Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071795 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 17, 1995, 6:00 PM Rancho California Water District's Board Room 42135 Winchester Road Temeeula, CA 92390 C~LTOO~: ROLL CALL: Fahey, M'dler, Slaven, Webster and Ford PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filed out and ~ed 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 ~ed with the planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute fwae limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda Approval of minutes from the April 3, 1995, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. Approval of minutes from the April 17, 1995, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. Approval of minutes from the May 1, 1995, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. Approval of minutes from the May 15, 1995, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. Approval of minutes from the June 19, 1995, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. Selection of a Commission Member to serve on the Consultant Selection Interview Committee for the Design Guidelines Proposal. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Enviromental Action: Planner: Planning Application No. 940128 (Conditional Use Permi0 UNOCAL Petroleum Products Company Southeast comer of Rancho California Road and Front Street To demolish an existing service station and rebuild a 2,500 square foot station with a convenience store and concurrent sale of beer end wine. Categorical Exemption Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner Ca~e No.: Applicant: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Development Code City of Temecula Review of the Development Code John Meyer Recommend Approval Next meeting: August 7, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS R:\VHldBF~,VOXPLANCOMld~AGI~FDAS\7-19-95 7/13/95 vgw 2 ITEM #2 PLANNING COMI~SION MINUTES APRII~ 3, 199~ MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, April 3, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford, Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:10 P.M. ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz, Planner Craig Ruiz, Principal Engineer Ray Casey, and Recording Secretary Joan Price. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ADDroval of Agenda On a motion made by Commissioner Slaven Commissioner Fahey the agenda was approved. The motion carried as follows: and seconded by AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Aoorov81 of Minutes On a motion made by Commissioner Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford None Blair Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven the minutes of the meeting on March 6 were approved with a modification to page 3 to add "No sign to be illuminated - at rear facing Via Rio Temecula Road." R:\Minutes.pc\040395 1 ~,ANNING COM~ESSION ~ The motion carried as follows: ,~PRIL 3. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. Nicolas Valley Soecial Study {PA94-0098) Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner, responded to the concerns of the Commission expressed at the last Commission meeting. Staff recommends no increase in density and no change in the land use for Nicolas Valley. Commissioner Slaven asked about the liability of the City should emergency vehicles not be able to drive into the area. City Attorney Greg Diaz responded the City would not be exposed to liability because the roads had been accepted for emergency maintenance. Commissioner Fahey left the dias at 6:10 PM to take an emergency phone call. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened at 6:30 P.M. Betty Sprouse, 39390 Liefer Road spoke against any changes in the area. James McCarthy, 39420 Pala Vista Road, spoke against any changes on Nicolas Road. Diane Welter, 39515 Liefer Road, said she wants to leave the area as it is. Rita Abby, 39520 Liefer Road, spoke in opposition to assessments and does not want increased density. Helen Lasagna, 30885 Nicolas Road, stated she feels Butterfield Road should be developed by Roripaugh Ranch and other developers and no assessment fees be placed on the residents. Staff explained that all roads were reviewed in the study and for discussion only. Staff recommends leaving the area as is and that no assessment fees be incurred. R:\Minutes.pc~040395 2 PLANNING COMM1RSION MINUTES C.E. Edwards, 31250 Nicolas Road, spoke against re-zoning. AP~H~ 3. 1995 Commissioner Fahey returned to the dias at 6:35 PM Dennis Fitz, 39910 Jeffrey Heights Road, said he feels change is evident and zoning should be done on a one to one basis. Frank Furgiuele, 400 Ambulant Court Temecula, spoke in favor of rural area and zoning maintained at 2 1/2 acre parcels. Larry Bales, 3040 Jessie Circle, spoke against change in the area. Mike Melton, 31950 Pala Vista Road, Temecula, representing rural area residents who want the area to remain rural. Ron Rauch, 25301 Cabot Road, Laguna, acting as spokesman for owners of nine parcels in the Nicolas Valley stated the group would like to have density intensification for the quality of the area. The public hearing was closed at 6:55 PM COMMISSION INPUT Commissioner Webster agreed with staff that the area should remain at 2 1/2 acre density and the rural element maintained. It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve the staff recommendation to the City Council there be no change in Land Uses within the study area of Nicolas Valley. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford, Blair NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Commissioner Ford wanted to have on record that the Johnson Ranch and the Roripaugh Development are proposed projects and if not approved would not materialize. Commissioner Ford called for a recess at 7:00 PM The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula was reconvened at 7:10 PM with Chairman Ford presiding. R:\Minutes.pc\O40395 3 PI,ANNING COMMISSION 4. Develooment Code APRIl', 3. Senior Planner, John Meyer, presented an overview on the proposed Development Code for the City of Temecula. Commissioner Ford reviewed each section with the Commissioners. The following are some concerns brought to staff: Commissioner Webster was concerned with the square footage of loading units in the residential area. Commissioner Slaven was concerned with the mobile home park designation. Commissioner Slaven also wanted to know about churches in neighborhoods and establishing a conditional use permit regulation. Commission Webster is concerned with the set-baCk conditions for neighborhood swimming pools and also the fences, hedges and walls in the side yards. Commissioner Ford asked about the agricultural use language. Commissioner Slaven requested some restriction be included in the Code on recreational vehicles parked in the neighborhood. Staff will bring language modification to the Commission. Commissioner Fahey left the meeting for health reasons at 7:40 PM Commissioner Ford was concerned with visual screening of windows to be off-set by landscaping. Commissioner Slaven asked if landscaping used as a shield for pools could be included in the Code. Staff will look into this item. Commissioner Webster was concerned with establishing the types of siding permitted in tracts. Staff will re-write specifics in the Code and bring these back to the Commission for review at a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARING The Public hearing was opened at 8:05 PM Kathleen Dean, Villa Monte Homes, Temecula, expressed concern with Section 9.08.030 in the Development Code in regard to undesirable retail establishments being permitted in a residential neighborhood. R:~Minutes.pc\040395 : 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3. 1995 Mark Telford, Winchester Road, Temecula, stated he would like the Industrial Zone changed to Service Commercial on Winchester Road/Diaz Circle. (map attached) Denise Covielle, Paloma Del Sol, spoke against the commercial center on Pauba and Margarita Roads. Pat Phillips, Paloma Del Sol, Temecula, spoke against the commercial center on Pauba and Margarita Roads. Mel Phillips, Paloma Del Sol, Temecula, against the commercial center on Pauba and Margarita Roads. John Hockster, Sierra Bonita, Temecula, stated he wants stronger restrictions on businesses allowed in the center on Pauba and Margarita Roads. Art Pelka, Temecula, spoke in favor of more restriction on types of businesses being permitted in the Commercial Center on Pauba and Margarita Roads. Mel Copeland, 31286 Santiago, Temecula, representing the Citizens Advisory Committee, wants stricter restrictions on businesses permitted in the center on Pauba and Margarita. Commissioner Ford requested staff look into the legal aspect of setting restrictive standards on businesses in neighborhood centers. Staff explained that hours of operation are conditioned by the City of Temecula as well as various standards pertaining to allowable establishments. Commissioner Ford asked if gun shops could be excluded. Staff will research this. Planning Director Thornhill suggested prohibiting drive-thru restaurants in neighborhood commercial districts. Staff responded to the question of Industrial Center zoning. This will be discussed on the meeting of June 19 with the Commission. The Commissioners discussed various Development Code Sections and voiced their concerns, which included the following: * Outside storage area - screened off * Performance standards * Day care facilities * Senior citizens facilities * Reclaimed water ordinance R:\Minutes.pc~040395 5 YLANNING COMMISSION lVIINLrI'ES APRIL 3. 1995 Staff will review these issues and bring them back at the next meeting. On a motion made by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven the Development Code discussion was continued to May 15, 1995 The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 Commissioner COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Webster made several Slaven, Webster, Ford, Blair Fahey None recommendations to revise verbiage in the Development Code. This will be brought back with the final draft. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 PM Next regular meeting, April 17, 1995, 6:00 PM, Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary R:\Minutes.p;X040395 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRH-, 17, 199~ MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA : : PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, April 17, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Blair Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh, City Attorney Peter Thorsen, Principal Engineer Ray Casey and Recording Secretary Joan Price. Chairman Ford called for public comments on non-agenda items. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Aqenda It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Blair 2. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven that the minutes from the March 20, 1995 meeting be delayed to the May 15 meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Blair PLANNING COMMISSION lVlINUTE~ 3. Plannino aoolication No. 0180. 181.183. 184. and 185 APRH, 17. 199S Saied Naaseh presented the staff report and highlighted the revised "Conditions of Approval" on the Johnson Ranch project. The requested density is decreased from 5,250 to 4,850 residential units. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Fahey pointed out a change on the Conditions of Approval that was recorded in the response to comments. This condition has not been revised. Commissioner Fahey requested staff make that change. Commissioner Webster asked about the type of improvements to be made to Winchester Road and asked for clarification on the Anza Road deletion. Principal Engineer, Ray Casey stated staff's position On the Conditions of Approval would be to keep Anza Road. Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 PM. Jim Fergus, representing Johnson Machinery Company, presented a brief report on the project. Larry Markham, representing Johnson Machinery Company, presented comparisons of density with surrounding projects in the area. Mr. Markham demonstrated an alternative to Anza Road. Commissioner Fahey expressed concern with the library fee conditions. Jim Gallanes, 350 S. Grand, representative of M.W.D., submitted a written statement for the record regarding the Johnson Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Gallanes spoke requesting the incorporation of language in the plan to include M.W.D. as it is affected by easements and right-of-ways. Tom Olmstead, 39341 Salinas Dr, Murrieta, spoke in opposition to the plan as it effects the environment. David Robinson, 39600 Aveineda Arizona, Temecula, shared slides of the area and the proposed Johnson Ranch. Mr. Robinson spoke in opposition to the proposed density. Chairman Ford called for a 5 minute recess at 7:45 PM The meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission reconvened at 7:50 PM with Chairman Ford presiding. Adrian McGregor, 34555 Madera De Playa, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 17. 1995 June Mahurin, 41460 Calle Contento, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project. Mike KnowIron, 39130 Pala Vista Drive Temecula, spoke against increased density for the project. Ken Barnes, 39615 Berenda Road, Temecula, spoke against increased density. Bev Stureman, 32720 Rancho California Road, Temecula, representing the Vintners Association, spoke in favor of the project as long as Anza Road does not go through. Bill Vazzana, 39605 Lynell Rd, Temecula, spoke in opposition to Anza Road being used by the project and expressed concern for the M.W.D. corridor. Robert Wheeler, 24280 Washington Rd, Murrieta, Representing the Resource Conservation Association, commended the staff for their hard work on Winchester 1800 but expressed concern on the Johnson Ranch project in regards to the landscaping and the run-off of water. Cindy Bush, 32775 Bootlegg Rd, Winchester, spoke in opposition to the project. Robert Bush, 32775 Bootlegg Rd, Winchester, spoke in opposition to the project. Dave Wilson, 38300 San Ignacio, Sage, spoke in opposition to high density. Jim Fergus, representative for Johnson Machinery Company, responded to the concerns expressed as follows: Anza Road - Anza will not go through. Design Standards - applicant requests they be permitted to re-submit them to the Commission. Library Mitigation - applicant agrees to comply with what is required of other projects citywide. M.W.D. Concern - applicant feels it is adequately addressed in the specific plan. Eastern buffer - applicant feels 600' is adequate. Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 8:40 PM. Commissioner Fahey stated that she continues to have issues to be resolved concerning the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'rE8 Commissioner Ford questioned the following: APRH~ 17. 