Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020695 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 6, 1995, 6:00 PM Rancho California Water District's Board Room 42135 Winchester Road Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Ford Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford A wtal of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be ~led out and fled with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of minutes from the November 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA94-0138, Revised Conditional UsePermit Tim Hill 28822 Front Street, Suite 203 & 204 Revision to existing use permit to convert the existing nightclub with beer only sales to the original approval for a full bar nightclub Exempt Craig Ruiz Approve C~se No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Enviromental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. 0180, 181, 183, 184, and 185 Johnson Machinery Company Northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road A request for approval of an Annexation of 1761 acres to the City of Temecula; General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements; and a Change of Zone from Rural Residential (R-R) to Specific Plan to prezone the Johnson Ranch property to annex to the City of Temecula. In addition, a Specific Plan which sets the Zoning and Development Standards and Design Guidelines for development of 4,969 single family dwellings, 442 acres of open space, 35 acres of Village Center including 281 multi-family units and approximately 220,000 square feet of'retail and office uses, 68 acres of parks and 50 acres of school facilities. Certification of the Final Enviromental Impact Report (FEIR) which analyzes the significant impacts and proposes mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been proposed for these impacts. Salad Naasch Recommend Approval Next meeting: February 27, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. PLANNING DHIECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ITEM #2 MINUTES OF REGULAR lViR!~.TING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMIgSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, November 7, 1994, at 6:02 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 W'mchester Road, Temecula, C~lifornla. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Ford presiding. Blair, Slavca, Webster and Ford Pahey Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz and Recording Secretary Barbara Maltby. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the agcada as presented. The motion carried as follows: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slavca, Webster and Ford 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 1 COMMISSIONYX~: Fahey AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Minutes 2.1 · Minutes of July 18, 1994 Commissioner Blair commented that on Page 2, Item No. 4, should read: It was moved by Commissioner Fahey... Page 5, second from last paragraph, should read: Commissioners Fahey, Salyer, and Blair... Page 6, second paragraph, should read: Recommended individual noticing of residents of apartments be conducted. R:~Iinut=~II0794.PLN I PLANNING COMI~SSIOI~T MI!',/UTES November 7. 1994 Commissioner Ford commuted that on Page 6, third paragraph, should read: It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland to appwve staffs recommendation, however, because of the need for further discussion Commission Hoa~land withdrew his motion. It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Shven to approve the minutes of July 18, 1994 as mended. Page 8, third paragraph, second sentence, should read: reimbursement when improving pwperty other than their own... The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIOn: Bhir, Shven, Webster and Ford COMMISSIONBRS: None COMMISSIONBRS: Fahey 2.2 2.3 Minutes of August 1, 1994 It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the minutes of August 1, 1994 The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMIaSSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Webster and Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Minutes of September 19, 1994 It was moved by Commissioner Shven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of September 19, 1994 The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIOn: Blair, Shven, Webster and Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey R:XIdimlt~lXlI0794.PL~ 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MTr,~TF,~ Nove;~ber 7, 1994 3. Approval of July 28. 1994 Johnson Ranch Planning Commission Workshop Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner approve the minutes of July 28, 1994 Johnson Ranch Planning Commission Minutes. Slaven to Workshop The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Webster and Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 4. Director' s Hearing Update Planning Director Thornhill presented the report which was received and filed. NON-lqJBLIC ~q~ARING 1TEMS 5. Planning Application No. PA94-0112 Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster asked, in regards to the improvement plans C--45, what the heights of the two monument signs are. Mr. Fagan replied that they were limited by The Conditions of Approval to 6 feet. He also ask if the existing sign was to be relocated or removed completely? The question was referred to the applicant. Commissioner Blair asked the square footage of the exiting sign, Mr. Fagan replied it is the same as the proposed sign, 86 square feet. Commissioner Shven asked if the new sign will be fac'mg the same direction. Mr. Fagan replied that it would. She also asked if it will be taller than surrounding structures. Mr. Fagan informed her it would be. Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:17 P.M. Robert Fiscus, 2050 South Santa Cruz, Anaheim, x=pi'esenting the applicant stated that the existing sign will be removed. The two monument signs, on site, will carry the price and brand. Commissioner Fahey asked if there are options other than posing increas'mgly higher signs to make them visible. The question was referred to the Plsnning DirecWr, Gary PLAI~?.,~'NG COI~{~VIISSION ~ November 7. 199-4 Thornhill. He stated that stmef has looked at the way other jurisdiction~ have trea~l these signs and that the other signs are outside of Caltrans right-of-way. He further stated that the City of Yorba Linda was contacled regarding one of their signs. They informed him that they were on private property. Commissioner Ford n~lced about the signs on Highway 78 in Escondido. Director Thornhill agreed to contact the City of Escondido to find out how they obtained approval of the signs. It was moved by Commissioner Blnlr and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to delay Item No. $ until Director Thornhill reports back to the Commission the first meeting in December, 1994 on the method used by the City of Escondido to obtain approval for their signs along the freeway. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blnir, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6. Planning Al~lication No. PA94-~71 Craig D. Ruiz presented the staff report. Commissioner Slaven anired what guarantees are there that alcohol will not be sold at any of the facilities in the "Strip Mall". Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz informed the Commission that the sale of alcohol is regulated by the state. He also stated the sale of alcohol is not a legitimate ground for denying a permit. It my be considered as an overall welfare standard but it my not be the only factor. Chairman Ford ask if certain businesses could be excluded. Assistant City Attorney Diaz said you would have to change the Zoning Code. Dh'ector Thornhill said the development code, neighborhood commerc'ml designation, will be tighter in the future and would be binding when it is approved on this parcel. Commissioner Slaven ask when the development code would be reviewed. Director Thornhill said around February. A1 Ogle, 7063 De Marigosal, Bonsol, California, representing the Applicant, stated that the project meets with all the requirements under the General Plan and City requirements and also meets with the zoning regulations. R:'adi""*o'HI0794,PLN 4 PLANNING CO},'3,~SSIOI~I MINT. rrES No~te,~ber 7. 1994 Commissioner Blair as]~l about plans for tenets in ~e site and the possib~ty of a convenience store. Mr. Ogle responded no convenience store would be included due to the clos~ proximity of the school He further stated that a Veterinarian, a beauty salon, a snack shop, and a dental group were tenant prospects. Commissioner Slaven ~slt~l if the owner of the property had any intention of cl~ming it up. Mr. Ogle responded that ASAP has been contacted for a quote on clean up. Mr. Dave C~lh~,her, Temecula Valley Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road spoke in opposition to alcohol sale. Mr. David Farion, read a letter from Ted Scholcott in opposition of the project. Farion spoke on the issue of traffic. Mr. Arthur Zippoka, no eddress, spoke in opposition. Mr. Roger Couday, 31438 Santiago Road, Temecula, California, spoke in opposition. Mr. Melvin Coplin, 31286 Santiago Ro~d, Temecula, California, spoke in opposition and ~lmd if the zoning can be changed. Director Thornhill replied that the project is consistent with tl~ General Plan and cannot be changed. Gaff Fio~kster, 31249 Sierra Bonita, Temecula, California, spoke in opposition. She also spoke concerning noise pollution, traffic, and the safety of small children wMIdng to school Chairman Ford asked how children would get to s~hool if fenc~ing is plac~l along the Eastern Municipal Water District t~ment line. Grace Toka, 43185 Margarita Road, (husband spoke), asked if the City could put a church or nursery, instead of a *Strip Mall* at this site. Chairman Ford read a letter from Darrel and Marsha Curley who was in opposition. Mr. Ogle, spellring in rebuttal, stated that an offer from a Service Station was turned down because the applicant wants to keep the area attractive. Chairman Ford closed the Public Heating at 7:11 P.M. Commissioner Fahey stated that nothing has changed from the original package. Chairman Ford asked questions about stop lights, Assistant Engineer, John Pourkazemi responded that the capacity of Margarita road is Level of Service and will be 110 feet full width which would include 4 travel lanes and bike lanes. said Pala Road will be 88 feet, (4 lanes), which will also be Service Level *A* . A signal is s~heduled to be installed in 1995/1996 whether the project goes in or not. R:hMinumHI0'/~4.PLN 5 PLAI~LNING COlVI?,flSSION MINUTES November 7, i99-i Chah-man Ford ~lt when the widening of Pah Road would take place. Mr. Pour~-,~nfi responded that 1996/1997 is scheduled. Commissioner Webster ~lc~t how many extension of time are permitted. Director Thornhill responded that three, one-year extensions of time are all allowed and this is the second for the applicant. Commissioner Fahey commented that the enclosure did not include the full pwjeet plans and it would be helpful to the Plaxming Commission to review the paclt~Ee to be sure that it is consistent with the newly adapted General Plan. Commissioner Blair ~lr how much leeway on the extension of time the commission has. Director Thornhill stated that he would have to consult with the city attorney. Chairman Ford stated the full allotment of time was spent on the original project. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Blair to obtain the full package of the project, to include the minutes, for the Commissions review and to continue the public hearing for 30 days. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COlVHVHSSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford NOES: 0 COMlv~SSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Recess Chairman Ford declared a recess at 7:40 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 7:49 P.M. '-7. School Mitigation Program Resolution Associate Planner David Hogan presented the sl2ff report Commissioner Fahey asked ff them is any way to protect the city if the school district does a poor job of managing funds and City development is impacted or siowed down due to a short fall of funds. Mr. Hogan responded that Section No. 2 of the resolution outlines which l~ojects would be exempt. Commissioner Webster asked if a separate approval is required when the mitigation plan comes before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hogan stated the mitigation plan will come back to the Planning Commission for approval. R:~n,--,~,,,,,',110794.PLN 6 PLAN~,,~WG COMMISSION MINUTES November 7. 199~ Chairman Ford expressed concern that the Commission did not receive a copy of ~e County Resolution 93-131. Chairman Ford stated that he did not see a provision for an annual review. lie further stated that there was no joint amendment clause, no recision, no suspension, no supersede clause or subsequent clause. City Attorney Diaz stated this is an agreement not a contract and these features are not normally necessary. Chairman Ford reiterated his concern and stated that the object was to structure an agreement betwee~ the City and School District for a common good, and an annual review should be included in the agreement. Mr. Diaz stated it could be added with no problem. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 8:09 P.M. David Gallagher, representative for Temecula Valley Unified School District CINUCD) came before the Commission to answer any questions. Dennis Chiniaeff, Kemper Community Development, 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, stated he wanted to work with the community and the School District to ensure facilities are in place. Phil Oberhandsley with Lorenz, Alhadeff, Cannon, and Rose representing Kernper Community Development, requested that the Commission defer action at this time, to a workshop to discuss the language to be used. Mr. Laxry Markham, representing Johnson Machinery, requested a continuance until they have had time to review the document. Mr. Dave Gallagher stated that the mitigation plan requires the School District to pursue all avenues of funding. Commissioner Fahey asked Mr. Gallagher about the surrounding taxes for both new and old homes. Mr. Gallagher stated that the home pays for the schools. Commissioner Ford asked Mr. Gallagher if the School District would have a problem with a yearly review of the mitigation. Mr. Gallagher suggested a review on a project by project basis. Commissioner Ford ask if the District would be willing to fenyard a copy of the mitigation agreement. Mr. Gallagher responded that the City has a copy of the County agreement which is nearly identical. Chairman Ford closed the public hearing at 8:37 P.M. R:XMiaut~sX110794 .PIN 7 PLANNING CO~.,~SSION MINU'rF_.S November 7. 1954 Commissioner Slav~ ask ff them is a notification requirement. Director Thornhill stated that the newspaper would be notified. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded Commissioner Blair to approve staff recommendation as follows: Establish a program to mitigate the impacts to local school facilities from new development. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, and Webster NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford and Slaven ABSENT: 0 COMM/SSIONERS: None Planning Application No. 94-0081 (Plot Plan) Assistant Planner, Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster ask if there is a proposed median at Jefferson Avenue and Front Street that would preclude a left hand turn coming out of the West entrance. Mr. Fagan stated that per the General Plan, Jefferson Avenue will require a raised median, however, this project will not be required to put it in. Chris Grant with The Allen Group, representing Federal Express, 12188 Waverly Downs Way, San Diego came before the Commission to answer any questions. Chairman Ford asked Mr. Grant if he accepts the Conditions of Approval. IVlr. Grant stated he did. Commissioner Slaven asked to have the chain link fence, located in the back, replaced with wrought iron. Commissioner Blair also supported having wrought iron fence all the way around. Chairman Ford stated he feels chain link fencing in the back area is sufficient. The applicant stated that they put landscaping in to cover the chain link fence and although they would rather not put wrought iron fencing all the way around the property they, would consider it. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Chairman Ford (for discussion) to approve staff recommendation and approve Planning Application No. 94-0081 Discussion included what type of landscaping would cover the chain link fence. R:~um~Hllr/~.PI,~l 8 PLANNING COM~4ISSION MII',njTF~ The motion carried as follows: Approve consU'uction of a 25,556 square foot distribution facility. AYES: 5 NOF.& 0 ABSEnt: 0 November 7. 1994 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford COMMISSIONFj~: None COMMISSIONERS: None Vendor's Ordinance It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to continue Item No. 9 to the meeting of December 05, 1994. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONBI~: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Thornhill x~ported thc following: A Workshop is scheduled for the Old Town Project to be held at the Community Recreation Center, November 22, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. Consultants for the Nicholas Valley study have been selected. Recruitment for the Old Town Main Street Coordinator is in process. The Auto lVfa|l Marque sign is being reconsidered at the request of the auto dealers. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Blair n~ir if she could get materials to her sooner. OTHER BUSINESS None x:~va~,mo794.n~ 9 PLANrlMr2.4G CCMMISSION l~rD~Yi~ November 7. 1994 AD.TOURNMENT Chairman Steve Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, December 5, 1994, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 W'mche-~ter Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary R:~linul~\l10794.PI.N 10 ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 6, 1995 Planning Application No.: PA94-0138, Revised Conditional Use Permit Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving PA94-0138, Revised Permit based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and APPROVE Planning Application No. PA94-0138, Revised Permit, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Harry Reynolds & Cheryl Huber REPRESENTATIVE: Tim Hill PROPOSAL: Revise the conditions of approval to convert an existing nightclub which allows minors to the club and "beer only" alcohol sales to a "21 and over" nightclub. LOCATION: 28822 Front Street, Suites 203 and 204 EXISTING ZONING: C-P (General Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-P (General Commercial) C-P (General Commercial) Interstate 15 C-P (General Commercial) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Service Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: Retail Commercial Business SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Retail/Commercial Businesses Retail/Commercial Businesses Interstate 15 Retail/Commercial Businesses BACKGROUND There have been three previous City approvals for nightclubs at this location. The first approval was for the Dimensions nightclub, a "Under 21 ' teen nightclub with no alcohol sales. Next, in June of 1993, the City Council approved Planning Application No. PA93-0038, Conditional Use Permit. The approval was for a nightclub for people 21 years and older, and allowed for alcohol. Finally, in May of 1994, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit. This approval allowed people under 21 to use the nightclub, and required the applicant to obtain a Type 41 (beer only) alcohol license. ANALYSIS The applicant is currently requesting that the conditions of approval be amended to allow the type of nightclub which was approved under PA93-0038. The previous condition that permitted minors into tl~e nightclub would no longer be valid. The deletion of this condition would allow the applicant to obtain either a Type 42 (beer and wine) or Type 48 (hard alcohol) alcohol license. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The applicant is proposing a similar use to.that which was previously approved by the City of Temecula. The project, as conditioned, will ensure that the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Since the club has been in operation with alcohol sales, there have not been any reported problems with the surrounding business tenants. FINDINGS PA94-0138, Revised Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing zoning of General Commercial and 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. The project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28. In addition, the attached Conditions of Approval will assure adequate circulation, access and parking which will facilitate the proposed use. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations. Surrounding development is predominantly commercial and operates during daytime hours. The proposed use has been conditioned to insure it will not impact the surrounding area businesses. 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 15061 (b)(3). Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 4 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Exhibits - Blue Page 11 a. Vicinity Map b. Site Plan c. General Plan d. Zoning Map City Council Staff Report - June 22, 1993 (PA93-0038} - Blue Page 12 Planning Commission Staff Report - May 2, 1995 (PA94-0026) - Blue Page 13 Applicant's Letter of Justification - Blue Page 14 ATFACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-__ ATfACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMlVltqSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0138, REVISED CONDt'riONAL USE PERMIT TO REVISE ~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ~ UNDERLYING CONDITIONAL USE ~ TO NOT ,~LI OW MINORS INTO ~ NIGHTCLUB LOCATED AT 28822 FRONT STREET, SUITE 203 & 204, AND KNOWN AS PARCEL NUMBER 922-093-002. WI~F. REAS, Tim Hill fled planning Application No. PA94-0138 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County I~nd Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0138 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WI~.REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0138 on February 6, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0138; NOW, T!~F~REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Section 18.28, no Conditional Use Permit may be appwved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and weftare of the community, and further, that any Conditional Use Permit appwved shah be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. B. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA94-0138 makes the following findings, to wit: 1. PA94-0138, R~vised Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's G~neral Plan due to the fact that the project 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 Ordlnnnce No. 348 since it meets all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. 3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general weftam of the community. The project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28. In addition, the attached Conditions of Approval will assure adequate circulation, access and parking which will facilitate the proposed use. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant chnnge to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms With applicable land use and development regulations. Surrounding development is predominantly commercial and operates during daytime hours. The proposed use has been conditioned to insure it will not impact the surrounding area businesses. 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 15061(b)(3). C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, phning Application No. PA94-0026, as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and weftare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The environmental review prepared for this project indicates that will not have a significant impact on the environment, end therefore has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15061(b)(3). Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula planning Commi-~sion hereby approves Planning Application No. PA94-0138, Revised Conditional Use Permit to modify the conditions of approval for the underlying Conditional Use Permit to no longer allow minors into the existing nightclub located 28822 Front Street, Suites 203 & 204 and known as Assessor's hrcel No. 922-093-002, and subject to the foBowing conditions: A. Exhibit A, atlached hereto. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 1995. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I l:l'ERi?.l~y CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of February, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THO~J- SECRETARY ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0138, Revised Conditional Use Permit Project Description: To revise the underlying conditions of approval for the underlying Conditional Use Permit to no longer allow minors into the premises Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-093-002. Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements Planning Application No, PA94-0138, Revised Conditional Use Permit, shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA93-0038 and Planning Application No. PA94-0026, (copies of which are attached) unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA94-0138 which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0138 is to revise the conditions of approval for the underlying Conditional Use Permit to no longer allow minors into the premises. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 5:00 pm and 2:00 am Monday through Saturday, and 1:00 pm to 12:00 am on Sunday. 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) years period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. POLICE DEPARTMENT Within 30 days of the approval of this application, the applicant shall make application and pay any applicable filing fees with the Temecula Police Department to fulfill the requirement of the City's Adult Business License requirements. lt:~TAFFRP~I3SpA~4.PC 2/2/95 ¢df 10 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit Project Description: To revise the underlying conditions of approval for the underlying Cond'rdonal Use Permit to change the hours of operation, to serve food, and to allow minors into the premises ~ · ' , Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-093-002. Approval Date: May 2. 1994 Expiration Date: May 2.1995 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within .... : :. '- Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project General Requirements: T _; , The applicant/developer shell 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.. ~ -:~ . ' ; ~ - ' '; '~ :: j: ...... 2..-;'~ Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit, shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA93-0038 (copies of which are attached) unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. 3. The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0026 is to revise the conditions of approval for the underlying Conditional Use Permit to change the hours of operation,to serve food, and to allow minors into the premises. - ' 4. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecuia, 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. PA94-0026. 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 Temecuia. R:%STAFFFFR26PA94.PC 5/3/94 klb 10 This app;oval shall be used within one (1) year 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 one (1) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 5:00 pm and 2:00 am Monday through Saturday, and 1:00 pm to 12:00 am on Sunday. , Persons under 21 years of age ---~.~ ;.-.-~;.' may be allowed into the club on Fridays and Sundays only. Persons under 21 years of age :~.-"- ~r.~:r entering the night club shall be accompanied by a person 21 years of age or older.(Added at the May 2. 1994 Planning Commission Meeting) : : Catered food service shall be allowed on Sundays only. Prior to the change of .u. se, the applicant shall receive a new, "beer only," Type 40 alcohol sales license from the Alcohol Beverage Con~'ol Agency (ABC). :: 10. Pdor to the change of use t:Fhe applicant shall remove the non-permitted "Nite Club" sign from above the parapet.iAdded at the May 2, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting) BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 11. 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 Municipal Code. 12.-_ All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. - ~ .,.~ :' .- :.._:; :~: ~:, ,*:~:; -'::/~ ..~ ,' ~:. ~,- .. ~= *r-,. ~.: -" !-",: '~ ' * ~:' '~r':":2' :* :: : - .'~ '' ".-~:' ~ .... ~*"' 13. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.: : 14. Obtain Riverside County Health Department approval prior to submittal of plans for plan review. OTHER AGENCIES -':.;; ..... ~ ~: ~:!:- -= : ..'; *~, !.~ ~;~'~ ~..;'.'- :-'~.~ '~:'~ * ;.'~ ~' ~ :: ' ~'~ : - .,:, , .... *-, 15. = The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set fortl:t in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health transmittel dated April 6, 1994, a copy of which is attached ........ Pc~STAFFe'n2ePAS4,PC 6/3/94 kea 11 P.2 Temecula Perw e Department Memorane n Data: 04-26-94 The Temecula Police' D~partmant d~es net ~pp~se ~he 'hw~geS tO the above listed. Conditional Usa Permit as discussed at the Development Review C~mmittel meeting of April 14, 1994. ~he current conditions as written have been reviewed by myself a~d no problem ~as found. The con~tti0ns .in ,queation_deal .with allowinq m4nors_ into the establimhm~t under osr~ain circums~ances end hours. -' " ' T ~as]c;*that tbfe':~emalning~condittons of the original C.U.P. he left in~ac~c ~o help reluce the posstbtltt7 of crime occurring at ~he establishment. If you have any questions, please call me. Thazlk You. S interely, Officer Temecula Police. Department TO: FROM: RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AI IN: Craig ll.iz ~G/~R~/~DELLENBACH, Envi~omneza~l Health.~li~ IV RECEIVED APR 12 15g~ DATE: April 6, 1994 SUBSTANTIAL C0NFORMANCE'# PA94-0026, REVISED 'PERMIT" neparnne~: of Envir~ Health has reviewed the Substanlial Conformanc~ No. Pi94-0026, Revised Permit and has no objections.' PRIOR TO BUILDING PLAN'APPROVAL, the following ar~ mluimd: ". '. establishment will be submit~ including i fiXture schedule, a finish sch~lule and a pklmbing :~ . .:.. -~ schechle in order to ensur~ complianc~ witJa the California Uniform ~ Fo<xt Facilities law. (909) 275-8980 cc: Becky Johnson, Environme~l Health specialist HI · := ,:= -- -- ::,~ :; ; - -:.:- :.-: - ~:i~,,:. ,: - CiTY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA93-0038, Conditional Use Permit Project Description: A request to convert an existing young adult nightclUb into an adult only nightclub which will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol located at 28822 Front Street. Assessor's Parcel'No.:922-O93-002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1, The use hereby perm'i~ed is for an"adUl~0niy ~ightCtubt0 t~e located in an existing ..... building at 28822 Front Street ..... ; :-;~.~.~,. ..: . - .!., :. _ . ~- ..:. -: ......... 2. - This approval shall be used within one (1) year of approval date~'0therwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction ' contemplated by this approval within the one (1) year period which'is thereafter " diligently pursued to .completion, -or .the beginning of .substantial ,utilization contemplated by this approval. Should this use be discontinued for a year or longer, the permit will be deemed null and void. 3. The applicant shall provide written notification of '~he opening date as an adult nightclub to the Director of Planning and the Temecula Pol!ce Depa~_ment fourteen ( 1 days prior to said opening. -:: -, · -..:-. , 4. In the event that complaints are received relative to' tl;te operation ~3f'the facility, upon the recommendation of the Planning' Dir~.C{or and the Police Chief, (e.g. noise, trash, alcohol related arrests) the matter will then be scheduled before the Planning Commission for consideration of revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. 5. If multiple and/or constant problems arise at the establishment which adversely impact the Police Department; the Police Department can at the discretion cf the Police Chief assign officers to work at the establishment. The number of officers assigned, the hours and days worked is also at the discretion of the Police Chief. Any officers so assigned will be at the current extra duty rate of pay and will be paid for by the owner ' ' of the establishment. ~,:, ~-. ~ ,~.- ~ .; -~ ; . .~ . ;:... . , .~.-, Hours of operation shall be limited to between 5:00 pm and 2:00 am Monday through Sunday. _ The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, actions, or proceedings against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or R:%S~STAFFRPT%38PA93-2.CC 7/20193 kJb g legislative body concerning Planning ApOlication No. PA93-0038, Conditional Use Permit, The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecu!s and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This conditional use permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.31 of Ordinance 348. ' - ' ' ': , .' .... ·., The development of the premises shall conform substantially with the site plan marked Exhibit 'A'. or as amended by these conditions .... 10. A minimum of 31 parking spaces shall be provided for the use in.accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside Coun~'y Ordinance No. 348. 11. A minimum of 1 handicapped parking space shall be provided. The"location if ~he ' ~ handicapped pa~kir~g ~;~c~s shall be approved by the Planning Director. 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 end shall be centered at the interior end-of the parking space at a ., _~,I-: :,~:mi~imGm height if 80 inches from the bosom of ~e sign to the parking space finished _ ,. grade, or centered at ~ 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 facili~, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly aOd conspicuously stating ~e following: '"'Unamhorized vehicles not displaying di~inguishing placards o~ . :, license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be ,~,-. .,; . towed. a~ay at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed "'at: ': ': ' ':~ ...... : ' ~- ~' - -. or by: .telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking space shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of ;~ ~::'-least 3 square feet in size. ~ ~-;:5 =~:::;, ?:~;.~_-c 7~-?:- -::, .,~,-~ ~ ,. ,:.:~,~-, ~ 2: ~'" '~e ~erm~ee~hall obtain S revised permit for any modifications or revisions to the "a;proval hereby granted pursuant to Section .18.43 of Ordinance ~o. 3~. 13. Permi~ee shall develop and ~ilize a single file queue _mechanism at the o~side 14. ~erior noise levels shall not exceed 65 decibels as measured 50 feet from ~he prope~ line. Applicant shall bear ~e co~ of a noise study if noise level reading is requested as a result of a complaint to the CiW. 15. An Administrative Plot Plan application and accompanying fee for signage and lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. R:~STAFT:RPT%38PA93-2.CC 7120/93 Idb 1 O 16. Music shall be discontinued by 1:30 a.m. Alcoholic beverage sa!es shall cease after 1:00, a.m. 17. Permittee shall consider loiterers as trespassers and request that they leave. Police shall be notified immediately if they refuse to leave. 