC, CCTS, and TSR Areas) Permit Required Page 2 Page 7 Prohibitions Page 2 Page 7 Promotional Signs Page 3 Page 8 Grand Opening &Interim Signs Page 4 Page 8 Special Event Signs Page 5 Page 5 Hardship Provisions Page 6 Page 9 Definitions Page 10 TEMPSIGN.CMP ~ (02/22/94) HANDOUT ON THe: ORDINANCE REGULATING TEMPORARY SIGNS TEMPORARY SIGN REGULATIONS Section 19.9. TEMPORARY SIGNS. No person shall erect, place, or install any temporary sign that is in violation of the pwvisions of this Article. A. Permit Required. A Temporary Sign Permit shall be required prior to the phcing, erecting, or installing Of any promotional, special event, grand opening, or interim sign. AH such temporary signs shah comply with the pwvisions of this ordinance and all other applicable laws and ordinances. An application for a permit shall be made on the forms and in the manner specified by the Director of Planning and shah be accompanied by the required fees or removal bond set by resolution of the City Council. The following procedure shall govern the application for, and issuance of, all temporary sign permits under this Article: 1. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of a completed application for a Temporary Sign Penit, the Director of Planning shah either: a. Issue the Temporary Sign Permit, ff the sign(s) that is the subject of the application cooforms in every respect with the requirements of this Article; or b. Deny the Temporary Sign Permit if the sign(s) that is subject of the application fails in any way to conform with the requirements of this Article. The Director of Planning shall specify in any denial the section or sections of the Article with which the sign(s) is inconsistent. 2. In addition to the temporary sign standards listed in this section, the Director of Planning may attach to any Temporary Sign Permit conditions of approval deemed necessary to ensure the compatibility with the surrounding area and to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. B. Prohibitions. All Temporary Signs not expressly permitted by this Ordinance axe prohibited, including but not limited to the following: 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Portable signs, including, but not limited to animals, human beings, A-Frames, T-Frames, and those of a similar nature located in the public right-of-way or on public property. Portable signs, including, but not limited to animals, human beings, A-Frames, T-Frames, and those of a similar nature located on private property. Vehicle mounted signs (except permanent business identification signs). Pennants and streamers. Promotional signs, except as permitted by this Section. Interim signs, except as permitted by this Section. Special event signs, except as permitted by this Section. Grand opening signs, except as permitted by this Section. Window signs occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the non-door window area, except as permitted by this Section. Hashing or rotating temporary signs. TEMPS|GN.CMP 2 (02/22/94) H_ANDOUT ON 1HE ORDINANCE REGULATING Tt~IPORARY SIGNS 11. Off-site temporary signs. 12. Temporary roof signs. 13. Temporary signs on public property or in the public right-of-way, except as permitted under Section 19.9.F of this Ordinance. 14. Temporary signs in Itistoric Old Town Temecula, except as permitted under Section 19.10 of this Ordinance. The Highway Tourist Commercial Distria within the OM Town Specific Plan does not use the temporary sign standards contained in Section 19.10. The citywide temporary sign regulations contained in Seaion 19.9 apply in that area. C. Promotional Signs. Promotional signs are permitted in the C-l, C-P, C-P-S, C-T, and M-SC zones and shall comply with the appropriate requirements listed below: 1. In any year (/e. 12 consecutive months) attached and detached temporary signage may not be used in any combination. 2. All promotional signs shall be located on the site where the use or activity is located. The standards for the various types of promotional signs axe as follows: Attached promotional signs shall comply with the following requirements: ( 1 ) The maximum height of the top of any attached promotional sign shall not exceed the top of the cave line or parapet wall of the building where the use or activity is located. (2) The dimensions shall not exceed any the following: (a) The surface area shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet. (3) feet. (b) The height (vertical dimension) shall not exceed three (c) The width (horizontal dimension) shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the business or store frontage, whichever is smaller. requirements: Detached promotional signs shall comply with the following ( 1 ) The maximum height of the top of any detached promotional sign shall not exceed six (6) feet above the ground. (2) The surface area shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet. TEHPSlGN.CHP 3 (0Z/22/94) HANDOUT ON THE ORDINANCE REGULATING TEMPORARY SIGNS (3) Detached promotional signs shall be mounted to a frame. The frame shall be constructed of attractive permanent materials and shall be constructed so that no additional supports or bracing is required. (4) No detached promotional sign may be permitted, placed, erected or installed if the detached promotional sign blocks, restricts or impairs any of the following: (a) The public's view of another business or activity; (b) The public' s view of the signage for another business or activity; (c) The view or visibility of the operator of any motor vehicle; or, (d) The movement of any pedestrian or motor vehicle. c. Promotional signs that are located on window surfaces shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the non-door window area, except that no permit shall be required for promotional window signs that cover ten percent (10%) or less of the non-door window surface area. 3. The maximum duration for detached promotional signs is two thirty (30) day periods per calendar year, provided that them shall be a minimum sixty (60) day interval between any two thirty (30) day periods. The maximum duration for attached promotional signs is four thirty (30) day periods per calendar year, provided that there shall be a minimum sixty (60) day interval between any two thirty (30) day periods. D. Grand Opening and Interim Signs. Grand opening and interim signs are permitted in the C-l, C-P, C-P-S, C-T, and M-SC zones and shall comply with the appropriate requirements listed below: 1. For each use or business activity; up to one (1) sign may be allowed. Except for a use or business activity with frontage on two or morn arterial streets, then up to two (2) signs may be allowed. 2. Grand opening signs may be permitted once in the fast ninety (90) days of business operation. 3. Interim signs are for interim and emergency purposes and shall contain only the business name and logo. No interim sign may be permitted unless an application for a permit to construct a permanent sign has been fried with the Department of Building and Safety. 