1995 the new fiscal impact report. the maintenance of the open space easements and riding trails. land use designation and how it relates to SWAP & the City of Temecula's General Plan. Associate Saied Naaseh responded the riding trails and the open space areas were detailed by the map. Butterfield Road contains a bike trail. The applicant will tie in to established horse trails around the perimeter of the project. Planning Director Thornhill responded that the fiscal impact report will be provided and clarified the land use Designation is 3 units per acre as previously stated in the General Plan. He further stated that a Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the City Council last year which discussed the proposed denisty. Commissioner Webster expressed concern with the lot size and felt the project should be a R-1 zone with nothing smaller than 7,200 square feet. Commissioner Slaven commended the developer for a good plan, however, she is concerned with intrusion on the area due to the density issue. Commissioner :Ford expressed concerns with annexing and the responsibility for infrastructure; assessment districts; lack of M.W.D. Agreement; and the density issue. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven that PA No. 0180, 181, 183, 184, and 185 be denied, based on concerns of density, inability to mitigate and over-riding conditions as EIR provides, such as noise, pollution, biological issues, land use and population housing. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 NOES: 1 ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Ford COMMISSIONERS: Webster COMMISSIONERS: Blair The next meeting: Joint Planning Commission/City Council on April 19, 1995, 7:00 PM., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. PLANNING CO1ViMISSION M1NU'I~'!~ APRIL 17. 199~ Regular Planning Commission hearing on May 15, 1995, 6:00 PM., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT None. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Ford reported on the successful joint Traffic Commissioners meeting with Temecula, Murrieta, RTC and CaI-Trans, which he attended. The motion was made by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 PM. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 199~ MINUTES OF A WORKSHOP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 1995 A workshop of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, May 1, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Webster Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Attorney Peter Thorson, Principal Engineer Ray Casey, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Recording Secretary Joan Price. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ApProval of Aaenda It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford None Fahey, Webster 2. Director's Uodate Planning Director, Gary Thornhill, had no additional information for the Commissioners. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PA 94-0073. PA 94-0074. PA 94-0075, PA 94-0076 - GRC Develooment The workshop was opened at 6:05 P.M. Saied Naaseh presented the staff report for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch project. He requested Commission direction on the following points: size of the buffer area at the outer perimeters of the project lot size preference open space Minutes.pc~050195 I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE~ estate lots better transition after buffer site location for parks accessability to the parks MAY 1. 1995 Planning Director Thornhill explained the format of the workshop. He said the Commission will go over the plans and maps of the project with the developer in order to provide them with specific concerns. The Public Hearing was opened at 6:20 P.M. Tom Nievez, 22690 Cypress Avenue, Moreno Valley, representative for GRC Development, presented the history of the Roripaugh property. He detailed the 68 acre community park proposed and the specific guidelines for the area. John Chapman, 4 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, detailed the grading map and reported there would be no attached housing. Allen Menses, 60 Corporate Park, Irvine, architect for the project presented the ranch theme design of the project. Stan Herman, 1920 Main Street, Irvine, representative for the developer and reported on the open space, developed parks, bike trails, buffer trails and the intensive landscape program designed in the project. Bill Vazzana, 69505 Lynell, Temecula; spoke against increased density. Ray Gianton, 3221 Vino Way, Temecula, expressed concern regarding the traffic circulation in Wine Country. Jack Norris, 33055 Vino Way, Temecula, expressed concern with the lack of buffer for surrounding neighborhoods. Jim Miller ,39355 Pourroy Road, Temecula, expressed concern for the lack of buffer. Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 6:50 P.M. and called for a recess. The workshop was reconvened at 7:10 P.M. At this time the Commission reviewed the plans and maps and questioned the representatives from GMC Developers on the project. Commissioner Ford expressed concern on funding the improvements needed for Nicolas Road, the walking distance to the elementary school site, and the grading issue. Minutes.pc~050195 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1. 1995 Commissioner Blair expressed concern on the "sea of houses" design, the outstanding habitat issues, buffering, circular housing configuration and locations of parks. Commissioner Slaven shared similar concerns and the traffic circulation and neighborhood design. Commission concerns for staff investigation were as follows: - buffering to surrounding areas - open space usability - park locations - lot size - horse trail connections - school site - additional landscaping - habitat issues - grading - commercial site near schools - density Planning Director Thornhill requested input from the Commission on Leon Way. Commissioner Blair stated she was reluctant to relinquish road circulation in the General Plan. PUBLIC INPUT The floor was opened for public questions at 8:20 P.M. Joyce Willlares, 33612 Vino Way, Temecula, requested clarification on Vino Way .being involved in the project. Larry (last name not given), 393 Coral Jessie Circle, Temecula,. requested clarification on the circulation plan as it relates to schools in · the project. Jim McCarthy, Pala Vista Road, Temecula, requested clarification on the east end of Pala Vista Road. Bill Vazzana, Lynell Road, Temecula, spoke concerning the Commissioners agreement or disagreement on the density of 3 units per acres. Also Mr. Vazzana does not want access through Calle Contento for this project. Helen Lasagna, Nicolas Road, Temecula, expressed confusion as to Nicolas Road being improved or in the event Butterfield Road is improved will Nicolas Road be by-passed. Minutes.pc%050195 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ~-~ MAY 1. 199~ Principal Engineer Ray Casey responded to several of the questions: Circulation associated with the General Plan has been adopted by the City Council to include the Vino Way extension. Nicolas Road connecting with Calle Contento and Leon Way will also be improved with this project. Vino Way is in the General Plan circulation element. Studies have not been received to supersede this. The project is conditioned for all-weather access on roads, which includes bridges and culverts if required. a Traffic Study will be conducted to further answer these questions. Planning Director Thornhill explained this is the first phase in the processing of the project and suggested this be continued off-calendar to allow the staff to work with the developer to discuss and resolve the issues. Director Thornhill recommended one or two neighborhood meetings and then come before the Commission. The City will re-notice the Roripaugh Ranch project, for public information. The motion was made by Commissioner Siaven and seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue the Roripaugh Ranch project off-calendar. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Webster PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Thornhill reported on the following: Principla Engineer Ray Casey is leaving the City to relocate to another state. The Planning Director and Commissioners thanked Ray for his service to the City and stated he would be missed. The Development Code session of the Planning Commission has been scheduled for June 7, 1995. Minutes .pc\050195 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ADJOURNMENT MAY 1. 1995 It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven the ~ workshop be adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Next regular meeting, May 15, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary Minutes.pc\050195 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 1995 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 1995 A meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, May 15, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford presiding. PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford, Webster, Fahey ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Attorney Peter Thorson, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner John Meyer, Assistant Planner Matthew Fagen, Associate Planner David Hogan, and Recording Secretary Joan Price. Chairman Ford called for public comment on items not on the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ' COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ApProval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS 5 Blair, Fahey, Staven, Webster, Ford NOES: COMMISSIONERS 0 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 0 DeveloPment Code It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to continue Review of the Development Code to the regular Planning Commission meeting on June 5, 1995. R:Minutes\051595.pc 1 RJLNN1NG COMMaSION The motion carried as follows: MAY 15. 1995 AYES: COMMISSIONERS 5 Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: COMMISSIONERS 0 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 0 3. Planning Aoplication No. 95-0021 (Plot Plan) Assistant Planner Matthew Fagen presented the staff report. Staff recommends the Commission adopt the negative declaration for this project. The Public Hearing was opened at 6:10 P.M. Russell Ruminoff, 27349 Jefferson Ave, Temecula, spoke as representative for the applicant and expressed his agreement with the Conditions of Approval including a modification on #45 - language to include orior to the building oermit not grading permit. Mark Telford, 28481 Rancho California Road, Temecula, spoke with concern for needed landscaping along the wall facing the street. Russell Ruminoff responded to the landscaping concern. Trees of varying types in 15 gallon containers will be planted along the wall. The applicant will work with the Commission to develop a complementary plan. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:20 P.M. Commissioner Webster expressed concern on the set back for landscaping and due to the height of the building it would be difficult for plants to grow. Staff responded a landscaping design could be agreed on as per Commission direction. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve Planning Application No. 95-0021 including the modification on Conditions of Approval #45 and the addition of landscape and trees. Chairman Ford called for a recess at 6:25 P.M. The meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was reconvened at 6:30 P.M. Chairman Ford presiding. R: Minutes\05 1595. pc 2 PLANNING COMMI.~SION MINUTES 4. MAY 15. 1995 Plsnnin,9 Aoolication No. 95-0031 - Environmental Imoac~ Reoon Planninq Aoolicstion No, 94-0061 - Master CondRionsl Use Permit Plannin,9 Aoolication No. 95-0003 - Westside Soecific Plan. Plannin9 Avl;)lication No. 95-0004 - Tentative Tract MaD No. 28011 Planning Director Thornhill presented the format for the meeting: Phase I - Staff will report Phase 2 - Commission will ask questions Phase 3 - Public will comment Phase 4 - Applicant will present his response/rebuttal Phase 5 - Commission will comment Assistant Planner Matthew Fagen presented the background on the adopted ordinance for the Master Conditional Use Permit. Also presented was the Westside Specific Plan which includes Area A) commercial; Area B) commercial; Area C) 13-20 acres high density residential; Area D) 13-20 acres high density residential; Area E) mixed use; Area F) 67.4 acres of open space. Assistant Planner Fagen presented three letters for the record concerning the Western Specific Plan. Thomas E. Nelson wrote he was concerned about the area being impacted during construction. He is opposed to the project. Albert S. Pratt wrote to oppose the Westside Specific Plan. Kay Cassaro wrote to oppose the Westside Specific Plan. Conrad Joiner Jr. wrote to oppose the Westside Specific Plan. Associate Planner David Hogan presented a summary of the EIR and the components of the Westside Specific Plan which are consistent with the City's General Plan. Staff recommends approval. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05 P.M. Zev Buffman, applicant, addressed the Commission to introduce Mike Paneary, architect for the project, and Bob Kirkpatrick, Senior Advisor. Mike Paneary presented a description of the Buffman project related to the specific plan. Mr. Paneary detailed the Master Conditional Use Permit citing the specific uses. R:Minutcs\O51595.pc 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES MAY 15. 1995 Bob Kirkpatrick, President of Rancon Temecula, spoke on the benefits to the community related to the Buffman project. Mr. Kirkpatrick presented information on the entertainment district being consistent with the specific plan. He also stated that the hours of operation would be staggered which are sensitive to neighbor concerns. Gene Hancock, representative for Hancock Development, Costa Mesa, spoke as the author of the specific plan and requested to respond to public questions. Steve Riverside, representative for the Westside Specific Plan, : highlighted the proposed parking areas, and the permitted uses for the project. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Kay Cassaro 31616 Paseo Goleta, Temecula spoke in opposition to the Buffman Project and the Westside Specific Plan. Ben Fraleigh, 39850 Rica Drive, Temecula spoke in support to the Buffman project and the Westside Specific Plan. George Buhler, 40265 Paseo Sereno, spoke in support to the Buffman project. Spoke in opposition to the Westside Specific Plan. Philip Hoxsey, 43318 Cielo de Azul, spoke in opposition to the Buffman project and the Westside Specific Plan. Robert Lord, 30120 Pachanga Drive, Temecula spoke in support to the Buffman project. Leonard Bustin, 41935 Calle Cabrillo, spoke in support to the Buffman project. Ron Walton, 30075 Ynez Rd, Temecula, spoke in support to the Buffman project. Doug Davies, 27450 Ynez, Temecula, spoke in support to the Buffman project. Mavin Zelden, 28659 Front St, Temecula, spoke in support to the Buffman project. Robert Burns, 30112 Santiago Road, spoke in support to the Buffman project. Scott Gray, 31794 Via Saltio, spoke in support to the Buffman project. R:Minutes\05 1595 .Ix: 4 PIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15. 