18. The permittee shall notify and obtain approval from the City Planning Department 30 days in advance of conducting any special event (Holiday, Seasonal, e.g.). All City costs incurred as a result of a special event, will be paid for by the permittee. All special events will be conducted in compliance with the City's special event regulations. --- , .... 19. Any disturbance at the site will be reported immediately to the Temecula Police Department. .: 20. Exterior lighting shall be the maximum permitted under Palomar Lighting District standards. 21. ' The interior lighting shall be sufficient for a police officer or employee to identify ar~ person inside the business. .: -: ~. :.. - , ..: 22. '~This permit commen~:es when the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issues the license to sell alcoholic beverages. :- :- .' - ~ : .: ,- . - -.. . ..: . WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT 23. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Twenty-Eve Dollars (925.00) for the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Riverside Cpunty Clerk. .... , · ,,~ : ,. ~ ,,_ ~-~ ~. ~:~ ~ ,~ : ~: - : -: ;~:~,, BUILDING AND SA~b~ ~' 24. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions "of'th~ 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code ~tle 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 25. Prior to the commencement of any construction work, obtain all building plan and permit approvals. 26. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. TEMECULA POLICE DEPARTMENT 27. Any additional landscaping will required the approval of the City of Temecula Director of Planning and the Temecula Police Department. 28. Maintain adequate number 'high visibility" in house security trained in recognizing, averting, and reporting potential problems within establishment during operating hours. R:~$~STAFFRFT~81~A93,2.CC 7120/93 Idb 11 29. Provide constant security personnel in parking lot area during peak ousiness hours, (after:.sunset). Post "No Loitering" signs in conspicuous areas of parking lot and make effort to discourage loitering outside establishment. 31. Have only one entrance and one exit available to general public,. except for emergency exits. These doors must be secured by personnel during all hours of operation. All other access doors shall be alarmed when opened. 32. No one under 21 years of age will be permitted in the establishment. : 33° Establishment shall have a designated driver program in effect. Police Department can be contacted for suggestions, if desired. ..- OTHER AGENCIES 34. Fire protection shall be:'provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 5,46 and the County Fire Warden's transmittel dated March 18, 1993, a copy of which is attached ..... ' ,.:~,,~ .: ,. ~- .,~.... 35 ~ ~:' ~The a'lS~31i~:'ant shall Comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Coun.t~. Health Department transmittal dated March 9, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 36. The applicant sh~ll comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated March 10, 1993, a copy of which is. · attached.- · :' :;- ~':-'~ ;~- · J- ~. ,~ ~v..~.,,: ,. , 37. The a~plicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the TemeCula Police Department's transmittal dated March 30, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 38. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit.''~::;:'~ ~' '-':::':~.: ,~~.~.~' .':--,:: ? ~:~ --- -.:!.. .~ .~ R:\S~.STAFFRF~3IPA~3-Z.CC 7120/~3 kib 12 RECEIVED MAR 3 O 1993 Temecula Police Department Memorandum Ans'd ............ · xa D~ Peltenberger, Officer Date: 03-30-g3 Final Conditions of Approval f0= Minor Conditional Permit No. PA9 0Olg, AdUlt Nig~tCl~ - formerly mmDimensicnSs The following are recommendations for conditions of Approval for the above referenced application. 1. Maxim~ amo~t ' of lightin~ allyable -;' per - Mt Pal~ . restrictions in p~king area ~f ~tablis~tj- ~ ~-7, :~ , ~e) Low density landscaping (shrubbelT) in parking area and a~o~d =he Building, specifically window areas· Maintain adequate number "high visibility" in house security ~ained in recognizing, averting, and reporting potential problems within establishment during operating hours. Provide constant security personnel in parkin~ lot axed duri~ peak ~usiness hours, (after Bunset). Post "No ~itering" signs in conspicuous areas or parking lot and make effort to disccura~s loitering outside es~abli~hment. Have only 6no entrance and one exit available to general public. These doors must be secureC by personnel-~uring all hours of operation. Fun=her recommend a~y other access ~oors be alarmed when opened. No one under eighteen years of age in establishment after 10m0O pm. Would prefer no one unCer ~wen~y-one years after 1O(O0 pm. Allow no one under twenty-one into the establishment if they. have been ~rinking alcoholic beverages. PsrsoD/~sl ahoul~ be trained t~ recognize the objective e~mptoms of intoxication. 'R~cummen~ establishment have a ~esignated driver program in ef=ec~. Police Department can be contacte~ for suggestions if If "'~mul~'vple ancZ/or cons't,,,n~ problems argue all 'the establish=en~ which adversely impact ~he Police Oepar~ment-- the police Depamen= can at the discreUion cf ~he Police CAief assign oZricers to work at tAe establishment. The number of Offices assi~ed, ~e hours and date worked is also at ~s dis~e=ion of ~e Folice ~ief. ~V O==icers so assl~ed will ~ a~ ~e ~enC ~ra duty rate of pay and ~11 ~e paid for by ~e o~e= of ~he establishment ..... ........ %h[ab~ve"are recommendations by '~.he Police Department to help minimize potentia~ criminal problems. D~ Feltenberger, Officer Temecnla Police Depament - · (909) 696-3088 ;-:T~::~;~:".~ :2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY -FIRE DEPARTMENT ~rc~ 1~9 1~3 TEIIEOULA PLANNIN6 DEPART}'XENT' RE: PA With respect to the conditi~ns of approval for the above refer-- enc~ plot -plan,=:the Fire Departm, mnt recommends th~ following fare protection meamu~i) be prDvl~ in ac~urdance with the City of Temecula Ordinances and/oK recognized fire pretext!on mtand- ards: The access provided for the mximting ~lte and on--mite water system (fire hydrants) are adequate for the pro~s~d usem the followinq items should be mho~n-~n the tenant improvement build- ing plans submitted to the Building and Safety Department. FIRE LANES 1. Site plan n~te "Designated fir~ lan~; {building access) ~haI1 r~main unobstructed and permanently maintained". FIRE SPRINKLERS 2. Title ~heet note "The existing automatic fire )prinkler syste~m shall ~e extended to provide coverage in all areas". KNOX KEY LOCK BOX 5. Title sheet note "The building shall be equipped with a know key I~CR box protect~ by the build£n~ fire alarm system for t;mper monitoring", T~ applicant shall contact the fire depart- ~ent for specifications and a knox permit application. FIRE EXTINGUISHS 4, Sh~w the location of all portable fire extinguishers, (one per 3000 square foot or 7~ f~et travel distance) fire extinguish-- ere located in ~ssembly area~ or e~it corridorm shall be in rec_'~_~ed cabineta mounte~ 46" (inches) to Center above floor level Nith maximum ~°' (lhche~) projection from the wall. PY.~,.~ING $ECTION PA ~3-00~8 Page 2 ...~ Provide details of th~ type of lock or latch' an exis~_ing All questions regarding the meaning of conditions sh~ll be referred ~o the Riversid~ County Fire depar~.~ent Planning division staff. MA:ma RA~DND H. R-~GIS Chief Fire Department Planner County of Riverside HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY TO: FROM: RE: CIT OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. AT .: Craig RuiZ/ DATE: TAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA93-0038 03-09--93 :: ~ , Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PA93-0038 and has no objections. PRIOR TO BUiLDING '.P. LA~ APPROVAL. the. following are required:, 1. "Will-serve" letters from the 'appropriate water and sewering districts. i~: ~ "~,~ f~..~-.. .... ,f...= ,_2. If there are to be any food establishments, :"three complete sets of-plans for ~each food ::' ' . establishment will ,be. submitted -including .... a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform ' u .-.-;~ Retail Food Facilities Law. '- --. ! 'h, '" ";"'f ' """ -~ - '-. ; ~ ' ' iff/U.: · (909) 275--8980 i ancha Wmr 15 1993 ta'd, ........... March 10, 1993 - Mr. Craig R .... City of Temecula ........ - - Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive · Temecula~ CA 92590 .: -.:. ~.:~ : .: .- .- .:_: _ ,: ~ ..... :'; ~ :- _, - ,. . .... ......... PA_93-0038, M~nor C,U.P. Adult Nil~ht Club ................ - - , , .','C':'.: ;~" * - Dear Mr. Ruiz: PIeCe be advised that the above-zeferenced property is Llocated w~thin the ; b0~ndari~s'~gf. Rancho' .Carllomb' Water Dis~ct (RCWD). Water service, therefore," would be available .upon completion of financial arrangements between RCVv'D ~nd the pr.operty owrler. ': ;~ :': :: .~- -, · .Lj ,;:.~: :L:.L'~ · '. : Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing' an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if an_y,_.t0_.R_CWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty, Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTKICr Steve Brannon, P. F.. Manager of Development Engineering S8:S~3:aj6S/F186 co: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA93-0038, Conditional Use Permit Project Description: A request to convert an existing young adult nightclub into an adult only nightclUb which will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol located at 28922 Front Street. Assessor's Parcel No.:922-093-002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The use hereby permitted is for an adult only nightclub to be located in an existing building at 28822 Fron~ Street. This approval shall be used within one (1) year of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the one (1) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. Should this use be discontinued for a year or longer, the permit will be deemed null and void. The applicant shall provide written notification of the opening date as an adult nightclub to the Director of Planning and the Temecula Police Department fourteen (14) days prior to said opening. In the event that complaints are received relative to the operation of the facility, upon the recommendation of the Planning Director and the Police Chief, (e.g. noise, trash, alcohol related arrests) the matter will then be scheduled before the Planning Commission for consideration of revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. If multiple and/or constant problems arise at the establishment which adversely impact the Police Department; the Police Department can at the discretion of the Police Chief assign officers to work at the establishment. The number of officers assigned, the hours and days worked is also at the discretion of the Police Chief. Any officers so assigned will be at the current extra duty rate of pay and will be paid for by the owner of the establishment. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 5:00 pm and 2:00 am Monday through Sunday. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, actions, or proceedings against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or R:\S~STAFFRPT~38PA93-2.CC 7120193 klb 9 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. legislative body concerning Planning Application No. PA93-0038, Conditional Use Permit. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecu!a and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This conditional use permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.31 of Ordinance 348. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with the site plan marked Exhibit "A", or as amended by these conditions. A minimum of 31 parking spaces shall be provided for the use in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. A minimum of I handicapped parking space shall be provided. The location of the handicapped parking spaces shall be approved by the Planning Director. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized 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 space shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. The permittee shall obtain a revised permit for any modifications or revisions to the approval hereby granted pursuant to Section 18.43 of Ordinance No. 348. Permittee shall develop and utilize a single file queue mechanism at the outside entrance. Exterior noise levels shall not exceed 65 decibels as measured E0 feet from the proper~y line. Applicant shall bear the cost of a noise study if noise level reading is requested as a result of a complaint to the City. An Administrative Plot Ran application and accompanying fee for signage and lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. R:~S~STAFFRPT%38pA93-2,CC 7120/93 klb 1 16. Music shall be discontinued by 1:30 a.m. Alcoholic beverage sales shall cease after 1:00 a.m. 17. Permittee shall consider loiterers as trespassers and request that they leave. Police shall be notified immediately if they refuse to leave. 18. The permittee shall notify and obtain approval from the City PLanning Department 30 days in advance of conducting any special event (Holiday, Seasonal, e.g.). All City costs incurred as a result of a special event, will be paid for by the permittee. All special events will be conducted in compliance with the City's special event regulations. 19. Any disturbance at the site will be reported immediately to the Temecula Police Department. 20. Exterior lighting shall be the maximum permitted under Palomar Lighting District standards ..... 21, The interior lighting shall be sufficient for a police officer or employee to identify any person inside the business. 22. This permit commences when the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issues the license to sell alcoholic beverages. WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT 23. The applicant/deveLoper shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Twenty-Five Dollars (~25.00) for the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk. BUILDING AND SAFETY 24. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 25. Prior to the commencement of any construction work, obtain all building plan and permit approvals. 26. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. -TEMECULA POLICE DEPARTMENT 27. Any additional landscaping will required the approval of the City of Temecula Director of Planning and the Temecula Police Department. 28. Maintain adequate number "high visibility" in house security trained in recognizing, averting, and reporting potential problems within establishment during operating hours. R:\S\STAFFRPT~38PA93-2,CC ?/20193 klb 11 29. Provide constant security personnel in parking lot area during peak business hours, (after sunset). 30. Post "No Loitering" signs in conspicuous areas of parking lot and make effort to discourage loitering outside establishment. 31. Have only one entrance and one exit available to general public, except for emergency exits. These doors must be secured by personnel during all hours of operation. All other access doors shall be alarmed when opened. 32. No one under 21 years of age will be permitted in the establishment. 33. Establishment shall have a designated driver program in effect. Police Department can be contacted for suggestions, if desired. OTHER AGENCIES 34. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March 18, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 35. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittal dated' March 9, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 36, The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated March 10, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 37, The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Police Department's transmittal dated March 30, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 38. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. R:\~i%STAFFRPT%38PA93-2oCC 7/20/93 klb 12 RECE)VED liar .q 0 1993 Ans'd ............ Temecula Police Department Memorandum 03-30-93 Craig Rutz, Assistant Planner Dan )eltenbergerm Officer Final Conditions of Approval for Minor Conditional Permit No. PA930019, Adttlt Nightclub - formerly mmDimenSienS" The following are recom~eneationa for Conditions of Approval fcr the above refersno~"application. 1. Mexinu~ amount 'of lighting allowable per Mr. Palems= restrictions in parking area of establishment. Low density landscaping (shrubbery) in parking area and around ~e building, specificelliS window areas. Maintain adequate number "high visibility" in house security trained in recognizing, averting, and reporting potential problems within establishment during operating hours· Provide constant security personnel in parking lot LTea during peaX business hours, (after sunset). Poet ,'No ~itering" signs in conspicuous areas of parking lot and make effor~ to discourage loitering cutside establishment. Have only one entrance and one exit available to general publiC. These do~rs must be secured by personnel during all hours of up.ration. Further recommend any other access ~oors be alarmed when opened. N~ one under eighteen years of age 10:00 pm. Would prefer no one under 10~00 pm. in eetablishmen~ after twenty-one ye~e after Allow no one under twenty-one into the establishment if they have been drinking alcoholic beverages. Personnel shoul~ be traine~ tO recognize the objective sl~mptoms of intoxication. 'Recommend establishment have a ~eSignated driver program in eftoct. Police Departman~ can be contacted rot suggestions if 1 deeired. I= multiple axle/or constant problems arise a~ the establishmon~ ~bich adversely impac= t/~e Pulice Depar~ment-- the Police Depar~nenE can at the discre=ion of the Police CHief assign officers ~o work at ~e establishment. The number of Officers assigx~ed, t~ehours and days worked is alsu at the ~iscretion o~ the P~lice Chief. Al~y 0=ricers so assigned will be at the current ex%ra duty rate of pay and will ~e paid for by the owner of the es=ablishment. The abov~ are recommendations by the Police Department to help minimize potentia~ criminal problems. Dan Feltenberger, 0f~i~r Temecula Police Depaz~:ment (909) 696~3088 RIVERSIDE COUNTY -FIRE DEPARTMENT c~, J M FL, UUtIS210 ~'~$T SAN JACIN'~O AVL~JE TO= ~TTN= TE19ECULA PLANNING DEPARTHENT Craig Ruiz PA 95-00~8 With respect to the condition= of approval for the above refer- enced plot plan, theeire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance ~ith the City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection stand- ards: The access provided for the existing ~ite and on-~ite Hater system (fire hydrants) are adequate for the proposed use, th~ following items ~hould be 5horn on the tenant improvement build-- ina plans submitted to the DuildinO and Safety Department. FIRE LANES i. Site plan note "Designated firg lang~ (building shall remain unobstructed and permanently maintained". FIRE SPRINKLERS 2. Title sheet note "The existing automatic fire sprinkler ~y~tem shall be extended to provide coverage in all areas". KNOX KEY LOCK BOX 5. Title sheet note "The building shall be equipped with a knox key lock bo~ protected by the building fire alarm system for tamper monitoring", The applicant shall contac~ the fire depart- ment for speci~ications and a knox permit application. FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 4, S~u~. the location of all portable fire extinguishers, (one per 5000 squar~ foot or 7~ f~et ~ravel distance) fire extinguish- ers located in assembly areas or esl~ corridor~ ehall be in rece~=ed cabinets mounte~ 46" (inches) to center above flcnar level Nith maximum 4" (Inches) projection from the ~all. 1~ INDIa OFFICE 79733 Coallit-/Cub Drive, Suit= F, lndio, CA 92201 (619) 863-88~6 · FAX (619) $e3-~'072 RE: PA ~-O038 Page 2 5. Provide details of the type of lock or latch' on existing door_c= All questions regarding the meaning of conditions sh~ll be referred to the Riverside County Fire department Planning division staff. RAYMOND H. R-~G I S Chief Fire Department Planner County of Riverside HEALTH SERVICESAGENCY TO: FROM: RE: CIT.Y OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. AT N: Craig Ruiz/ DATE: HEAL SPECIALIST IV NTAL TH MINOR CONDITIONA/~ USE PERMIT NO. PA93-0038 03-09-93 Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PA93-0038 and has no objections. PRIOR TO BUILDING PL/LN APPROVAL, the. following are required: 1. "Will-serVe" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. If there are to be any food establishments, three complete sets of plans for each food establishment wil~ be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. SM:dr (909) 275-8980 Water March 10, 1993 RF, CF.,IVE, D ............ Mr. Craig Ruiz V/ City of Tcmccula Planning Dcpartmcnt 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: W~ter Availability, APN 922-093~002 PA.93-0038, Minor C.U.P. Adult Night Club Dear Mr. Ruiz: Please be advised that the .above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water ava~ability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P. E. Manager of Development Engineering SB:$B:Sj65/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:~TAFFRF~138pA94.PC 2/2N5 cdr 11 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA94-0138, REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 6, 1995 R:\STAFFI~rr%138PA94.PC 211/95 Idb CITY OF TEMECULA FRONT STREET CASE NO. - PA94-0138, REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT - B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 6, 1995 SITE PLAN R:~STAFFRPT~138PA~4..PC 211/95 Idb CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SERVICE COMMERCIAL o R-A-20 if ,, ~1k EXHIBIT D - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - C-P (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) CASE NO. - PA94-0139, REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY6, 1995 R:~'TAFFRPT~13BPA94.pC 211195 Idb ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT - JUNE 22, 1993 (PA93-0038) R:'~STAFFRF~I38PA~4.PC 2/2/95 r. dr 12 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ,P~aOVA~ C'.TY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE,~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning June 22, 1993 PA93-0038, a request to convert an existing young adult nightclub into an adult only nightclub which will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol. Prepared by: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 93° A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVINO PA93-0038, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING TEEN NIGHTCLUB INTO AN ADULT ONLY NIGHTCLUB AND ALLOW THE SELLING AND ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL LOCATED AT 28822 FRONT STREET, SUITE 203, PARCEL NUMBER 922-093- 002. BACKGROUND At their April 18, 1993 meeting the Temecula Planning Commission denied the above referenced project. On June 8, 1993, the City Council held a public hearing to hear the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. At the June 8th meeting, the Council directed staff to return to the June 22, 1993 City Council meeting with a Resolution and Conditions of Approval for this project. FISCAL IMPACT None Attachments: Resolution No. 93- - Page 2 Conditions of Approval - Page 8 R:~S~STAFFRPT~38PA93-2.CC 6130193 Idb ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 93- R:~%STAFFRPT~BPA93-2.CC 211/95 Idb 2 RF_~OLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIl, OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PA93-0038, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING T~E'~I NIGHTCLUB INTO AN ADULT ONLY NIGHTCLUB AND ALLOW THE SELLING AND ON-SITE CONSUIV!FEION OF ALCOHOL LOCATED AT 28822 FRONT STRE;-T, SUrrE 203, PARCi~I, NUMBER 922093- 002. ~, Charles Mitich ~ed PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit in accordanc~ with the Riverside County Y~nd Use, Zoning, planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; W~Iml~AS, said Conditional Use Permit application was processed in the lime and manner prescribed by State and local law; Vq'I:IE'~.,AS, the Planning CommissiOn considered said Conditional Use Permit on April 5, 1993, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in sup!0on or opposition; ~, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said Conditional Use Permit; WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the decision of the planning Commission to the Temecula City Council. WtIRREAS, the City Council considered said Conditional Use Permit on June 8, 1993 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WH~.REAS, at the conchision of the Council hearing, the Council directed staff to return to the June 22, 1993 meeting with a Resolution of Approval and Conditions of Approval. NOW, 'rFrI~F~FORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEIVIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ~ That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a genera] plan within thirty (30) months foliowing incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, ff all of the foilowing requirements ar~ met: R:~S~'AFFRPT~SPA93-2.CC 2/1~5 klb 3 1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with me px~pavauon of the gcncnl phn. 2. The phnning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the iss~,-nce of bui]clin5 permits, each of the following: a. There is a reasonable probability tha~ the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan pwposal being considered or studied or which wili be studied within a reasollable tilno. b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted gunexal plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the phn. c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state hw and local ordinances. B. The Riverside 'C~>unty General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (he~in~e~er *SWAP') was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At thlg tithe, the City hnn adoptlXt SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The city is proceeHino~ in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan 2. The City Council finds, in appwving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following: a. There is reasonable pwbabillty that PA93-003g, Minor Conditional Use Permit proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b. There is little or no pwbabllity of sobstavfial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requix~nents of state hw and local orrlinsnces. D. Pu~uant to City of Temecuh Ordinance No. 93-05, which declared a moratorium on the establishment of nightclubs without a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant filed the required Conditional Use Permit application for the approval of the proposed nightclub. a. Pursuant to Section 18.2~(e), no Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless the applicant demonswares the proposed use will not be denimenrnl to the he, alth .~fety alld welfare of the community, and further, that any Conditiollal Use Permit approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general we]fa_r~ of the commBnity. E. The City Council, in approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit, makes the following findings, to wit: 1. Them is a reasonable probability that PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be complemd in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the projea is consistent with existing zoning of General Commercial and the Draft General plan Land Use designation of Service Commercial 2. The proposed project is con.~i,~tent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the requirements of Ordlnance.l~lO. 348. 3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or genell] welfal~ of the commtlnity. The project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28. In addition, the attached Conditions of Approval will assure adequate circuh~on, access and parking which will facilitate the proposed use. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or p]nnned land use of the alP. A. The project conforms with applicable tand use and development regnlmions. Surrouvdlng development is predominan~y commercial and operate during daytime hours. The proposed use has been condifioned to insure it will not impact the surrounding area businesses. 5. The pwposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment since the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15061(b)(3). F. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Conditional Use Permit proposed is compatible with the health, safety and weffa~ of the community. Section 2. Environmental COmPliance, The proposed use has been determined to be a Class I Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Qunlity Act. Section 3. Conditions. That the city of Temecuh City Council hereby approves PA93~ 0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing teen nightclub to an adult only nightclub and allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol located at 28822 Front Street, Suke 203, APN 922-093-002, subject to the foliowing conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 4. Tenn. The t~nn of said Use Permit shall be two years, until June 22, 1995. Ba.~d upon the evidence presented to the City Council at +.h~ public hearing, t!,~ period n:presents a x~asonable period of tim~ W amordze the anticipated inveshuent of $100,000.00 into the proposed use. Subsequen~y, upon application to the planning ~r and subjea to appeal to the l~l~nn{ng Colnm{~sion and City Council, the Use Permit may be extended for a like two (2) year tenn. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 1993. SAL MUNOZ MAYOR A-r~'P_~T: June S. Gr~k, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CAT -r;ORNIA) COUNTY OF RI'vP, MSIDE) SS urx-Y OF TEMECULA) I B'k'rR~.Ry CERTWY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecuh at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22rid day of June, 1993 by the fo]lowing vote of the City Council: COUNCU, MEMBEP, S: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNTERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: JUNE S. CITY CLERK ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:%S~STAFFRPT~38PA93-2.CC 6/30/93 klb 8 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA93-0038, Conditional Use Permit Project Description: A request to convert an existing young adult nightclub into an adult only nightdub which will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol located at 28822 Front Street. Assessors Parcel No.:922-093-002. PLANNING DEPARTMENT. *: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. The use hereby permitted is for an adult only nightclub to be located in an existing building at 28822 Front Street ..... ~ :;~__ ~ --- , This approval shall be used within one (1) year of approval date: otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this al~proval within the one (1) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to-completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. Should this use be diacontinued for a year or longer, the permit will be deemed null and void. The applicant shall provide writ'ten notification of the opening date as an adult nightclub to the Director of Planning and the Temecula Police Department fourteen (14) days prior to said opening. In the event that complaints are received relative to the operation of the facility, upon the recommendation of the Planning Director and the Police Chief, (e.g. noise, trash, alcohol related arrests) the matter will then be scheduled before the Planning Commission for consideration of revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. If multiple and/or constant problems arise at the establishment which adversely impact the Police Department; the Police Department can at the discretion of the Police Chief assign officers to work at the establishment. The number of officers assigned, the hours and days worked is also at the discretion of the Police Chief. Any officers so assigned will be at the current extra duty rate of pay and will be paid for by the owner of the establishment. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 5:00 pm and 2:00 am Monday through Sunday. The permiT~ee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecuta, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, actions, or proceedings against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annuL, an approval of the Cit~/of Temecula, its advisory agencies. appeal boards, or 9. 10. 11. 12.. 13. 14. 15. legislative body concerning Planning' A~plication No. PA93-0038, Conditional Use Permit. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of TemecuJa and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This conditional Use p~rmit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18,31 of Ordinance The development of the premises shall conform substantially with the site plan marked Exhibit 'A', or as amended by these conditions; - A minimum of 31parking spaces shall be Provided-for the use in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. A minimum of I handicappeel parking space shall be provided, The location of the ' handicapped ~irkin~ -~l~aCe~'Sh~ll be appt0ved by:the Planning Director. 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 Acdessibility. 'The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square. '. 'i inches in area and shell 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'~lisplaying 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 space shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at ' _': "- least 3 square feet in size. : - · . ~; .... The permittee shall obtain a ~evised permit for any modifications or revisions to the approval hereby granted pursuant to Section 18.43 of Ordinance No. 348..:' -. Permittee shall develop and utilize a single file queue mechanism at the outside Exterior noise levels shall not exceed 65 decibels as measured 50 feet from the property line. Applicant shall bear the cost of a noise study if noise level reading is requested as a result of a complaint to the City. An Administrative Plot Plan application and accompanying fee for signage and lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Depari, mnt for review and approval,. R:~'~b'rAe~red'Y~3ie,t93-2.CC 7/20/93 lib 10 16. Music shall be discontinued by 1:30 a.m. Alcoholic beverage sales shall cease after 1:00 a.m. 17. Permittee shall consider loiterers as trespassers and request that they leave. Police shall be notified immediately if they refuse to leave. 18. The permittee shall notify and obtain approval from the City Planning Department 30 days in advance of conducting any special event (Holiday, Seasonal, e.g.). All City costs incurred as a result of a special event, will be paid for by the permit~ee. All special events will be conducted in compliance with the City's special event regulations. · - ,~: -- : -~ .... 19. Any disturbance at the site will be reported immediately to the Temecula Police Department.: - 20. Exterior lighting shall be the maximum permitted under Palomar Lighting District standards. -. :;, -. ~_- ;~ ~ -'~-~ :::~:-~., -. ~.~ -,., .