4. All Grand opening and interim signs shall be attached to the building where the use or activity is located and shall comply with the following requirements: TEHPSlGN.CNP 4 {02/22/94) BANDOUT ON T~E ORDINANCE REGULATING Iv_,MPORARY SIGNS a. The maximum height of the top of any sign shall not exceed the top of the cave line or parapet wall of the building where the use or activity is located. The dimensions of any sign shall not exceed any the following requirements: (I) The surface area shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. (2) The height (vertical dimension) shall not exceed three (3) feet. (3) The width (horizontal dimension) shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the business or store frontage, whichever is smaller. c. Grand opening and interim signs may be allowed for any period up to forty-five (45) days. The Director of Planning may allow one time extension, for any period up to thirty (30) days, with good cause. It is the responsibility for the proponent of the extension to justify why the extension is appropriate. E. Special Event Signs. Special event signs may be located anywhere in the City (including in Historic Old Town Temecula), should be located on the site of the special event or activity being advertised, and shall comply with the requirements listed below: 1. All special event interim signs which are located in a building or structure shall be attached to the building or structure where the use or activity is located and shall comply with the following requirements: a. The maximum height of the top of any sign shall not exceed the top of the eave line or parapet wall of the building where the use or activity is located. The dimensions of any sign shall not exceed any the following requirements: (1) The surface area shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet. (2) The height (vertical dimension) shall not exceed three (3) feet. (3) The width (horizontal dimension) shall not exceed f~ty percent (50%) of the business or store frontage, whichever is smaller. c. Special event signs may be allowed for any period up to forty-five (45) days. The Director of Planning may allow one time extension, for any period up to an additional forty-five (45) days, with good cause. It is the responsibility for the proponent of the extension to justify why the extension is appropriate. 2. All special event interim signs which are not located in buildings or structures shall be securely attached to poles or a structure on the site where the use or activity TEHPSIGN.CNP 5 ITEM #8 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1994 Specific Ran No. 263 (Regional Center) Change of Zone No. 5589 Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this item to June 6, 1994 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: KRDC Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: T & B Planning Consultants PROPOSAL: Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial core, 810,000 square feet of Office/Institutional with possible Multi-Family Residential and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan No. 263). 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: South: East: West: CoP-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial) A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: SP (Specific Plan No. 263) R:%STAFFI!~'I~283SP.PC2 6119/94 vgw 1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: CC (Community Commercial) O (Professional Office) BP (Business Park) P (Public/Institutional) Specific Plan Overlay Village Center Overlay EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Commercial Development (Costco) Vacant Vacant Commercial Development (Palm Raze) PROJECT STATISTICS Plannine Area I Total Area Possible Residential Retail/Office Building Area 72 Acres 300 Units 810,000 Square Feet Rannine Area 2 Total Area Commercial Retail Building Area 97.8 Acres 1,555,000 Square Feet Plannine Ares 3 Total Area Retail/Office Building Area 5.5 Acres 118,000 Square Feet BACKGROUND Specific Plan 263 and Change of Zone 5589 were presented before the Planning Commission on March 21,1994. At that meeting, the Planning Commission raised a number of concerns. Commissioner Fahey discussed the need for the Village Center to be connected to other areas and suggested a pedestrian and bike over crossing over Margarita Road. Commissioner Hoagland requested that a maximum density be established for Planning Area 1. In addition, the Commission requested more detail be provided on development of a Village Center in Planning Area 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project proposal is a Specific Plan with an accompanying Change of Zone request on 201.3 acres. The project site is located along the south side of Winchester Road between Ynez and Margarita Roads. The City's General Plan designates the site as Specific Plan and Village Center overlay areas. The underlying land use designations of the General Plan consist of Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park and Public Institutional. The Specific Plan document contains the zoning, development standards and architectural R:~STAFFII~l~283SP,PC2 5/19/94 vgw 2 guidelines for the project site. The proposed zoning and development standards contained within the Specific Plan document will govern development for this site over the City's Development Code unless it is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. ANALYSIS Subsequent to the March 21, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted revised language for the Village Center. While the language is an improvement over the current Regional Center Specific Plan language relative to the Village Center, staff feels that the new language needs to be stronger. Staff recommends that the applicant use the language in the City's General Plan Community Design Element relative to the Village Center concept as a base and build upon this base by refining the language in the Regional Center Specific Plan to include standards and design guidelines (including illustrative exhibits) which would allow the development of a Village Center. These design guidelines could incorporate language which would require provision of a public transportation facility. The applicant has not proposed a Margarita Road over crossing. Additionally, the applicant has not proposed new language for the Specific Plan which would establish maximum densities in Planning Area 1. Circulation and DrainaQe The current Circulation Plan shows the boundary roadways for the site with major and minor access points into the project area. The internal traffic circulation will be designed during project development approval or with the processing of a Design Manual for an area which includes site plans. Staff is requesting a circulation system be developed with roadways that meet the City's public street standards if public streets are not provided. The roadway system should include landscaped parkways and sidewalks. All access points for Winchester Road must be approved by the City Engineer and Caltrans. Currently, the major entry points along Winchester Road are consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Caltrans. However, the