1995 Joan Sparkman, 30554 San Pasqual Road, Temecula', spoke in support to the Buffman project. Teri Gilmore, 27450 Ynez Road, Temecula, representing the Temecula Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support to the Buffman project. Patricia Keller, 39201 Salinas Drive, Murrieta, spoke in opposition to the Buffman project. Bob Allred, 41941 Morono Drive, Temecula, spoke in support to the Buffman project. Russell D'Hondt, 31707 Via Soltip, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the Buffman project and the Westside Specific Plan. Phila McDaniel, Main/B Street, spoke in opposition: to the Buffman project. Chairman Ford called for a recess at 8:20 P.M. The meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was reconvened at 8:30 P.M., Chairman Ford presiding. Applicant's response to public questions: the building height will comply with the specific plan. the opera building is planned for 85,000 gross square feet. detailed mitigation exists for noise abatement and will meet performance criteria. Buffman project and the Westside Specific Plan is consistent to the Old Town Specific Plan. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:55 P.M. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Webster expressed his concern on the Buffman Project: he recommends the Commission review any major structures in the Master Conditional Use Permit prior to approval. he would like to see the plaza separate and centrally located in the Old Town area. R:Minutes\051595 .ix; 5 I~2MN~TING COM]VHSSION Commissioner Blair requested the following: historic buildings need to be preserved. a matrix of the phasing schedule is needed. a conceptual sketch of the buildings. Commissioner Fahey requested the following: a matrix of scheduled road improvements. mitigation study addressed concerning parking and bus traffic. business interruption during construction addressed. Commissioner Slaven expressed the following concerns: underground utilities to be integrated. Commissioner Ford requested a matrix of the traffic plan. The Commission expressed concerns regarding the Westside Specific Plan: Commissioner Blair: information needed on proponents of grading in Area D. MAY 1~. 1995 : Commissioner Slaven: concerned about the Western By-Pass Corridor being extended to Murrieta. would like input on the color and fabric used for the canvas top on the arena. the height of the arena. a list is needed of approved business uses. more information is needed on the maintenance of the animals. Commissioner Fahey: not in favor of a service station or bowling alley as presented in plan. difficulty approving Area D due to grading issues. area wildlife is a concern. difficulty understanding consistency with the general plan. need more detail on Area A. need more understanding on road improvement phases. R:Minutes\051595.pc 6 ]~,/MN'NING COlV[I~fl~SION lVIIN'L]']'ES Commissioner Webster: MAY 15. 199S requests size of the park facility in the residential area. requests a provision to centrally locate the on-site/off-site day-care facility. requests language in the specific plan to include colors for the tent structure. concerned about flags on the roof of the tent structure. requests a list of approved uses for Area A and Area B. Commissioner Ford cited the following concerns to staff: widening of certain roads - mitigation monitoring is needed. who is responsible for funding the purchase of equipment. requests definition of road way language. requests schedules for road improvement,' planning, construction, and build out. concerned about the high density on Area D. should signals be installed on Vincent Moraga. concerned about the height of the arena. requests the entrance sign monument location be moved to the Western By-Pass and Front Street. requests pedestrian access be included. request trees small and uniform included for landscaping. Commissioner Fahey expressed concerned that the open space fire/vegetation management is not addressed. Commissioner Slaven expressed concern for the following: monitoring of the shuttles regarding pollution. who will manage the odor/animal waste. how the wetland area will be restored. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue the PA No. 95-0031 - Environmental Impact Report - PA No. 94-0061 - Master Conditional Use Permit and PA No. 95-0003 - Westside Specific Plan to June 5, 1995, 6:00 P.M. which will postpone the Review of The City Development Code. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Slaven, Fahey, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None R:Minutes\O51595.pc 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ~ PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None None ~L~,Y lS. 199S It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 P.M. Steve Ford Secretary : R:Minutes\051595 .Ix: 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINLrFES JUNE 19, 1995 MINUTES OF A RF.~UIAR OFTI~C1TYOFTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MJNE 19, 1~9~ A meeting of the City of Temecuh Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, June 19, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho CaRfornia Water Dislfict's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PBK~:ENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shven, Ford, Webster Fahey Also present were, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz, Senior Planner John Meyer, Public Wor~ Director Joe Kicak, Recording Secreta~ Joan Price. Chairman Ford called for Public Comments on non-agenda items. There were no comments. CONSENT ITEM June Greek, City Clerk, administered the oaffi of office to Steve Ford and Timothy Jay Miller as Commissioners. COMMISSION BUSINESS The City of Temecula Capital Improvement Program was presented to the Commission for addition to the agenda. Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz advised the need for this Resolution arose subsequent to production of the agenda and action needs to be taken prior to the next Commission meeting. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to add consideration of the 1996-2000 CIP to the agenda. The motion can'ied as follows: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Ford, Webster, Miller NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 1. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the agenda. R:Minutes\061995.pc 1 PLANNING COMM'~SION MINUTE.~ The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 JUNE 19. 199S COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Ford, Webster, Miller COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Approval of Minutes 2A. Minutes of November 7, 1994 * Commissioner Ford commented that on Page 5, llth paragraph should read: newly adopted... 2B. Minutes of December 5, 1994 * Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz commented that he had been in attendance not Peter Thorson as listed... 2C. Minutes of January 9, 1995 * Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz commented that he had been in attendance not Peter Thorson as listed... 2D. Minutes of January 23, 1995 * Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz ~mmented that he had been in attendance not Peter Thorson as listed... * Chairman Ford commented that on page 3 Chairman Ford Opened the Public Hearing be inserted as the second paragraph... * Commissioner Miller commented that on page 5 an 's" be added to Jeff Michael as noted in the Public Hearing... 2E. Minutes of February 6, 1.995 * Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz commented that he had been in attendance not Peter Thorson as listed... R:Minutes\061995.pc 2F. Minutes of March 6, 1995 * No changes 2G. Minutes of March 20, 1995 * No changes 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINIYFE8 JUNE 19. 1995 It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minute~ as amended. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Ford, Webster, Miller NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. Development Code Senior Planner John Meyer will present each section individnally and highlight the changes made for the Commission's review and comment. Senior Planner Meyer presented the Specific Plan Overhy District. Section 16. Specific Plan Overhy District - Commissioner Webster asked if a repeal of specific changes could occur. City Attorney Diaz responded yes. Commissioner Slaven questioned the Memorandum of Understanding. She asked If a M.O.U. is requested by an applicant can the City require public notice when the agreement is considered. Attorney Diaz responded it could be recommended that the City Council not enter into an agreement without public noticing. Staff will research this and bring information back to the Commission. Commissioner Miller commented on several wording changes which staff will bring back to the Commission to review. Commissioner Ford asked if the Specific Plan was added in Specific Plan 8 and 9 in the Westside Specffic Plan. Staff responded it had been added. Senior Planner John Meyer highlighted the Village Center Overlay District. Staff recommends no changes. Commissioner Miller expressed concern that the scoping meeting was dropped. Commissioner Webster requested staff investigate the following: * restricted uses in the Village Center pertaining to drive-thru * large box type buildings in Village Center concept which may be a conffict in design. R:Minutes\061995.pc 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES * size limit for single b6~inuses - maximum of 45,000 square feet. JUNE 19. 199S Commission consensus existed on restricting large box type buildings. Staff is directed to provide regulations along this line. Commissioner Ford expressed concern on the southern quadrant in the County of Riverside which is not tied into the speci~ plan. Staff stated this area is in the sphere of influence and the city can advise the County of these concepts for consideration. Senior Planner Meyer presented the proposed changes to the Flood Plain Overlay District. In addition to the written changes submitted to the Commission the following is also proposed: - changes in the definition of manufactured home and new manufactured home to read: "for the purpose of this chapter and this chapter only", this does not include recreational vehicles. changed definition for new mobile home park or subdivision "for the purposes of this chapter and this chapter only* "including a minimum of installation of utilities and pads" page 13 9.20.30 #1 - upon completion of structure it shall be surveyed by a registered engineer as properly elevated. Commissioner Miller commented on page 5 - #1 and recommend to leave in "functionally intended use" and on/2 in findings - change "shall" to "may result in loss of life and property." Senior Hanner Meyer presented the Planned Development Overlay District changes. Staff recommends no changes. Commissioner Slaven expressed concern on the following: restricted uses omitted from Section H - pg 3 - exceptions to commercial vehicles in residential areas should be documented. Attorney Diaz will research definitions on specialiTed work- related vehicles and report back to the Commission with revisions. section D and E - vehicles parked in rear yard screened from the street, she asked if this includes "¢~,,sd" vehicles. Staff will look into this and bring back to the Commission with revisions. page 4 - section 3 - the vehicle and repair storage tnu'agraph does not include motorhome. The Commissioner agreed to request staff to add the language motorhome. R:Minutes\061995.1~ 4 PLANNING COMMtqSION MINUTES page 6 - she suggested shared parking needs an agreement by adjourning property owners. Attorney Diaz encouraged the Commission to ln~ep this provision in. page 10 - handicapped parking - she asked if the Commission can request more spaces than required. Staff will look into this and bring it back to the Commission. page 13 - she asked why motomycle spaces are needed. Staff will work with the developer to install the spaces other than at the rear of parking lots. page 19 - she pointed out the 3rd sentence in 1st paragraph shotrid read mulch not much. Commissioner Webster expressed the following concerns: tree requirements - he recommended at least 50% of landscaping lrees be evergreen for aesthetic reasons and on a year-round basis. All Commissioners agree. Staff will confer with the landscape architect. page 8 - he requested an explanation of parking requirement on drive thru restaurants. Staff explained that the Q-lane counts as additional puking. Commissioner Webster recommended no distinction be made between regular restaurant and drive-thru. Staff will research this and get back to the Commission. page 11 - bike parking - he noted class 3 is not included in the definitions. Staff will need to bring this item back to the Commission. Class 1 is the defined ordinance and not Class 3. He stated the compact car space requirement should be re-visited and not required. Staff will check the enforceability and percentage reduction and get back to the Commission. Commissioner Ford expressed the following concerns: Fire Department request for a drive aisle of 24' page 13 - He stated non-residential should read 14' and not 12'. The Commission directed staff to stay with the Development Code dimensions. He recommended handicapped parking be required to comply only with the ADA standards. Senior Planner Meyer presented the Chapter on Covenants for Easement. Staff recommends no changes R:Minutes\061995.pc 5 PI,ANNING COMMISSION MINUTF,~ Commissioner Ford opened the Publi~ hearing at 7:50 P.M. MYNE 19. 1995 PUBLIC HEARING Mark Telford, Temecuha, expressed concern with increasing the handicapped parking in industrial building lots, and request~l the Commission remain with the ADA standards. I ~rry Markham, grinchester Road, addressed several concerns and made suggestions on the Development Code as presented. Commissioner Ford closed the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Shaven requested that a distinction be made between locations requiring handicapped parking as conditions warrant. Staff will bring this back to the Commission with revised language. Commissioner Ford requested new language on day care facilities; motor cycle size requirements and end of the row parking spaces being widened near the planters. Senior Planner John Meyer cited a correction in the Flood Plain Overhay on page 13, sub section 1.C.1. and 2.C should "be certified by professional engineer" not "architect". The motion was made by Commissioner Shaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to continue the public hearing on the Development Code to the next scheduled meeting of July 17. The motion carried as follows: 4 COMlVlISSIONERS: Slaven, Ford, Webster, Miller NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COIvlMISSIONERS: Fahey 1995 - 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRANI Senior Planner Meyer presented the City of Temeeuha Capital Improvement Program Commission to determine General Plan consistency, as pursuant by state haw. The motion was made by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve Resolution 95__. R:Minutes\061995.pc 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 JUNE 19. 