- -:: ...~- ,: .... ,-:.. 21. The interior lighting shall be sufficient for a police officer or employee to_identify any person inside the business. ,: -_ .: 22. This permit commences when the De~ar~.~ent of Alcoholic Beverage Control issues the license to sell alcoholic beverages. · .... : - WITHIN FORTY-BGHT (48) HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT 23. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) for the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk. BUILDING AND SAFETY 24. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition" of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 25. Prior to the commencement of any construction work, obtain all building plan and permit approvals. 26. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. TEMECULA POLICE DEPARTMENT 27. Any additional landscaping will required the approval of the City of Temecula Director of Planning and the Temecula Police Department. 28. Maintain adequate number 'high visibility" in house security trained in recognizing, averting, and reporting potential problems within establishment during operating hours. 11 29. Provide Constant security personnel in parking lot area during peak business hours, (after sunset) .... 30. Post "No Loitering" signs in conspicuous areas of parking lot and make effort to discourage loitering outside establishment. · -- 31. ' Have only one entranc~ and one exit available to general public, except for emergency ' :' exits. These doors must be secured by personnel during all hours of operation. All " other acces~ doors shall be alarmed when opened. :' 32. No one under 21 years of age will be permitted in the establishment. 33. 'Establishment 'shall ha~/e a designated driver program in effect. Police Department can be contacted for suggestions, if desired. 34. Fire protection shall he.proVided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March 18, 1993,' a copy of which is attached. 35. 36. 37. 38. The applicant shall c(~mply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Count),. '~ Health Deparij~mnt transmittal dated March 9, 1993, a copy of which is attached. · The appliCan~ shall 'cor~ply with' tl~e 'reCommendatiens set forth' in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated March 1 O, 1993, a copy of which is attached. ' ,7 ~. .' . - , -- .- . ~ .... ~., , , :- :, _-,,~,~ . ,: ·.: , ..~.:2 The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Police Department's transmittal dated March 30, 1993, a copy of which is attached. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit .... R:~S~'TBA93-2.CC 7120/93 klb 12 R E C E I V E D TenIs Police Depar,'Jnent ~IAR ,4 0 1993 Memorandum Ans'd ............ craig Dan :ZeZtenbarger, 03-30-93 R]: Final Conditions of Approval for Hinor Conditional Permit No. PA930019, Ad=l~ Nightclu~ - formerly "Dimensions' The followlng are recommendations for Conditions of Approval for the above referenced application. .... ::~. t, ..:. .... ~ .. 1. Maximum amount 'o~ ltghtinV allowable 'per Me." Palemar restrictions in parking area c= eetabZ~sbment. " Low density lan~scaping (shrubbery) in parking area and aro~u~d ~e ~u ld~ng, specifically window areas. Maintain adequate nu~er "high visibility" in house security trained in recognizing, avertin~, and reporting potential problems widen establis~ent during operating hours. Post ""No L~itering" signs in conspicuous areas of parking lot and make le=fort to discourage loitering outside establir~ent. Have only one entrance end one exit available to general pu~l~. These doors must be secured by personnel during all hours of operation. Ph/rther rec~m~e~d any other access doors be elsTmed when opened. No cue under eighteen ~ears of a~e in establishment after 10=oo ~m. Would prefer nc one under twenty-one ysera after 10100 ~m. Allow no one under twenty-one into the establishment if they here been drinMing al~ohclio beverages. Personale1 should be traine~ tO recognize the objective ey~ptoms Of intoxication. Recommend eSte~liehment have a designated driver program in effec~;. Police Department can be contacted for suggestions if 1 c iat ass Vn officers to vork a~ ~he establishment, Tam number of officers aasig~ed, ~e hours and days vcrk~ is also assl~ed ~Z1 be at ~e ~n~ ~a du~ r~e o~ pay and rill ~e paid tot ~a o~e~ Ot ~e astringent. The above are recmendaticns by the POlice Departant to help. minimize potential crYins1 p~obl~s.. T~euula Police Dep~XX. (909) 696-3088 _ _ 2 · A · DEP RT NT ~,,. ,~:. '?~:~ ~;~:;_i~,;'~ _~ ,:-:*-~ ,~=~,~arc~ 1~9' ~th r~pect tD ,~he c~dLtl~, of approval far the a~ve Pefer-- enc~ plo~ pi~t~ *Flre:,Dep~ent rec~ends t~ following fire protecti~ mea~res ~e prDvl~ :in ac~ordance Hith the City ..... ef Temecula Ordi~ces and/or re~nlzed fire prutegtlan stand-* ards: _' ~ - The ac~s p~vid~' ~r.'the" exiitin~ site an~ Qn--~i~e ~ater system (fire hydrants) are adequate for the pro~ use, the +ollo~ing i~ms sh~ld be sh~ on the tenant improve~nt -~ild- ina pi~s ~{~itted to t~ .Building and ~fety Department, FIRE LANES 1, Site plan note "Designated fire lane=- (b~ilding shall remain unobstructed and permanently maintained". FIRE SPRINKLERS ' - ' ~ 2. Title sheet note "The existing ' 'JtomatiC fire sprinkle; SyStLhT, "-hall be Extended to provide coverage in all areas", - .... · . .~ .... -..~-:::;.:::~ KNOX KEY LOCK BnX 3, Title sheet note "The building shall be equipped with a knox "'. :':.-~:'-. key lock box ;rotecte~ b~ the building fire alarm system for.' '~.'j.].~:'?~-:' tamnet m~itoring", T~ applicant shall c~tac~ the fire men~ for Specl~lcati~i and B knox permit applica~i~. -' · 4, S~ the 1peation Df all ~r.taDle fire extinguishers, (one . .:--*'.:: · per 3000 squar~ foot or 7~ fQgt travel dtst~ce) fire extinguish-- :.. er~ located in ass~bly areas ~r e~lt corridors shall be in richard cabinets mNnte~ 4B" (tnc~s) to center a~ve fl~r level Nlth maxlm~ 4" (1riches) proje~l~ from the ~11, (9093 2754'??'), F,~X (90~) :H9-74~l FL~E rRSYLTI/ON ~vmo~ PL.A~,'M~G S~CTION All questic~qs regarding the-meaning gf cOnditians shall be referPed to the Riverside County Fire deglrtJsent Planning division staff. , Country 6f Riverside HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY TO: CI oF TE~CdLA PLANNING DE~T. ' DATE: ,1~.,,,]E~F_,A.T.,TH SPEC~TST IV FROM: , ._': .. ,,,::, -*,, :. ~ RE: MINOR CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT NO~PA93-O038 Department'~f Env~r0nment~ Health ha~"~reviewed. =he: Minor -.~ conditional Use Permit No~ PA93-0038'and has no objections · - water and sewering dis~ic~;':~:-~,::-:.'~:~:-; ~: ~:-:~ :: ~-~:7~:;~-:. ~. 2.- If ~ere are 'to be-~y;food es~blls~ents,,~-~ -':~::~':'~ .l:;:~]-%' establis~ent]will;be s~t~ed ~':~' ~: ::: , :~: a :'fi~e~edule; ,a ~.~inish 'schedul~ '~ahd~=a'=~: -~f:-:~;~ :': plying schedule 'in~order t0'ens~e '~-:~;~:~' ....... -'-.~' Retail Food Facilities Law .... ':].. (9 9) 275-8980 -, '- ..... ~-,. "~,"~:.': ~,,,-:~ ..... Rancho Wat r t,r~c.o,~ , REC IVE March 10, 1,o93 ** Mr. Craig Ruiz plsnning Depax Ltuent 43180 Business Park Drive Tcmecula, CA - 92590 .- ., ,-.:-_ .~._:: .~..:_._ . : -. ,- ~ ....,~ PA93-0038, Minor C.U.P. AdUlt Night Club Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located whhjn the boundaries of Rancho California Water Di~ict (RCWD). Water service, therefore, %vould be ava~able Upon completion_ of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. ' Water ava~abilily would be contingent Upon the property owner si~m~ing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management fights, if any, to RCVvrD. If you have any questions, please contact M~. Senga Doherty. S/ncerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P. E. Manager of Development Engineering efi:SD:mj651FI~6 cc: Scnga Doheny, Engineering Technician TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FIN~NCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning June 8, 1993 PA93-0038, a request to conver~ an existing young adult nightclub into an adult only nightclub which will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol. Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PA93-0038, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY SAID APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING YOUNG ADULT NIGHTCLUB INTO AN ADULT ONLY NIGHTCLUB WHICH WILL ALLOW THE SELLING AND ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL LOCATED AT 28822 FRONT STREET. BACKGROUND Ih June of 1991, Administrative Plot Plan No. 15.3 was approved for the Valley Beat teen nightclub. In April of 1992, the applicant subsequently received City Council approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 19 for this same use. On February 23, 1993, the applicant filed a Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-07 (Adult Business Ordinance) for the conversion of an existing young adult nightclub to an adult nightclub. Ordinance No. 93-07 requires a CUP for the establishment of bars and cocktail lounges. The CUP was filed as a Director approval; however, because of concerns relating to compatibility of the proposed use, the matter was referred by the Planning Director to the Planning Commission for consideration. On April 5, 1993, the City of Temecula Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit. DISCUSSION The primary issue of concern raised by the Planning Commission during the public hearing for this project was the proximity between the proposed nightclub and the Temecula Teen Center and the Skate City skating rink. The location of the proposed use would be approximately 400 feet from both the teen center and the skating rink. The Temecula Teen Center and Skate City skating rink are uses that cater primarily to minors. The Planning Commission found that the proposed nightclub in this location would result in an incompatibility of land uses. This finding was based on the fact that the teen center and the skating rink would operate during essentially the same hours as the proposed nightclub. The Planning Commission also found that the sale and on-site consumption of alcohol this close to the teen center and the skating rink would pose a threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Based upon these two findings the Commission denied the appiicant's request. Also discussed during the public hearing was a concern raised by three citizens that there was a history of excessive noise C~ning from the teen club's sound system. The citizens explained that music would travel across Interstate 15 and could be heard at their residences in the Rancho Highlands development. FISCALIMPACT None. Attachments 2. 3. 4. 5. Resolution No. 93- - Page 3 Planning Commission Denial Resolution (April 5, 1993) - Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes, April 5, 1993 - Page 8 Planning Commission Staff ReDoft, April 5, 1993 - Page 9 Applicant Letter of Rebuttal and Exhibit - Page 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION N0.93- ATrACHMENT NO. 1 R~-~OLUTION NO. 9~ A I~r-~OLUTION OF ]q:r';. CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PA93-0038, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMYgSlON'S DECISION TO DENY SAm APPLICATION TO ~L~OW ~ CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING YOUNG ADULT NIGHTCLUB INTO AN ADULT ONLY NIGHTCLUB WHICH Wrt .T..a T .T O W ~ S~..T .T .~NG AND ON-Sr'E CONSUhIIqION OF ALCOHOL LOCATe:: AT 28822 FRONT WI:ik'REAS, in acC. o. rdance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference, Mr. Stosan Mitich fried PA93-0038, Minor Conditiona~ .U. se Permit, proposing to allow the conversion of an existing young adult nightclub into an adult only nightclub which will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol located at 28822 Front Street. W~REAS, the proposed project is located in close proximity to the Temecula Teen Center and the Skate City S~cating Rink, two uses that cater primarily to minors; WWEREAS, pursuant to Government Cede Section 65360, a newly incorporated City shall adopt a General Plan within thixty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30- month period of time, the City is not subject to the requirement that a General Plan be adopted and that its decision be consistent with the General Plan if certain findings are made; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.28 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, a conditional use permit must be denied unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general wellaxe of the community; WB'FREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Conditional Use Permit on April 5, 1993, at which lime interested persons had opportunity to testify with either in support or opposition to said Conditional Use Permit and; WB'EREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission heaxing and after having considered all information presented, the Planning Commission denied said Conditional Use Permit; Wm;rRF, AS, Mr. Stosan Mitich fled an appeal of the Planning Commission decision; WtIk'REAS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WEr~,REAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal; and; Wlq'KREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal on June g, 1993, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Appeal; NOW, TFfk'~E, FORE, ~ CITY COUNCIl, OF T6F.. CrrY OF TEVIECULA DOES RF-~OLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI.IO WS: Section 1. ~ The Temecuh City Council hereby denies PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit based upon the following findings: A. The appellant han failed W demonstntte the proposed pwject will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general weftare of the community. B. The proposed projea is not consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since the use does not meet all the requirements of Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348 which requires that a proposed use not pose a threat w public health~ safety and general welfare of the community. C. The project, as pW~osed, will adversely affea the public health and weftare on the grounds the use will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol in close pwximity to the Temecuh Teen Center and the Skate City skating rink. D. The project, as proposed, would result in an incompatible land use on the grounds the use will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol in close proximity to the Temecuh Teen Center and the Skate City skating rink. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The proposed project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15061Co)(3). R:~S'~TAFFRFr~gpA93.CC 5FZ'//93 ~ 5 Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ~ 8th day of June. 1993. ATTEST: sat. nn Toz MAYOR June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF C.AT.n~ORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF 'i,~IECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, I-I~RY DO CERt'~t~'~' that the foregoing Ordinance No.93- was duly introduced and plac~d ulxm its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th day of April, 1993, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular me~ting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th day of April, 1993, by the following roll call vote: COUNCILIVI]mVIBERS: NOES: C OUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILM]~IBERS: .TUNE S. CITY CT-~K ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL RESOLUTION APRIL 5, 1993 ATfA~ NO. ! PC I~F-~OLUTION NO. 93-08 A ]~F-qOLUTION OF Tn~, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PA93-0038, MINOR CONDfi1ONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING T~.k'W N'IGHTCLUB INTO AN ADULT ONLY NIGHTCLUB AND ~ SRI,13NG AND ON-SITE CONSU1VIFIION OF ALCOHOL LOCATw AT 28822 FRONT STIIERT, SU[fE 203, PARCEL NUIVlBER ~22--093-002. WffEREAS, Chaxles Mitlch filed PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the Riverside County T=nd Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; Wgk':RY. AS , said Minor Conditional Use Permit application was processed in the time and manner prcsefibetl by State and local law; WVITT, EAS, the Planning COmmission considetr, d said Conditional Use Permit on April 5, 1993 at which time interested persons had an oppormhity to .testify either in sup!0on or opposition; WtLF_:REAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended denial of said Conditional Use Permit; NOW, TWEREI~ORE, Tn'E PLANNING COMMISSION OF I'I:LE C1TY OF TF, MECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findines. That the Tcmecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Goverrunent Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, ff all of the following requirements axe met: B. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. C. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, Cnereina~er 'SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proc__e~v~_ing in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. Section 4. PASSED, API'ROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th d~y of April. 1993. LINDA L. FAHEY CHAIRMAN I gl~W. Ry CERTIFY thaf the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecuh at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of April, 1993 by the following vote of the Commission: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: BLAIR, CHINIAEFF, FAHEY, FORD, HOAGLAND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GAEY THOP, NF~I- SECRETARY R:XS%STAFFRPT%38P~k93.pC 416/93 A'i'I'ACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 5, 1993 R:~'~'TAFF'RrZ~IpA~3.CC 5s~,~3 ~d~ 8 Di AF[ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTT-S APRIL 5, 1993 retail uses. Bruce Wade, applicant, High Society Family Billiards, advised the Commission that he owns several billiards locations and has not received a citation for selling alcohol to a minor. Mr. Wade also advised that he does not sell alcohol unless you are playing a game of pool. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland~ seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to close the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. and recommend Adoption of Resolution No. 93- , approving PA 93-0025, Minor Conditional Use Permit based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 · COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIO~IERS: None Commissioner Chiniaeff restated that if parking becomes a problem for the center, parking may be restricted or must be provided, and could possibly impact future proposed leases for the complex. 8. PA 93-0038. Minor Conditional Use Permit Proposal to convert an existing teen night club to an adult night club located at 28822 Front Street, Suite 203, Temecula. Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Chairman Fahey questioned why the General Ran Consistency states that the site will likely be consistent with the City's future adopted General Plan, when the proposed use poses a threat to public health, safety and general welfare. Debbie Ubnoske suggested that a 01icy be added requiring that the site be consistent w~th the General Plan s futurn~ u~..~ Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Chuck Bell, representing Industrial Developers, 113 East Bay Avenue, Newport Beach, stated that the land use is contradictory in Items 1 and 4 and the applicant is proposing the legal use under the zoning of the site. He stated that staff did not include what would be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, in drinking of alcohol in moderation. Mr. Bell stated that he feels there is less use at the Teen Center, than there was at the Teen Nightclub. He added that he feels the project is a significant distance from the Skating Rink and the Teen Center. Mr. Bell corrected PCMiN4105193 °6- 419193 F;LANNING COMMISSI~;N MINUTES APRIL 5, 7993 tha: staff reDor: description of the ~roperty by amendir, g the 10, ~40 square feet to 4,800 square feet. Mr. Bell stated that the applicant had received no opposition from existing tenants. Sto~'~n"'n2Vlitich, 28822 Front Street, Temecula, expressed that he feels the skating rink and the teen club are rarely used and the proposed club will not interfere with either of these projects. Leroy LeBtanc, 44041 Quiet Meadow Road, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. LeBlanc stated that he exr}erienced excessive noise and foot traffic during the operation of the teen nightclub. Don Albercs, 44089 Northgate Court, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Alberts advised that he also was negatively impacted by the teen nightclub. Mr. Alberts pointed out that he feels there was a relation to the opening of the teen nightclub and the increase in graffiti in his housing development. Stoha~Mitich stated th~'dUring the operation of the teen nightclub, if there were complaints from neighbors, the club operators would work with the neighbors to rectify the problem. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the staff reports indicates findings have been made which show that the project is not a compatible use, with the youth activities currently in the same area as the proposed project. Commissioner Blair concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to close the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. and Adoct Resolution No. 93- denying PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: BI;~ir, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Chairman Fahey declared a recess at 7:55 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 P.M. 9. Development Aoreement No. 92-1 (CA 92-11. Chance of Zone No_. 21 and Tentative Parcel Mac No. 27314 A request to subdivide a 96.7 acre parcel into 4 parcels and a 48.4 acre remainder parcel, a Development Agreement to ensure the development of the project as senior PCMIN4105193 *?- 4t9/93 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APRIL 5, 1993 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1993 Case No.; PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 93° denying PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Charles Mitich, Dimensions Nightclub PROPOSAL: A request to convert an existing young adult nightclub into a adults only nightclub which will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol. LOCATION: 28822 Front Street, Suite 203 EXISTING ZONING: C-P (General Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-P (General Commercial) C-P (General Commercial) Interstate 15 (I-15) C-1/C-P (General Commercial) PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Service Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: General Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Retail/Commercial Retail/Commercial Interstate 15 (I-15) Vacant R:~S~STAFFRPT~38PAg3.PC 3/31/~3 tie ZONING AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The project site is zoned C-P (General Commercial) and the adjacent parcels are also zoned General Commercial. While the proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the C-P Zone, the use is not consistent with Section 18.28 of Ordinance 348 which requires that a proposed use not pose a threat to public health, safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Draft General Plan Land Use Designation is Service Commercial. It is anticipated that the site will likely be consistent with the City's future adopted General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has determined the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15061 (b)(3). SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS While the project is consistent with Section 9.1 of Ordinance No. 348 (the General Commercial Zone) the proposed use does not meet the requirement of Section 18.28 of Ordinance 348 for Conditional Use Permits. Section 18.28 requires that proposed uses not pose a threat to public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Due to the proximity of the proposed nightclub to the Temecula Teen Center and the Skate City skating rink, the proposed use has the potential to pose a threat to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. FINDINGS There is a reasonable probability that PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing zoning of General Commercial and the Draft General Plan Land Use designation of Service Commercial. The proposed project is not consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since the use does not meet all the requirements of Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348 which requires that a proposed use not pose a threat to public ~ealth, safety and general welfare of the community. The project, as proposed, will adversely affect the public health and welfare on the grounds the use will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol in close proximity to the Temecula Teen Center and the Skate City skating rink, The project, as proposed, would result in incompatible land uses on the grounds the use will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol in close proximity to the Temecula Teen Center and the Skate City skating rink. The proposed project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15061 (b)(3). R:~S~STAFFRPT~3ePAS3.PC 3/31/~3 l~e 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 APPLICANT'S L= ~ ~ =K AND EXHIBIT R:~5~TAFFRPT~IPA93.CCS/'Z'7/93 klb April 6, 1993 APR 06 1993 Y, xhlbtrs I & 2 Use of Teen Center will be leaving shortly. The Teen Center closes at 10:00 p.m., far sooner than proposed club would close. There is a wall between Teen Center and the subject property. Security guards would eliminate potential loitering problems. There are two buildings that physically separate the nightclub and skating dnk. Skating rink would close far sooner than the proposed club. There is also a 3 ft. grade separation between the two properties. About 20-25 jobs can be created locally. · We have taken measures to eliminate sound problems across the freeway by building a wall. Since then, we have received no complaints. This happened approximately one month after the club opened. Any potential problems can be resolved through the C.U.P. process. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ,! FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planrang May 25, 1993 PA93-0038, a request to convert an existing young adult nightclub into an adult only nightclub which will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol. Prepared By: Craig D..R..uiZ, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PA93-0038, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY SAID APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING YOUNG ADULT NIGHTCLUB INTO AN ADULT ONLY NIGHTCLUB WHICH WILL ALLOW THE SELLING AND ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL LOCATED AT 28822 FRONT STREET. BACKGROUND tn June of 1991, Administrative Plot Plan No. 153 was approved for the Valiey Beat teen nightciub. In April of 1992, the applicant subsequently received City Council approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 19 for this same use. On February 23, 1993, the applicant filed a Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-07 (Adult Business Ordinance) for the conversion of an existing young adult nightclub to an adult nightclub, Ordinance No. 93-07 requires a CUP for the establishment of bars and cocktail lounges. The CUP was filed as a Director approval; however, because of concerns relating to compatibility of the proposed use, the matter was referred by the Planning Director to the Planning Commission for consideration. On April 5, 1993, the City of Temecula Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit. R:%S~TAFFIUxr'38PA93.C~ 5/17/93 k~ 1 DISCUSSION The primary issue of concern raised by the Planning Commission during the public hearing for this project was the proximity between the proposed nightclub and the Temecula Teen Center and the Skate City skating rink. The location of the proposed use would be approximately 400 feet from both the teen center and the skating rink. The Temecula Teen Center and Skate City skating rink are uses that cater primarily to minors. The Planning Commission found that the proposed nightclub in this location would result in an incompatibility of land uses. This finding was based on the fact that the teen center and the skating rink would operate during essentially the same hours as the proposed nightclub. The Planning Commission also found that the sale and on-site consumption of alcohol this close to the teen center and the skating rink would pose a threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Based upon these two findings the Commission denied the appiicant's request. Also discussed during the public hearing was a concern raised by three citizens that there was a history of excessive noise coming from the teen club's sound system. The citizens explained that music would travel across Interstate 15 and could be heard at their residences in the Rancho Highlands development. FISCAL IMPACT None. Attachments 2. 3. 4. 5. Resolution No. 93- - Page 3 Planning Commission Denial Resolution {April 5, 1993) - Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes, April 5, 1993 -Page 8 Planning Commission Staff Report, April 5, 1993 - Page 9 Applicant Letter of Rebuttal and Exhibit - Page 10 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 93- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 9~- A l~l~-~OLI.rrION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF Ti:m. CITY OF TEMECUI,A DENYING PA93-0038, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERM1T, AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMIVIBSION'S DECISION TO DENY SAID APPLICATION TO ,~LII)W ~ CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING YOUNG ADULT NIGHTCLUB INTO AN ADULT ONLY NIGHTCLUB WB~CH Wr~ .1 . ALLOW TKE SElL .r .mlG AND ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL LOCATED AT 28822 FRONY WHEREAS, in accordance with the Riverside County I_and Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the Ci!y has adopted by reference, Mr. Stosan Mitich filed PA93-0038, Minor ConditionaLUse Permit, proporing to allow the conversion of an existing young adult nightclub inW an adult only nightclub which will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol located at 23822 Fwnt Street. WHEREAS, the proposed project is located in close proximity to the Temecula Teen Center and the Skate City Skating Rink, two uses that cater primarily to minors; WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated City shall adopt a General Plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 313- month period of time, the City is not subject to the requirement that a General Plan be adopted and that its decision be consistent with the General Plan if certain findings are made; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.28 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, a conditional use permit must be denied unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Conditional Use Permit on April 5, 1993, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify with either in support or opposition to said Conditional Use Permit and; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after having considered all information presented, the Planning Commission denied said Conditional Use Permit; WHEREAS, Mr. Stosan Mitich filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision; WHEREAS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal; and; RAS'~rAFFI~T~38pA93.CC 5/17t93 k~ 4 WFr~RF_AS, the City Council conduct~t a public hea~.n~ pertaining to said Appeal on May 25, 199~, at wb.i~h time inter~t~J persons ha~ opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Appeal; NOW, T!:H~k"I~ORF_,, THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TENIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FO!oIOWS: Section 1. Fmdln~, The T~mecula City Council hereby dc-ni~ PA93-0038, Minor Conditional Use Permit based lrpon the following findings: A. The at~li~nt has failed to demonsm~ the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. B. The proposed project is not con~tent with Ordinance No. 348 since the use does not meet all the requirements of Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348 which requires that a proposed use not pose a threat to public health, safety and general welfare of the community. C. The project, as proposed, will adversely affect the public health and welfare on the grounds the use will allow the selling and on°site consumption of alcohol in close proximity to the Teme~ula Teen Center and the Skate City skating rink. D. The project, as proposed, wonld r~sult in an incompatible land use on the grounds the use will allow the selling and on-site consumption of alcohol in close proximity to the Tcmecula Teen C_.ent~r and the Skate City skating rink. Section 2. Environmental Comnliance. The proposed project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15061(b)(3). 5 Section 3. PASSED, APFROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of May, 1993. J. SAL MU~OZ MAYOR ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Ternecula, I-tE~I~Y DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No.93- was duly introduced and placed upon its fffst reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th day of April, 1993, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th day of April, 1993, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: C OUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK R:~TAFFRFY~38PA93.ee 5/17/93 k~ 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - MAY 2, 1994 (PA94-0026) 2:',STA.