minor entry points are not consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to City Council direction, staff is currently working with the development community and Caltrana on a re-evaluation of the Memorandum of Understanding which may include these restricted access points. The Department of Public Works request that the Planning Commission discuss the following traffic issues and direct staff: · Regional Center onsite circulation. The traffic improvements listed below, required as part of development of the Urban Core Projects are included in Assessment District (AD) 161 and Community Facilities District (CFD) 88-12. The Department of Public Works recommends that the projects be conditioned for the improvements to be in place at certain development phases based on the required ensuing traffic study amendments. Although these projects were identified in the engineer's report for these districts, the bonds have not yet been sold and future funding by the Districts is in no way assured at this time. Therefore, staff will be evaluating directly conditioning these specific plans for the construction of certain of these facilities based on an analysis of the percent impacts provided in the traffic analysis. R:~.STAFFI!~T~263SP.PC2 5/19/94 vow 3 AD 161 funded oroiects: Date Street Overpass @ I-15 Date Street from the Overpass to Margarita ROad Winchester Road/I-15 interchange ramp widening Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road Margarita Road widening from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road Winchester Road widening from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Hunter Road Ynez Road widening from Equity Lane to City limits Murrieta Hot Springs Road widening from Date Street to Canyon Road CFD 88-12 funded oroiects: Winchester Road/I-15 interchange ramp widening Overland Street Overpass @ I-15 and the street improvement from Jefferson Road to Ynez Road Overland Street from Ynez Road to Margarita Road Margarita Road widening from Solaria Way to Winchester Road Solana Way widening from Ynez Road to Margarita Road · The traffic signals associated with the specific plan are the responsibility of the Developer, who may be reimbursed from City of Temecula Signal Mitigation Fees if the particular signal is a required area Wide Signal. Landscane Develooment Zone Enhanced landscaping setbacks are proposed along the following major roadways: Winchester Road, Margarita Road, Ynez Road, and Apricot Avenue. The width of the Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) is 32 feet for Margarita Road, Ynez Road, and Apricot Avenue and 37 feet for Winchester Road. The applicant is continuing to request the LDZ along Winchester Road be decreased to 30 feet at some future date if the City determines that a transit system will not be developed along Winchester Road. Staff's opinion is that it is appropriate to maintain the 37 feet to enhance the gateway effect of Winchester Road. R:%STAFFFFI~263S~o,PC2 5119/94 vgw 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was prepared for the project and certified by the City Council on July 13, 1993. Statements of Overriding Consideration were adopted at that time for the following: Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife end Vegetation, Circulation, and Libraries. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS At the March 21, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission expressed concerns regarding density, an over crossing to serve as a pedestrian linkage, and the level of detail provided by the applicant relative to the Village Center concept. The applicant has provided new language regarding the Village Center concept, however, staff feels additional work needs to be done to further define this concept as it relates to the Temecula Regional Center. Attachment: 1. Revised "Village Center Concept" Language - Blue Page 6 R:~STAFFRPT~283SP,pC2 6119/94 vgw 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REVISED "VILLAGE CENTER CONCEPT" LANGUAGE R:%STAFFRPT~263SP,PC2 5119/94 vgw 6 TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER Planning Area 1 (THE FOLLOWING TEE IS PROPOSED TO REPLACE THE EXISTING TEXT ON PAGE ItI-31 IN THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN) 1. Planning Area 1 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 1, as depicted in Figure 12A, consists of 71.97 gross acres, devoted primarily to mixed uses including retail, office, hotel, institutional and residentiai uses. The commercial, office and institutional development within this planning area will serve the needs of area residents, while maintaining compatibility with a residential environment. It is the intention of the mixed use development in Temecula Regional Center to' allow for a mixture of commercial/office/institutionai and residential uses. Consideration shall be given to joint use of parking, common areas, landscaping, ~pecific types of uses, housing types and sizes of unitsi and overall architectural design. The retail and office uses in Planning Area 1 could be arranged in a "U"-shaped configuration around a public green similar to traditional public greens, or in a linear fashion to form a "Main Street" with shops and offices oriented directly onto the street. There may be one or more shopping streets created within the planning area depending upon market conditions at the time the area is developed. These shopping streets should converge on a focal point within the Temecula Regional Center development. In order for the concept of a "Main Street" to truly function, development of a certain density and intensity is necessary. Residential uses will be limited to single family attached, multi-family residential, and residential units over office or commercial uses. Planning Area 1 development is proposed as a logical extension of the central commercial core activity in Planning Area 2, and a transition between Planning Area 2 and the adjacent residential property to the east. Institutional uses to be encouraged within Planning Area 1 include local, state or federal level services (i.e., postal service, economic development, social service, library, museum, etc.), if there is a need or demand for such uses. The mixed use development in Planning Area 1 is designed to encourage active street frontages and create a comfortable, human-scaled environment that creates a fully functioning Main Street complex. The small size of this area will encourage pedestrian movement between uses, while de-emphasizing automobile use. Limited on-street parking may be provided. Buildings may be situated directly on local streets with little or no front and side yard setbacks. Retail and service commercial uses could predominate on the first floor of the buildings, with offices and/or residential uses concentrated on the upper floors or behind the commercial uses. Development within Planning Area 1 may consist of residential uses in the same building(s) as commercial/office uses. Institutional and hotel uses may be integrated physically into mixed use structures or constructed as separate