1995 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Ford, Webster, Miller COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey The next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for the 4th of July holiday, will be July 17, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Senior Planner John Meyer presented the Planning Director's Report in the absence of Gary Thornhill. The City of Temecula is a finalist in the Main S~eet Demonstration City Program. This program will be beneficial to the City in many positive ways. The Old Town Specific Plan is a recipient of the Comprehensive Plan Award from the American Planning Association competition. The City Council has approved the Conditional Use Permit on the Buffman Project and the Westside Specific Plan. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Slaven requested the minutes of the Commission meetings be more timely in the future. Commissioner Ford requested the Capital Improvement Plan be brought to the Commission earlier in the future. Commissioner Ford reported on the Awards Banquet and recommended the Planning Director or his designee attend. The motion was made by Commissioner Slaven to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary R:Minutes\061995.pc 7 ITEM #3 · SELECTION OF A COMMIgSION MEMBER TO SERVE ON ~ CONSULTATNT SELECTION INTERVIEW COMMITTEE ITEM #4 UT~ OF ~ PLANNING ~01vlMISSION July 17, 199~ Phnnkg Application No. 94-0128 - Coma!iGoual Use Pemit RECOMMENDATION: Ai,i-LICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: ADO~ Resolution No. 95-.__ ~p~oving PA94-0128, Ammdmmt No. 1 based upon lixe Analysis ,rod Findings cot~si,,~d in th~ Staff Re~ort; and AFPRO~ pl,.min_~ Application No. PA94-0128, Amendment No. I subject m the ~,~i Conditions of Approval. UNOCAL Petroleum Product~ . Service Stmion Services To d~nnlish an existing service station and rebuild a 2,500 square foot station with a convenience suture ,rod concurrent sale ofbeernnd wine Sou~east corner of Rancho California Road and Front Street C-1/C-P (General Commercial) North; C-]/C=P (~ Commtmrcial) South: S-P (Old Town Temecula Specific Plan) East: S-P (Old Town Temecula Specific Plan) West: S-P (Old Town Teznin~a Specific Plan) Not requested (IiTC) Highway Tourist Commercial Service Station North: Chevron Sea'vice Station East: (KFC) I~ Fried Chicken West: Vacant/Creek PROIEC'F b~rATlb'~flC~8 ToUd Area: .77 acres Toud S~ Area: Building Area: 2,343 square fee~ ~ Area: 4,338 square fee~ Perlcing Required: 12 sp~_c_~_ parkin~ Provided: 12 spaces Buildin~ Height: 24 feet to the top of the tower ' Canopy Height: 19 feet BACKGROUND plnnnln_~ Applic~ion No. 94-0128 was formally submitted to tho pJsnnlng DepartmL, ut on Novmnber 29, 1994 as a Minor Conditional Use Fr~,,At for the sale of beer and wine in an existing building. A DevalopD3ent Review Commi~ee (DRC) meetin_g was bald on Decelnber 22, .1994. The applicant did not aUend this meeting. Subsequemt to the DRC meeting, the applicant requested that the spplication be put on hold for several months because they were uncertain as to whether they wanted to use the existing building or demolish it and pUt Up a new one. Staff was contacted several times during those months regarding the projea. Subsequently, the applicant decided to demolish the existing building and replace it with a new one. A pre-applica~on meetinE was held on June 12, 1995 to review the new design and scope of the project. The application changed from a Minor to a full Conditional Use P=~mlt because of the exun= of the improvem=uia. A DRC mseting was held on June 29, 1995. plsnnin_~ Application No. 94-0128 was deemed complete on July 7, 1995. PROjECT DESCRIFrION The projea is a proposal for a gas station and convenience man with concurrent sale of beer. The new building will be moved closer to the southeasterll comer of the lot than the existing building. The applicant has provided deUiiled informntion regerding the operation of the project. This has been included as An-~hment No. 3, ANALYSIS The architecture for the building is similar to buildings in vicinity of this project. The building will have an off-white and tan stucco exterior, with tiles at the base and front of the building. The roof will be Spanish clay tile (Tetra cotta color). The canopy will have the same roof tiles. A~ea Compatibfiity The project is located at the intersection of Front S,rect and Rancho California Roed. While the project site is not located within the buundades of the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan, it is considered to be a "galway' to the Old Town area. With this taken into consideration, the applicant's ultimate design for the project will be compatible with the Old Town theme. The project is consistent in terms of m~ariais with the surrounding development. The projea au-romly has five (5) curb c~m on ~he alt~. Based upon direaion from the Public Works Dephh.em, the =ppli~nt w~l el'm~nste two (2) of the curb cuts. Two curb cuts along Moreao Road will be combined into one. One of the curb cuts on Front Street will be elimin~,~. The curb cm on Randin California Road ~ p....ain: By reducing the untoher of curb cuts to file site, the project will The traffic analysis prepared for the project exnmlned impacts from the project to the intersections of From Street rout Rancho California Road wnd From Street ,n~ Moreno Road. The report conchdora that impacts to these intersections st peak hourm are leas than 5 percent. The Department of Public Workm Depaxi,,,,~t has reviewed the analySiS and conairs with CO~USiOBS COatsins] in the allldysis. COI]ditiOns of approval have been sddad to the project to mi~gste any impacts from the project. Rivht-of-W~y Dedications The projea has been conditioned for an additional four (4) feet of right-of-way along From Street (adjacent to the project) and twelve (12) feet of rig.h.t-of-way along Ranrio California Road (adjacent to the project). The four feet of additional right-of-way on From Street will be used for a proposed right turn lane east bound from From Street to Rsncho California Road. RnnehO CaHforllia Road il idolRifled as an Urban Arfzrial Highway (6 lanes - 134 foot right-of-way) in the Cwmenl Plan. The ~rltiitional dedication will bring Rardlo California Road up to General Plan standards. Liquor Licenses St,t~ law regardlUg the issuance of liquor licenses changed effective Jauusry 1, 1995. The City Attorney has infornzd Staff that all applications for a beer and wine license must go to City Council for approval, unless the Council delegates this authority. Staff is taking a report to the City Council on July 25, 1995 requesting direction as to who is able to approve beer and wine licenses (i.e. staff, planning Commission, City Council). Correspondence Received' Staff has received one letter in opposition to the projea and has included this as Auachment No. 4. EXIt-riNG ZONING AND GEI~F_.KAL PLAN DESIGNATION Current zoning of the projea site is C-1/C-P (General Commercial). A gas station is permitted under Ordinance No. 348 with the approval of a Plot Plan. A conditional use permit is required for gasoline service stations with concurrent sale Of beer and wine for off-premi.,.es consumption. The General Plan Land Use designation Highway Tourist Commercial (HTC). It is likely that the draR Development Code will require a conditional use permit for ' alcoholic beverage sales and service ' in the HTC designtalon. ENVIRONMENTAL Di~rF, KM]NATION The proposed project will not have a si~ir~ant impact on the environment, The project is C-"'~,orically Exempt from the California Environnk~i/a Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15302 of Ii~ CEQA Guidelines. This is a Class 2 Categorical Ex=u~ion which comisU of the teplac*mm~ or teconstrnaion of ~-~tln_~ sU-oaures and fa~dities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the s~m~ purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The projea is a proposal to demolish an existing service station and rebuild a 2,500 square foot station with a convenieace store and concurrent ule of beer nnd wine. Althongh the project is not located within the bouMaries of the Old Town Temeatla Specific Plan, the agplicant has designed the building to be consisteat with the surrounding buildings that are within the Plan bo, maaries. Specific issues pertaining to this projea include: circulation, right-of-way dedication and acquisition of a liquor liceme. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements anti with all applicable requirements of st~e law and City ordinances. The projea is a ponnitted use within the General Plan l .and Use designal~n of Highway Tourist Coral (HTC). In addition, the project is permitted under the existi-g General Comma~'cial (C-I/C-P) zoning. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surwunding property. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law nnd local ordinance. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.29 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the commtHlity. h addition, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environn~nt. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines. Conditions of Approval will ensure that the project is not detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the co---unity. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed plannln~ application (Conditional Use Permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards coyrained within the City's General Plan nnd Ordinance No. 348. The projea is compatible with surrounding land uses. The projea is located in an area of existing and proposed commarCial development. The pwjea has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from publicly maintained roads (From SU~et and Raucho California Road). 4 8. The design of the project and the type of in~.rov~msnts are such that they are not in conflict with easements for ~_c__t~s_ through or use of the property within the proposed project. Said findings are suppox~d by mn,ns, exhibits and environm~u~ doo,m~i~ associated ~ these applicatiom and herein incorpor~___~_ by reference. Astnehrn~n~: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A: CondRions of Approvni - Blue Page 11 Exhibits - Blue Page 21 A. Vicinity Map B o Zoning Map C. Site PI~n D. Buildinff Elevations E. Canopy Elevalions Projec~ Infonnnfion Provided by the Applicant - Blue Page 22 Correspondence - Blue Page 23 ATtACH.gENT NO. 1 PC RESO IX.rrION NO. PC BE~OLUTION NO. 9.~ A RESOLUTION OF ~ IFt~2qNING COMMt~SION OF ~ C1TY OF TI~IECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATIONNO. 94-0128 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), TO PERMIT ~ OPERATION OF A GAS STATION AND CONVENn~CE STORE WITH TVff* CONCURRENT S~L~- OF BEER AND WINE LOCAT!~ ON ~ SOUTI~AST CORNER OF RANCHO C/aot~ORNXA ROAD AND FRONT STIrgET AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEl. NO. 921- Wn*I~EAS, UNOCAL PeUoleum Products Company filed planning Application No. 94-0128, in accordance with the City of Tmnecula General plan and Riverside County l, and Use and Subdivision OrdinanCeS, WhiCh the City has adopted by refute; WRE~F-AS, Plnnnin~ Application No. 94-0128 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; VVtYEREAS, the planning Commi~.~ion c.~nsidefed planning Application No. 94-0128, on 3uly 17, 1995, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time intorested persons had an opporumity to testify either in support or in opposition; WI~ERF, AS, at the conclusion of the Commition hearing, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 940128; NOW, THI~i~ORE, T!:W, PLANNING COMMI-~SION OF ~ C1TY OF TI~IECUIA DOES ItE~OLVE, DETERlVHNE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above reci~tlous are true and correct. Section 2. Findines. That the Temecula Planning Commi.~sion hereby makes the following findings, to wit: 1. The proposed use conforms to all General plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state hw and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within the General Plan Land Use designation of Highway Tourist Commercial (HTC). ]n addition, the project is permitted under the existing General Commercial (C-l/C-P) zoning. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. 3. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of gate hw and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.29 (Conditional Use Peat) of Ordinance No. 343. 4. 'I'ac proposed project v/gl not be deJrlmml to tbc bcaltb, safcty ~ goDera]. we.]fa_,-~ of the co~nmnnl ly. In adctj.~oll, the proposed pzoject will not have a signi~caat impset on th~ envitomneat. The project is Ca~g~_~lly 1~ from th~ Callfoznia Environmental Quality Act (C$QA)per Seelion15302ofthc CEQA Guidelines. Conditionsol Approval will ensure that t..!~pmject is am de~mcatal to the health, safety or gcacml wcLfa.~ of the comtnqjllityo 5. The site is silltable 10o accommodate th~ proposed land ~ ~ rams of ~ s~ nd ~ of ~ ~ ~~ m, ~ ~ of ~, ~ ~ p~ planning ~ (~ U~ ~iO, ~ ~, ~mp~ wi~ ~ ~ ~in~ Wj~in ~ Ci~'8 ~ P~ ~ ~;~n~ NO, ~. 6. Th~ project is compatible with summn~g land uses. The project is located in an area of existing and proposed commercial development. 7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated fight-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from publicly maintained roads (Front Street and Rancho California Road). 8. The design of the project and tl~ type of improvements ar~ such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. 9. Said findings ate supported by maps, exhihits and environmenial documents assochted with these applications and herein incoxporated by reference. 10. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planing Application No. 94-0128 as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and weftare of the COmmUnity. Section 3. Bnvironmental Compliance. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the env~nment. The project is Categorically Exempt from the Califu,.,;a EnvLv~nmontal Quality Act (CBQA) per Section 15302 of the CBQA Guidelines. Section 4. COnditions. That the City of Temecula planning Commi.~sion hereby approves Planning Application No. 94-0128 to demolish an existing service station and xebuild a 2,500 squax~ foot station with a convenience store and concurrent sale of beer and wine located at 28903 Rancho Ca lifOFnia Road ~ Iraown as Assessor' .~ Parcel No. 921-070-001, and subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, aVatched hereto, and incorporated heroin by thlg reference and made aparthereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED tM~ 17th day of July, 199~. ~-rl~Vl~l J. FORD ~'~AIRMAN I Hlml~Jy CERTIFY tl~ the foregoln~ Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commilsion of the City of Temecula aI a x~rular meeting thereof, held on the 17ffi day of July, 1995 by the following vote of ~e Commission: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THO~ J- SECRETARY EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~TA1;I~F~I~AN.PC 7/13/95 klb '~ 0 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 94-0128, Amendment No. I (Conditional Usa Permit) Project Desaripljon: The demolition of an existing service station to be rebuilt with a 2,500 square foot station with · convenience store and concurrent sale of beer and wine Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-070-001 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements Planning Application No. 94-0128 shall not be effective or vest until the City Council finds in accordance with Business and Professions Code Section 23958.4that despite a presumption of undue concentration, the public convenience or necessity would be. served by the issuance of a liquor license at this location. In the event that the City Council delegates the authority to determine public convenience or necessity under Business end Professions Code Section 23958.4,this condition shall be satisfied if the party or body to whom authority is delegated makes the finding of public convenience or necessity. The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. 