~"'LI'~I3SPA~4.1~C ~ .dr 13 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 2, 1994 Planning Application No.: PA94-0026 Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Perm~, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and APPROVE Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Chifi Promotions (dba Mexicali Rose Cantina) REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: To revise the conditions of approval for the underlying Conditional Use Permit to change the hours of operation, to allow the serving of food, and to allow minors into the premises. LOCATION: 28822 Front Street, Suites No. 202 & 203 EXISTING ZONING: C-P {General Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-P (General Commercial) C-P (General Commercial) Interstate 15 (I-15) C-1/C-P (General Commercial) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Service Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: General Commercial R:\STAFFRPT~26PA94,PC 4/26/94 Idb SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Retail/Commercial South: Retail/Commercial East: Interstate 15 (I-15) West: Vacant BACKGROUND On April 5, 1994, the Planning Commission denied Planning Application No. PA93-0038, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of the existing "Dimensions Teen Night Club" to a night club that served alcohol. At that time, the Commission expressed concern about the night clubs proximity to the City of Temecula Teen Center and the rollerskating rink. The applicant subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's decision, and on June 22, 1993, the City Council overturned the Planning Commission's decision. As a result, the applicant for PA93-0038 elected not to proceed with the Council approval. Because the conditions of approval for PA93-O038 did not state that the approval was "non- transferable" the applicant for the current application, PA94-0026, was permitted to use the approval consistent with conditions of approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located at 28822 Front Street, Suites 203 & 204. The use occupies an approximately 10, 140 square foot, two story suite. The Revised Conditional Use Permit is a request to modify the underlying conditions of approval to change the hours of operation, allow the serving of food end to allow minors into the night club. ANALYSIS The purpose of this application is to revise two existing conditions of approval and to add one new condition of approval. The applicant is requesting that the hours of operation be modified to allow the club to open at 1:00 pm, versus 5:00 pm, on Sundays only. Second, the applicant has requested that he be permitted to serve catered food on Sundays only. Third, the applicant is requesting that minors be allowed into the night club on Fridays and Sundays only. The applicant feels that by making these changes, the business will be able to attract - a family clientele. The applicant operates under an alcohol license (Type 42) which allows the sale of beer and wine. Under this license, the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) does not allow persons under 21 years of age into the night club. The applicant is requesting to allow minors into the night club when accompanied by an adult 21 years or older, on Fridays and Sundays only. To accomplish this, the applicant must obtain a new "beer only' alcohol license (Type 40) from the ABC. The applicant has been operating the club since February of 1994. To date, the applicant has complied with all conditions of approval place upon the use. Neither the Police Department nor staff has received any complaints regarding the use. Additionally, subsequent to the original approval, the Teen Center relocsted. Because this is a Conditional Use Permit, the City retains the right to revoke the permit should the applicant violate the terms and conditions of the permit. R:%STN:FFFI~ePA94..pC 4/2~/~4 klb 2 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 changes to the conditions of approval are consistent with the requirements of the C-P Zone and Section 18.28 of Ordinance 348. Section 18.28 of Ordinance 348 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 changes to the existing use are consistent with the Service Commercial designation due to the fact that the changes will not significantly alter the current commercial use. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, subsequent to Section 15061 (b)(3). SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with Section 9.1 (General Commercial Zone) of Ordinance No. 348. The use is also consistent with Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348. Section 18.28 requires that proposed uses not pose a threat to public health, safety and general welfare of the community. It is staff's opinion that the changes to the use will not constitute a threat to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. FINDINGS PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing zoning of General Commercial and 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. The project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28. In addition, the attached Conditions of Approval will assure adequate circulation, access and parking which will facilitate the proposed use. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations. Surrounding development is predominantly commercial and operates during daytime hours. The proposed use has been conditioned to insure it will not impact the surrounding area businesses. R:\STAFFRP"I~26PA94.PC 2/1/95 klb 3 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 15061 (b)(3). Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Exhibits - Blue Page 12 A. Vicinity Map B. Site Plan C. Zoning Designation D. General Plan Designation Applicant's Letter of Justification - Blue Page 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-__ R:%STAFFRPT%2aePA94.PC 2/1/9S Idb 5 ATrACI~4ENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-10 A RESOLUTION OF ~ PIANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TIilVIECULA APPROVING PIANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0026 REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REVISE ~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ~ UNDERLYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CHANGE TIlt. F_,XISTING HOURS OF OPERATION, TO AI.IOW ~ SERVING OF FOOD AND TO ALLOW MINORS INTO THE NIGHT CLUB LOCATED AT 28822 FRONT STREET, SUITE 203 & 204, AND KNOWN AS PARCI~.L NUMBER 922-093-002. WI~REAS, Tim Hill filed planning Application No. PA94-0026 in accordance with the City of Temecula General' Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; W~EREAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0026 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WREREAS, the Planning Commissioa considered Planning Application No. PA94-0026 on May 2, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as presc. ribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; W~EREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0026; NOW, TREREFORE, T~E PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERNHNE AND ORDER AS FOIJ(WS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Section 18.28, no Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and weftare of the community, and further, that any Conditional Use Permit approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. B. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA94-0026 makes the following findings, to wit: R:%STAFFRqri~28PA94,PC 2/1/95 Idb 6 1. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit is eensistent wffh the City's General Plan due to the fact that the project 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 Ordinance No. 348. 3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general weftaxe of the community. The project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28. In addition, the attached Conditions of Approval will assure adequate circulation, access and paticing winch will facilitate the proposed use. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regnhtions. Surrounding development is predominan~y commercial and operates during daytime hours. The proposed use has been conditioned to insure it wffi not impact the surrounding area businesses. 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 S~don 15061C0)(3). C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, planing Application No. PA94-0026, as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and weftare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The environmental review prepaxed for this project indicates that will not have a significant impact on the environment, and therefore has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15061(b)(3). Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby · appwves Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit to modify the conditions of approval for the underlying Conditional Use Permit to change the existing hours of operation, to serve food and to allow minors into the existing night club located 28822 Front Street, Suites 203 & 204 and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-093-002, and subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. R:XSTAFFI~rf'~OPA94.PC 211/95 Idb 7 Section $. PASSED, APPROVED .AND ADOFrED thi~ 2nd day of May, 1994. STEVEN I. FORD CHAIRMAN I l:rl~l~.Ry CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: BLAIR, FAHEY, HOAGLAND AND FORD PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: SALYER GARY THORNI4u SECRETARY R:~.STAFFRPT~OPAS4,PC 211/95 klb 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT%26PA94.PC 211/95 Idb 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit Project Description: To revise the underlying conditions of approval for the underlying Conditional Use Permit to change the hours of operation, to serve food, and to allow minors into the premises Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-093-002. Approval Date: May 2. 1994 Expiration Date: May 2. 1995 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 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 Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit, shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA93-0038 (copies of which are attached) unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0026 is to revise the conditions of approval for the underlying Conditional Use Permit to change the hours of operation, to serve food, and to allow minors into the premises. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecuta, 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. PA94-0026. 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:~STAFFF~T~26PA94.pC 2/1/96 Idb 10 This approval shall be used within one (1) year 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 one (1) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 5:00 pm and 2:00 am Monday through Saturday, and 1:00 pm to 12:00 am on Sunday. Persons under 21 years of age ;~.-"- ".~-";.' may be allowed into the club on Fridays and Sundays only. Persons under 21 years of age ;~.-"- ".~d.-r entering the night club shall be accompanied by a person 21 years of age or older.(Added at the May 2, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting) 8. Catered food service shall be allowed on Sundays only. Prior to the change of use, the applicant shall receive a new, "beer only," Type 40 alcohol sales license from the Alcohol Beverage Control Agency (ABC). Prior to the leouanoo of Ooouponoy 10. Prior to the change of use t:;:he applicant shall remove the non-permitted "Nits Club" sign from above the parapet.(Added at the May 2, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting) BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 11. 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 Municipal Code. 12. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. 13. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. 14. Obtain Riverside County Health Department approval prior to submittal of plans for plan review. OTHER AGENCIES 15. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated April 6, 1994, a copy of which is attached. R:%STAFFRoT~26PA94,PC 5/3/94 kJb 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 APPLICANT'S L,- I ~ ER OF JUSTIFICATION R:\STAFFRPT%26PA94.PC 4/26/94 Idb I 3 March 30, 1994 SENT VIA HAND D~-T .rv'~y City of Temecuh Phoning D~'partmont 4317d, Business Pazk Drive Terneach, CA '9~590 Rg: Mexicali Rose Cantinn Dear Sir or Madam: We are general counsel to Chi31 Promotions, Inc., a California cozpova~on which owns and operates the cabazet/nightahb known as Mexica3i P, vsc C~ntina. The business is located at 28822 From Stzeet, Nos. 203-204, Temecula, California 92590 (the "Pn~mises"). Tim Hill, the president of Chili Promotions, Inc. ~dced uS to set forth in writing the amendment which it dcsirr, s to the Conditional Use Permit fwrn the City of Temecula for the l~mises and the reasons for such amendment. The MexicaU Rose C. aatinn operates ca~y under the City of Temccuh's Conditional Use Permit No. PA93-0038 (the "C.U.P. ") The general requiremenU under the C.U.P. dictate that an adult-only nightebb be oper~t_,~_ on the Premises. The hours of operatiou must be limited between 5:00 p,m. and 2:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday. In addition, the C.U.P. prohibits anyone under the age of 21 fwm entering the l)l~mir, e~. The C.U.P. in its pzesent form was granted to the prior opcmWr of the Premises. That operator was unsuccessful, and he vacaXed the Premises. The Maicali Pose Cantina r. nte~.,d inW a new lease with the landlord, remodeled the Prem~i~es and began bums operations e~xlier this yeaL In the time that the bu_~it,p-~s has been opened, it is our undentanding that thex~ have been no complMet$ by neighbors, nor have the police been called regarding any disturbances. The Mexicali Pose Cantinn has a state-of-the-art security system, and its cover charge for admission to the Premises attraen patwen looking for e, ntertainment rather than looking for tw~le. City of Temecula March 30, 1994 Page 2 The Mexicali Rose Cantina wouM like to have in C.U.P. mended so thai it may engage in the following activities: Ttz Mexicall Rose Cantina would like to change its hours of operation so that it can open its doors for busine~ at l:00p.m. on $undays. Paragraph 6 of the current C.U.P. prohibits opening prior to 5:00 p.m. The Mexicali Roso Cantha would like to begin serving food, most likely in a buffe~ style, to its customers. It is anticit~t_~_ that the food wLll be bn3ught onto ~he Premises by a licensed caw, rcr from the area. 3. Dinner 'shows may be pwvided featuring clowns, magicians, marhchis, etc. The Mexicali Rose Cantim is petitioning the State of California Alcohol Beverage Control Board to demote its current No. 42 liquor license, permitting it to serve beer and wine, to a No. 40 liquor llcen~ authorizing it to serve only benr. It is our understanding that under the reguhtions of the Sn,~ of C. alj/ornia Alcohol Beverage Control Board, with a No. 40 license, minon are allowed on the premises. The Idexicali Rose Canthu would like to be ablc to admit pe~vns to its Promises under the ago of 21. Seclion 6 of the C.U.P. currently prohibits allowing minors into the l>remjsu. Live music will continue to be performed, and those patrons 16 years old and over will be allowed to remain on the Premises in the dance area. It is the goal of Chill Promotions, Inc. to crcaz more of a family motion with less of a nightclub aUnosphere, and Chill Promotio/n, inc. is willing to downfftade their liquor license in an effort to serve more food, soda and entertainment. The Maicali Rose Cn-tina will ~mplement the following proc_e~_ures ~o ensure that pa1~'ons under the age of 21 will no~ be served beer. Fir~, bccr will be served only from an upstairs bar which is sepamed from the dance am at the Premises. Second, a s~-'urity guard will be posted at the base of tlz cntry to the upstairs bar to ensure that no one under 21 has access to the arcain which beer is served. Third, the hands of those patrons wbe have presented ID evicl~mcin~ thor_ they are over ~ age of 21 will be stamped. Finally, on [hose days in which minors at~ admilled lo the Pl~nlise~, food will be served ontil 9:00 p.m. on Fridays and -~amrdays, and until 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. Establishments in surrOundln,~ communities a/~ offering at present similar types of pwgrams which the Mexicall Rose Cantim would lilz to offer. However, because of the City of Temecula March 30, 1994 Page 3 terms of the C.U.P., the Mexicali Rose Cantina is having to turn away business, =,,t this log business translates into losl tax revenu~ for the City of Temecuh. Accordingly, Chill Promotions, Inc. respectfly requests that flz City of Temecuh amend the C.U.P. conditional on the Snt-- of California Alwhol Beverage Control Board changing the liquor liconse from a No. 42 for consumption of beer and wine to a No. 40 for consumption solely of beer, in th~ following manner. Amend Section 6 of the C.U.P. to allow the hours of operation to be between 5:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. Mondays through Saturdays and 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Sundays. 2. Amend or delete Section 32 of the C.U.P. so that persons under thc ag~ of 21 may beadmined. Tim Hill~ the president of Chili Promotions, Inc. and th~ operator of the Mexicali Rose Ca.ntina, wffi be available to answer any questions and to provide any additional mate~aJs which you may re, quest. Tn~nlc you for your altenfion to and assistance with this matter. Sinceroly yours, K1~'DL HOROWITZ & KRENDL Lee F. Sar. hnoff LFS/pjr cc: Tim Hill ATTACHMENT NO. 6 APPLICANT'S Lb I I ER OF JUSTIFICATION R:~TAFFRPTt138PA94.PC 2/2/95 cdr 14 City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 '- Dear Sir or Madam; I am President of Chill Promotions Inc., a California corporation which owns and operates the P~haret/Nightclub known as the b~xicali Rose Cantina. The business is located at 28822 Front St., suites 203 and 204, Temecula, CA., 92590 (The "Premises"). I am writing this leeter on behalf of Industrial Developers (the "Landlord"), Cheryl Huber and Harry Reynolds (the "New tenants"), as well as myself Tim Hill (Chill Promotions). It is our desire to have the last amendment to our Conditional Use Permit revok~a~ thus restoring our C.U.P. to it's original form as granted to the premises on June 22,1993. The intent of this letter is to set forth in writing our reasons for such a revocation or amendment. For the past y~ar, the Mexicali Rose Cantina has operated under the City of Temecula's Conditional Use Permit no. PA93-0038, revised no. PA94-0026 (the C.U.P. ). The original C.U.P. granted permission to operate an adult-only nightclub on the premises. The revised - C.U.P. further granted the admittance of mixx3rs, under certain conditions, onto the premises. Chill Promotions has decided to relocate the Mexicali Rose Cantina to a city where the demographics support an all "Mexican Music" Club. The new tenants have carefully studied the demographics and have decided to change the music and atmosphere at the premises. The new tenants intend to play all i~EP_mic~n Music, serve liquor, and o~ly allow adults 21 years of age or older onto the premises. Mexicali Rose Night Club · 28822 Front Street · Temecula, CA · (909) 695-1350 page2 The style of D~_xican Music that I have been playing at the Mexicali Rose CantiDa catered to teenagers, as well as adults, therefore I felt the need to amend the C.U.P. as I requested and w~s granted by the Temecula Planning Cc~sion May 2, 1994. The new tenants have no reason to cater to minors and would prefer operating an esf~blishment under the exmct guidelines set forth in the original C.U.P. before I armnended it to suit my needs and purposes. I have operated the club both with and without minors. I am now of the opinion that allowing minors into a nightclub environment is a mistake and I personally will never .operate a club in any city that caters to anyone under 21 years of age again. Mexicali Rose is the first establishment to operate on the premises since the original C.U.P. w-as issued. Therefore, we are the o~ly estzhlishment ever on these premises that has served alcohol. I am extremely proud of our flawless reputation. We have proven that with proper attention to security a nightclub can operate without being a burden to it's City and Police Department. In our y~ar of operation, there hs~ n~v~ been a single disturbance which r.equlred a call to the police from our esf~hlishme_nt. To our knowledge, there has never been a single complaint from anyone concerning our est~blishmant. We have implemented high-tech security features as well as extra attention to noise-deadening technigues. The results have created a safe and fun atmosphere that has never caused even a single "noise" disturbance to our neighbors. I would encourage you to verify these facts through Dan Feltenburger, the Temecula Police Officer who has been involved in our operation' s C.U.P. and C.U.P. revisions frce the beginning. The new tenants are retaining all of the safety equi~ent and fixtures which have been used on the premises for the past year. The new tenants further intend to keep high visibility to their in-house security team, inside as well as outside the club during business hours. We respectfully request that you will assist us in restoring. our C.U.P. to it's original form. Promotions Inc. ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 6, 1995 Planning Application No. PA93-0180, PA93-0181, PA93-0183, PA93-0184, PA93-0185 Prepared By: Saied Naaseh RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95- certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (PA 93- 0180) for Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and; RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95- approving Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (PA 93-0184), based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95- approving Change of Zone (PA93-0181 ), based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95- approving Johnson Ranch Annexation (PA93-0183), based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95- approving General Plan Amendment (PA93-0185)based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. BACKGROUND On January 9, 1995 the Planning Commission took public testimony and continued this item with a 5-0 vote. In doing so the Commission requested the applicant to answer all questions that were asked in the hearing. Attachments 7 through 13 include all correspondence that was either distributed to the Planning Commission at the previous hearing or received by Staff following the hearing. The Conditions of Approval have been modified to reflect all the changes recommended by the Memorandum from the Planning Director to the Planning Commission dated January 9, 1995. Since the last staff report the applicant has withdrawn his request for a General plan Amendment for modifying the General Plan cross sections. Moreover, the General Plan Amendment for deletion of Anza Road as a General Plan Road needs to be explained in more detail. The applicant is proposing to delete Anza Road as a four lane arterial throughout the site. Staff support this General Plan Amendment; however Staff is recommending to keep a two lane connection throughout the site for Anza Road. The applicant is in support of Staff's position by providing a two lane connection road between Borel Road and "A" Street. However, the applicant does not wish to extend Anza Road south of "A" Street to the southeast corner of the site. ANALYSIS Attachment 14 includes a list of questions that the Planning Commission directed the applicant to answer. These questions were prepared by Staff by listening to the Planning Commission hearing tape. Each question is followed by an answer that was prepared by the applicant. In order to distribute the Planning Commission packets on time, Staff has not had a chance to review these answers for accuracy. Staff will be prepared to provide comments at the Planning Commission hearing. FINDINGS Environmental Imoact Report Refer to Document G. Seecific Plan The project is consistent with the City's General Plan provided the General Plan amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council and all Conditions of Approval are met. The project will result in the construction of General Plan Roads and other infrastructure at no cost to the City. 3. The project, as conditioned, will have adequate access, utilities and services. 4. The project will preserve an environmentally significant open space area. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition and buffering. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts. The project as conditioned is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. 8. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Chanae of Zone The Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use Plan and the Circulation Element are approved by the City Council. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition and buffering. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses permitted in the proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan due to the fact that the development standards and Conditions of Approval proposed within the Specific Plan and the mitigation measures within the FEIR ensure orderly development of the site. Adequate access will be provided to the site as specified in the Specific Plan and the FEIR. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Annexation The project is consistent with the City's General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council. 2. The project is located within the City' Sphere of Influence. 3. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City budget. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan, Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. General Plan Amendment Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts. The Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council and the Conditions of Approval are complied with. The project implements the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council and the Conditions of Approval are complied with. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 PC Resolution - Blue Page 9 PC Resolution - Blue Page 13 PC Resolution - Blue Page 17 PC Resolution - Blue Page 21 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 25 Memorandum dated January 9, 1995 Distributed by Staff to the Planning Commission at the Hearing - Blue Page 43 School District Letter dated January 9, 1995 Distributed to the Planning Commission at the Hearing - Blue Page 44 Metropolitan Water District Letter dated January 19, 1995 Distributed to the Planning Commission at the Hearing - Blue Page 45 Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency Letter dated January 6, 1995 - Blue Page 46 Memorandum January 9, 1995 Distributed by Staff to the Planning Commission at the Hearing Responding to the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency Letter - Blue Page 47 Hewitt and McGuire Letter Distributed by the Applicant dated January 5, 1995 Distributed to the Planning Commission at the Hearing - Blue Page 48 Letters from Interested Property Owners - Blue Page 49 List of Questions and Answers - Blue Page 50 City Attorney's Response to Hewitt and McGuire Letter Dated January 5, 1995 - Blue Page 51 R:~AFFRFI~OIe~SON.PC3 2/2/95 klb 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- ATTACH!M~.NT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING ~ CITY COI. rNCIL CERTIFY ~ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PA93-0180) ALONG WITH ITS SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUM, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMF~NTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING ~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON ~ NORTH~AST CORNER OF ~ FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BLP17F_MFIEJX} STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCFJ. NO. 914- 210-47, 914-210-51, 914-240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240-04 AND 914-320-03. WluIEREAS, Douglas Wood and Associates completed Final Environmental Impact Report (PA93-0180) under City's direction and in accordance with the provisions of the City and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; WItF. REAS, said EIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WItE. REAS, the Planning Commission considered said Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) which includes the Draft lhlR, the Addendure, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations on February 6, 1995, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WltF. REAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended Certification of the said Plait, adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and recommended approval of the Mitigation Monitoring NOW, THEREFORE, THE. CITY OF TENIECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findines. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission in recommending Certification of the proposed Fh'~, makes the following findings, to wit: A. Refer to Document G of the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends certification of p'.:l R (PA93-0180), adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and recommended approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, and Change of Zone on propen'y located on the northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 914-210-47, 914-210-51,914-240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240-04 and 914-320-03. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February 6, 1995. S'rt~v'EN I. FORD CHAIRMAN I gl~l~.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 6th day of February, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY AT'FACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- R:~TAFFRPT~OHNSON. PC3 7J?./95 klb 9 ATTACItMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 9~- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMlVrlgSION OF TFtE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF JOHNSON RANCH SPECWIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0184 PROPOSING ZONING, LAND DEVELOI'IV~-NT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDI~.I-INES FOR DEV~-IOPMENT OF 4,969 SINGLE FAMII,y DW3~J.I.INGS, 442 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, 35 ACRES OF VILLAGE CENTER INCLUDING 281 MULTI FAI~III.Y UNITS AND APPROXIMATELY 220,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND OFFICE USES ON 20 ACRES, 68 ACRES OF PARK.~ AND 50 ACRES OF SCHOOL FACII.ITW~; PROJECT IS LOCATED ON TWR~ NORTI:~&ST CORNER OF ~ FUTURE INTERSECTION OF B~I.I~ STAGE ROAD AND MURRI~.TA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 91421047, 914-210-~1, 914-240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240-1M AND 914-320-03. WtP~.REAS, Johnson Machinc~J Co. filed the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws; WItEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; V~r~EREAS, the planning Commission considered said applications on February 6, 1995 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WI:fF, REAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said applications; NOW, THERE.RE, THY. PLANNING COMMISSION OF TItE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETEMMIN'E AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. FindingS. That the Temocula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes the following findings, to wit: I. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan provided the General Plan amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council and all Conditions of Approval are met. R:WrAFFRPT~OI~$ON.I~} 2/1/95 lab 10 2. The project will result in the construction of General Plan Roads and other infrastructure at no cost to the City. The project, as conditioncd, will have adequate access, utilities and 4. The project wffi preserve an environmcotally significant open space area. 5. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which axe single family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition and buffering. 6. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project to insignfficant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Q~mlity, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts. 7. The project as conditioned is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. 8. Said fmdings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the development of the project. Consequently, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary forthe project. An Environmental Impact tt~-port (PA93-0180) was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the impacts and proposed mitigation measures included in the Final ~ that reduced these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of the foilowing: Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, T~nd Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the DEIR, an Addendure F~ was prepared for the project. This Addendum analyzed the "revised project" impacts and introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the project Land Use Plan and in response to public comments during the 45 day pubtic review period. Therefore, staff recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the Draf~ EIR, the Addendum, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 93- 0184) located on the northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in Attachment No. 6, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. R:~TAFFRFI~JOI~SON.i~C~ 2t2/95 [r~ ~ '~ Section 4. PASSED, APPROVf~D AND ADO FI'ED this 6th day of February, 1995. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I FfI~ERy 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 6th day of February, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNI4112, SECRETARY R:~TAFFRPT~/OI~$ON.PC3 212/95 lab ] 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- P,:~'TAFFRF~,IOHN~ON.I'C~ 2/2/95 LIb I ~ ATTACHMENT NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 95-_ A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMM~.NDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0181 CHANGING T!tF. ZONING FROM RURAL RI~.~IDENTIAL (R-R) TO SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE. NORTnrF-AST CORNER OF ~ FUTtlRE INTERSECTION OF BtrlTERFH~.Ix} STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-21047, 914-210-51, 914- 240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240-1M AND 914-320-03. WHI~.REAS, Johnson Machinery Co. fried the Johnson Ranch Change of Zone in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws; Wt!'EREAS, said application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said application on February 6, 1995 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHE~REAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said application; NOW, TI~.RI~.I~ORE, Tit'F. PLANNING COMMISSION OF TItF. CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findines. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following fmdings: A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes the following findings, to wit: 1. The Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use Plan and the Circulation Element are approved by the City Council. 2. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council. 3. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, I-and Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts. R:~TAFFRFr~Ot~ISON.I~C3 2j'~95 kl~ 14 4. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition and buffering. 5. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses permitted in the proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan due to the fact that the development standards and Conditions of Approval proposed within the specific plan and the mitigation measures within the FI:aR ensure orderly development of the site. 6. Adequate access will be provided to the site as specified in the Specific Plan and the FF_.IK. 7. Said fmdings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the development of the project. Consequently, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project. An Environmental Impact Report (PA93-0180) was prepared by the applieant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Asseeiates, Inc. and was reviewed by City staff. The Environmental Impact l~l~orl analyzed the significance of all the impacts and proposed mitigation measures included in the Final EIR that reduced these hnpaets to an insignificant level with the exception of the foliowing: Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, 1-~-d Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the DRn~, an Addendure EIR was prepared for the project. This Addendum analyzed the "revised project" impacts and introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the project 1 And Use Plan and in response to public comments during the 45 day public review period. Therefore, staff recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the Draft EIR, the Addendure, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Johnsen P,~nch Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 93- 0184) located on the northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murfieta Hot Springs Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in Attachment No. 6, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. R:~TAIrf~uT~OHNSON.I~ 2/2/95 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 6th day of February, 1995. S'rl~v'EN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I Hl~!