buildings. Residential uses and entries should constitute not more than 30% of the ground floor of any of these buildings. In areas which do not directly face onto the shopping street(s), freestanding residential buildings may be constructed. Separate building entrances shall be required for commemial/office/institutional and residential uses when occupying the same structure; provided that this provision does not preclude internal connections between residential and non-residential uses. In addition, completely separate parking areas should be provided for residences and hotels. Joint-use parking should be considered for commercial, office and institutional uses. Storefront windows are encouraged in retail shops and, in most cases, should begin within 18" to 24" of the pavement. Typically, storefront windows help to entice customers into stores, stimulate visual interest, Ereate "defensible space" by enhancing public views of store interiors and streets, and establish a predictable rhythm for passers-by. The scale and width of each storefront should be limited to establish an intimate scale that is more conducive to the pedestrian and cyclist than to the automobile. In general, storefront widths should relate to a human scale. Where storefronts must be large to accommodate specific uses, the building facades could be articulated with windows, insets, pillars, colunms, arcades or other decorative architectural features to maintain the overall intimacy of the shopping street. Over time, the "Main Street" design ~or Planning Area 1 may or may not prove feasible. Therefore, it would be appropriate to consider more conventional commercial and office uses after a period of ten years for those portions of Planning Area 1 which have not developed within that timeframe. b. Land Use Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. __ in Section III.C of this Specific Plan. c. Planning Standards (SEE TEXT UNDER SECTION "c" ON PAGE HI-31 OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN) ITEM #9 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 23,1994 Specific Ran No. I (Campes Verdes) Environmental Impact Report No. 348 Change of Zone No. 5617 Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske RECOMMENDATION: The Ranning Department Staff recommends that the Banning Commission continue this item to June 6, 1994. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: KRDC, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: T&B Planning Consultants PROPOSAL: A Specific Plan consisting of: 308 single-family residential units, 19.8 acres of commercial\office\church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways with an accompanying Change of Zone request from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan No. 1). Environmental Impact Report No. 348 has been prepared for the project and discusses the potential impacts of the project. LOCATION: South of WinChestbr Road and east of Margarita Road EXISTING ZONING: R-R (Rural Residential), A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) and R-R (Rural Residential) A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) SP (Specific Ran No. 164, Roripaugh Hills) A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size), R-R (Rural Residential) PROPOSED ZONING: SP (Specific Ran No. 1) R:%STAFFI~°T~I~P.PC2 5/19/94 vgw 1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial O (Professional Office) H (High Density, 13-20 du/ac) M (Medium Density, 7-12 du/ac) LM (Low Medium Density, 3-6 du/ac) OS (Open Space/Recreation) Specific Plan Overlay EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Winchester Road, Vacant South: Vacant East: Residential West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Gross Acreage: 132.9 Acres Single-Family Residential 308 Units Commercial\Office\Church 19.8 Acres Detention Basin 5.8 Acres Park 10.8 Acres Elementary School On-Site Roadways 10.7 Acres 13.0 Acres BACKGROUND The Campos Verdes Specific Plan, Change of Zone, and Environmental Impact Report were presented to the Planning Commission on March 21,1994. At that meeting, the Commission expressed the following concerns: provision of an adequate buffer between the project and the Meadowview development; closure of Sanderling and Starling so as to discourage traffic entering and exiting the Roripaugh Hills development; and looking at alternative school sites for the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project proposes a Specific Plan with an accompanying Change of Zone request on 132.9 acres. The project site is located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road. The General Plan designates the area as a Specific Plan overlay area with a portion of the site located within the Village Center overlay area. The underlying land use designations of the General Plan consist of Community Commercial, Professional Office, High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Medium Density, and Open Space/Recreation. The Specific Plan document contains the zoning design standards for each area. The proposed zoning and development standards contained within the Specific Plan document will govern development for this site over the City's Development Code unless it is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. R:~STAFFI~°1~I~P.PC2 5119/94 vgw 2 The original Specific Plan proposed seven (7) Planning Areas within the project site consisting of six (6) different land uses with the commercial uses being proposed along Margarita Road. Subsequent to the March 21,1994 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised Specific Plan and associated Addendum Environmental Impact Report. The Specific Plan now being proposed for the site is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 "REVISED" PROJECT LAND USE SUMMARY IPLANNING I DENSITY I DWELLING LAND USE DESIGNATION AREA (DU/AC) UNITS RESIDENTIAL ACRES Low (.5 to 2 DU/AC) 9 1.1 18 16.0 Low Medium 3 6.3 76 12.0 (3 to 6 DU/AC) 5 5.2 86 16.5 6 5.9 72 12.3 8 3.5 56 15.9 SUBTOTAL 4.2 308 72.7 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial 4 12.0 Commercial/Office/Church and Detention~ 2 13.7 Elementary School 7 10.7 Park I 10.8 Roads 13.0 SUBTOTAL 60.2 PROJECTTOTAL 2.3 309 132.9 Approximately 7.8 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for commercial/office uses adjacent to North General Kearny Road. The remaining 5.9 acres shall include a landscaped detention basin. No park credits will be given for the detention basin by the City. The Low Density Residential will consist of single family detached homes and is located in Planning Area 9 adjacent to the Meadowview development. The remaining single family residential development will be located in Planning Areas 3, 5, 6o and 8. A total of 290 units is proposed for these 4 Planning Areas. Planning Area 4 will consist of 12 acres of commercial property along Margarita and Winchester Roads. The detention basin will consist of 5.9 acres located in Planning Area 2. The developer will receive no credit for the detention basin. The remaining 7.8 acres in Planning Area 2 will be developed as commercial\office