94-0128 is for the demolition of an existing service station to be rebuilt with a 2,500 square foot station with a convenience store and concurrent sale of beer and wine. 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. 94-0128 (Conditional Use Permit), Amendment No. 1 which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 9.1; seo., 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. R:~TAPPPJ~I21PA94~C 7/13/9~ Ub I 1 This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D and approved with Planning Application No. 940128, Amendment No. 1, or as amended by these conditions. A. A minimum of twelve (12) parking spaces shall be provided. A minimum of one (1) van accessible handicapped parking space shall be provided. C. Two (2) Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided. : Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. Canopy elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Material Clay Tile (roof tile) Stucco {building) Metal (doors & window frames, trim) Tile (building accents, base) Grout (between tiles) Color Terra Cotta Benjamin Moore #1156 Benjamin Moore #1205 Summitville Pueblo Stones (R-60) Brown/rust Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by these conditions. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 10. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the feerequired by the Habitat Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 11. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 12 12. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover pegs shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. Pdor to the I&suanoe of O~cupanoy Permits 13. An application for signage shall be submitted end approved by the Planning Director. 14. All roof-mountad equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 15. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 16. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 17. 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 place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 18. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. R:~TAFIrP~r~I~lPA94.XmC 7113/9~ klb 13 BUILDING AND SAr,-i -( DEPARTMENT 20. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. (1994 editions due for adoption by September, 1995). 21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 22. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction work. 23. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 24. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems. 25. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 26. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 27. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 28. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 29. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 30. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. 31. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24° x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Pdor to Issuance of Grading Permits 32. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System {NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent {NOI) has been filed or .the project is shown to be exempt, 33. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: State Water Resources Control Board San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company 34. A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approvad by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of Approval. 35. A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 36. An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed-by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. 37. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 38. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review. 39. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. R:~I'AFFRPT~I28PA94.PC 7/13/95 k]b 15 40. 41. 42. 43. 45. 46. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to Riverside County Rood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already credited to this proparty, no new charge needs to be paid. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work parformed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. The site is in an area identified on the Rood Hazard Maps as Rood Zone AE and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Rood Zone "AE' which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. A Rood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by the Department of Public Works. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site. d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway. The location of existing and post development 100-yearfloodplain and floodway shall be shown on the precise grading plan. Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works, Letter of approval or a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected proparty owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the precise grading plan. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited It:~STAFFRPT%I28PA94.PC 7/13/95 It~ 16 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. for drainage purposes, the Developer Shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e,, concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be raquirad and shall be recorded by separate instrument as directed by the Department of Public Works. The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as part of development of this project. Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities within the right-of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos. 207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk). Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. F,:~STAFFRPI~I21PA~f~.PC 7/13/9~ ki 17 : : 53. A Traffic Control Ran shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved by the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets. is required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide for adequate detour during construction. 54. The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which mey include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, and relocation of all public facilities and/or utilities as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Landscaping (slopas and parkways) d. Sewer and domestic water systems e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines f. Erosion control and slope protection Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 55. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Planning Department Department of Public Works · Riverside County Fire Department · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 56. All necessary grading permit, construction or encroachment permits requirements have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 57. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 58. All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 59. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre/unit as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 60. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. R:xSTAFFRPT~12SPA94.PC 7/13/9~ klb 18 The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 62. 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 shell be in the amount in effect st 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, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be 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; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact lee, and the amount thereof. 63. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western By Pass Corridor in accordance with the General Ran. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. 64. The Developer shall vacate and dedicate the abuttars rights of access along Rancho California Road pursuant to the new location of the driveway. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 65. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Planning Department Department of Public Works 66. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees, street lights, and relocation of all public facilities and/or utilities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 67. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the Developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such R:~,f~Al~P.F~121PA94,PC 7/13/~ k~ 19 easement at the Developer's' cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. Adjacent to the site, Rancho California Road is classified as a Urban Arterial Highway with an 134 foot full width right-of-way, per the Circulation Plan of the General Plan. There is an existing 55 foot of half width right-of-way and an additional 12 foot of dedication is required. Therefore, an additional 12 foot of right-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the City of Temecula on Rancho California Road along the project frontage. 69. An additional 4 feet of right-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the City of Temecula on Front Street along the project frontage to accommodate for a right turn lane. 70. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 71. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the DePartment of Public Works. 72. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 73. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 74. 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Fire Department's .transmittal dated July 5, 1995, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated June 21, 1995, s copy of which is attached. 76. The ap~olicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department's transmittal dated June 19, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 77. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated June 22, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 78. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated December 6, 1994, a copy of which is attached. I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval. Applicant Name R:NSTA~I28PA~4.!,C 7/13/95 V3a 20 · RIVERSIDE COUNTY HRE DEPARTMENT HARRIS 210 ~ $~ JAC~ A~ · p~, ~O~ 9~70 · (~) 6~7-3183 jULY5, 1995 TO: A'rx'F_2q: RE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT MATf-~.~r FAGAN PA94-0128 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the F~re Depaxtment recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and]or recognized fire protection standards: The fire Department is required to set a minimum f~e flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow of 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. The required fire flow shall be available from a super (6"x4"x2-2 1/2") tim hydrant, located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along vehicular travelways. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting location of the existing fn~ hydrant and the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 GPM five flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial an'angements have been made to provide them. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer Shall be respons~le to submit a plan check fce of $582.00 to the City of Temecula. FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. 5. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. '~ RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 9250I FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION PLANNING SECTION r3 INDIO OFFICE 79-733 Countr,,' Club Drive. Suite F, lndio, CA 92201 1619) ~63-8886 * FAX 1619) g63-707: In~ 11 portable fire extinguishers with a m~n~mum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a ccxlified extinguisher company for proper placement. l~ior to final inspection of any building, the applicant ~h~ll pEpam and submit to the Fire DcparUnent for approval, a site plan designating required tim lanes with appropriate lane painting and or sigus. Street address Shall be posted, in a visibl~ location, rnlnlrmnn 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a conwasting background. ApplicautJdeveloper shall be responsible to provide or show there cxists conditions set foxth by the Fire DepaxtmcnL 10. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans a_~ submitted to building and safety. ~ All questions r~garding the meaning of thes~ conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department planning and enginea'klg section,(909)694-6439. RAYMOND H. REGIS ner Laura Cabnl Fire Safe~ Specklist ancho Kenneth C. Dealy Linda M. Fregoso C. Michael Cowerr June 21, 1995 RECEIVED J U 2 2 1995 Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Depatttuent 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: Water Ava~ability Conditional Use Permit PA94-0128 UNOCAL Service Station Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD/District). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management fights, if any, to RCWD. RCWD manages the underground water basins within the District boundaries and any accidental spills of hazardous material could possibly contaminate these basins. To protect these basins the District requests that the developer follow all Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. RCWD would appreciate the opportunity to review a detailed plan of the area of concern. ff you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager SB:SD:eb055/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, En~neering Technician City of Temecula Temecula Police Department June 19, 1995 Unocal Station Conditions of Approval The applicant must install security lighting on the exterior of the building, sufficient enough as to eliminate any dark alleyways and/or blind spots in between and around the building. The applicant must landscape the surrounding area with low shrubbery type plants, if any, and especially around the building's windows. The applicant must post "No Drinking in Parking Lot" signs in the stations ' parking area. Additionally, it is recommended that the applicant install a security alarm or closed circuit T.V. monitoring system of some type, that is constantly monitored. If there are any questions regarding these conditions, please feel free to contact me at the police station. Sincerely, Richard W, San~ez Police Officer Temecula Police Department (909) 696-3000 E tem ./ .nicipJ 'W'at E)istrict D~rrhb~r 6, 1994 Matthew Fagan, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: PA 94-0128 Dear Mr. Fagan: l~dh~tR.!.hll RECEIVED DEC O 7 Arts'd,- ,., (Minor Conditional Use Permit) We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed conversion of an existing service station (Unocal), located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Front Street, to a foodmart - eliminating three existing service bays while retaining gasoline sales. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. However, it must be understood the available service capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of sereice requirements, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project are as follows: 8-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Moreno Road, fronting the subject project on the south. Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San jacinto Avenue, SanJadnto · Customer Service/Engineering Anne= 440 E. Oakland Averme, Heroes, CA Matthew Fagan PA 94-0128 December 6, 1994 Page 2 8-inch diameter sewage forcemain aligned along Front Street, fronting the subject project on the west. Other Issues The Representative for the subject project must contact the District's Customer Service Department to arrange for the following: determination and payment of appropriate fees plan check and field inspection of onsite plumbing Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, ext. 468. Very truly yours, EASTEEN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT David G. Senior Engineer Customer Service DGC/cz AB 94-0941 (wp-nt-,vk-pAg~O128.clz) TO: FROM: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: CITY OF TEIVIECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan trYit, {t I~{~ MARGARET LORJNG, Envim~n~e~n?~SHealth Specialist II CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA94-0128 "' 1 11S 5 Aas'd ....... The Depaxtmem of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA94-0128 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water agency. b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022. c) A clearance letter from the HaTardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: i) Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. ii) HaTardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. iii) Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # ,~ 651.2.). iv) Waste reduction management. ML:dr (909) 275-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for fmal Department of Enviromental Health clearance. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXI~IBITS R:'~TAFFRPr~12IPAN,PC 7/13/9~j klb 2 1 CITY OF TEMECULA STA'n0N et9 CASE NO. - PA94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 17, 1995 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRPT~128PA94.PC 7111/95 klb CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) CG EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - HTC HIGHWAY TOURIST COMMERCIAL CASE NO. - PA94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 17, 1995 R-4 .$ 05 CITY OF TEMECULA F~Oi~' STREET CASE NO. - PA94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -JULY 17, 1995 SITE PLAN CITY 'OF TEMECULA': CASE NO. - PA94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT- E BUILDING ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 17, 1995 CITY OF TEMECULA ELEVATION 4 .,,~, ELEVATION 5 CASE NO. - PA94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT - E BUILDING ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 17, 1995 CITY. OF TEMECULA; I I ' ~) I I I I I I .~, I I I I CANOPT - PI20NT ELEVATION CANOPY - LEFT SIDE FIEVATION CASE NO. - PA94-0128 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT - F CANOPY ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 17, 1995 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CORRESPONDENCE ][:~TAFPRP~I28PAN,PC 7113/95 ]db 22 28250 FRONT STI~R3Tr ASSOCIATES C/O REAL FROPEILTY PARTNERS 5530 COP, BIN AVE., STE. 335 TARZANA, CA. 91356 WAFAX (9O9) 6946477 Matthew Fagan CITY' OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Dr. Temomla, CA_ 92590 Re: Case No. 94-012S Dear Mr. Fngan: I am the C~neral Partner of 28250 From Street Associates, thc owners of a 25 ,S00 s.f ~'u;v shopping center located at the southeast comer ofFtom Street and Moreno Road, Our property lies directly to the south of the proposed Unocal Convenience Store. Over the last thrce years tntlto moving north on From Street has increased dran~cally, and at high tnt~ic times during the day blocks ingress and egress to our shopping center white waiting at the traffic light at Rancho California Road and From Street. We haw great concern over how any additional use brln~ng more traffic into the exi~- Unocal location would affect the 14 maeh~ts in our center. As far as servicing the public is concertted, beer and wine and conwaience items are cturen,ly sold both in our center and in the Circle K Center directly to the south of us, as well. as two convenience markets to the north of Rancho California Road, nil v~thln a quarter of a mile of the proposed location In our opinion, we would object vehemently to granting tl~ conditional use permit as we feel there is no need for it, and ff granted will dearly affect our ingress and egress and all .rchants in the From Street Center and wB1 create an additional ixa~c, baa, m'd. cc: From Street Tenants A'I'FACHMENT NO. 4 PROJECT INFORMATION PROVIDED BY APPLICANT SEE BOOKLET WITH FULL SIZE EXHIBITS R:~TAPFIIP~I21PAN.PC 7/13/95 ITEM #5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM- Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director July 17, 1995 Draft Development Code Prepared by: John Meyer, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the draft Development Code, take public testimony, and direct staff to make any modifications in order to make a recommendation of approval to the City Council. INTRODUCTION On March 20, 1995, the Planning Commission began the Public Hearing Process for the Temecula Development Code. The Development Code is the primary instrument for implementing the General Plan. Temecula's General Plan is a 20-year plan, while the Development Code and the Zoning Map respond to shorter-term needs and conditions. Each of the residential, commercial, business park, and other land use designations are detailed by land use zones which specify permitted uses, conditional uses, and development standards for each zone. At the June 19, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed and commented on the following chapters of the Code: Chapter 9.16 Chapter 9.18 Chapter 9.20 Chapter 9.22 Chapter 9.24 Chapter 9.26 Specific Plan Overlay District Village Center Overlay District Floodplain Overlay District Planned Development Overlay District Off-street Parking and Loading Covenants for Easements The remaining schedule is as follows: Consistency Zoning (Zoning Map) General Plan Amendment Consistency Zoning (Zoning Map) General Plan Amendment Chapter 9.34 Definition of Terms Revisions Addendure July 17, 1995 August 21, 1995 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP As part of the work program to adopt the Development Code, the City is conducting a citywide consistency zoning effort. The purpose of this effort is to amend the zoning from the interim County Districts to City Districts. This is fairly straightforward because almost every General Plan Land Use Designation will be implemented by a single zoning district. The three exceptions are the Low Residential, Business Park and Open Space designations. Staff is asking the Commission to familiarize themselves with the Zoning Map to facilitate discussions during the public hearing. It may be helpful to compare it with the Land Use Plan from the General Plan. Consistent with procedures used during the General Plan Process, property owners dissatisfied with the district applied to their property have been encouraged to submit a written request to staff. Each request is numerically keyed on an accompanying exhibit. In addition to the consistency zoning effort, staff is also be processing a City-sponsored General Plan Amendment (GPA). The proposed amendment would modify land use designations determined to be inappropriate subsequent to the adoption of the Plan in November, 1993 and to accommodate the requested changes to the zoning map. The majority of these proposed changes will result in land uses more relevant with the existing uses or buildings. Proposed General Plan Land Use Amendments Staff has received several requests from property owners to amend the land use designation on their property. To facilitate the review of these requests, staff has developed the attached GPA Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix. The matrix contains, a location or parcel number, the existing land use designation, the requested land use designation, and a staff recommendation and response. Each request is numerically keyed on an accompanying exhibit. The applicants' letters of request, stating their positions have also been attached and numbered for the Commission's review. Staff recommends the Commission review the requests in geographical groupings, in order to consider the requests in context of an area, as well as on their individual merits. To facilitate this, staff has divided the requests into 4 area groups. The following table indicates in which group the individual requests are located: GROUP LOCATION I Westside of I-15 II Hwy 79 South Ill Winchester IV Pauba 1,2,3,4,5,6and8 7 9 and 10 11 Zoning Districts As mentioned above, the General Plan land use designations will for the most part, be implemented by a single zoning district. The exceptions to this are the Low Residential, Business Park and Open Space Designations. These will be implemented by two or more zoning districts. The Low Density land use designation will be implemented by the L-1 (40,O00sq. ft. minimum lot size) and L-2 (20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning districts as described in the Development Code. The Business Park land use designation will be implemented by the Light Industrial and Business Park Zoning Districts. The application of these to zoning districts to the former County MSC zoned areas has received much scrutiny. Through workshops and meeting with various interest groups, staff feels most of the issues have been resolved. this occurred through some of the Land Use Amendments proposed above and changes to the schedule of permitted uses previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Open Space land use designation will be implemented by the Open Space (passive recreation), Parks and Recreation (active recreation) and Conservation (preservation of natural sites) Districts as described in the Development Code. CONCLUSION To meet minimum noticing requirements the General Plan Amendments and Zoning Consistency was advertised for both July 17, 1995 and August 21, 1995. As a result the Commission will need to accept public testimony at both meetings. Attachments: 1. GPA Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix - Blue Page 4 2. Letters of Request - Blue Page 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 GPA PARCEL SPECIFIC LAND USE REQUEST MATRIX ) / ! :.... .f' / / Group /I I/ ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Lb I i'ERS OF REQUEST R:~DEVCODI~CONZONE 7/12/95 RECEIVED JU# k 3 Kemper Real Estate Management Companyks.& .......... 40925 County Center Drive, Suite 120, Temecula, California 92591 · 909 / 676-5641 · Fax 909 / 676-3385 P.O. Box 9016, Temecula, California 92589-9016 I IIIdll~i!~lMII I June 10,"1994 F ~ Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CONSISTENCY REZONING Dear John: Thank you for the time you spent in the Consistency Rezoning : Workshops. You did an excellent job in explaining the City's position and the process you are going through to accomplish the rezoning. We are writing you in response to your encouragement to document any problems we envision in the development and sale of our properties as a result of the rezoning. We would first like to comment on the rezoning in general and then make specific zoning requests for properties owned by Kemper. MSC vs. 8C The MSC zoning is particularly well-suited to our industrial subdivisions with lots averaging one to two acres in size. The typical buyer is a user with a small business who is tired of paying rent and wants to own his o~ facility. By disallowing any manufacturing in these parks, the City has taken this option away from the small businessman. He will now only be able to locate his business in areas designated BP or LI and these are typically areas with lot sizes of five acres and greater. Other important users in our small lot industrial subdivisions are small distribution facilities. Under the proposed SC zoning, these users must go a through long, drawn out CUP process, requiring a public hearing before the Planning Commission. This means that our buyer will not know for approximately a three- month period whether or not he can purchase a given piece of property. Many business owners may look for property outside of Temecula rather than face this delay. Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP CITY OF TEMECULA June 10, 1994 - Page 2 I IIIdl Idl--~'ijI''11 I I I The flexibility of the MSC zoning also encouraged small, entrepreneurial developers to construct speculative multi-purpose buildings to rent to the small businessman. The restrictions under the SC zoning will curtail much of this building in the future, reducing industrial/commercial growth and job creation. If the SC zoning must replace the MSC zoning, please consider allowing small, light manufacturing users and staff approval for small distribution facilities. BP vs. LI It would appear that these two zones will be very difficult to separate and that they should be combined. Those uses that are definitely unwanted should not be permitted or should require a conditional use permit. Temecula is appealing to manufacturers due to low land prices and a sizeable work force with lower wage requirements. Our industrial job growth in the next 10 years is most likely to come from manufacturers moving from San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Restrictive zoning and time delays for processing of CUP's will force these manufacturers to look at neighboring communities rather than Temecula. Zonin~ Requested for KemDer Properties We have listed below all of Kemper's industrial properties and have keyed them to the attached map. We have indicated the current zoning, the zoning shown in the General Plan (Consistency. Zoning) and the zoning requested for each of these properties. Winchester Meadows Current Zoning: RR Consistency Zoning: BP Requested Zoning: BP/LI Although a good portion of this park was sold to the School District for a new high school, it is likely the balance will be utilized for manufacturing. Winchester Highlands Current Zoning: MSC Consistency Zoning: BP Requested Zoning: BP/LI Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP CITY OF TEMECULA June 10, 1994 - Page 3 I IIIdlldl,~lll~ll I I This park contains 11 parcels averaging 5 acres in size. Kemper owns 5 parcels in this park, two of which have buildings in place. Manufacturers and distributors already located in this park are: (1) Channel Equipment Corp., manufacturers of equipment for the cable TV industry, (2) Moore Business Forms, distributor of office paper products, (3) coming soon, Tension Envelope, manufacturers of all types of envelopes. Corporate Park / Winchester Hills Current Zoning: IP Consistency Zoning: BP Requested Zoning: BP/LI Kemper owns 130 acres of freeway frontage, which is designated as industrial in the Winchester Hills Specific Plan. This area is the City of Temecula's best area for attracting large users. We are currently talking to two users regarding parcels of 20 acres or more in this area. One user is a hi-tech metal fabricator and the other is a distributor of food products. Between the two, these users would create in excess of 300 jobs. North Jefferson Business Park, Phase 4 Current Zoning: MSC Consistency Zoning: SC Requested Zoning: MSC or SC modified to allow some manufacturing and distribution uses without a CUP hearing This park contains 34 parcels averaging one acre in size. Kemper owns 26 parcels. Current users are a combination of retail and distribution. For reasons stated under our discussion of MSC vs. SC, we would like to retain much of the flexibility of the MSC zone. North Jefferson Business Park, Phase 3 Current Zoning: MSC Consistency Zoning: SC Requested Zoning: MSC or a combination of SC modified as above and BP/LI The tentative map for this park contains a mixture of small lots,averaging one acre in size along with larger lots, averaging five acres along Murrieta Creek. The zoning, Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP CITY OF TEMECULA June 10, 1994 - Page 4 I IIIdlkli~l."lll ! ! therefore, should be service com/nercial along Jefferson Avenue and manufacturing along Murrieta Creek. 