~.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 6th day of February, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYP_,S: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PI_ANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNBT~ SF_,CRETARY R:~TAFFKFI~OI.~ISON.I~:~ 2/2/95 k~ ~[ 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- R:WI'AFFRPT~OHNSON,P(3 2/2/95 kn~ 17 ATrA~ NO. 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF 'I'HF. CITY OF TEMECUI.A RECOIVIM~WDING APPROVAL OF JOHNSON RANCH ANNEXATION (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0183) PROPOSING ANNEXATION OF 1761 ACRES WITraN ~ SPm~RE OF INFLUENCE OF CITY OF TEMECULA; PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE NORTI:rF.&ST CORNER OF TIff. FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTF_.RF~.I.I~ STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-21047, 914-210-51, 914- 240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240-04 AND 914-320-03. WI~.REAS, Johnson Machinery Co. filed the Johnson Ranch Annexation request in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws; WIIEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on February 6, 1995 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WtIFREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission heating, the Commi.~sion recommended approval of said applications; NOW, THF-REPORE, TIff. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THF. CITY OF TE1VIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETEKIMINE AND ORDER AS FOLIX)WS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the foliowing findings: A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes the following f'mdings, to wit: 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are appmved by the City Council. 2. The project is located within the City' Sphere of Influence. 3. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City budget. 4. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition. R:~TA/FR.FI'jOHN,qON.PC3 2/2/95 klb 18 5. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Qnality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts. 6. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs conrailled in the GenerAl Plan, 7. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments and environmental documents associated with thi~ application and herein incorporated by reference. B. As condi~oned pursuant to Section 3. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the development of the project. Consequently, it was det~rrnlned that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary forthe project. An Environmental Impact Report (PA93-0180) was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the impacts and proposed mitigation measures included in the Final F_.IR that reduced these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception Of the following: Noise, Air Quality, Wiidllfe and Vegetation, I-~nd Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the Dk'~R, an Addendure was prepared for the project. This Addendum analyzed the "revised project" impacts and introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the project Land Use Plan and in response to public comments during the 45 day public review period. Therefore, staff recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the Draft FEIR, the Addendum, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecuia Planning Comminsion hereby recommends approval of the Johnson Ranch Annexation request (Planning Application No. 93- 0183) located on the northeast corner of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Attachment No. 6, attached he~to and incorporated herein by this reference. R:~TAFFRP~OHNSON.!~3 2/2/95 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 1995. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I ltl~.lll~.Ry CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of February, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNIqlIJ- SECRETLY R:'81'AFFRFI~OHNSON.IsC~ 2/2/95 klb 20 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- R:~TAFFRPT'dOI~N~SON.PC3 2/285 ~ 2~ ATTACIIhlENT NO. 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF TitE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TE1VIECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO ~ LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ~T,~ OF ~ GENERAL PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0185') TO IMPLEMIi:NT ~ JOHNSON RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN; PROJECT IS LOCATED ON ~ NORTltE&ST CORNER OF TIlE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BU17E, RFrETjD STAGE ROAD AND MURRr~,TA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCI~.L NO. 914-21047, 914-210-51,914- 240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240.04 AND 914-320-03. ~, Johnson Machinery Co. filed the General Plan Amendment requests in accordance with the Riverside County [and Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws; WtW~REAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WFW. REAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on February 6, 1995 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; ~, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said applications; NOW, T!tF~REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF T!tF, CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOIJ,OWS: Section 1. Finndines. That the Temecuh Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes the following findings, to wit: 1. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use, and Popuh~on and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts. 2. The Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council and the Conditions of Approval are complied with. R:\STAFFRFI~JOHNSON.I~3 2/2/95 Ir~ 22 3. The project implements the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Cixculation Elements are approved by the City Council and the Conditions of Approval are complied with. 4. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate wansi~on. 5. Said findings s. re supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with thi~ application and herein incorporated by reference. B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project which indicated that there would be potevtlally significant impacts associated with the development of the pwject. Consequently, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project. An Environmenial Impact Report (PLO3-0180) was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Doughs Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report. nnalyzed the significance of all the impacts and proposed mitigation measures included in the Final RIR that reduced these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of the foilowing: Noise, Air Q, Mity, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use and Popuhtion and Housing. Statements of evehiding Considerations have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the Dl:~r~, an Addendure was prepared for the project. This Addendure analyzed the 'revised project" impacts and introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the project I ~nd Use Plan and in response to public comments during the 45 day public review period. Therefore, staff recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the Draft EIR, the Addendure, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecuh Planning Commi,~sion hereby ' recommends appwvai of the General Plan Amendment requests (Planning Application No. 93- 0185) located northeast comer of future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, subject to the Conditions of Appwvai and set forth in Attachment No. 6, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. R:~TAFFR. FfVOHN~ON.IsC3 ~'2.f95 k~ 23 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 1995. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I ttRRI~,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 6th day of February, 1995 by the following vote of the Commi,~sion: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNI-HI ,I , SECRETARY R:~STAFFRPT~OHN~ON.PC3 2/2/95 klb 24 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL_ R:~I'A-=R~-PT~OHNSON.YC3 mS kb 25 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Johnson Ranch Specific Plan Planning Application No. 934)184 Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing zoning and development standards and design guidelines for development of 4,969 single family dwellings, 442 acres of open space, 35 acres of Village Center including 281 multi family units and approximately 220,000 square feet of retail and office uses, 68 acres of parks and 50 acres of school facilities, an Annexation of 1761 acres to the City of Temecula; General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Bements; and a Change of Zone from Rural Residential (R-R) to Specific Plan to prezone the Johnson Ranch property to annex to the City of Temecula and to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: 914-21047,914-210-51,914-240-01,914-2404)3, 914-240-04and 914-320-03. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Bght (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty- Eight Dollars (~928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar (~850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158,required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the 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 15094. If within said forty-eight (48} hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Conditions The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the projects-- R:~TAFFRFI~OHNSON,PC3 2/2/95 kfo 26 9. 10. including Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report, which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et se_.~q., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. A potential religious facility(s) site shall be identified within the Village Center and shall be designated on the Land Use Plan. If the site is not developed as a religious facility, any use within the Village Center Zoning shall be allowed. Structural building permits shall not be issued for any subdivision maps approved for the purpose of financing. Each section of Tucalota Creek trail and landscaping shall be completed prior to issuance of 50% of the residential building permits within each abutting tract. The developer for Planning Area 8b or c, whichever develops first, shall be responsible to make these improvements along Planning Area 9. The Developer for Planning Area 10 shall be responsible to make these improvements along Planning Area 10 and 11 prior to issuance of any occupancy permits within Planning Area 10. However, if the developer improves Planning Area 11 park prior to receiving any occupancy permits for Planning Area 10, the developer shall provide the improvements along the boundary adjacent to Planning Area 11 prior to the City accepting the park. Where Tucalota Creek trails cross project streets, at grade crossings shall occur at signalized intersections with appropriate signage and striping. Otherwise, lighted under crossings shall be provided. The developer shall provide improvements to all the trails within the project consistent with the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan shall be consistent with the General Plan as amended with the approvals for this project. Sidewalks shall not be placed next to curb and shall be placed within the 4-4. 12 foot parkway with planters on both sides on all roadways with a 78 foot wide right-of-way or larger. R:~T~Ole~ON.K23 2/2/95 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The visual impact of theme walls and potential for graffiti shall be minimized by the use of graffiti resistant materials and an appropriate landscaping screen including trees, shrubs, vines and espaliers. All landscaping shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. All park~%,oys for strocts larger than 78 foot right of way shall bc o minimum of fourtoon 11 fact. Fence plans shall be submitted along with the tentative tract map applications to determine the appropriate fencing along the perimeter of the project and the areas adjacent to the open space areas consistent with the Specific Plan Guidelines and as approved by the Planning Director. Private Open Space for exclusive use by the occupants equal to minimum of 150 square feet shall be required for each multi-family dwelling unit. All view fences and block walls shall be provided with pilasters at side property lines that intersect these walls/fences. Approval of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective, nor shall it vest, until the applicant has reached and recorded a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan if the City Council adopts the School Mitigation Resolution as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. In the event that the new City Development Code is not adopted by City Council by the time the applicant files for the first implementing application (i.e. tentative map, plot plan, etc.), the applicant shall apply for a Specific Plan Amendment and submit a complete Zoning Section with this Amendment application. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement or another similar and appropriate agreement or mechanism which identifies and establishes appropriate mitigation impact fees, and/or sites dedication and/or public facilities construction for the project as required by the EIR for mitigation of the fire, police, parks, roads and library impacts of the project upon the community. Implementing development applications/permits including but not limited to Plot Plans, Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Maps, and grading, building and occupancy permits for this project shall not be approved or issued until such time as the agreement or other mechanism has been approved by the City and the applicant. The applicant shall pay additional fees over and beyond the $100 per residential unit to mitigate the library impacts. This fee is to replace Mitigation No. 0.8.2. of Document F which requires the developer to provide a leased library space within the Village Center for a period of five (5) years at no cost to the library. This fee shall be determined through the Development Agreement or a similar Fee Mitigation Agreement prior to approval of any implementing development applications/permits including but not limited to Plot Plans, Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Maps, and grading, building and occupancy permits for this project. R:~TA~OHN$ON.IN~3 2/2/95 klb 28 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Metropolitan Water District on the precise location of the San Diego Pipe Line No. 6. This agreement shall be secured prior to approval of any implementing applications/permits including grading permits. No construction shall take place within Planning Area 1 for the purpose of construction of the MWD San Diego Pipe Line No. 6 until an environmental analysis of the impacts of its project on Planning Area 1 is completed. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program unless modified by the Conditions of Approval. All residential subdivision maps shall utilize a modified grid street system. Cul-de-sacs and curvilinear streets may be appropriate in this system and they shall be reviewed for appropriateness on a project by project basis as determined by the Planning Director. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site, the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within the FEIR have been satisfied for the stage of development that permits are being issued for. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form acceptable to the Planning Director for review and approval. The final form shall include all Conditions of Approval, resolutions, ordinances, all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council and a Development Criteria Document. This document shall summarize all development related standards, guidelines, criteria, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures in a manner to ease reviewing subsequent implementing applications. A master print copy (8~" X 11") and six (6) copies of the documents shall be submitted. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal. The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the services of a qualified consultant to administer and implement the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report for Johnson Ranch in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. If any of these conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. 2/2/95 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. The developer .,'~c;' shall receive a full or partial credit for the rcquirc, d K rat fees required by City's SKR mitigation fee ordinance, Ordinance 663, in exchange for dedication of the open space area to an acceptable resource agency such as Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). The precise amount of the fee credit shall be equal to the fair market value of Planning Area I area of which shall not be less than 402 acres. This amount shall be determined by a MAI appraisal at the time the Open Space is dedicated. The appraiser, the amount of the fee credit and the dedication shall be approved by the RCHCA Board. The developer or any other person requesting the mitigation fee credits shall be responsible for the cost of the appraisal and the appraisal Shall be based on the current zoning of Rural Residential (R-R). After the fee credit is determined, a reduced K-rat fee shall be calculated for the entire project site, thereby spreading the fee credit over the entire project site. This shall be done by calculating the total K-rat fee for the entire site and reducing this amount by the fee credit and dividing the result by the total acreage of the site. The amount of the credit shall not exceed the total K-rat fee for the project. An Open Space Mitigation Plan shall be prepared prior to approval of implementing subdivision maps anywhere within the Specific Plan area or approval of any grading permits, whichever comes first. This plan shall be approved by the Planning Director and shall include the timing, improvements, maintenance, fee credit and phasing of dedication of the open space areas and shall be prepared conjunction with the appropriate resource agencies, the applicant and the City. All the open space within Planning Area 1 shall be dedicated to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) or any other appropriate public agency prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the project. A comprehensive Sign Program and Design Guidelines shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Commission along with the development application for the Village Center. This Sign Program and Design Guidelines shall include standards for small signs with a unique texture, shape, or interesting features. The developer shall be responsible to pay all the costs associated with providing the necessary infrastructure for the project or a Development Agreement shall be reached with the City to specify the funding sources for these infrastructure improvements. Subdivisions shall be designed in such manner that the front of residential lots face the Neighborhood Parks. Any exception to this design shall be on a case by case basis and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 37. All setback areas within the Village Center shall be landscaped. R:/STAFFRIr/~OI~SON.['C3 2/2/95 klb 30 38. The minimum common open space required for the multi-family within the Village Center shall be 30% of the gross area of the site. This percentage may include other landscaped areas such as setbacks but shall not include paved areas for parking and access drives and the building foot print. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. General Conditions: All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable 'IV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with the current City Codes and the utility provider guidelines. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, the Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be e2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. The Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. R:~TAI~RFI'aOHNSON.PC3 2/2/95 The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire any offsite property interests necessary for the provision of improvements associated with this Specific Plan and in adherence to the K-Rat/Quimby requirements and if the Developer should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of any final map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the offsite property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. Only upon Developer's initial attempt to obtain necessary right-of-way, City shall, at Developer's expense, obtain right-of-way via eminent domain proceedings. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. A phasing plan addressing the construction scheduling of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval of any subsequent development application. Circulation: As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. Adequate primary and secondary access (28' minimum paved) shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to residential, office, and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time0f submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards. Dcviationc may bc allowcd outsidc tho ourb only (within thc parkway) for Spccific Plan Ro~ds through a Gcnoral Plan Amondmcnt with thc concurrcnco of tho Planning Diroctor and thc Dircctor of Publio Works. "On all streets larger than the 78 foot right-of-way fourteen (14) foot parkways shall be provided within the ultimate right-of-way if the bikeway width is reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet or sidewalk width shall be reduced from 6 feet to 4 feet within a twelve (12) foot parkway." 10. All intersection intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements. R:~TA~FE~TUOIiNSON.IMI~ 2/2/95 Ir~ 32 11. 12. 13. 14. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. The location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional right-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. All necessary infrastructure improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the Project Traffic Study and the Conceptual Phasing Plan shown on Figure 32 of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, as determined by the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. The design and construction of the following infrastructure improvements, are · condition of the Specific Plan, the timing of the completion of those improvements shall be determined by the subsequent required traffic studies; "A", "B", and "C" streets as Major/Principal Collector Highways per the Specific Plan, curb-to-curb sections to be pursuant to the General Plan street sections; Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Leon Road to Butterfield Stage Road as a four (4) lane roadway (City to facilitate a reimbursement agreement with adjacent property owner(s) as development occurs); Butterfield Stage Road from the northerly limits of Tract 23209 to Nicolas Road as a four (4} lane roadway (City to facilitate a reimbursement agreement with adjacent property owner(s) as development occurs); Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to Washington Street as an Urban Arterial (6 lane) Roadway per the General Plan (City to facilitate a reimbursement agreement with adjacent property owner(s) as development occurs for off-site portion only); Nicolas Road from Joseph Road to Butterfield Stage Road as a two (2) lane paved roadway; and Anza Road along the easterly boundary of the property as a two (2) lane paved roadway. R:~STAFFRF~O~'ISON.I, C3 2/285 kn, 33 15. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of any Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for or construct the improvements to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road in accordance with the Specific Plan requirements. Tho cross sootion shall bc in aocordanoc with the Typical Roadway C, ro~.,s~ Sootion of City'; Gcnorcl Plan classification for an Urban Arterial Highway four (4) lano width right of way. "Unless the improvements are constructed at the time of recordation of the first final map or issuance of the first grading permit within the Specific Plan ares, the Developer shall bond for or construct the improvements to Murriets Hot SpHngs Road and Butterfield Stage Road in accordance with the Specific Plan requirements. The bonding or construction requirements shall be established pursuant to subsequent required traffic studies and a development or improvement agreement between the City and Developer which shall establish the increments and phases of construction of the improvements." 16. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible to bond for and construct the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and shall install the traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works at the following intersections, as depicted by the Project Traffic Study: Butterfield Stage Road & "B" Street Butterfield Stage Road & Promontory Road/"A" Street Butterfield Stage Road & Murrieta Hot Springs Road (City to facilitate a reimbursement agreement with adjacent property owner(s) as development occurs) Butterfield Stage Road & Nicolas Road (City to facilitate a reimbursement agreement with adjacent property owner(s) as development occurs) "C" Street & "B" Street "C" Street & "A" Street/Buck Road 17. Borel Road is designated as a Secondary Highway with 88' Right-of-Way pursuant to the General Plan. The Developer shall dedicate the necessary additional Right-of-Way along Borel Road. Drainage: 18. The proposed Santa Gertrudis Creek and Tucalota Creek drainage facilities have little regional benefit and are required mainly for the applicant's convenience. Unless the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintains them, the Department of Public Works (DPW) must ensure that the public is not unduly burdened for future costs. If this is the case, the DPW will require that concurrent with the submittal of any development application or prior to the issuance of any grading permit within the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Temecula which guarantees the perpetual maintenance of the drainage facilities proposed by the specific plan. Said agreement shall be acceptable to the City and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: A precise description of the facilities to be maintained and the acceptable level of that maintenance. R:~TA]rFR]rrdOHNSON.]~3 2/2/95 L~ 34 The right of the City to review and approve the design and any future modifications to the drainage facilities covered by the agreement. A clause stating that determination of the adherence to the level of maintenance will be in the sole judgment of the City. An establishment of time frames and procedures for noticing and compliance. A provision whereby the primary maintenance responsibility for the drainage facilities will fall to Developer/Homeowners Association (DHOA). The City will assume maintenance responsibility only if DHOA fails to do so. If the City is forced to assume the maintenance responsibility a method for reimbursement from the DHOA must be established. Failure of DHOA to make such reimbursement will result in the City having the ability to place liens against the property(s) of Developer or individuals of the DHOA. A requirement for the developer to establish an automatically renewable Letter of Credit (LOC) (or other acceptable alternate) in favor of the City, which can be drawn upon by the City in the event the DHOA fails to meet its obligation or in the event the DHOA income is insufficient to meet the required maintenance costs. This LOC must have a life span from 50 to 99 years. A guarantee that each year the DHOA will submit to the City a maintenance status report for all facilities covered under this agreement. This report must be certified by a Civil Engineer, licensed in the State of California and previously approved by the City. If DHOA fails to submit said report, the City shall commission the report and invoice DHOA. A stipulation that the DHOA would be responsible for obtaining and maintaining in perpetuity, all licenses, permits and other rights required for the proper maintenance of the drainage facilities. The right of the City to approve any contractor hired by the DHOA to perform maintenance on the drainage facilities. A clause providing that if the City is forced to assume the maintenance responsibility for the drainage facilities, ownership of the facilities will fall to the City. DHOA must agree to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the District and the County of Riverside against any claims or liability resulting from the construction, operation, maintenance and all other use of the drainage facilities. Access rights for the City for inspection purposes. A provision that gives the City the right to review and approve the C.C.&R.'s. The right for the City to review and approve the methodology used by Developer to determine the monthly fee to individual homeowners and the minimum balance available for operation and maintenance and for emergencies. R:~TAFJ~RFF~IOHNSON'I~C3 2/2j4~ I 35 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. This Specific Plan chc!! may include retention facilities that control runoff of all storms up to a one in one hundred year storm (or as determined by the Department of Public Works) so that downstream peak flows will not increase the risk of storm damage to downstream properties due to this development. Prior to approval of any subdivision, development plan or grading permit for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, a watershed wide retention policy must be in place and an engineered plan for its implementation on th!s the particular site must be approved by the Department of Public Works. The proposed open space drainage swales through the site to Tucalota Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek drainage systems and detention facilities are critical elements of the entire specific plan. Their :~n.;~ size, location, and schedule of implementation are crucial in the development of this site. Even though the applicant believes that the final engineering of these facilities will result in a design that will "fit" the land use plan, the applicant shall complete and the City shall approve ouch fS.~:~ preliminary engineering prior to the approval of any further development proposals within the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to, the approval of a parcel map processed for financing purposes. It is possible that the engineered plan may require the alteration of planning areas set aside for residential dwellings and even the deletion of lots from those areas. If such alterations are determined by the Planning Director to be significant, the applicant shall prepare, submit and process for approval a specific plan amendment. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit a Master Drainage and Watershed Plan, including c r;':i=cd an updated Hydrology Study, for review and approval by the City and RCFC&WCD that analyzes the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities, including the necessity for detention and desilting facilities. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to, or concurrently with, the initial site development within that phase. All open channel drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. The Developer shall construct the proposed on-site and off-site drainage facility improvements and the on-site detention/desilting basin(s) provision as recommended in the Specific Plan, Hydrology Study, and Master Drainage and Watershed Plan and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. W:',S'rAFIqU'rUO~.iNSON.IW::32~Y~S km 36 27. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. 28. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. 29. The 100 year flood plains for all natural water courses shall be mappod as 100 yoar flood ploirB shown on an ECS map. The subsequent grading plans shall delineate the 100-year flood plain adjacent to the grading area.. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be required for any encroachment into the mapped floodway. Water and Sewer: 30. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. 31. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master water plan and master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water and sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water and sewer systems from EMWD. 32. Prior to the approval of any subsequent development applications, including the approval of any plot plan application or subsequent tentative map approval, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Johnson Ranch Specific PLan development. Grading: 33. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 34. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 35. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. R:LV]'AFFRFI~JOHNSON.I~3 2/2/95 kg~ 37 36. 37. 38, 39. 40. 4'1, -42. 43. 44. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: · Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. · Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. · Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. · Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigation. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. Where import or export offsite of the Specific Plan is required an import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. R:~TAFFRFI~OI~$ON.PC3 2/2/95 lab 38 45. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits lie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Phasing: 46. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 47. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. R:~STAFFRP1~OHNSON.PC3 2/2/95 klb 39 n 0 z 0 r~ Z "t- O u TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Based upon the proposed development of 5,250 residential units, the park land dedication requirement (Quimby) for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is 61 acres. The developer or his successors, shall improve and dedicate to the City one (1), 15 acre Community Park site; three (3), 6 acre Village Park sites; and nine (9), minimum 3 acre Neighborhood Park sites. The developer shall improve the Tucalota Creek area for multi-purpose recreational trail use. Tucalota Creek shall be maintained by a private maintenance association until such time as the Director of Community Services has determined that this area provides an integral part of the City's Recreational Trail Program. All proposed public park facilities shall be designed and improved in accordance with the Park Development Guidelines and Exhibit 4-3 of the City of Temecula Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The final decision regarding the specific design and amenities for each park site shall be determined by the Director of Community Services prior to the approval of the respective tentative map. Ballfield lighting shall be provided at the Community Park to allow for night use of the playing fields. The Director of Community Services shall have the final decision regarding the necessity for ballfield lighting at each of the proposed Village Parks. The developer, or his successor, shall provide a disclosure to all properties adjacent to the Community Park and the Village Parks regarding the use of ballfield lighting. All proposed public park facilities shall provide for pedestrian circulation and handicapped accessibility pursuant to the American Disability Act (ADA) Standards. Pursuant to City standards, all parks designated as a public facility shall be a minimum of three (3) acres in size. The installation of all landscape materials and irrigation equipment for the public park sites, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications. Construction of the public park sites, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program. All park facilities, and/or other recreational 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 policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property. 10. The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park facilities, landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. R:~TAFFRPTUOHNSON.PC3 2F2~5 kib 40 11. All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes. All interior slopes, open space, perimeter walls, and entry monumentation shall be maintained by the private property owner or an established Homeowners' Association (HOA). 12. Slopes and landscaping adjacent to commercial development shall be maintained by the property owner, or other approved private maintenance association. 13. Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan, the Riverside County Regional Trails Program, and the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. 14. The developer, or his successors, shall attempt to secure an easement for a multi- purpose trail and provide the necessary improvements along the MWD right-of-way in concurrence with the slope and landscape improvements along Butterfield Stage Road. 15. Class II Bike Lanes shall be provided on all roadways which are 66' or wider and where determined necessary by the Director of Community Services. Class II Bike Lanes shall be completed in concurrence with the street improvements. Where adjacent to park facilities, Class II Bike Lanes shall be constructed to allow for on-street parking. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map: 16. Prior to recordation of each final map, landscape construction drawings for any respective public park site, slopes and landscaped areas proposed for dedication to the City shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 17. Prior to recordation of each final map, the developer or his successors, shall enter into an agreement and post security to improve any respective public park site, parkway landscaping, medians, and multi-purpose trails that are proposed for dedication to the City. 18. All park sites, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication to the City on each respective final map. 19. Perimeter slopes and parkway landscaping, designated as TCSD landscape maintenance areas, shall be identified and offered for dedication to the City as a maintenance easement on the final map. Underlying ownership of the respective easement areas shall remain with the individual property owner or the Homeowners' Association. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: 20. The public park sites shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of residential building permits as identified within the Park Phasing section of the Specific Plan or pursuant to the parkland improvement agreement at recordation of the respective final map, whichever comes first. R:~STKFI~,FI'dOH>ISON.PC3 2/2/95 Idb 41 Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy: 21. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 22° Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the maintenance program. R:~TAFFRrn3OHNSON.I, C3 2/2/~ tib 42 A'I'FACHMENT NO. 7 MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 9, 1995 DISTRIBUTED BY STAFF TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE HEARING P,:L~TAFRtFI~OI~/SON.P(:3 7J2/95/LIb MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director January 9, 1995 Revised Conditions of Approval for Johnson Ranch Specific Plan The following revised Conditions of Approval are being recommended by Staff: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 10. Sidewalks shall not be placed next to curb and shall be placed within the 44 12 foot parkway with planters on both sides on all roadways with a 78 foot wide right-of-way or larger. 13. All parkways for ctrects largcr than 78 foot right of way shall bc a minimum of fourtccn 14 fcct. 15. 32. Private Open Space for exclusive use by the occupants equal to minimum of 150 square feet shall be required for each multi-family dwelling unit. The developer m. cy shall receive a full or partial credit for the rcquircd K rat fees required by City's SKR mitigation fee ordinance, Ordinance 663, in exchange for dedication of the open space area to an acceptable resource agency such as Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). The precise amount of the fee credit shall be equal to the fair market value of Planning Area I area of which shall not be less than 402 acres. This amount shall be determined by a MAI appraisal at the time the Open Space is dedicated. The appraiser, the amount of the fee credit and the dedication shall be approved by the RCHCA Board. The developer or any other person requesting the mitigation fee credits shall be responsible for the cost of the appraisal and the appraisal shall be based on the current zoning of Rural Residential (R-R). After the fee credit is determined, a reduced K-rat fee shall be calculated for the entire project site, thereby spreading the fee credit over the entire project site. This shall be done by calculating the total K-rat fee for the entire site and reducing this amount by the fee credit and dividing the result by the total acreage of the site, The amount of the credit shall not exceed the total K-rat fee for the R:~NAASEHSUOHNSONC.COA 1/9195 an project. 38. The minimum common open space required for the multi-family within the Village Center shall be 30% of the gross area of the site. This percentage may include other landscaped areas such as setbacks but shall not include paved areas for parking and access drives and the building foot print. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CIRCULATION: All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards. Dcviations may bc allowc-~d outsidc thc curb only (within thc parkway) for Specific Plan Roads through a Gcncral Plan Amcndmcnt with thc concurrcncc of thc Planning Dircctor and thc Dircctor of Public Works. "On all streets larger than the 78 foot right-of-way fourteen (14) foot parkways shall be provided within the ultimate right-of-way if the bikeway width is reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet or sidewalk width shall be reduced from 6 feet to 4 feet within a twelve (12) foot parkway." 15. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of any Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for or construct the improvements to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road in accordance with the Specific Plan requirements. Thc cross scction shall bc in accordancc with thc Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's Gcncral Plan classification for an Urban Artcrial Highway four ('1) lanc width right of ~ay. "Unless the improvements are constructed at the time of recordation of the first final map or issuance of the first grading permit within the Specific Plan area, the Developer shall bond for or construct the improvements to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road in accordance with the Specific Plan requirements. The bonding or construction requirements shall be established pursuant to subsequent required traffic studies and a development or improvement agreement between the City and Developer which shall establish the increments and phases of construction of the improvements." DRAINAGE: 19. This Specific Plan shc~ may include retention facilities that control runoff of all storms up to a one in one hundred year storm (or as determined by the Department of Public Works) so that downstream peak flows will not increase the risk of storm damage to downstream properties due to this development. Prior to approval of any subdivision, development plan or grading permit forthe R:\NAASEHS~IOHN$ONC.COA 1/9/95 wn Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, a watershed wide retention policy must be in place and an engineered plan for its implementation on thi; the particular site must be approved by the Department of Public Works. 20. The proposed open space drainage swales through the site to Tucalota Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek drainage systems and detention facilities are critical elements of the entire specific plan. Their f~.c} size, location, and schedule of implementation are crucial in the development of this site. Even though the applicant believes that the final engineering of these facilities will result in a design that will "fit" the land use plan, the applicant shall complete and the City shall approve such final preliminary engineering prior to the approval of any further development proposals within the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to, the approval of a parcel map processed for financing purposes. It is possible that the engineered plan may require the alteration of planning areas set aside for residential dwellings and even the deletion of lots from those areas. If such alterations are determined by the Planning Director to be significant, the applicant shall prepare, submit and process for approval a specific plan amendment. 22. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit a Master Drainage and Watershed Plan, including c rc':~scd an updated Hydrology Study, for review and approval by the City and RCFC&WCD that analyzes the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities, including the necessity for detention and desilting facilities. 24. All open channel drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 29. The 100 year flood plains for all natural water courses shall be mappcd as 100 ycar flood plains shown on an ECS map. The subsequent grading plans shall delineate the 100-year flood plain adjacent to the grading area., A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be required for any encroachment into the mapped floodway. GRADING: 42. Where import or export offsite of the Specific Plan is required an import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. R:~NAASEHS~JOHNSONC.COA 1/9/95 tn ATFACHMENT NO. 8 SCHOOL DISTRICT L,- I I ER DATED JANUARY 9, 1995 DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE HEARING R:~TAFn.F~Om,~SON.Kn 2rm~ u, 44 '~ ,]U~D FBCiLITIES ?~9(:-695-7535 FEB '31'g5 A'fT~IOI~ATLAW 4:1174 Insinert This kw firm rqxgscn~s tl~ 'rem~mds Valley Unified SchaS Dimia ('District') and tSptOvSdingminlauzrhsr~m~mme~i~nificmnts~sod r~'udesimpmswhichdsesbove- r. fcrmod~ect('l~ojcct')wmhaveoe~eDin~ WcarcnquesduStha~theClty zeqobe the applicant to teach an agxmment with ~e Disbict m e~LtU~ the mitigation of fag[tide imla~s :~eltlng free the Project. &. SCheOI FIC4I!W'~ IraFacts fmm~ ~e Pr~e~ '1~ pmje~ Fopm~ 5,120 dwdlbg units ('DU'), including 4,935 tang~ tmnily DU add 315 ,,,,,"~-famtly DU. ~ DisIda has calculated the impact firore n~e/rdidential devdopmem on its slool facilldes as set forth in its Rtzldeadal Developr~u Facfuies lawpea 4V~ml~: P/ms ss cczdf, ed by the Counu/or ~verside on lunc 21 , 1994, ~s paet d in~!ew~p,vlm of the Counts sdmol midptiou ]x~'y. The Pmjca will result in 4,356 addidonsl studlmts widdn the Distti~ I'hc Mittpriori Plan provldea dud d; ~st ~f providing K-t2 dool f_:~nd,, for each sinX]e family DO is $9,~93 and ~7,239 for each me)si-famg,/DU. Ac~,~lag]y, the P~oject win Mve en ~ of $51 ,~,740 on the DisU~ct's scboai fucDiticxi needs, ~ Dist:iet tm c, urm~dy muth~:~l m k,~vy ~..hool f'aci]|ti~ fees ("Fees'), punumt to Government Code Seainn 530~0, in the amount of Sl.72 per square fool 9used m am average :ingle farofly DU of I,S00 ~1'-'; r~g sad am mp nmlti-fa~ly DU of 1,000 squa~ feet, fig District will collea ~3.0~6 lY~ single family DU and $1,720 per multi-family witin the !~ea for m toad of S15,820.5e). It can I~ clead), Mm thag ~e Fecs will m~ preNide th~ DlmUict with the funds fequirea m adeqatsly I~ouse TVUSD FRCILITIES ID:90/-695-7555 FEB 01'95 17:~,2 No.002 P.05 In 1993, the City adopted a Guend Plan, wr~ch, wig rupe~ to sr~oo~, pzoviOm the following lfAplL..' -ie~ IM2eam under V.C, Schod Fsdti!~: . .. ~ S,B. 1287 b~ rgl~lod oo th~ m wids lallm Novsmbor 2, 1993 molu~on which spedflu t~ lx~x~ures ~ ~e followed bI u~ C~y, Sc~ol zhoolflacilitics~bysucbd~tand~hsap~ mitigation met~.mu, The tuolutMfi would pmvido for proccdures with tires0 ;m..,~_ ~mmty Resolution 93-131, T-~ur. uh Valley U~fied Sehoo/Dist~,t. As dLmm.smd ~move, 1~ 170 f~i~W. Accordinaly. ~ince IVovemtM,- d 1903. Oac Ctzy has been z~quired by the m~ms of izs own 6cnml Phn to wiopt a school n*tigmd~ poiLeyUllliariO21EorUioCOuAw./doflhLsdat~, fim~tylmmuOtKIOptgXl~apOl~. Hov~.i~isouroglnWnlh,nbamdoulhclan~uagein~heCity'sGeneralPlam, U2reiza mlu~nmt tim w. tmol fs~lifie~ imlst~ from me Project b~ midia2d prior to ~-~d of tlaProJsotbythaCfty, Gov~nmmCod~:~iont'V~..~mquire~fimCit~mm/12a tequ~g Z~m t2vel0pet to mltl~a~ th~ Proj~k't'~ imp~U o~ tt~ Dhu~ct, wch a findlnS ~m notlmmade,. '?ednesday Feu, uaPy ,. ,tag5 4.-~Snm -- ~r~4~ ~909 6~,-, ~315" ' PBq° T~jUSD FRC[LZTT~' :iD:90g-6-c~"~'~7~' FEB OX'g5 ].7:~2 Nu.O02 P.04 City of Jmnumy C. i~nvimnmentai India,r, cnac ]hvlromu~nta.! Impact l~epon for the E'x~jec~ provides t~s foBowlaI ~xiSaHrm Ala~mvml nf the iohnsml ]~anch S_p~*j__qc laban is contingent upon and sitall Rot become dimective, nefsludlitveSt, unfitOmapplkantbasrcar. hedandam;o~dedabinding mldlation sSgemcat with fie Teresa-l* VsUey TJnL~ed Sciaol Distdcf to ensu. fe mitiSatioa of the aew sasdeais Fne'ated by this Spedtic Nan if the Chy Comx~ adoptsfimSChoolldtltpli0n~e$olufi0naszmaomrr, cnd~ ros Cu,nnd-~on. (AddmtdumtotheDrmA!~Rp. As w~ Isw daawn nbovw, Fees se imisqusse m m~Sste s~'ml faclt;,;*~ jmpscts. mitimuioo of school immcu continlent on tim C~ ~l~i~ e ~ which has Ixmn approved by me P!arminl Commission. We be, licve Om City has me aut!~m mad b mqds'~l to mi~ ~ imF,e,e. ta Lmder CF.,QA Te~"'~-* of whether the Schooa aundwion m,=ohdon is mdoSm~ by ~ CEy round D. Mira. H~mwt arid MuB'~fiea Dcci~olls ~m the C'urr~t 1 -w Rctardif~ gobsol Fa~illde The City has dtc ability to condrier the adequacy of school ticilities when aplam~*inl lelisl~ devtJopsmmt~ sar. h as -,~ cJanFa, ar.d~c phms and ~mmat phn based mm fiae fu!lowba~ Csofi of Atu~c~l decisions: blira Dev.!Qpmcm C~V:9- v City of San X~. (B88) z~z C,L X~. a~S. wiJliam s. ,..~ u.io. mr~ sc,oot l~l~-wtlnl 4C~OnUW|tqidMI ~lr ~ I",~m~y Of I ~/~ Anmsl~ (1991) ~ CaL Vsl!~ X~nified Scboal Dis~Z~ct v CauQ~y o1' Riversid~. (19gl) 2'7g CaL Rplr. 421 (~Umaivd), tim "X~llm X~"). ha addUion. bu.d e h~ lduffim d~. me cuffemly being ca~.~ldered by the City, It can I~ clcady seen that dm ProjecS wilt hay. s siSniGrant impact a8 dac Dbtrict's achool fadli*-t,* l~t !o C~QA, siSnific~mt impacts must be mifilated to a lb,.vd of ~ prior to mppmval of a pmJec~ by mc City. Oa U,c basis of 0m lvfira the t~ Itu dae aud~ Io mulm mine than the statutory school fec from new lelidative develolam~ to ~ Ibat mhool facilifia am ad~uately mifiZ,'~d· Accordingly. we 4u~dne~day February 1, ;-~5 ~.'~_,~, '- FromTg'~g 6~, ~35# -' Pa~e 5J TVUSD F~CILiTIE~ ID:909-695-73~, FEB G~'95 17:33 No.O02 P.05 ~ AmmoN, Kazs, Wnms & Gteeem 3mmmm~ 9, ~M Dlstx~ Io ~ f~ Ihe funding of tl,z ~hool facilifi~ impacts from the ProjecL The ~ wouM bc pleased to provide the City wilh any addltioxml information it may require, Wn-~ & ~ANNONE ATTACHMENT NO. 9 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT Le: I I ER DATED JANUARY 19, 1995 DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE HEARING R:~TAFFRPT~Ot~,~ON.I~3 2/2~5 ~b 45 MWD METROPOLITAN WATER D/STRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Oh'~ce of General Counsel January 19, 1995 CITY OF TE~.ECULA Mar. Saied Naaseh Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Dear Mr. Naaseh: Johnson Ranch SPecific Plan The purpose of this letter is to inform you that The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's (Metropolitan) negotiations with Johnson Machinery concerning the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan are ongoing. Enclosed herewith is a copy of Metropolitan's December 19, 1994 letter to the City of Temecula Planning Director which details the background for those negotiations. Very ly yours, ~aerYsG~aa~J~r~iego Pipeline No. 6 cc: James K. Fergus METROPOLITAN WATER OISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA December 19~ 1994 Mr. Gary Thornhill Planning Director City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Dear Mr. Thornhill: Johnson Ranch SDecific Plan Environmental ImPact Report The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) is in the design stage for its San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project, which crosses the Johnson Ranch property from the adjacent Lake Skinner property to Anza Road. The Final EIR for the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project was certified in June of 1993, with a preferred alignment along Buck Road, then planned as part of the County Transportation Plan. On October 13, 1994, after our request to representatives of Johnson Ranch, Metropolitan received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application 93-0180) from Douglas Wood and Associates. Upon reviewing this draft document after the public review period had closed in late August of 1994, we noted that the existing Buck Road alignment is not part of the proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan. We have subsequently met with representatives from the Johnson Ranch property and are working with them on the alignment of the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 through the property. Johnson Ranch owners need to ensure that Metropolitan's existing easement and fee corridor containing its San Diego Pipeline Nos. 3, 4, and 5 will not be affected by the proposed specific plan. Attached to this letter for your use is a copy of the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California". Metropolitan has contacted a member of your staff, Saied Naaseh, to facilitate coordination between your agency, Johnson Ranch representatives, and Metropolitan. We look .forward to receiving copies of the comment letters to the DEIR, the Final EIR, and the proposed mitigation monitoring program from your agency. --,c METRDPSLITAN WAYER DIJTRI~T Otr SOUTHERN ~4LlYORNIA Mr. Gary Thornhill -2- December 19, 1994 We will continue coordinating our planning efforts with those associated with the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan development. In so doing, Metropolitan and Johnson Machinery Company will be able to reach their respective objectives concerning the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project and the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan. In the meantime, we request the City of Temecula and the proponents of the project to direct all further inquiries on this matter to B. Anatole Palagan, Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project Manager, at (213) 217-6830. Very truly ~ourT, Assistant Chief of Planning and Resources DWS:hah Attachment CC: William Johnson, James Fergus Hugh Hewitt Saied Naaseh Jr. ATTACHMENT NO. 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY L~- ~ ~ ER DATED JANUARY 6, 1995 n:~rrA~Fnyr~om~soN,K:3 ~ ub 46 COU l"f OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND A 1AND .MANAGEMENT GENCY Transportation Department Janusr7 6, 199S Mr. Sa~ed Naaseh City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Tamsouls, Ca- 92590 Johnson Ranch Environmental Impact Repor~ Response to R~verside Coumty Constants The Riverside county Transportation DeparTanent has reviewed response ~o our co~ents prepared by D~uglas ~ocd & Associates. The Department still has outstanding issues ~hat either veto n~t adequately addressed in the response or need to be cla~Ified. All referenced Transpor~ation comments in T/is letter re=st to the Deparunent's August 29, 1994 letter (attached) to vale City regarding ~he EIR prepared ~or the Johnson Ranch The response to comment 3 regarding off-site infras~-ucture d e'infrasu~c~e for access. If ~se facilities ~n~conetmct~ '~others' ~or wha~r~ason, thence applic~t will~ ree~ns~le for the .~nts in order =o have access. S~on~, =~re is ~ e~l~tion as to h~t~s proJec~ is going to pay its 'f~lr sha~' for off-site ~ptove~n~s w~n It Is ~= with~ the ~d~e8 o~ a funding ~s=rict, ~re, only ldennlfled facil&ties wl~n the 'dis~ic~' are elig~le for fair share. To respond that the definition of off-site roadway hnprovements is being formulated Is no= addressing the issue. The response to item 5 regarding the Traffic Hitigation aonitorlng Program Focuse~ Traffic Analysis does not respond to =he issue =hat 400 peak hour =rips are significant, twice what is required for CMP analysis. For consistency purposes (with CKF), the focused analyale should be done at 200 peak hour trips. The DeCent understood that this program did not replace CMP requirements. The Traffic Analysis on page lV-85 states peak hour, not 4~0 dwelling units as indicated in the response. ~ohnson Ranch EIR Response ~anuary 6~ The response ~o item 6 regaralng the widening of Hurrieta Hot Springs to six lanes is not entirely accu~ate. The ~IR on page IV-56, ra~er ~han the CMP Traffic Analy~is, states ~a= H~ie=a HOt Springs ~ad will ult~a=ely~ widen~ =o six l~es. ~Ai~nC~tITraffic 8tudyreco~ended~ Six la~ se~en=s ~o M~rieta Hot Sprigs ROad a~ =he fo11~g l~ations= From 1-15 east within the boundaries of the City of Hurrieta The intersection of Winchester Road The rest of the facility within the County remained artArterial Highway designation. We have included a map of =he ACTS circulation recommendations for your files. Thank you for the opportunity to review and commen~. If you have anyquestions regarding ~his le~er, please contact Ruthanne Tailor Betget, Senior Transportation Planner, at 275-2076. Sincerely, Edwin D. Studor Transportation Planning Manager RTBsmw Attachments co= Frank Sherkow Dave B~:nhar~ Laurie Dobson TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEME~VF AGENCY Transportation Department ~,~de. ~. D;rec~or of Yranrpom'atlon pLANNING ~ DE~OP~ ~IEW DIVISION August 29, 1994 Saied Naaseh City of Temeuula Planning Department 43174 Business~ Park Drive Re: Draf~ gnvircnment~aI Impact,Renor~ ;('DEIR)"':. for the Johnson R~neh,,,S~ecifi~ Plaff~!.' above rW~e~ee~ decdinah= 'and we'haV~jthe~,'co~e~=s n6=ea below.' '~'~' roadways identified - [acilltles ~ka~d '.: Seaices ~: ~Xement of the -~ R'~VerSi~e Coun~y~' a,~:=Com~rehensi~e-- G&neral,: ~'l'~n. j:'?' These roa~wa~ :;' particularl~ '~ BU~erfX~ld s~a;&-:R~.:7~X'a'~7'tran'.~=i6~ into Washington street, designa=~a as =an:'XEt~i~l HighWay (110' R/W)~ - Murrie~a Ho~ Springs Road, designated as a Seconda~ Highway (88' R/W) between the southwesterly project bounda~ and Buck Road} , ~,.. - ~oren Road, designated as a Secondary Highway =he northerly bounda~ of the project and extending easterly from =he project boundary; and, - Nicholas Road, designated as an Ar~erial Highway (110' R/W)- DEIR - Johnson Ranch Specific August 29, 1994 Page 2 Plan The pro3ect is proposing changes to ~he roadways on County Public Facilities and Services Element Circulation section which will require a General Plan Amendment to delete or down grade these facilities as proposed. There are significant off-site infrastructure improvements that this project is dependent upon for circulation and traffic impact mitigation. The traffic study in the technical appendix indicates that most of these improvements are being provided by others (Southwest Road and Bridge Benefit District, AD 161, CFD 88-12, and Conditions of Approval). The document states that the applicant will pay a "fare share" cost for required infrastructure improvements. The applicant can only pay a 'fare share" cost for improvements if the propert~ is within the boundaries of a funding district and the fa$~lities are identified. Any other off~site improvements will be the responsibility of the applicant. In Traffic and Circulati0n Section, mitigation measure nounbar 3 (pg. I~-83) states that Murrieta Hot Springs Road needs to be built from the western project boundarythrough the site· This mitigation measure needs to be amended to include the following language: "The applicant/developer will coordinate with the Transportation Depar=ment, specifically Assessment District 161 for the construction of Murrieta Hot Springs Road." The document recomends a Traffi~ Mitigation/Monitoring Program _with a trip threshold of ¢00 peak.hour trips before an analysis of "hot spots" would be required. The project needs to turn in opening year analysis for all development projects within the plan to ensure level of service is being main~ained. The Department also recommends a'cumulative analysis for "hot spots" at a 200 peak hour trip threshold in order to be consistent with CMp requirements. -- The Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis (C~P TIA) and the traffic study indicate that Murrieta Ho~ Springs Road will be widened to a six lane Urban Arterial ~ighway. This roadway is to be improved to a four lane Arterial Highway in the unincorporated area· The document needS..to clarify who is going to provide the two additional lan~s and how they are to be paid for. The CMP TIA mitigation measures for project' traffic impacts consists of a Traffic Mitigation/Monitoring Program, a circulation phasing plan, and "fare share "payment mechanism paid to the City of Temecula. It should be noted that this project and surrounding area is within the unincorporated ,/ DEIR - Johnson Ranch Specific Plan August 29, 1994 Page 3 portion of the County. Mitigation measures need to be based on what is acceptable to Riverside County, and any "fare share" ~ees that are paid. need to be paid to Riverside County. The City of Temecula should consult with our DepazT. ment in order ~o assess potential traffic impacts from buildout of the proposed project which may affect the circulation system within the County. The mitigation measures outlined in the DEIR should be implemented and required To comply with the standards of the Riverside County Transportation Department. Any impacts to the County circulation s~stem should be completely addressed and mitigated to our requirements. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR and would like to request a copy of the Final EIR when available. If you have questions, please contact Sena B. WiJesinha, Senior Transportation Planner, at {909) 275-6828 or Sian Roman, Associate Planner, at (909) 285-6874. Sincerely, Louis C; Gamache Transportation Planning Engineer RTB=SR:mw cc: Srank Sherkow Dave Barnhart Ed Studor Laurie Dobson TOTAL P. 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 11 MEMORANDUM JANUARY 9, 1995 DISTRIBUTED BY STAFF TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE HEARING RESPONDING TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY L~I I ER R:~TA]~I~,FI'~OI'INSON,I~C3 2/2/9~ k~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Department Jim D. Faul, Assistant Engineer January 9, 1995 Johnson Ranch - Response to County of Riverside Transportation Department Letter dated January 9, 1995 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the letter from the County of Riverside Transportation Department dated January 9, 1995 and offers the following comments: The Department of Public Works has conditioned the Johnson Ranch Project for the essential access infrastructure. The conditions were based on the attached chart analyzing the essential access roads. The conditions also provide for a reimbursement agreement with adjacent property owner(s) as development occurs. The eligible reimbursement roads were determined to be Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The attached chart provides the City's determination of the required off-site roadway improvements. The Project Traffic Analysis does state 'peak hour trips' and not 'dwelling units'. Also, the focused traffic analysis shall be done at 200 peak hour trips to be consistent with the Congestion Management Plan. It is the Department of Public Works' understanding that Murrieta Hot Springs Road will ultimately be six (6) lanes and designated as an Urban Arterial Highway from I-15 to Date Road and an Arterial Highway from Date Road to Butterfield Stage Road. The Project has been conditioned to provide four (4) lanes from Butterfield Stage Road to Leon Road. cc: Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer - Land Development file r:~faul~94~nem%pa~johnlon4.eir ATI'ACHMENT NO. 12 HEWITT AND MCGUIRE Lb~ ~ ER DISTRIBUTED BY THE APPLICANT DATED JANUARY 5, 1995 DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE HEARING R:~I'~OHNSON,YC3 2/2/95 kb 48 DEAN DUNN-RANKIN CHARLES S. EXON ANDREVV K, HARTZELL HUGH HEW1TT MARK R, MCGUIRE HEWITT & McGUIRE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 250 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 509-2900 (714) 509*2929 {FAX) CI'W OF TEMECULA DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PALCHIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAM L. TWOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER January 5, 1995 Chairman Steve Ford and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re; Johnson Ranch Specific Plan Conditions of ADDroval and Mitiaation Mbasures Dear Chairman Ford and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing on behalf of the applicant for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, Johnson Machinery Co., to express our support of Staff's recommendation of approval of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan. There are, however, several proposed Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures with which we do not agree and which are either unnecessary, redundant or not in accordance with applicable law; Our justification for questioning the proposed Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures are described below, along with our proposed revisions. The references below are to the Planning Department ("PD") and TCSD Conditions of Approval attached to the Staff Report and to the mitigation measures in the proposed Mitigation Measure Program ("MMP"). Attached to this letter is a le~er to Ray Casey containing suggested revisions to some of the Public Works Department's proposed Conditions of Approval. We will continue to work with City Staff to attempt to resolve these few remaining issues prior to Monday's hearing and will be prepared to address any questions the Commission may have at that time. 1. TCSD Condition Nos. 1, 8, 10, 17 and 20, and MMP 0.5.1 (Parkland Dedication and Iml~rovements) These conditions and mitigation measures all relate to the dedication and improvement of park and recreational land and facilities and the payment of parks and recreation fees. In total, the conditions attempt to impose on the project Chairman Ford and Members of the Planning Commission January 5, 1995 Page 2 park and recreation requirements that are greatly in excess of what the law permits. Johnson Machinery has already proposed dedicating park and recreational sites and providing recreational trails throughout the open space areas of the Specific Plan in excess of what the City can legally require. Any park and recreational improvements further in excess of the legal requirements should be negotiated in the proposed statutory Development Agreement and not imposed through the Specific Plan. The Quimby Act (Government Code § 66477) establishes the only means by which the City may require the dedication and improvement of park and recreational sites. The Quimby Act authorizes the City to require by ordinance the dedication of land or the payment of fees in lieu of the dedication of land, or some combination thereof, for park and recreational purposes. The amount of land to be dedicated or fees to be paid must be based on residential density, "which shall be determined on the basis of approved tentative maps and the average number of persons per household." The amount of land required to be dedicated or the payment of fees cannot exceed an amount necessary to provide three acres of park and recreational land per 1,000 persons, up to five acres of land per 1,000 persons if the city's existing park area exceeds three acres per thousand. If a developer provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements shall be credited against the payment of fees or dedication of land. A recent case has held that any local requirements in excess of the Quimby Act authorization are preempted by state law and therefore illegal. Auburn Manor Holding CorD. v. City of Roseville, 29 Cal. App. 4th 336 (1994) [request for hearing pending in California Supreme Court]. Moreover, no analysis has been performed justifying such an excessive exaction that satisfies the statutory nexus requirements of Government Code §66000 et seq. or constitutional principles. The City has determined that the project's park land requirement under the Quimby Act is 68 acres based on the maximum number of dwelling units within the Specific Plan of 5,250, the assumed population of 13,598 persons and a park standard of five acres per thousand. Assuming that the City can establish that its existing park acreage is five acres per thousand, which the City is required to do under the Quimby Act, the City can require either the dedication of 68 acres of park land o_r the payment of fees in lieu of the dedication, or some combination thereof. The City cannot, however, require the dedication and improvement of 68 acres of park land, the payment of additional fees and the improvement of all of the recreational trails within the open space areas of the Specific Plan. 01-04-95 9012-00002 5:\DOC\172\CORR\95010004.LTR Chairman Ford and Members of the Planning Commission January 5, 1995 Page 3 Johnson Machinery has proposed to dedicate 61 acres of land for community, village and neighborhood park sites, provide 14 acres of improved linear park within the Tucalota Creek open space area, (for which the City has agreed to provide 7 acres of credit against the Quimby requirement) and provide trail improvements within Planning Area 1. These conditions assure that the project's Quimby Act requirements will be more than adequately satisfied as the Specific Plan area is subdivided. The appropriate mechanism in which to consider any additional park and recreational improvements is through the proposed statutory Development Agreement. In accordance with these comments, we would revise the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures as follows: TCSD Condition No. 1: Revise the last sentence of this Condition to read as follows: "The Developer or his successors, shall improve and dedicate to the City one (1) 15-acre Community Park site, three (3) 6-acre Village Park sites, and nine (9) minimum 3-acre Neighborhood Park sites." Condition No. 8: Condition No. 8 should be revised to read as follows: "Construction of the publio park sites, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the Developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent." Condition No. 10: Condition No. 10 should be revised to read as follows: "The Developer, or the Developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park f_-_-5!!