uses. Planning Area 1 will consist of a 10.8 acre park which will contain softball%soccer fields, tot lots, picnic areas, and on-site parking. The City will accept 7.5 acres toward Quimby requirements, with the remaining 3.3 acres being used for drainage\detention. This 3.3 acres R:%STAFFI~T%19P.PC2 5/19/94 vgw will not count towards the City's park requirements. Planning Area 7 will consist of a 10.7 acre elementary school. If the School District chooses not to construct a school on this site, a maximum of 64 single family detached units may be constructed on 4,500 minimum square foot lots as an alternative. ANALYSIS Comparative Analysis of Orioinal Camoos Verdes and Revised CamDos Verdes Plans The changes to the Campoe Verdes Specific Plan has been made as a result of homeowner, staff, and Commission concerns. The revised plan proposes to completely eliminate all multiple family. This has resulted in a reduction in dwelling units from 850 to 308, a 63.7% reduction. In addition, the amount of acreage committed to residential uses has decreased from 86 acres to 72.7 acres. The amount of commercial\office\church has increased from 18.1 acres to 19.8 acres. An additional 3.2 acres of this use was added to Planning Area 2 while 1.5 acres of commercial was removed from Planning Area 4 which resulted in a net increase of 1.7 acres. The park which is proposed for Planning Area I has been reduced from 13.5 acres to 10.8 acres. A total of 7.5 acres will be applied toward City park requirements. Lastly, a 10.7 acre elementary school site has been added to the revised project land use plan. This school site falls within Planning Area 7. Table 2 provides a comparative land use summary of the original and revised Specific Plan. LAND USE DESIGNATION TABLE 2 LAND USE COMPARATIVE SUMMARY 'REVISED' LAND USE PLAN DWELLING ACRES UNITS "ORIGINAL' LAND USE PLAN DWELLING ACRES UNITS RESIDENTIAL Low Density (0.2 DU/AC) Lo.w Medium Density (2 to 5 DU/AC) 16.0 18 56.7' 290 21.0 65 Medium Density (5 to 8 DU/AC) 27.1 141 Very High Density (6 to 17 DU/AC) 37.9 644 SUBTOTAL 72.7 308 86,0 850 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial 12.0 13.5 Commercial/Office/Churc h and Detention Basin 13.7 10.4 Park 10.8 13.5 R:%STAFFI~>T%1SP.PC2 5119/94 vow 4 Elementary School 10.7 Roads 13.0 9.5 PROJECT TOTAL 132.9 308 132.9 850 Landscape Develooment Zone The project provides for enhanced landscaping setbacks along the following major roadways: Winchester Road, Margarita Road, North General Kearny Road and Campoe Verdes Lane. The applicant is continuing to request that the Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road be decreased to 30 feet at some future date if the City determines that a transit system will not be developed along Winchester Road. However, it continues to be staff's opinion that the 37 foot zone should be retained in order to enhance the gateway effect of Winchester Road. Staff does not support having the landscape development zone along Winchester Road being smaller than along Margarits and North General Kearny Roads. Parks Subsequent to the March 21,1994 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant met with the Community Services Director to discuss issues relative to the size, phasing, construction, and maintenance responsibilities of the park and detention basin. These issues have been resolved and the Revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan document has been changed accordingly with the exception of the following: A statement needs to be included in the Specific Plan that states all park and\or recreation areas intended for transfer to the City "in-fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for public park and\or recreational purposes. A title insurance policy and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property. The TCSD is also requiring that the Specific Plan included a general statement that all proposed TCSD maintenance areas and public parks shall be offered for dedication on the final map. The TCSD has provided the applicant the following changes to text in the revised Specific Plan: On page 111-31, fourth paragraph, last sentence. Sentence shall be amended to read as follows: 2) allocate KCDC 75% park credit for the 3.5 acres of developed park land that KCDC is providing in Campos Verdes in excess of TCSD re~luirements which shall be counted toward the Quimby requirement (not the park and recreation requirements) of other projects within the City that KCDC is developing. On page 111-33 b. Open Space/Recreation and Landscaping Plan Development Standards, Item 1, last sentence. This sentence shall be amended to read as follows: Improvements to the park shall be required to be completed by the issuance of the 78th residential building permit for the overall project or within two (2) years of Map Recordation for the first phase lots, whichever comes first. R:~STAFFR°T%1SP.PC2 5119/94 vgw 5 In addition, under this same section, on page 111-34, add an item 13 which states the following: landscape and construction plans for the open space\paseo and multi-purpose trail in Planning Area 9 shall be approved by the Director of Community Services. Circulation and Drsinaoe The residents of Roripaugh Hills have raised concerns about the extension of Starling Street and Sanderling Way into this project along with having High Density Residential development adjacent to their development. As stated earlier, the developer is proposing an alternative to reduce the residential density by providing a Single-Family Residential development instead of the proposed Multi-Family Residential development in Planning Area 5 reducing the overall residential units in the Specific Plan from 850 units to 579 units. The developer is willing to design any proposed tract maps with a circulation system either providing for the extension of Starling Street and Sanderling Way or leaving them as currently dead-ended. It should be noted that the Roripaugh Hills Homeowner's Association has not provided staff with the homeowner survey requested st the March 21, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The Department of Public Works requests that the Planning Commission discuss the following traffic issues and provide direction to staff: Campoe Verdes onsite circulation. i.e., the extension of Starling Street and Sanderling Way through the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The intent was always to have Starling Street and Sterling Way ultimately extended. The extensions, in staff's opinion, are necessary the following reasons: Provision of a more expedient emergency response time to Roripaugh Hills homes, as well as, improving local traffic movement. Discouragement of an increase in the Average Daily Trips on Winchester Road (a CMP thoroughfare). Provision of better neighborhood circulation, primarily from east to west for access to the commercial center, elementary school, and parks particularly from the Roripaugh Hills Development. Provision for an elementary school in Planning Area 6 and the construction of a 10 acre park with active recreational facilities