6. Rancho California Business Park, Phases i & 2 Current Zoning: MSC Consistency Zoning: BP Requested Zoning: BP/LI This park contains 24 parcels averaging 5 acres in size. Kemper owns 7 parcels at the present time,= two of which contain buildings. The park is occupied by a combination of office and manufacturing users. The largest users are International Rectifier, manufacturers of hexfets and mosfets for the computer industry and Professional Hospital Supply, manufacturers of various products for the healthcare industry. We are also concerned about the Commercial/Industrial Districts section of the Temecula Development Code which you have drafted for submission to the Planning Commission. We are currently comparing this to our existing rights with regard to approved subdivisions in an effort to assess the impact of these new standards. The 40% lot coverage for the LI zone is an example of our concern. This coverage ratio is normally 40% to 50% in most Southern California jurisdictions and can be even higher in other states. This makes it even tougher to compete with other areas for manufacturing users. After you have had a chance to read our letter and consider our concerns and requests, I will call you to set up an appointment to discuss the consistency rezoning in greater detail. Developing and selling industrial properties is extremely important to both Kemper and the City. The more we work together to understand each other's problems, the more unlikely we are to make mistakes. Thank you again for your time and patience. Very truly yours,  ~~kATeE MANAGEMENT COMPANY Area Manager JH/clh/2~80 l~mper Real Estate Management Company C!HOEFFLED 6/6/94 City of Temecula Temecula, Ca RE: WINCHESTER CORRIDOR ZONE RE-ASSESSMENT Gentlemen: I am the owner of Parcel 13 at the Southwest corner of Winchester Road and Enterprise Circle South. It has come to my attention that you have proposed general plan Zoning to be BP for my property and the surrounding area. I request that my property be assigned SC zone for the following reasons: 1. It conforms with the existing tenant mix and design of my building 2. It aligns with the former zoning in place when I purchased this property and the use' for which my building was intended 3. It makes sense that SC uses will be desireable along the Winchester corridor as properties to the West further develop 4. We have MORE THAN sufficient office space in town. (The office portion of my project is running a 33% vacancy). Please respond as soon as possible, I have had potential tenants who are compatible with my current zoning now being "turned down" by City planners. We cannot afford to lose tenants! Sincerely, David A. Schoeffier RECEIVED JUL 0 '1 ks'e 42181 Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, CA 92590 · (909) 676-4550 · FAX (909) 676-2136 20, 1994 City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner Re: Winchester Corridor Proposed Change Dear Mr. Meyer: As the owners of Parcel ~4'on Winchester Road, We strongly object to any zone change for my property or the surrounding area. Our property should be in SC ~one for the following reasons: 1. Our vacancy rate at present is 40% with present zoning. 2. We bought the land and built the building for cor~nercial tenants not for office tenants. 3. Winchester Road is a major artery and should definitely be zoned SC. 4. Changing zoning would adversely affect even to a greater degree, our ability to keep our buildings leased. For the record we will oppose any changes that will inhibit our abiZity to lease space to tenants for whom the building was designed. Our building is not a Business Park building and cannot he altered to meet Business Park tenant requirements. cc: Kenneth Blackmore Terry BZackmore CRISTY VARELA WINCH s~STER CREEK PLAZA 422 N. JENKS CIRCLE CORONA, CALW. 91720 JOHN MEYER CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECUIA, CALW. 92590 RE: PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FOR SUB-AREA #2 RECEIVED JUII 3 0 19Fro k'd. I AM WRIT NG IHIS LE'I'fER TO YOU TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES FROM SC TO BP. FIRST OF ALL, I AM SERIOUSLY OPPOSED TO THIS CHANGE. WE BUILT OUR BUILDING, LOT #24, IN ACCORDANCE WITIi COUNTY ZONING AND ORDINANCES WHICH INCLUDED SEVERAL DIFFERENT USES. OUR DESIGN AND MARKETLNG STRATEGIES WERE DEVELOPED V~I'Fu SC IN SEVERAL OF MY TENANTS' LEASES ARE DUE TO EXPIRE AND I DO NOT EXPECT I'HICM TO RENEVe. AT PRESENT, I HAVE A 15% VACANCY WffH A MIXTURE OF OFFICE, DELI, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND RETAIL-SERVICE. IN OCTOBER, I ANTICIPATE A 60% VACANCY. Tins ZONE CHANGE WILL SERIOUSLY IMPACT MY ABILITY TO LEASE NEW SPACE. TEMECULA ALREADY HAS A DEPRESSED COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE MARKET. THIS CHANGE WILL FORCE BUSINESS OWNERS OUT OF BUSINESS. I KNOW I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SURVIVE. PLEASE CONSIDER TH.: DESIRES OF THE CURRENT LAND OWNERS IN SUB-AREA #2. SINCERELY, cc: RON ROBERTS, RON PARKS, PAT BIRDSALL, JEff STONE, GARY 'IHORNH]LL, JOHN IMEYER, J. SAL MUNOZ ,Tune 30, 1994 ~,; 'i'ann~LmA,, CA 92593-1154 Mr. John R. Mayer SR. PLANNER, PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 REz PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL ZONING Dear John: I recently artended theworkshop of May 24th regarding the proposed re-zoning of industrial properties, some of which are located within the geographic boundaries of Rancho California Business Center - I Association. Generally speaking, the Association area includes the parcels locatedwest of Jefferson Avenue to the Santa Gertrudis channel and thenwesterly to Murrieta Creek and southerly to approximately Enterprise Circle South as it intersects with Enterprise Circle West. Our Association includes a total of 26 separate parcels with strict covenants, conditions, and restrictions. The owners of property located in our Association are very concerned that the new zoning will behighly restrictive and result in an overall depreciation of property values because of inability to market to industrial type users. We believe these is an over-emphasis on the Business Park District designation and a lack of Service-Commercial designation. This is par'~iculamly true along Winchester Road west of Jefferson Avenue. As you may know, most of the properties presently developed along Winchester Road include quasi-retail, office, and service- commercial type occupants. Many of the current occupants would not be allowed in the same buildings under the Business Park designation~ therefore, we are requesting that the City designate those parcels that do front on Winchester Road as either~_ty-~ C~....~Tctal*~r'~i~~ial~ We are also concerned that a large w~mher of uses would require Conditional Use Permits. As an example, automobile parts/sales would require a C.U.P. in the light industrial zone. Unless there is a very compelling reason, we would highly encourage the City to allow those type of uses to go forward with a normal application and payment of the normal fees. Meyer, Proposed Industrial Zoning July 1, 1994 Page 2 We understand that the precise zoning on each and ever~ parcel is still up for discussion. As the process moves forward, we would request that the City keep in mind that we are in a competitive business with other cities for industrial and commercial users. Reasonable zoning and development regulations will go a long way toward ensuring that we remain competitive. We are available to meet with you and your staff to discuss any particular properties located within Rancho California Business Center - I Association. Thax~k you for your consideration. Very Truly Yours, RANCH0 CALIFORNIA BUSINESS CENTER - I ASSOCIATION Fred D. Grimes President FDGzJss ccz Martha Minkler 'Lloyd Mullins Mark Teller Ron Varela w~p5 ~\grim~s\ms~. IONAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES 348 East Olive Avenue / Suite L / Burbank, California 91502-123S / (818) 846-2188 / Fax (818) 846-6065 Winchester Group John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner, Planning Dept. City of Temecula 43174 Business Park dr. Temecula, Ca. 92590 re: Proposed Industrial Zoning Districts RECEIVED JUN 2 f t Dear Mr. Meyer, Winchester Group is the owner of Parcel 20 of Parcel Map 19582-2. The address is 41735 Winchester Rd., Temecula, Ca. The General Plan Land Use Exhibit dated 9/93 shows our property in the Sub Area #2. and is proposed for "Business Park" zoning district. The Winchester Group is against the Business Park designation. We see Winchester Rd. from Jefferson Ave. to Diaz Rd. as a logical location for "Community Commercial" as you show along Winchester Rd. on the east side of the 15 frwy. Winchester Rd. is a natural commercial route and should not be restricted to "Business Park". Respectfully, Mark Telfo~d Owner Rep. Winchester Group JONAN 348 East Olive Avenue / Suite L / Burbank, California 91502-123~ / (818) 846-2188 / Fax (818) 846-6065 MANAGEMENT SERVICES FI E C £1V E D Hr. 3ohn R. Meyer St. Planner, Planning Dept., CIty of Temecula 43[74 Business Park Dr. TemecuIa, Ca. 9259e Re: Proposed Zoning Changes Dear 3ohn, I have artended every city zoning workshop, representing ownership in commercial buildings all over the CIty of Temecula. Winchester Group very strongly opposes a zoning change along Winchester Road to 'Business Park'. Winchester Roa~ is a major commercial /retai] corridor whtch~ el~uld be zoned 'C~mmunity Commercial'. Winchester Group owns Parcel 2e of P.,. 19582-2. The property is located at 41735 Winchester Rd., Temecula, Ca. This is a 28,096 sg.ft. buildtrig with glass storefronts and great exposure to the heavy traffic flow along Winchester Rd. This building was designed for 'showroom' type bust~sses. which be]ong along Winchester Rd. The parking ratio would never allow converting the buildinQ to professions] office. Bust~sses locate at Wir~:hester Rd. for the exposure. Zf they want a large industrial building they are happy to go off Dtaz Rd. for far less rent. Along Winchester:Rd.,west of 3elfarson to the MufTieta creek there are two furniture showrooms, a tire sales and repair shop, a beauty shop. blue print and supply store, Carpet sales, and many more commercial / retail type businesses, Winchester GroUp _l~__hde that you make a change In zoning from -,.si..ss park' to'To, along ,inchest.r Rd. from 3effersan-to tft~'f'~r~ur~Y~F'e~: Do this as a change incorporated along with t~ City of Temecula sponsored General PZan Amendment that you promised at every meeting I artended with you. The 'Community Com~rcjal' zoning Nkes much more same. I have three tenants lined up to lease our empty building which would account for 8e% occupancy. They are Carpet ~les (showroom), Furniture Sales (showroom), and Electronics Sales (showroom). All of these make sense alprio Winchester Rd. and all of them blouId be denied under the 'Bus~ness Park' zoning! Ue belong to the Rancho California Business Center -i Association which includes all the properties along Winchester Rd. All of our property owner members a.crree as a whole with our view. Please understand and act in our favor-for the benfit Of a11. Respectfuily, WINCHESTER GROUP JONAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES 348 East Olive Avenue / Suite L / Burbank, California 91502-12j5 / (818) 846-2188 / Fax (818) 846-6065 Mr. 3ohn R. Meyer ST. Planner, Plannlnq Dept., 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92590 City of Temecula JUL 1,5 C IY OF TET.'JECULA Re: Proposed Zoning Changes Dear 3ohn, Winchester Group very strongly opposes a zoning change aZong Winchester Road from 3efferson to the Murrieta creek to "Business Park" proposed by the City Planning staff. We also oppose planners using the "draft' of the proposal to dictate approvals and denials of occupancies Tight now! Winchester Group owns Parcel 20 of P.M. 17582-2. The property is located at 41735 Winchester Rd,, Temecula, Ca. This is a 28~000 sq.ft. building with glass storefronts and great exposure to the heavy traffic flow along Winchester Road, The property was built under MSC zoning rules and to accommodate those types of uses, To constrict the uses from that zoning substantial]y decreases the property value, because of the changed requirements in parking and the confusion in the marketinq, because tenants withdraw and realtors withdraw from marketing the property. The parking ratio would never allow converting the building to professional office. Businesses locate at Winchester Rd. for the exposure. If they want a large industrial building they are happy to go off Di'az Rd. for far less rent. Winchester Group demands that you "grandfather' this property with Manufacturing Service Commercial zoning that it was built for, or at the minimum, include this property in the Community Commercial or Service Commercial designations of the new plan and provide for a Conditional Use Permit for the remaining uses of the old MSC designation. The property must be used in the context for what it was constructed for. It is not to the benefit of the City of Temecula to damage the values of pT'operty and cause property owners loss of value on their property. That can impinge even on the financing of the property. You must also realize that this area has a strong property owners association that is highly concerned with the general well being of the surrounding property. I can vouch for that since we recently had to spend considerable money to get the property to conform to POA standards while keeping with the City standards. Mr. John R. Meyer St. Planner, Planning Dept. page 2 of 2 Along Winchester Road between 3efferson Ave. and the MufTieta creek there are furniture stores, a tire shop, carpet sales, a beauty