*.!_-.- sites, landscaping, trails, and medians until such times as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD." 01-04-95 9012-00002 S:\DOC\172\CORR\95010004.L~R Chairman Ford and Members of the Planning Commission January 5, 1995 Page 4 Condition No. 17: Condition No. 17 should be revised to read as follows: "Prior to recordation of each final map, the Developer or his successors, shall enter into an agreement and post security to improve any rcspootivc public park 0itc, parkway landscaping, medians and multi-purpose trails that are proposed for dedication to the City." Condition No. 20: Condition No. 20 should be revised to read as follows: "The public park site shall be improvod and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of residential building permits as identified within the Park Phasing section of the Specific Plan or pursuant to the park land improvement agreement at recordation of the respective final map, whichever comes first." 2. PD Condition No. 17 and MMP O.4.1 (School Facilities) The draft EIR identified a mitigation measure for the project's school facilities impacts requiring a Mitigation Agreement between the Developer and School District before recordation of the first map. This mitigation measure ensures that the project will comply with any school mitigation resolution ultimately adopted by the City Council and is identical to that imposed by the City Council recently on the Campos Verdes Specific Plan project. This mitigation measure has been revised, however, to mimic Condition of Approval No. 17 and make the approval of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan contingent upon the Developer reaching a binding Mitigation Agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District if the City Council adopts the proposed school mitigation resolution currently before it. It is unfair and unreasonable to apply the school mitigation resolution to a project such as Johnson Ranch that has been under consideration by the City for over a year. The approval of the Specific Plan must be effective when it is adopted by the City Council. Requiring a School Mitigation Agreement that complies with the City's school mitigation policies prior to the recordation of the first final map, 01-04-95 9012-00002 S: \DOC\172\CORR\95010004. L1R Chairman Ford and Members of the Planning Commission January 5, 1995 Page 5 as recommended in the draft EIR, will ensure that the substance of the City's school mitigation resolution, in whatever form it is ultimately adopted by the City Council, will be satisfied prior to development within the Specific Plan area. We request that the original mitigation measure included in the draft EIR replace Mitigation Measure 0.4.1 now included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and that Condition of Approval No. 17 be deleted. 3. PD Condition Nos. 19, 20, 35 and MMP 0.2.1, 0.3.2, 0.8.1, and 0.8.2 (Fire, Police and Libran/Fees): The Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures include a requirement for the payment of additional fees and the dedication of facilities for fire, police and library services for which no legal basis has been established through the EIR or any other analysis included in the record for this project in some cases, the City is already collecting fees (e.g., for fire and library) and there is no indication that the existing fees are inadequate. In addition, the fiscal impact report included in the staff report demonstrates a surplus of annual revenues available from this project for police protection, fire and library services. The appropriate mechanism for imposing additional fees would be through the existing fee programs or the proposed public facilities fee program currently being studied after the requisite analysis has been conducted. No analysis has been performed that would satisfy the statutory requirements of the State "nexus" legislation (Government Code § 66000 et seq.) or the constitutional standards recently established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. City of Tiaard. Moreover, to the extent the "additional fees" specified in the Mitigation Measures are for operation or maintenance, they would be illegal under Government Code §65913.8. Mitigation measures that are illegal are infeasible under CEQA and cannot be imposed. We request that the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures be modified as follows: PD Condition No. 19: Replace the first sentence with the following: "The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement or another similar and appropriate agreement or mechanism which identifies and establishes appropriate mitigation impact fees, land dedication and facilities 01 - 04 - 95 9012- 00002 S: \DOC\172\CORR\95010004. LTR Chairman Ford and Members of the Planning Commission January 5, 1995 Page 6 construction requirements for the project consistent with the Specific Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Agreement or other mechanism shall also identify the timing of the payment of fees, dedication of land and/or facilities construction and the infrastructure financing mechanisms to be used, which may include, without limitation, reimbursement districts, fee programs and land-secured, public financing districts." PD Condition No. 20: Delete. MMP 0.2.1: Delete the last sentence requiring the payment of "additional fees" in addition to the current fire protection impact fee. MMP 0.3.2: Delete. MMP 0.8.1: Delete the last sentence requiring the payment of additional fees on top of the current $100 per dwelling unit fee. MMP 0.8.2: Delete because the Riverside County Library System has indicated that they do not require and could not staff a new library site within the Village Center. Therefore, this condition is unnecessary. Condition No. 35: Delete because this general condition is redundant and covered by various other conditions addressing the conditions for constructing and/or financing the necessary infrastructure for the project. 4. Condition Nos. 32 and 33 (Plannine Area I Dedication): Johnson Machinery is proposing to dedicate Planning Area 1 to an appropriate public agency in exchange for credit against the fees imposed pursuant to the City's current SKR fee ordinance or any other fee that may be levied by the City in the future for open space or habitat acquisition, restoration, mitigation or management purposes. The precise amount of the fee credit would be determined at the time of dedication and would equal the fair market value of the Planning Area. The revisions to Condition Nos. 32 and 33 described below are intended to clarify (i) that the Developer shall receive a fee credit, although the amount will be determined later, (ii) that the credit will be available against any fees 01-04-95 9012-00002 S:\DOC\172\CORR\95010004.LIR Chairman Ford and Members of the Planning Commission January 5, 1995 Page 7 levied for the same purposes that are served by dedication of the land, (iii) that the manner of applying the fee credits in connection with development of the property will be established pursuant to the proposed Open Space Mitigation Plan and (iv) that such Plan would establish the timing of dedication. With regard to the dedication timing, it is intended that all of Planning Area 1 be dedicated as soon as possible in the development process, provided that all necessary resource agencies' approvals have been obtained for development of the Specific Plan. If all such approvals are not obtained at the time of approval of the first implementing subdivision map or grading permit, the Open Space Mitigation Plan would establish those portions of the open space to be dedicated in connection with development of phases within the Specific Plan Area. We ask that Condition No. 32 be revised to read as follows: "The Developer shall receive a full or partial credit against the fee imposed pursuant to Ordinance No. 663 of the City, as it may be supplemented, amended or superseded, or any other fee levied by the City for open space or habitat acquisition, restoration, mitigation or management purposes ("Habitat Fees"), in exchange for dedication of Planning Area 1. The precise amount of the fee credit shall be equal to the fair market value of Planning Area '1, the area of which shall not be less than 402 acres. Fair market value shall be determined by a MAI appraisal at the time the open space is dedicated. The appraiser, the amount of the fee credit and the dedication shall be approved by the RCHCA Board. The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of the appraisal and the appraisal shall be based on an assumption that the Planning Area is zoned rural residential (R-R) or a comparable zoning designation. Unless an alternative method for applying fee credits is approved in the Open Space Mitigation Plan described in Condition No. 33, after the fee credit amount is determined, a reduced Habitat Fee amount shall be calculated for the entire project site, thereby spreading the fee credit over the entire project site. This shall be done by calculating the total Habitat Fee for the entire site and reducing this amount by the fee credit amount 01-04-95 9012-00002 S:\DOC\172\CORR\gSOlOOO4.Llt~ Chairman Ford and Members of the Planning Commission January 5, 1995 Page 8 and dividing the result by the total acreage of the site upon which the habitat fees may be imposed. The amount of the fee credit shall not exceed the total Habitat Fee for the project." Condition No. 33: Revise the last sentence of Condition No. 33 to read as follows: "Planning Area I shall be dedicated to the RCHCA or other appropriate agency prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the project, unless the appropriate resource agency approvals required for the development of the Specific Plan have not been obtained, in which case Planning Area I shall be dedicated in phases as set forth in the Open Space Mitigation Plan." 5. Condition No. 38 |Multi-Family Private Open Sl~ace): This Condition requires 30% of the gross area of the multi-family site within the Village Center to be in open space. Condition of Approval No. 15 requires private open space of at least 150 square feet to be provided for each multi-family dwelling unit. It is unclear which Condition is controlling, It appears that only one should be required and it should be consistent with existing City requirements. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments and proposed revisions. Very truly yours, John P. er JPY/dcw cc: Bill Johnson Jim Fergus Larry Markham Gary Thornhill Saied Naaseh Greg Diaz 01-04-95 9012-00002 S: \DOC\172\CORR\95010004. LTR FEAN DUNN-RANKIN CHARLES S, EXON ANDREW K. HARTZELL HUGH HEWITT MARK R, MCGUIRE HEWITT & McGUIRE A'I'FORNEYS AT LAW 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 250 NE~ORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714} 509-2900 (714) 509-2929 (FAX) DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F, PALCNIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAM L. 11VOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER January 5, 1995 Ray Casey Department of Public Works City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Proposed Conditions of ADoroyal Dear Mr. Casey: The following comments on the proposed Conditions of Approval prepared by the Public Works Department are submitted on behalf of Johnson Machinery Co., the applicant for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, as a follow-up to your meeting with Jim Fergus and Bob Davis on Tuesday. The references are to the Public Works Department Conditions of Approval which begin on page 47 of the Staff Report, unless otherwise indicated. Condition No. 3 This Condition appears to include proposed "fees" referenced in the EIR, the legality of which we are challenging. The basis for the challenge will be set forth in a separate letter to the Planning Commission with respect to other proposed Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures. Condition No. 3 would also have the applicant waive its rights to protest any fees imposed by the City pursuant to programs that do not now exist and which have not even been analyzed. We can only be required to pay legally-adopted fees as they exist at the time they are required to be paid in the course of the development of the Specific Plan. We request that the Condition be revised to read as follows: "Prior to issuing building permits for the various phases of development, the Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed on the property or project. The fee to be paid shall be in the 01-04-95 9029-00002 5:\DOC\172\CORR\95010003.LTR Ray Casey January 5, 1995 Page 2 amount in effect at the time payment of the fee. If an interim or public facility mitigation fee or district is under review but has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its first building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute an "Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee." Concurrently with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee, if one is adopted within a specified period with respect to those dwelling units or commercial structures for which the building permit is being issued. The amount of the bond shall be $2 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000 per dwelling unit or commercial structure." CONDITION NO. 9 The Planning Department is recommending 14 foot parkways for streets larger than the 78 foot right-of-way. We understand, however, that the Public Works Department does not wish to deviate from the standard curb-to-curb distances for all streets. In addition, the Circulation Element depicts parkways of only 10 to 12 feet on all typical roadway cross sections larger than 78 feet. We would agree to the 14 foot parkway within the overall right-of-way designated in the General Plan provided that 2 feet is taken out of the bikeway (reducing it from 10 feet to 8 feet) or that the sidewalks are reduced from 6 feet to 4 feet within a 12 foot parkway. Either approach would permit the amount of landscaping being sought by the Planning Department. Consequently, we would propose to delete the second sentence in Condition No. 9 and replace it with the following: "On all streets larger than the 78 foot right-of-way fourteen (14) foot parkways shall be provided within the ultimate right-of-way if the bikeway width is reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet or sidewalk width shall be reduced from 6 feet to 4 feet within a twelve (12) foot parkway." Condition No. 14 Generally, we agree with the approach you have taken on the circulation improvements required for the project and your supporting documentation. There are three issues with this Condition, however, that require revision or clarification including (1) the Anza Road condition; (2) the reimbursement provisions and (3) consideration of inclusion of the primary road segments in the City's road fee program currently being studied. 01-04-95 9029-00002 5:\DOC\172\CORR\95010003.L~ Ray Casey January 5, 1995 Page 3 We have requested that Anza Road within the property boundaries be deleted. The road is unnecessary in the buildout condition based on the project's traffic studies. In addition, the proposed Anza Road would cross both the open space area to be established pursuant to the Specific Plan and Santa Gertrudis Creek offsite. If the City does not choose to delete Anza Road we would propose, in the alternative, that the right-of-way for Anza Road be dedicated, but not improved, from "A" Street south to the project boundary, and that local subdivision streets between "A" Street north to Borel Road be constructed in the course of development of that area. I understand that the Public Works Department is not opposed to facilitating reimbursement to property owners that construct improvements in excess of their fair share. The applicant agrees to participate in any reasonable reimbursement mechanism required to reimburse any other property owner who constructs improvements benefitting the Johnson Ranch property in excess of the other property owner's fair share. Butterfield Stage Road and other applicable road segments both within the Specific Plan area and offsite appear to be of the type currently being studied by the City for inclusion in the City's road fee or public facilities program. We request that those road segments be included in the fee study and that fee credits be available to any developer who constructs these roads, consistent with the City's approach taken on other similar roadways in the City. We request that the parenthetical language included in this Condition regarding reimbursement agreements for Murrietta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road be deleted, that the Anza Road condition be delete and that the following language be added at the end of the Condition: "The City will facilitate reimbursement of Developer's costs in excess of its fair share for any infrastructure improvements constructed by Developer through the establishment of a fee district that includes all benefitting properties, the requirement of a reimbursement agreement as a condition of approval of the development of any benefitring properties, the establishment of public financing districts, the grant of appropriate fee credit or any combination thereof. The Murrietta Hot Springs Road 01-04-95 9029-00002 S: \00C\172\CORR\95010003. L~'~ Ray Casey January 5, 1995 Page 4 and Butterfield Stage Road segments and any other road segments described in this Condition that provide an area-wide circulation benefit shall be included in any road fee program study prepared by the City and fee credits shall be available in connection with the construction of such segments. Condition No. 15 We understand that the Public Works Department is comfortable with identifying through subsequent traffic studies and a development or infrastructure improvement agreement specific road increments to be bonded for or constructed. In other words, Public Works will not necessarily require the entire full width improvement to be bonded for or constructed at the outset. We request that the last sentence in this Condition be deleted and replaced with the following: "Unless the improvements are constructed at the time of recordation of the first final map or issuance of the first grading permit within the Specific Plan area, the Developer shall bond for or construct the improvements to Murrietta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road in accordance with the Specific Plan requirements. The bonding or construction requirements shall be established pursuant to subsequent required traffic studies and a development or improvement agreement between the City and Developer which shall establish the increments and phases of construction of the improvements." Condition No. 16 For the same reasons discussed with respect to Condition No. 15, delete the first sentence in this Condition and replace it with the following: "Except to the extent already constructed prior to recordation of the first final map or issuance of the first grading permit within the Specific Plan area, the Developer shall bond for or construct the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The requirements for bonding or constructing the traffic signals in stages or 01-04-95 9029-00002 S:\DOC\172\CORR\gS010003,LTR Ray Casey January 5, 1995 Page 5 increments shall be established pursuant to a development or improvement agreement between the Developer and the City and subsequent required traffic studies. In addition, the City will facilitate reimbursement of Developer's costs in excess of its fair share for any traffic signals constructed by Developer through the establishment of a fee reimbursement district that includes all benefitring properties, the requirement of a reimbursement agreement as a condition of approval of the development of any benefitting properties, the establishment of public financing districts, the grant of appropriate fee credits or any combination thereof. Please revise the following drainage and grading conditions as indicated. Condition No. 19: This Specific Plan oh.-!! may include retention facilities that to control runoff of all storms up to a one in one hundred year storm (or as determined by the Department of Public Works) so that downstream peak flows will not increase the risk of storm damage to downstream properties due to this development. Prior to approval of any subdivision, development plan or grading permit for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, a watershed wide retention policy must be in place and an engineered plan for its implementation on this the particular site must be approved by the Department of Public Works. Condition No. 20 The proposed Santa Gcrtrudis Crcck and open space drainage swale through the site to Tucalota Creek drainage systems and dctcntion facilities are critical elements of the entire specific plan. Their final size, location and schedule of implementation are crucial in the development of this site. Even though the applicant believes that the final engineering of these facilities will result in a design that will "fit" the land use plan, the applicant shall complete and the City shall approve cuch final a preliminary engineering plan prior to the approval of any further development proposals within the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, including,but not limitcd to excluding the approval of a parcel map processed for financing purposes. Condition No. 22 Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit a Master Drainage and Watershed Plan, including ~ 01-04-95 9029-00002 S:\DOC\172\CORR\95010003.LIR Ray Casey January 5, 1995 Page 6 an updated Hydrology Study, for review and approval by the City and RCFC & WCD that analyzes the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities, including the necessity for detention and alesilting facilities. Condition No. 24 All open channel drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 1 O0 year storm flows subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC & WCD, as applicable. Condition No. 29 The 100 year flood plains for all natural water courses shall be mappcd as 1 O0 ycnr flood plainc shown on an ECS map. The subsequent grading plans shall delineate the 100-year flood plain adjacent to the grading area. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be required for any encroachment into the mapped floodway. Condition No. 42 Where import or export offsite of the Specific Plan is required an import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. enclosed. Please call me or Jim Fergus if you have any questions regarding the Very truly yours, John P.Y~eag! ~/' JPY/kvr CC: Bill Johnson Jim Fergus Larry Markham Gary Thornhill Saied Naaseh 01-04-95 9029-00002 5:\DOC\172\CORR\95010003,Lt~ ATTACHMENT NO. 13 L,- i i ERS FROM INTERESTED PROPERTY OWNERS R:'~'TAFFRF~.JOHNSON.I~3 2/2/95 k~ 49 Ter,%ecula Planning Commission 43174 Business Pk. Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92591 Dear Commission Members: My name is Raymond Gianton and I reside at 33120 Vino Way in an unincorporated area of Riverside county. My community is just to the south of the Johnson Ranch that is proposing a large development. I am against the plan as it is currently proposed. The development in this area should not be as dense as what the Johnson people want. Obviously the Johnson developers want to squeeze ever dollar that they can out of their property. I can not fault them for attempting to do so, but it is not in the best interest of the City of Temecula nor the valley as a whole. Like many other people in*Temecula and surrounding areas, we moved out here ~for the rural atmosphere and for a quality environment to bring up a family. I was ~very pleased when the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the SWAP. This plan shows parcel sizes of the Johnson Ranch to be a mixture of 1,2.5 and 5 acres. The City subsequently incorporated and developed the iTemecula Land Use Plan. This plan show higher densities for the Johnson ~ Ranch. Now the developers want Temecula to break this plan and develop more idensely. This is exactly how areas become over developed. I implore that iTemecula not follow other municipalities in allowing developers to basically have :their way. Approving this plan would set a precedence by where all developers in the city and sphere of influence areas would have more leverage to develop their land more densely. If this happens in Temecula and surrounding cities this valley will just be one more congested, polluted, crime ridden municipality that people want to get out of. I request the Temecula City Planning Commission limit this development to what is shown on the Temecula Land Use Plan. This plan still allows the owners to make a lot of money while allowing semi-reasonable growth. Mr. Johnson will not be living in this area, the developing consultant will not be living in this area. After they take their money and run, Temecula will have this forever. Temecula's motto is "Old traditions, new opportunities". Sticking to the Temecula Land Use Plan helps to keep this alive, the Johnson plan will not. Joyce and Charles WillJams 33612 Vino Way Temecula, Calif. 92591 Temecula Planning Commission 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Calif. 92591 Jan. 12, 1995 [ ECEIVEB 17 1995 I fi ............ Dear Commissioners; On Monday, Jan. 9, 95 I artended the Planning meeting held at the Water Districts Board Room. Although it was my intention to address the Board , I found myserf~unable to after two and a half hours of being tomharder with facts and figures from the Johnson Ranch people. As the plan now is written, we are against it. Three years ago we bought our land, built our home and in Nov. of '92 moved into our dream home in the country, on our 2% arce lot. We as all of our neighbors dearly love the peace and quiet we experience in this type of a communit This is the type of community the Johnson Ranch People should be planning, not a potential area~withhigh crime and social problems which are unsolvable. Whenever a community is built with lots of houses , 'thus people, in a small area as is now the plat constant social problems will soon exist. You just can't put that many people in a small area and not expect to have problems. Why are you considering a plan which will cause a traffic night-mare, additional work for the police dept., ' distruction~of wildlife and vegetation along the existing creeks on the Johnson Ranch property. Surly a plan could be developed where only one house per area would be built. Of course more would be charged for each home to cover the builders expence. But... down the line the city of Temecula will be happy tha~ a trouble spot was not approved in 1995-by the Planning Commission. We have more concerns about the plan. If any of the Commissioners would like to speak to us personally, please call. Our number is 909-6761414. Very Truly Yours, _ .o '-- ;_. - ., DAVID C. ROBINSON, D.O. _. -. ~De~ Chal~ Ford~ . ".'~ = ~ Th~' you~ for the. oppon~n~ ty. to'-spe~ at the .last Plann~ ng he' '~ .t= - -' Co~ssion regarding the Jo~son R~c~ Buil~ng Project. . ~. '<' ~" Please find beloW-concis~ reasons' t6 render-a' decision against "" . , .>~tthe 'pl~nn{ng applicatfo~ '~01eo}~81V183; 134 '~d 184. ~ / .... - -'-- ~ - x =-:Th~ S~ta'. Germdes 'Creek ~d sh~ro~ng~ "gee~elt" ~ <' "'' ....will[have'='tc' be main%ained-at ~lic ~ense ~d would=' .<, 1. Somehow ke6ping t~en~y thous~d"people Out of this i >, ~1 ' '<' sensitive- enviro~ental area'.=- ' ~ '~ ' i i, 2; c- ~eeping children from playing 'into a- seasonal ~ ~- · - ' ' raging river,-which we have seen enough of' ~' ' -' --~J- ] .- - ' ~ -recently, , ~d eve~ winter. ~ _ - . c -. ' , .3. Maintaining_ an eual burden'of disking the fire "- - ~_ ~ hazard that su~o~ds ~e other end~gered-] .'~ . .. - .... species, n~ely myself ~d my= neighors. - ' i ~ ' T :. The presentation 'by Jo~son R~ch is dis~onest in not_ -_ · ' showing the n~erous;~omes ~d r~ches that sU~ro~d: ..~. that seventeen-h~dred acres. - Strategic photography has been used to present as if nobody lives .aro~d the borders of said property. This is irresponsible presentation. ,~. - _ - -- The enviro~ental ~pact exceeds the allotted air. pollut~ts in thisl ~ea ~d no matter of mitigationlc~ , make up for cle~ air that's no longer avail~le to ' breath.. - . . - Fin~cial ~pact shows no defici~ ~o 'the City upon "final buildout". ~here will, however, 'be a negatiXe financial_ ~pact ~0 the City and the citfzen~ of } Temecula for twenty years, ~til the final buildour is complete. . - - - - ' - The traffic a~ries, 'n~ely H~ 79 and Califo~i~ Road" are' not sufficient to handel the thirty to sixty thous~d vehicular trips as proposed by the traffic engineer. ~za, Borel, Buck Road and Butterfield - . Stage will all empty out into Rancho California Road. This will cause a major daily traffic congestion that these count~ roads were not meant to bear. Temecula Medical Center · 27699 Jeffmen _Ave., Suit=-101 .~ Tcmec-b,. C.A 92590 ~ (909) 695-I079 DAVID C. ROBINSON, D.O. Family Praclic~ . - The Johnson Ranch sits_surrounded by:' ' - ' Endangered species · .- · Endangered rural Homosapiens '~ - Two and a half and five acre lots and ranches -.;- citrus and vineyard'area' - " This 'proj&ct doeanot belong ia' thi~ a~ea,~or the annexation of this propertX-belong-in'Temecula-- Sincerely, ~ av1 . o Inson, D.O ' Diplomate of the American Board of Fnm~ly Practice DCR/sl DD: 01/12/95 DT: 01/13/95 Tcmccuia Medical Center 27699 Jefferson Ave., Suite 101 · Temcc~.a, CA 92590~ (909) 695-1079 ATTACHMENT NO. 14 LIST OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS JOHNSON RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION AND PUBLIC QUESTIONS Traffic end Circulation 1. What will happen to the existing on-cite Buck Road and what ere the consequences if It is deleted by this projeot? The existing graded dirt section of Buck Road, which is located on-site, would be affected in the later stages of the Johnson Ranch development schedule. Once the project begins to develop its eastern portion, the existing north-south segment of Buck Road would be eliminated. New street "A" will cormcot with Buck Road and would access to Butterfield Stage Road and points west. The eliminated north-south segment of Buck Road would be replaced by new on-site street 'C" and street "D". Circulation will be improved by these Changes. 2. What are the traffic counts on Ante Road with the project end has the traffic study examined the traffic impcots of the project with end without Ante Road? The Specific Plan EIR Traffic Study includes a detailed analysis of traffic conditions without the extension of Ante Road to the project. Wilbur Smith Associates has also examined future area buildout traffic conditions with the Anza Road extension. Based on traffic projections developed for buildout of the City of Temeeula General Plan, traffic volumes on Anza Road would range from 7,000 vehicles per day north of Buck Road to 4,000 vehicles per day south of Buck Road. It is estimated that al~proximately 75 percent of the Anza Road traffic north of Buck Road and 60 percent of the Anza Road traffic south of Buck was generated by the original Johnson Ranch Specific Plan assumed in the City's General Plan. North of BuCk Road. new on-sil;~ project roads would ~ffectively serve the traffic oroiected on the eliminated Anza Impact of the ~urrent Specific Ran (with increased densities) on the portion of Anza Road south of Buck would be minirqel. since the project traffic using this segment of Anza Road is predominantly shopping trips traffic traveling between the residential areas south of Buck end the project commercial center. While this traffic may increase slightly due to the increased size of the currently-proposed commercial center, the factor which has the most influence on how many shopping trips would come from the vineyard residential ares is the number of residences forecasted in that area. Since the planned vineyard areas denshies have not changed, the only increase in traffic would be due to the project's proposal to provide more commercial use than was assumed in the City's General Plan. It is estimated that This impact would be a net increase in traffic of approximately 15 percent, or 600 vehicles per day. The total project-related traffic would be approximately 3,000 vehiclos per day. Without Anza Road, approximately 95 percent of the traffic (2,850 vehicles per day) are shifted to 01-26-95 9012-90002 c:U)0C\t72',gS010025.QUE Butterfield Stage Road. The traffic study indicates that the additional increment of traffic could be accommodated by Butterfield Stage Road and still maintain an acceptable level of service. 