within Planning Area 1 which could be accessed directly from Roripaugh Hills, without having to access Winchester Road. Retention of Sanderling Way and Starling Street to promote alternate transportation modes consistent with the Village Center concept. The traffic improvements listed below, required as part of development of the Urban Core Projects are included in Assessment District (AD) 161 and Community Facilities District (CFD) 88-12. The Department of Public Works recommends that the projects be conditioned for the improvements to be in place at certain development phases based on the required ensuing traffic study amendments. Although these projects were identified in the engineer's report for these districts, the bonds have not yet been sold and future funding by the Districts is in no way assured at this time. Therefore, R:%STAFFI~T%1SP.PC2 5119/94 vgw 6 staff will be evaluating directly conditioning these specific plans for the construction of certain of these facilities based on an analysis of the percent impacts provided in the traffic analysis. AD 161 funded oroiects: Date Street Overpass @ Iol 5 Date Street from the Overpass to Margarita Road Winchester Road/I-15 interchange ramp widening Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road Winchester Road widening from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Hunter Road Ynez Road widening from Equity Lane to City limits Murrieta Hot Springs Road widening from Date Street to Canyon Road CFD 88-12 funded oroiects: Winchester Road/lol 5 interchange ramp widening Overland Street Overpass @ I-15 and the street improvement from Jefferson Road to Ynez Road Overland Street from Ynez Road to Margarita Road Margarita Road widening from Solana Way to Winchester Road Solana Way widening from Ynez Road to Margarita Road · The traffic signals associated with the' specific plan are the responsibility of the Developer, who may be reimbursed from City of Temecula Signal Mitigation Fees if the particular signal is a required area wide signal. Transition/Buffer Subsequent to the March 21,1994 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan to include Figure IV-26A (page IV-65) which details a minimum forty (40) foot buffer between the Project and the Meadowview development. This minimum forty (40) foot buffer will be maintained by the TCSD. The buffer will be bounded on both sides by a fence. The buffer will be planted with drought tolerant large scale shrubs and evergreen grove trees. An eight (8) foot wide multi-purpose trail will meander through this buffer area. R:%STAFFI~T%1SP.PC2 5119/94 vgw 7 General Plan Consistency As a result of the reduction in density associated with the revised Specific Plan, this project is now inconsistent with the City's General Ran which designates a portion of this site as Medium and High Density. However, the proposed changes, in staff's opinion, are beneficial and in the best interest of the City. Therefore, staff recommends that the City shall initiate a General Plan Amendment and make the finding that this higher density component can be transferred to the Regional Center Village Center site. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION As a result of changes to the Campoe Verdes Specific Ran, an Addendum has been prepared for Environmental Impact Report 348 which discusses the new levels of impacts associated with the revised project. Following is · summary of the information contained in this Addendum: Seismic Safety The revised Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (798 as opposed to 2,201 ) thereby reducing the numbers of people being exposed to potential seismic hazards. A portion of the Campoe Verdes site lies within a dam inundation area and may be subject to seismically induced flooding from a failure of Skinner Dam. This is an unavoidable adverse impact and will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration. Slopes and Erosion The revised Specific Plan proposes the same amount of grading as the original project. Development of the revised project will result in a similar total of approximately 2.6 million cubic yards of earth being moved as that of the original project. No new impacts will be created and no new mitigation measures are proposed. Wind Erosion end Blowsand The revised Specific Plan is expected to involve a similar amount of landform alteration as the original project. Little change in wind and blowsand impacts is anticipated and no new mitigation measures are proposed. Flooding The revised Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents, thereby decreasing the number of residents exposed to potential flooding impacts. No new impacts will be created and no new mitigation measures are proposed. Noise The revised Specific Plan proposes a reduction in density which will reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the project. This reduction in vehicle trips will reduce both on- and off-site noise impacts. No new impacts will be created and no new mitigation measures are proposed. R:~STAFFI~T~ISP.PC2 5119/94 vgw 8 10. 11. 12. 13. Climate and Air Quality A total of 12,268 motor vehicle trips is associated with the revised Specific Plan. This represents a 24.2% reduction in the amount of motor vehicle emissions generated from the original project. The reduction of 542 dwelling units from the original project also results in a 63.7% decrease in stationary source emissions resulting from electricity and natural gas use. In spite of the reductions in air quality impacts, pollutant generation associated with the Specific Plan exceeds South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds with respect to carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and reactive organic gases. Air quality impacts remain significant and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Water Quality The amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system end potentially into groundwater supplies will be reduced due to the reduction in dwelling units and the generation of fewer project residents. No new impacts will be created and no new mitigation measures are proposed. Toxic Substances The potential for near surface soil contamination due to residues from pesticide use associated with prior agricultural use on-site remains unchanged with the revised Specific Plan. The increase in the amount of on-site commercial uses from 18.1 to 19.8 acres may result in an increased potential for the establishment of small quantity toxic substance generators. However, no new impacts are anticipated and no new mitigation measures are proposed. Aoriculture The impact to Prime Agricultural Land associated with the revised Specific Plan does not change from that associated with the original project. The loss of Prime Agricultural Land remains a significant impact and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Open Soace end Conservation No changes in impacts will occur as a result of the revised Specific Plan and no new mitigation measures are proposed. Wildlife~VeQetation The revised Specific Plan maintains the same amount of land being disturbed as the original project. Therefore, the impacts associated with the revised Specific Plan will be similar to those of the original project. The reduction of 542 dwelling units will result in a reduction ir~ indirect impacts (such as "harassment") of project development upon adjacent floral and faunal resources. Cumulative wildlife impacts remain a significant impact and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. EnerQy Resources The revised Specific Plan will result in a 41.4% reduction in natural gas usage and a 39.4% reduction in electrical usage. No new impacts will be created and no new mitigation measures are proposed. Scenic Hiohwavs The reduction of 542 dwelling units and the elimination of higher density residential uses will result in an incremental reduction in long-term project related aesthetic and scenic highway impacts. No new impacts will be created and no new mitigation measures are proposed. R:~STAFFI~T~lSP.PC2 5119/94 vgw 9 14. Cultural and Scientific Resources The revised Specific Ran involves the same amount of area being subject to landform alteration as the original project. As such, potential impacts to cultural and scientific resources associated with the revised Specific Plan will remain unchanged from those associated with the original project. No new impacts will be created and no new mitigation measures are proposed. 15. Circulation The revised Specific Plan generates a total of 12,268 vehicle trips per day compared to 16,184vehicle trips per day associated with the original project. This is a reduction of 24.2%. Trip distribution associated with the revised Specific Plan would not vary significantly from the original project. The revised Specific Plan results in the same levels of service associated with the original project. In spite of mitigation measures, the level of impacts related to circulation and traffic will remain a significant impact and will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration. 16, Utilities and Services All affected public service and utility agencies experience a reduction in project related impacts as a result of the revised Specific Plan as compared to the original project. In spite of these decreases, a significant impact to library services still exists and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 17. Light and Glare The reduction of 542 dwelling units and the elimination of illumination associated with high density development will result in an incremental reduction in light and glare impacts. No new impacts will be created and no new mitigation measures are proposed. 18. Disaster Praoaredness The revised Specific Plan will generate 798 persons as compared to the original project which proposed 2,207 new residents. This decrease in residents results in fewer people being exposed to potential seismic safety, slope and erosion, flooding, and fire hazards. No new impacts will be created and no new mitigation measures are proposed. Otherissues The Addendum which was submitted to staff requires some minor changes. The EIR consultant has been sent stsff's comment~ relative to the Addendum. Upon completion of a satisfactory Addendum, the EIR consultant will need to prepare a Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program which will be adopted with the approval of the Specific Plan. SUMMARY\CONCLUSIONS The Campoe Verdes Specific Plan has been revised to address resident, staff, and Commission concerns relative to the project. Concerns relative to buffering have been addressed through the following: the elimination of all high density residential on the site and the creation of a forty (40) foot buffer between the project and the Meadowview development. This reduction in overall density has resulted in the need for an Addendum to the EIR which has been prepared. Impacts associated with the revised Specific Plan are less or the same as those associated with the original project. R:~STAFFI~T~ISP.PC2 6/18/94 vgw 10 Attachments: 1. Revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan - Summary of Changes - Blue Page 12 2. Figure IV - 26A - Meadowview Buffer Exhibit - Blue Page 13 R:%STAFFRPT~ISP.pC2 5119/94 vgw 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REVISED CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY OF CHANGES R:%STAFFR~T~ISP,PC2 5/19/94 vgw 12 I T & B Planning Consultants · Santa Ana· San Diego May 18, 1994 RECEIVED MAY 19 199zm Anti ............ JN 1684)44 Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Harming Department CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: CHANGES TO CAMPOS VEIlDES SPECIfiC PLAN DOCUMENT Dear Ms. Ubnoske: I are providing you this letter to facilitate review of the latest draft version of the Carepos Verdes Specific Plan (updated May 2, 1994) by City staff and the Planning Commission. Many changes to the Land Use Plan and the Specific Plan document have occurred since the previous draft was prepared in March 1993. A summary of the key changes follows: I. LAND USE PLAN CHANGES Figure III-1 on page III-3 has been revised to reflect the new Land Use Plan. This exhibit was formerly in black & white and is now in full color. Residential Densities. The land use categories in the Carepos Verdes Specific Plan have been modified. Previously, the Specific Plan proposed medium low density (3.0 du/ac), medium density (5.2 du/ac), and very high density (17.0 du/ac) residential uses. These categories have been replaced by low density (0.5 - 2.0 du/ac) and low medium density (3.0 - 6.0 du/ac) residential uses. Total Residences. The number of residences on-site has been reduced from 850 du at an average residential density of 9.9 du/ac to 308 du at an average density of 4.2 du/ac (a reduction of 542 dwellings). Meadowview Buffer. All lots which abut the Meadowview development shall have a minimum permitted lot size of 20,000 square feet in response to input and concerns expressed by Meadowview residents. Additionally, a minimum six foot (6') high solid wall shall be erected on the property boundary between the residential lots in Planning Area 9 and the adjacent forty foot (40') wide open space/paseo buffer. Open Space/Paseo Buffer. A forty foot (40') wide buffer will be created between the on-site residential uses in Planning Area 9 and the adjoining off-site Meadowview development. An eight foot (89 wide minimum multi-purpose nil · I ~ Debbie Ubnoske CITY OF TEMECULA Page 2 will meander through the entire length of.the paseo. The paseo area and multi- purpose trail will be maintained by the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). Commercial/Office Uses. The commercial/office uses in Planning Area 2, located next to the comer of Margarita Road/North General Keamy Road, have been increased from 4.6 acres to 7.8 acres. In addition, all or portions of the commercial/office site may be developed with church/religious uses. Commercial Center. The conunercial center at the intersection of Winchester Road/Margarita Road (e.g., Planning Area 4) has been reduced in size from 13.5 acres to 12.0 acres. Primary access to the commercial center will still