3. What other roads in Temeoula will have 30,000 daily tripe that is projected for Butterfield Stage Road? Examples of other roads in Temecula which have volumes approaching 30,000 vehicles per day include: Rancho California Road east of Ynez (28,270 vehicles per day): and Ynez Road between Winchester Road and Rancho California Road (25, 1 O0 to 25,400 vehicles per day). The segments of Rancho California Road end Winchester Road between Front Street/Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road carry higher volumes, ranging from 35,000 to 46,000 vehicles per day. 4. How will ~e Johnson Ranch residents access the freeways? Johnson Ranch realdents will have a choice of access routes to the area freeways as follows: 1-215 to and from the north -- residents would use Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road (north), Clinton Keith Road and Winchester Road~ I-15 to and from the north -- residents would use Murrista Hot Springs Road end Winchester Road; I-15 to and tram the south - residents would use Winchester Road and, to a lesser degree, Rancho California Road once Butterfield Stage Road is completed. ii. Whet other road improvements are scheduled ~at might help the flow of the . traffic from Johnson Ranch to the freeways? Will there be a potential for bottle neoka? If yes, identify them. Programmed and planned roadway improvements along routes providing access to the freeways include: Widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road between I-15 ancl Murrleta Drive; Construction of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from its current eastern terminus to the Johnson Ranch project; Widening of Winchester Road from Mergerite Road to Clinton Keith Road; Widening of Clinton Keith Road| 01-26-g6 9032 -00002 $: ~:)0C\172~9S010026 .QUE 2 Construction of Butterfield Stage Road form the project to Rancho California Road; and Widening and extension of Nicelea Road, These roadway improvements ere programmed through various means, including area assessment districts, City of Temecula Capital Improvement Program, Riverside County Road end Bridge Fee Program, City of Murrieta, Riverside County Transportation Commission and developer conditions of approval. The only segment of road which is not currently programmed for improvement ie Murrieta Hot Springs Road between Murrieta Drive and Winchester Road. The project mitigation monitoring program for traffic will essentially "track" prevailing off- site traffic conditions and the incremental project traffic impacts as the project develops out. This monitoring program, which would include periodic traffic studies, would ensure that future phases of the project are not approved until it can be demonstrated that the cumulative off-site traffic impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels, 6. Who wig ultimately determine the final alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road? Is It appropriate to determine this alignment pdor to the approval of the Specific Plan? The currant alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road depicted in the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with the CiW's Circulation Element and the County's Southwest Area Plan. The actual and final alignment of Murriete Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road may be affected by the existence of the Skunk Hollow vernal pool and watershed off-site and will be determined in connection with more detailed planning and entitlement of the Rancho Bells Vista and Roripaugh properties. Currently, the County is conducting a hydrology study of the Skunk Hollow vernal pool. This study end the input of the State and Federal resource agencies will also help determine :he final alignment of the intersection. In addition, the EIR proposes mitigation measures to ensure that the roads and associated drainage facilities are designed so as not to negatively impact the Skunk Hollow vernal pool (See Response to Question No. 14 below). The Specific Plan requires that final determination of the roadway alignments on-site shall occur at the time of tentative map approval, based on the determination of the off-site alignment through the process described above. (See Mitigation Measure J.8.) 7. Will the right-of-way for Butterfield Stage Road be increased if It becomes the new alignment of Highway 79? Although there are some preliminary ideas concerning the typical roadway cross-aeation and right-of-way, Caltrans previously indicated that the actual right-of-way would be dictated by the traffic projections developed by WRCOG. Based on the traffic forecasting experience in the southwestern area of Riverside County, the re-designation of Highway 79 to Butterfield Stage Road should 01-26,96 90]2-00002 S:%DOC\172~gGOlOO~5.QUE have no measurable impact on Traffic routing. Unless significant changes in land use densities occur in the Temecula Valley vineyard area, it is not expected that ares buildout traffic forecasts for Butterfield Stage Road would increase. 8. Who will be responsible to build the off-site extension of Anza Road to Ranthe California Road if the dayripper builds the on-sits portion, or its equivalent? The off- site portion of Anza Road would have to be built by either the vineyard area landowners or Riverside County. 9. Will there be additional traffic impacts associated with the project if the Vglage Center was one of the lest areas to be built within the Specific Plan? If yes, has the Traffio Study axemined Ibis scenario? Since the Village Center will be an attractor of vehicle shopping trips which ere generated by area residents, the absence of the commercial center would affect the way in which the residential shopping trips are distributed. Shopping trips generated by project residents would re-distribute to other commercial centers in the ares. To the degree that these radirecTed shopping trips are made to and from the residence and are not peas-by shopping trips, there could be a moderate increase in off-site project-related traffic. Conversely, the absence of the commercial center would also reduce the number of non-project resident shopping trips which are being attracted to the Johnson Ranch project. This would ectuafiy reduce some of the project-related off-site impacts. it should be noted that the commercial center is estimated to generete approximately I O, 1 O0 vehicle trips, which is approximately 16 peruant of the total project tips. Further, the on-going traffic monitoring program required by Mitigation Measure F.6 will ensure that current conditions are monitored and, if necessary, mitigated. 10. Will this project make off-she Improvements to Buck Road? Other than the planned connection of project street "A" to existing Buck Road, no other off-site improvements to this road will be made, According to contacts made with Riverside County Road Department staff, Riverside County Service Area 149 is responsible for mmntenance and improvements to the off-site portion of Buck Road east of the project. These current improvement priorities include Calls Centshide and Pauba Road. No improvements are scheduled for Buck Road at this time. 11. Do the tripe on Nicolee Road include the trips generated by the High School? What is the ultimate width of Nicolaa Rosd end what potion of it will be bugt by Johnson Ranch? Who will be responsible to improve the remaining portion and how will it be paid for? The General Plan circulation study assigned trips on Nicolas Road assuming business park/commercial land uses for the high school site, which are in fact greater than the trips generated by the Cheparral High School. Nicelee Road is programmed as an arterial highway. Public Works Condition No. 14 provides that Johnson Ranch will be responsible for improvemum of two lanes from Joseph Road to Butterfield Stage Road, The remaining portions will be improved by ADIGI, as adjacent lands are developed, or by other significant, contributing projects. 01-26-9S 9012-00002 S:%DGC%I72\FIOlOO2S .QUE 4 12. Who will be responsible to pay for infraslmcture improvements? Will assessment districts be formed requiring property owners outside the Johnson Ranch project to pay for them Improvements? Infrastructure improvements required to serve dqe Specific Plan ares will be phased to ensure they ere Constructed on a timely basis and in affordable increments. Many ofthe off-she improvements and Butterfield Stage Road provide regional benefits and may be constructed in connection with the development of other property. Land-secured, public financing districts, City fee programs, fee reimbursement districts and other elmliar programs will be considered as ultimate financing sources for these improvements to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of ~e improvements. Existing residents should not be required to participate in the cost of infrastructure improvements from which they derive no benefit. Moreover, the project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval ensure that development will not proceed at Johnson Ranch if the necessary infrastructure is not in place. (See Planning Department Condition Nee. 19, as modified, Public Works Condition Nee. 3, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, all as modified.) Biological Resouroes 13. What was the reason for rejection of the Biologically Superior Alternative in the DEIR and what are the similarities and differences between the proposed project Land Use Plan and this altemalive? What was achieved in term8 of pre~erving the sanehive biological resources by the proposed Land Use Plan? According to page V-35 of the Draft EIR, the Biological Open Space Alternative was found to be "environmentally superior" to the original project proposal analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, it was rejected due to the reduction in the number and types of dwelling units proposed as compared to the original project proposal. This Alternative contains · total of 1,601 acres of open space as compared to the 252 acres of open space within the originally proposed project (an increase o11,349 acres). This Afternative was intended to preserve all sensitive biological resources found on-site 'thereby reducing all biological impacts to an insignificant level. The "revised" land use plan,, that being the curren~ project proposal, contains a total of 442.5 acres of open space, an increase of 190.5 acres from the 252 acres associated with the original project proposal. This additional open space was provided along the eastern and northeastern project boundaries with the intent of providing a land use buffer and transition area separating more urban uses within the proposed project with open space areas to the ease and northeast of the site. While this open space total does not equal that found within the Biological Open Space Alternative, the current project proposal provides a continuous band of open space along the southern, eastern and northern project boundaries, something no found in the Biological Open Space Alternative. This continuous buffer along the perimeter of Johnson Ranch will also provide a valuable open space linkage/corridor to the Lake Skinner and Domenigoni Reservoir open space areas to The northeast of the site. The continuous corridor associated wiffi the current project proposal extends through ~e site linking these open space areas to the Santa Gertrudis Creek open space corridor along the southern project boundary. 01-26-95 9012-00002 S: ~(3C%172~gSOZO025 .Q(JE 5 14. How will the drainage from the residential areas, parks, roads end construction estivttlee be directed away from Skunk Hollow? Only a small portion of the Specific Plan area is within the Skunk Hollow watershed. Protection of the watershed is ensured thrcugh the mitigation measures, cond:tionS of approval and federal regulations. {See Response to Question 1%1o. 23 below, Public Works Condition No. 2 and 36, and Mitigation Measures G.1.2 end G.1.4.) In particular, the following design and construction measures have been or will be taken: No residential units or developed parks are proposed within any drainage area tributary to Skunk Hollow. All proposed residential areas and developed parks naturally drain away from that basin. The drainage from the road system will be conveyed within the street system and outlet Into natural or improved drainage ways that drain away from Skunk Hollow. Temporary construction activities will incorporate diversion dikes to keep urban runoff away from Skunk Hollow. 15. How does the Specific Plan ensure that the biological resources within Ranning Areas 3a, 3b end 3c are protected? Within Planning Area 3, land disturbance is permitted only within building areas and for access is and is prohibited outside those areas. Site design would be conducted in accordance with City-approved environmental constraint sheets, which would specify the location of driveways and building sites. This condition would be enforced in connection with the review, issuance and inspection of building and grading permits, In addition, a dead restriction would be imposed for the bene~ of, or conserveZion easements would be granted to the City or a resource agency over that portion of any lot in which building was prohibited. This mechanism would further encumber the lot and put the benefittinS agency in the enforcement position. Deed restrictions ere commonly used by the California Coastal Commi~4ion in similar situations, while conservation easements are the mechanism of choice for the U.S. FIsh and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game. In addition, by permitting clustering on 1-acre minimum lots, the 20 dwelling units permitted within Planning Area 3 would help preserve · large, contiguous open space area, if the City so desires. (See Mitigation Measures B.7 and J.6.} 16, Whet Is the approved alignment of the Metropolitan Water Distrlct's Pipeline No, 87 Does this alignment go through the sensitive open space areas? MWD is conducting design studies in conjunction with Johnson Ranch to place Pipeline No. 6 in such a manner ae to achieve its objectives with minimal disturbance to the property. MWD & Johnson Machinery have agreed to a corridor bisecting the eastern portion of the property within which and, subject to further study, the pipeline would ultimately be placed. MWD's project is subject to CEQA requirements related to the 01-26-95 9012-00602 S: %/)0C%172~95010025 .IXE 6 assessment or impact to sensitive areas and the provision of adequate mitigation measures. An MWD representative will be present at the February 6, 1995 hearing to describe their activities. 17, Will the developer be allowed to mess grade the site prior to receiving all approvals from California Deparlmerrt of Fish and Game, end the U .$, Fish and Wildlife Service? Mass grading of all development areas within the Specific Plan at one time is not anticipated. To the extent the approvaJs of the California Department of Fish and Game and U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service are required I}dor to the initiation of mass grading within any portion of the development areas, the Developer will have To receive ~ose approvals prior to initiating grading. (See Planning Deparb.ent Condition No. 27, Public Work~ Cu-ditiu, Nu. 2, Mitigation Measures J. I, J.Z one J.;:lJ Open SDBCe 18. Will access be limited and/or restricted to the open space areas and Santa Gertrudis Creek? How will tmib be designed In these sensitive open space areas? The nature and extent of public access TO Banning Area 1, including the Seats Gertrudis Creek area, will be determined through a consultation process among the Ci~, RCHCA and the State and Federal resource agencies. Presumably, public access will be permitted in the manner it is allowed in the Lake Skinner Preserve. It should be noted that the EIR proposes a mitigation measure to create a 100-foot development setback from the streambed edge or riporion vegetation, whichever creates a larger corridor, in which trails and service roads would be prohibited. In addition, the setback area would be bordered by restrictive fence or vegetative barriers within Planning Area 1 to prevent excessive human intrusion. Outside of the leO-foot development setba;k, but still w~thin Planning Area 1, trails and passive use areas could be provided. {See Mitigation Measures J.5, J.6, J.9 and K.1.) 19. Will placing public perks next to the open space areas encourage more eggass to sensitive areas wHhin the open space? Possibly, but see response to Question No. 18 above. 20. How will the grading of the project site impact the integrity of the open space areas? The 442.5 acres of open space within the current project proposal will not be subject to any grading or landform alteration. In addition, fuel management zones will be provided along the developed edges of the project in which no structures are allowed or significant grading required. These zones will further buffer project grading from adjacent open space areas. 21. How wig the elopes adjacent to the open space areas be protected and are there areas with possibility of landslides? Any slopes adjacent to the open space area will be contour graded to meet existing ground. The slopes will be planted and irrigated as necessary in order to revegetate the disturbed areas. There are areas where there is s possibility of land slides. There are areas in southeast facing cut slopes that may 01-Z6-~, ~19-000~2 $,: ~J;OC\~,7;\9501002S. QUE 7 expose unsupported bedding. In those instances, buttresses may be required. Detailed, site specific soil reports will identify questionable areas. (See Mitigation Measures B. 1 through B.8). 22. VVhat will the tenddon ames between the open epaoe area and the residential areas look like? The Specific Plan provides standards for the transition areas which would permit walls, view fences, single loaded streets, parks end landscaped "wet" edges, fuel modification zones and trails. (See Specific Ran pp. 2-22, and Figures 14 and 15.) 23. Why does the Specffic Plan permit the developer to possibly convert the open space area at the souffiwest comer of the site to residential use? The open space area at the southwest corner of tl~e site may be within the watershed of The Skunk Hollow vernal pool. Development of this area for residential use would only be permitted if a mitigation plan were approved by the responsible agencies which prevents impacts form the project on the Skunk Hollow vernal pool watershed and the on-site vernal pools and if an acceptable open space linkage were provided ~rough the area. (See Specific Plan p. 2-7.) 24, How will the fencing In the perimeter of the project end next to the open apace area be handled? See response to Question No. 22 above. In addition, the Specific Plan provides standards for wells and fences (see pp, 2-57 to 2-59) and the Conditions of Approval require the submittal of fence plans with each tentative map consistent with the Specific Plan guidelines (see Planning Department Condition No. 14.) 26, Who le respormlble to build the trails end necessary fences within 1he open space ereas? Will the developer be responsible to make these improvements if the open space area has already been dedicated to RCHCA? What will ~eee fenced ereas look like? The developer will construct trails within the open space area end any fences or vegetative barriers required through the consultation process described earlier with respect to the uses permitted within Planning Area 1. The nature end appearance of the fenced or vegetative barriers will also be determined during that consultation process. (See Planning Department Condition No. 8, and Mitigation Measures J.5 and J.9.) 26, How wide is the open epaoe along The eastern boundary? The buffer ranges from 400 feet to approximately 3,000 feet. It should be noted that as originally submitted, the project included 5-acre lots in the area now proposed for open space with no provision for open apace preservation or trails. 27. What is the blologioal eignl~canoe of the open space area? the currently Drapesad Johnson Ranch Specific Plan provides for a total of 442.5 acres of open space. These open sDace areas include open space resources within the Sante Gertrudis Creek open space corridor which contains significant Cottonwood/Willow 01.26-95 R12.DO002 5:~0C\172\9~010025 .QiJE 8 Riparian habitats. The biologically significant Riversidean Sage Scrub habitats within the northeast corner of the project site are also included in areas designated for open space use. In addition, Riversidean Sage scrub habitats within the northwest corner of the srte are located in areas proposed for Estate lot development at 0.2 dwelling units per acre (five acre lots). Mitigation Measure 6 on page 32 of ~a Mitigation Monitoring Program requires avoidance of these biologically significant areas. As previously stated, the project praisesol provides a conlinuous band of open space along the southern, eastern and northern project boundaries. This continuous open space buffer will provide a valuable open space linkage/corridor to the Lake Skinner and Domenigoni Reservoir open space areas to the northeast of the site, This continuous corridor through the site also provides an open space link to the Santa Gertrudis Creek open space corridor along the southern project boundary. 28. Will the open apace provide a fire hazard for The surrounding axisling homes and the proposed homes within Johnson Ranch? The Specific Plan (p. 2-8) and MItigation Measure 0.2.4 require the approval of a Fire Management Plan by the Fire Marshall prior to approval of any implementing subdivision mop adjacent to open space. The Plan will describe the precise design, among other things, of a 100-foot fuel modification zone within adjacent open space. 29. How will the City ensure that the open space area will not be vandalized and destroyed by people? It is anticipated that the RCHCA will manage and maintain the open space within Planning Area 1 in a manner similar to the Lake Skinner preserve. RCHCA, therefore, will be responsible for enforcing use restrictions within the Planning Area and preventing vandalism and repairing areas that may be destroyed by vandalism. Prior to dedication of the area, the landowner shall be responsible for weed abatement and litter removal. In add!Uon, the Developer has proposed adding to the conditions of approval the requirement that the Open Space Mitigation Plan includes provisions to prevent unauthorized public access to Planning Area I prior tO dedication. (Sea Fqanning Department Conditions 28 and 33, as modified.) 30. Who will maintain the open apace area and who will pay for this maintenanoe? See response to Question No. 29. Environmental 31. Will there be any noise impacts from the French Valley Airport on the future residents of the project? No, The closest portion of the project is nearly 1-1/2 miles from the 55 CNEL ((Marginal Impact) Noise ConTour. See At'~lchment 1 hereto. 32. le the Roripaugh Specific Ran cite under Williamson Act contract? A Notice of Nonrenewal of the Williamson Act contract on the Roripeugh property was filed in 1987. (See Draft EIR, pp. IV-133-137.) ID:Z-26-95 S: ~0C\3.72',960Z0025 .QUE 9 33. How far is the nearest on-site school from the French Valley Airport? The nearest proposed school site is over 2 miles from the French Valley Airport. (See Attachment 1 hereto.) 34. Will there be adequate fire protection once the project is built7 The French Valley Fire Station is almost completed. It will serve Johnson Ranch end satisfy the City's level of service standards for fire service to the Project. The draft EIR suggested that if the French Valley FIre Station were not constructed, s fire station would be required within the Specific Plan Area. The Fiscal Impact Report identifies a positive ann ual cash flow from each residential dwelling unit taking into account fire service costs. In addition, the project will be required To pay the exlming fire mitigation fee of $400 per residential unit and 80.25 per square foot of commercial development. Staff's recommendation that Still additional fees should be provided by the project is contrary to these facts. (See Fiscal impact Report, and Mitigation Measure 0.2.1, 0.2.5.,) 36. Has the project bean reviewed and approved by the Santa Margadta Watershed Authority? The Santa Margarita Watershed Authority has no approval authority over the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan property. Development of the project will be subject to federal stormwater discharge regulations, impacts to "waters of the U.S.' will be regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and impacts to streams will required s 1603 Agreement with The California Department of Fish and Game. 36. Will The project be required to enter into an agreement with the school dimHct prior to the approval of the Specific Ran by the Planning Commission? The draft FIR identified a mitigation measure for the Project's school facilities impacts requiring a mitigation agreement between the developer and school district before recordation of the Project's firm map. This mitigation measure absolutely ensures that the Project will comply with any school mitigation resolution ultimately adopted by the City Council and is identical to that imposed by the City Council recently on the Campas Vetdes Specific Plan. At this stage of the entitlemenU process, it Is unnecessary and unworkable to attempt to enter into a detailed mitigation agreement. By requidng a school mitigation agreement that coreDlies with the City's school mitigation policies prior to recordation of the first final map, as recommended in the draft EIR, the City will ensure that the substance of the school mitigation resolution, in whatever form it is ultimately adopted by the City Council, will be satisfied prior to any development whhin The Specific Plan Area. (See Draft EIR, p. IV-168.) 0Z-26-gG gol~-00002 S: \DOC\172\95010025 .a/JE 10 SPecific Plan :37. What do the Design Guidelines provide in farms of ~e orientation of the houses on local streets? The Design Guidelines are part of the Specific Plan end provide standards such as the following: a. Front yard setbacks should be varied to crests an interesting street scene, including the use of front porches. b. Second story roof plane lines should be setback from first story elevations to help reduce building mess. c. Wall planes along the front elevation should be staggered to provide visual interest along the street scene. d. One story unite should be paired and situated between two story unil~ to maximize the mass effect on the street scene. e. Each floor plan should provide varying exterior elevations to provide interest to the street scene. f. Neighborhoods should contain both one and two story units to provide mass relief to the street scene. h. The treatment of corner lots should incorporate the following: One story plans or two story plans incorporating a single plate line toward the exterior side yard. Garage located adjacent to the interior side yard. Wall plane adjacent to the exterior side yard as short as possible. Side and front yard setbacks maximized. A clear line of si~e across the corner of the lot. i. Garages which are set back further form the street than adjoining living areas should be used where possible. j. Garage doors can be recessed a minimum of 12" from the adjacent walls to create a strong shadow which minimizes the impact of the door. k. Two story units should incorporate second story architectural elements above the garage to reduce the mass of the garage space. 01-2;-95 ~z2.00002 S:%DOCV~72'~gSG'3.OO25.QLE 1 ? I. Where garages are adjacent to one another a three (3) foot minimum difference in setbacks should be considered. Front and side entry garage may be provided in residential neighborhoods. n. Variation in roof design shall be utilized to create diversity. o. Individual units may incorporate more than one roof design. Extended roof overhangs may be used in conjunction with porches, balconies and recesses. 38, Who will extend reclaimed mr lines to the project site? WIll the project install on-site reclaimed water lines? Will reclaimed water be used for parks, parkways and common area landscaping? Reclaimed water lines will be extended by each deveJoper as development occurs. The project will install reclaimed water lines If reclaimed water is or will be available to the project. The use of reclaimed water will depend, to some extent, on the treatment the effluent receives. Generally, parkways and common area landscaping can receive reclaimed water. 39. How will the interface of Tucalote Creek with the project made and trails be handled? Planning Department Condition No. 7 requires that a crosswalk be provided for the trail along the creek edge. If safety considerations warrant, a warning tiesher or signal will be provided, as required by the City. 40. How will the uniformity of the deign and timing of the development of Tucalota Creek be ensured? The design will be coordinated and integrated through preliminary design of the entire system, and preparation of criteria for its incremental consLruction on a phased basis. The preliminary design end implementation criteria will be submitted as part of the first tentative subdivision map that is adjacent to the creek. {See Specific Plan, p. 2-22, and Figure 13, and Planning Department Condition No. 6.) 41. Will the utility corridors be landscaped or will they be left in their natural state? MWD will own and maintain two utility corridors which traverse Johnson Ranch, Trails are permitted within each. Other uses end plant materials are permitted, subject to MWD Use Guidelines on file with the City. 42, Does the Fire Department allow using wood shakes on roofs? Only roof materials, as approved by the Fire Marshall will be considered for use. 03 -26-S5 9012-00002 S: ~CIC\I/2\95010Q25. QU[ 12 43. Why does the General Plan for the Johnson RenGh its include a wide variety of residential densities, while the project only offers two? The Specific Plan provides for and encourages the use of multiple denstZlea and product types within each Planning Area. (See Specific Plan, p. 2-6,) The intent is to create as broad an appeal to as many segments of the housing market am possible. 44. W311 the residential density or total number of residential units change if the alignment of Murrlets Hot Spdngs Red and Butterfield Stage Road are different than that shown on the Specific Plan? Will the developer be required to process a Specific Plan Amendment ff these alignments are changed substantially? No, the density and total units will not change. The Specific Plan contains sufficient flexibility to permit the design and location of both alignments based upon further studies without requiring a Specific Plan amendment. (See Mitigation Measure J.8.) Further, the Specific Plan establishes the importance of these linkages as significant regional connections. 45. Is there a cap on the number of dwelling units or The density In each Planning Ares? The Specific Plan currently providos that 10% of the total number of dweffing units within a Planning Ares may be transferred to another Planning Area, We propose to add a further qualification to the Specific Plan that the overall density of any Planning Area receiving a transfer of dwelling units shall not exceed 6.0 dwelling units per acre. (See Specific Plan pp. 2-7.) 46. What ie the maximum density and total area committed to the multi-family units within the Village Center? Maximum density will not exceed 20 dwelling units per gross site area. The total area oommitted will be determined at the preliminary design stage, and is dictated by type of units, nature Of amenities, access to parcels, and similar factors. A rough estimate would be not more than 15 acres. 47, What is the density of Planning Area 3 and what is the maximum number of unite allowed by the Specffie Plan? A maximum of 20 clwelling units is permitted within Planning Area 3. The 20 dwelling units may be clustered on 1 -acre minimum lots which would result in · preservation of a contiguous open space area encompassing the remaining portion of Planning Area 3. {See response to Question No, 15.) 48. WIll the improved Tucalota drainage channel be fenced? The Tucalota open space corridor concept is depicted on page 2-20 of the Specific Plan, It is not anticipated that fencing would be provided between the parkway and channel. 49. Is it appropriate to allow urbanizelion to continue in the French Valley area away from HIghway 79, or is it more appropriate to be developed as a narel area with 2.5 to 5 acre Iota? The County General Plan (SWAP) and the City General Plan both clearly contemplate urbanizeUon in the French Valley area and provide for its realization through processes such as the John Ranch Specific Plan. 01-26-H 9012-0e002 $:%ix1:\172\96010025 .QUE 13 60. How many dwelling units will be allowed for the Johnson Ranch site under the current General Plan and SWAP? Under the SWAP, 1,942 single-family resident]el units are permitted for the property, The current General Plan also permits a total of 1,942 residential dwelling units. As Mr. Thornhill indicated to the Planning Commission st the January 9, 1996 hearing, at the time of adoption of the City's General Plan, the City Council directed Johnson Machinery to seek a General Plan amendment and prepare 8 Specific Plan for the property in order to increase the permitted number of dwelling units and allow for analysis of and improvements to the specific traffic circulation system arising from any increase in the number of dwelling unite. 51. Are any equestrian trails proposed? How wlU this project connect to the regional 1rail system? Yes. 52. Can the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to prohibit banners and pennants within the Village Center? Yes. 53. Is the Phasing Plan flexible? Who has the authority to make changes to it? The Specific Ran Lend Use Phasing Plan is included in Section 2.8 of the Specific Plan and depicted on Figure 32. The timing and order of development of the phases may change to respond to market conditions. The specific infrastructure reclulrements associated with each phase will be developed as tentative subdivision maps are processed within each phase and conditions for specific infrastructure requirements will be imposed as conditions of tentative subdivision maps. The Phasing Plan is intended to be conceptual in nature and, therefore, flexible, in order to respond to market opportunities. The infrastructure requiremenus associated with development of any ares within the Specific Plan will be fixed as subdivision maps are processed. (See Public Works Conditions 6, 8 and 12.) FiePal Imoacta · 54. What is the explanelion of the difference between the taxable sales under Alternative A and B? The Fiscal Impact Report analyzed two alternative assumptions for the Specific Plan Area. Alternative A assumed annexation into the City of Temecula and development in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan. Alternative B assumed development of the property in unincorporated Riverside County in accordance with the SWAP. Under Alternative A ("with annexation'), the Project showed a positive cash flow to the City. Under Alternative B ("without annexation"), the City would gain sales tax revenues from purchases by Johnson Ranch residents in City stores. The Project would have a moderately negative fiscal impact on the County under Alternative A and B arising largely from the Staro's recent transfer of property taxes from the County to the public schools. 01-26-9,S 9o22.00002 S: ~.DOC%172',gSO1OO2~.QUE 14 G;. How w;ll the ;sauce raised by the appllcant's letter dazed Jenuar,/b, 1~cJ6 regarding fees and ether iMues be resolved? Some of the issues raised by the applicant'8 letter doted January 5, 1995 hove been resolved. The financial and policy issues will be resolved prior to approval of the project by the City Coonoil or in the proposed Development Agreement. General 68. Whioh Specific Plans are approved in ~e French Valley area? See Attachment No. 2. 67. If Johnson Ranch is approved, will the 83 acres parcel to the north of Johnson Ranch be developed as a similar housing area? This property is currently within the County of Riverside. The merits of any proposal for development would be analyzed in accordance with prevailing standards and policies and in compliance with CEQA. 68, Whet ia the atsNe ef Winohester 1800? This project i8 scheduled to be considered by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on February 24, 1995. 59, What ere the target and range o1 number of dwelling units within the City Limits and the Sphere of Influenoe? City Area 10,295 Sphere of Influence 11,644 Dwelling:Units :~: :!i ;,;(PtObable Level of : :: ; ~i :~DeVel0pment;}: 27,853- 51,555 39,658 20,654 - 40,217 28,854 Range of dwelling units and square footage is the product of upper and lower threshold of density/intensity range multiplied by the number of acres. Target density/intensity is the probable level of development as defined in Table 2-4 of the Land Use Element. nl-P6-95 g012-O0002 s: ~)C\~.72%H0Z0025 .(~jE 15 ~ I / '< \'/ / I ,_ ,/ I . · I -~ I./ A'R'ACHMENT NO. 15 CITY ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE TO HEWITT AND MCGUIRE L,- I I ER DATED JANUARY 5, 1995 SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER R:'~I'AFI~j'T~JOHNSON.I, C3 2/2/95 klb 5 1 NORTH TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT AREAS