be provided from Campos Verdes Lane, with right-in/right-out only access available from Margarita Road. Elementary School Site. A 10.7 acre (gross) elementary school site is proposed adjacent to North General ICeamy Road (in Planning Area 7). The school site shall be a minimum of 10.0 usable acres in size. The following text has been inserted on page HI-57 of the Specific Plan: "If the project developer and the Temecula Unified School District do not elect this option, then the total number of dwelling units permitted in Planning Area 7 shall not exceed 64 single family homes with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet." Park Site. The park site in Planning Area 1 has been reduced in size from 13.5 acres to 10.8 acres. This reduction has been made because the number of dwellings planned in Campos Verdes has been reduced from 850 du (March 1993) to 308 du (May 1994). The developer is requesting to receive full park credits from the City for 4.0 acres of parkland and 75% credit for the remaining 3.5 acres of parkland in Planning Area 1. The remaining 3.3 acres in Planning Area 1 shall be used for drainage and detention purposes. The developer shall not receive any park credits for those portions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention uses. CIRCULATION PLAN CHANGES The locations of both Campos Verdes Lane and Camino Campos Verdes have remained unchanged. However~ the entire network of interior streets within the project site has been revised to accommodate the proposed changes in the Land Use Plan. The proposed extensions of Sandefiing Way and Starling Street into the Campos Verdes project from the adjacent Rofipaugh Estates development have been deleted from the proposed Circulation Plan at the request of Roripaugh Estates residents. No vehicular connection is planned between Campos Verdes and Roripaugh Estates. rDebbieUbnoske · ~CITY OF TEMECULA Page 3 OPEN SPACFJRECREATION AND I,ul, I~IDSCtPING PL,,Uq CHANGES Section III.A.6 of the Specific Plan on page 111-31 has been expanded from "Landscaping Plan" (March 1993) to "Open Space/Recreation and Landscaping Plan" (May 1994). In addition to discussing landscape requirements, this section now also discusses City park requirements. Besides the park site in Planning Area 1, a 2.0-acre open space/paseo buffer is planned in Planning Area 9 as a buffer to the existing Meadowview development. A 5.9-acre detention basin is planned in Planning Area 2 next to the commercial/office uses. "The detention basin, although it will serve a detention function during winter storms, will contain a tarfed-covered bottom that will be suitable for passive recreational activities and impromptu ball games for much of the year. The sides of the basin will be planted with turf and trees" (see p. RI-31). Additionally, the following text has been inserted on page II1-31 of the Specific Plan: "KCDC's proposal to provide park land in Campos Verdes in excess of the 4.0 acres required by TCSD standards will prove mutually beneficial for both the TCSD and KCDC. The TCSD will receive an additional 3.5 acres of developed park (suitable for both active and passive purposes), plus 5. 9 acres of landscape detention basin and a 2. O-acre landscaped buffer paseo containing a multi-purpose trail In return, TCSD will: 1) accept ownership and maintenance responsibility for the detention basin and landscape buffer paseo in Campos Verde& and 2) allocate KCDC 75% park credit for the 3.5 acres of developed park land that KCDC is providing in Campos Verdes in excess of TCSD requirements which shall be counted toward the park and recreation requirements of other projects within the City of Temecula that KCDC is developing." IV. PROJECT PHASING PLANS The Development Phasing Plan for Campos Verdes, as depicted in Table II on page 111-36, has been revised to reflect the new Land Use Plan. The park site is planned for construction in Phase I and will be completed prior to issuance of the 781h building permit for the project or within two (2) years of Map Recordation for the tirst phase lots. Phasing of the elementary school site will ultimately be decided by the School District. The detention basin in Planting Area 2 is planned for development in Phase II, but may be developed earlier or later depending upon the phasing of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The commerciaYoffice and commercial uses will be consu'ucted in Phase H. · I ~ Debbie Ubnoske CITY OF TEMECULA · Page 4 Maintenance responsibilities for Campos Verdes are specified on page II1-38 of the Specific Plan. The TCSD will accept ownership and maintenance responsibility for the detention basin, the 10.8-acre park, and the open space/paseo buffer adjacent to Meadowview. V. PLANNING AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHANGES Pages HI-40 through 111-65 have been modified to illuswate the revised Land Use Plan and the new planning areas. Formerly, there were seven planning areas; now, there are nine planning areas. Each planning area contains new development standards and a graphic illustration. VI. ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES The Zoning Ordinance on pages I11-66 through H/-88 has undergone substantial revisions since the previous version in March 1993. We suggest that staff and the Planning Commission review this section of the document carefully. At the direction of City staff, the zoning ordinance was completely reorganized to reflect the format of the City's draft Development Code. The land uses and development standards have been reorganized into tables to facilitate quick review. Minor changes have been made in some instances but, for the most part, the development standards and uses are primarily the same as those contained in the previous version of the Specific Plan. New sections have been created for the Low & Low Medium Density Residential Districts. These districts did not exist in previous draft version. The section on "On-site Signs" starting on page I11-82 of the Specific Plan has been revised to eliminate redundancy. No changes in content have been made in the signage section. VII. DESIGN GUIDELINES CHANGES Changes have been made throughout the entire Design Guidelines section to coincide with the new Land Use Plan. In revising this section of the Specific Plan, a minimum number of changes was made to ensure consistency with the revised Land Use Plan, while preserving the design intent of the section intact. Most of the changes in this section were made to the graphics. Debbie Ubnoske CrrY OF TEMECULA May 18, 1994 Page 5 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter or the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Sincerely, T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark T. Hickher Project Manager co: Dennis Chiniaeff Batty Bumell ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FIGURE IV - 26A MEADOWVIEW BUFFER EXHIBIT R:%STAFFRPT~ISP.PC2 5119/94 vgw 13 ,,-~'~ BOUNOARY E~_,GE BUFFER SECI~ONS SLOPE CONDmON RGURE IV-2~A i Campos Vetdes K.C.D.C. 28250 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Tcmcculo. C2 92591