shop, blue print shop and supplies store, and many other commercial / retail type uses. Winchester Group has three tenants lined up to lease our empty bui]dine which would account for 801 occupancy, They are Carpet Sales (showroom), Furniture Sales (showroom), and Electronics Sales (showroom). All of these make sence along Winchester Rd. and all of them would be denied under the 'Business Park' zoning! We belono to the Rancho California Business Center -1 Association which includes all the properties aIono Winchester Rd. A1] of our property owner members agree as a whole with our view. C ...... or makes a lot more sence ai~'~Win~hester Road than Business Park. Please incorporate the revisions into the City sponsored General Plan Amendment. Understand and act in ours and your benefit and the benefit of all when a prospective tenant wants to )ocate in our facility. Respectfully, Mark Telford : Winchester Group cc: Dennis Chiniaeff Larry Markham wincity.letter {8181 846-21~,t~ [8181 846-6065 (909) 694-0689 FAX {909~ 676-2730 January 27, JONAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES 1995 : : 348 East Olive Avenue / Suite L / Burbank. CA 91502-1287 28481 Rancho Calif. Rd. / Suite 204A / Temecula. CA 92590 to: Temecula City Councel Temecula Planning Commission re: Draft Development Code Input January 30, 1995 Meeting Agenda Item #2 Mr. Mayor, City Councel Members, And Planning Commission, I Represent Ownership of the Winchester Group whichnowns Parcel 20, Parcel Map 19582-2, at 41735 Winchester Rd., Temecula which is located between the Enterprise Circle North Loop. Existing is a 28,000 sq. ft. commercial building with store front glass and twenty-four foot clear inside height. The building was built under the old MSC Zoning which was a mixed use "Manufacturing Service Commercial" designation and designed for retail showroom type users with Winchester Rd. exposure. Winchester Group bought the building nearly a year ago and started marketing the empty building. We have worked with a Carpet Store, an Electronics Store, and two Furniture Stores which all were denied ~ccupancy under the B.P. development code designation] "Business Park" designation is the most restrictive in the Draft Development Code. B.P. limits us to industrial users that do not have much truck traffic. There is not enough parking to convert to office space. Industrial users are more concerned with low rent then exposure on a main highway. Due to the Draft Development Code designation "B.P." Winchester Group has lost perspective tenants and lower rates to market to lower rate type uses which is costing Winchester Group a lot of money. To this day the building remains 100% vacant. We donated the use of the building for the Business Showcase and 2nd Annual great Auction. Winchester Group, with the backing of the Business Park Association demand that you bring about a change in the Development Code designation from "Business Park" to "Service Commercial" for Winchester Road between the Enterprise Circle North loop (Enterprise Circle North to Diaz Rd.). "Service Commercial" is more in line with the existing and requested uses. Existing uses along Winchester Rd. between Enterprise Circle North and Diaz Rd. are a Bank, a Sandwich Shop, two Furniture Stores, 2 Computer Stores, a Tire Shop, a Pet Clinic, a Blue Print Shop, and other commercial retail type uses. Please make a change that makes practical sense instead of a radical change of uses ........ change from B.P. to S.C. 'ark Telford inchester Group. 2 CI~CL~ NOR"H-I \ MAP NOT TO SCAL! Vicinity. Map P BP BP BP BP BP BP CC CC 'v <, .OS .H RH M H (818) 846-2188 FAX (818) 846-6065 (909) 694-0689 FAX (909) 676-2730 March 30, 1995 JONAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES John Meyer, Senior Planner Temecula Planning Dept. 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92590 re: Proposed Development Code 348 East Olive Avenue / Suite L / Burbank, CA 91502-1287 28481 Rancho Calif. Rd. / Suite 204A / Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Mayer and Planning Commission, I am writing to in the capacity of Owner Representitive for Winchester Group. Winchester Group owns a 27,940 sq.ft. building at 41735 Winchester Road, Temecula. The property is located along Winchester Road between the Enterprise Circle loop. In the last year we have negotiated leases with a furniture store, flooring store, electronics store, a major brand paint store, and golf store. All of these uses are ideal of the Winchester corridor. This is where showroom type stores want the drive by exposure. All of these uses were turned down by City of Temecula Planning Dept. because of the "Business Park" zoning put upon that area. What the City is telling the users and property owners of Temecula by zoning Winchester Road as "Business Park" is that the City wants to see Manufacturers and Industrial along with Office buildings along ~e Winchester Road corridor. This is negative to the "best use" of the properties and further burdens the marketing of the properties. The properties along Winchester Road and Enterprise Circle are almost all built out under the county "Manufacture / Service Commercial" (MSC) zoning and most are built to lure retail / commercial users. Almost all existing buildings and uses would not fit into the Business Park concept. Grandfathering the uses is nothing more than a slow death. No expansion and once replaced with another type use you can not go back to the original use. You .end up with a building that cost too much to operate with industrial users paying bottom dollar for showroom quality space for rent. Buildings with limited parking can not be converted to Office buildings! Property Owners and existing users along Winchester Road demand that Business Park zone be replaced with a zoning that makes more sense .... "Service Commercial". Service Commercial zone should start at Enterprise Circle just west of Jefferson and continue west to the "Open Space" zone at the Murrieta creek. Please make the change from Business Park to Service Commercial in the city sponsored General Plan Amendment. This proposal is not one property owner grandstanding! The entire Rancho California Business Center 1 Association is against the Business Park zone and for the Service Commercial zone. It is the will of the area majority and will benefit the property owners, tenants, and City revenues. Respectfully, Mark Telford Owner Rep. Winchester Group BP P BP OS M BP BP .f BP (. P (' BP M p . BP M BP CC 0 BP NC ~l i M BP BP OS CC CC H ~p.> H BP BP 4 RECE. WT D FOLI FAMILY TRUST VICTOR & BILLIE FOLI, 2927 DOS LOMAS FALLBROOK. CA. 92028 TRUSTEES August 28, 1994 John R. Meyer. AICP Planning Dept. City of Temeoula ~317~ Business Park Temecula. CA. 92590 Drive ~1625 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH TEMEMCULA Parcel 18 of Parcel Map 19582-1 Dear Mr. Meyer. Thank you again for the time you spent with us in July. This meeting helped us understand the Interim Plan adopted by the County in 1989. the General plan of 1991. You also explained to us the General Pland and Map of Land Use adopted November 1993 by the City of Temecuia. You brought to our attention that the above referenced property is in an area that has been designated f~r a zoning change to BUSINESS PARK OR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. (A ZONING THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RETAIL SALES!) This zoning change would drastically affect the value of this property. as it was built and designed in 1986 for Retail/Showroom tenants. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS LETTER A REQUEST TO CONSIDER ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY REMAIN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. WE ALSO REQUEST THAT WE BE PUT ON YOUR MAILING LIST FOR ALL NOTICES OF MEETINGS PERTAINING TO ZONING CHANGES IN TEMECULA. tot & Bill" c ie Foil FIR \N('II() Senior lanne -:" .. ;:. :': ':: . ~..~'.. ' y': ': <.;:, ' -. , .- '" ~, - .. .. Temecula, C~;' 92590':'.'. 1:.::~':'-"1: .~'Z'X7~;~*t' :"' ':V:' ": ":' :' '.- ' '~?- ".- -'~* '-' . .' - · - ,. it,,'.- .::.,-:- :,r-':. -:-~.~>.:"..~.~:~;,'}i;/'?,':.%:~- .,~ .' ..'..t'- .,::- ~ . - - ~% '. ---- ,-.. ?,-.--.~ :.-:~-,.:: ,..:,-. < '~..: :~.:. :~ '._ .>.:;. ,' Dear Mr. Meyer: ' "': I am the owner of the building located on Lot ~0 of Parcel ' Map 19582-1 (41670 Winchester Road).. I-have my animal hospital " in one half of ~he building and the other half has ~en lease~ to a tire store/auto repair shop for the last several years. - I urge you ~o ~esignate my lot and the Others in our park to be zoned service commercial. This desi~ation would allow us to continue in the retail business pursuits-we anticipated when we purchased these lots. ~e size of the~ lots {1 acre +/-), . and their location lends them more to this use than those in _ the proposed development code designation of BP. Our rigid CC & R's and our active association will insure attractive buildings and reasonable uses. Please support the vast majority of property owners in our park and designate - our lots SC. ' ' ' -" '~.' "'r: Thank you. Warren T. Whalen, D.V.M. WTW: sds 'Coop Properties March 30, 1995 Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner, CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92590 Dear John: I own lots 10, 17, and 21 in the Rancho California Business Center 1. I would like to add my voice to the others in our association in requesting a Service Commercial Designation for these lots in the new development code. The "SC" zoning re- presents the current use of many of the parcels and the best future use of the vacant parcels. The small size of the parcels (1 acre) does not lend itself to the type of development typically called for in "BP". The service commercial would also allow for small businesses to serve the industrial parks developing on the west side of the freeway and thus reduce the traffic on the freeway overpasses. Many of the existing buildings were built as commercial buildings and are not suitable for BP use and I think that conformity of the neighborhood would be enhanced by the SC designation. We have a very active association with strong CC & R's that will ensure quality development on these parcels. The SC will encourage development that will be economically feasible and'allow the property owners to be successful tax paying and sales tax generating members of the community. Thank you for your consideration. Yours t/;uly /-/~7~ ' 41755 Rider %%'ay · Temecula, CA 92590 · (909) 676-3301 · Fax (909) 699-3770 FOLI FAMILY TRUST VICTOR & BILLIE FOLI 2927 DOS LOMAS FALLBROOK? CA. 92028 johr-, R. Mevep. AICP ]e.'viecu.] ~,. 5a. 9259<, RECEIVED JAN 0 9 1995 Ans'd ~,=~:::~::I !n: ewnePs:n~p of the pz"opeFt>' ~n question. WE ARE OWNEF.% ElF 'tHE :,':::C=EF , c~rr n= COURSE. ARE VITALLY CONCEF'N~m THAT WE RETAIN THE ZONlr,JE :] A :: EEI 7: i C::AT i ']N OF COMMUN t T~ COMMERC I AL. 1:: 'r~;E. 3::!:Z At j, OF'F:'CiSi:TIE'!N TO THIS: ZONING FOR' THIS PROF'ERTY? .: !:": ::!'~;<'.ge':~: in 'I'e,Ti,V~EL'.] _e.. Wj. i ! 'yOU please check to see that we '!-': LEVErAND INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. "~ECEiVED': Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner ~,= City of Temecula' 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Califo~-nia 92590-3606 Zoning Workshop ~ 28011 and 28007 Front Street, Temecula APN: 921-060-018 Dear Mr. Meyer: I artended your workshop on May 23, 1994, regarding sub-area two in reference to the first draft of the industrial zoning district. I appreciate being notified of the workshop; the meeting was very informative. I represent the owners of the above mentioned property. As you know, we have converted 40% of this building into a commercial/retail usage. This was completed approximately one year ago; we made significant alterations to the building giving it a retail look (i.e. windows, drop ceilings, etc.). Shortly thereafter=we obtained ToolMart and Hometronics as commercial retail tenants. Concurrently, we shrunk the square footage of the industrial user (Sky Traker of America) who continues to occupy 60% (14,400 sq.ft.) of the building. Presently, we plan to maintain the existing tenants until such time that it is economically feasible to convert the industrial user ('STA) into several retail/commercial users. It is our general goal to make use of this highly visible and well located commercial site into a 100% commercial/retail use. Based on the schemata presented at your workshop, it is our understanding that will designate our subject property We concur with the zoning desi~nation of Community Commercial and the schedule of Permitted Uses as provided for under Table 9.08 (Draft). In addition to the designation schedule we recommend that the commercial usages requiring freeway exposure be included in the Community Commercial schedule. More specifically, additional usages allowed would be recreational vehicle sales, wholesale bakery, feed and grain (indoor), and motorcycle sales and services. 28465 Front Street, Suite 321 Temecula, Califomia 92590 · (909) 676-4148 Fax (909) 699 ~.~.54 As a matter of record, it should clearly be understood that our present usages, including STA (the industrial user) will' remain approved usages regardless of any zone cban~es. He thank 7ou in advance for Four cooperation. Nell M. Cleveland NMC/tlb cc: Jim Tudor myeuse2 ASSOCJA~ON MANAGEME~ff 28481 RANCHO CALtF RD SUITE 10h TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 925~0 PH: (909) 67(:~:)031 FAX: (909) 676~154 Equity MANAGEMENT John Meyer City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED JL L-2 0 ks'i, .... SUBJECT: Rancon Commerce Center Phases 2, 3 & 4 Association Dear John: : Thank you very much for meeting with me and discussing the proposed zone useages within Rancon Commerce Center Phases 2, 3 & 4 Association. As you are well aware, the Association has numerous useages within the Association. The present proposed zoneage for the Association would preclude a DHmber of those uses. During our discussion, both at the open workshop meetings and a private meeting held at City Hall, I believe there is some concurrence that a new zone designation be considered by the City of Temecula. The new zoning designation would be similar to the County's MSC designation without the commercial capabilities or use. I believe the quasi-MSC designation would allow the continued growth within Rancon Commerce Center Phases 2, 3 & 4 without precluding existing useages. Attached, and made a part of this letter, is a recap of the useages and/or proposed zoneage as it applies to the individual parcels within our Association. As you can see, the proposed zoneage designation for present useage encompasses the entire spectrum of proposed zoneage designations. The new proposed MSC, without the commercial zoneage designation, would allow the majority of the existing useages to remain. The Board of Directors believes it is incumbent upon the City of Temecula to address the zoneage designations with an eye towards those people who have invested within the City of Temecula under the old MSC county designation. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~ Olhasso On Behalf of the Board JBO: db Enclosure CC: NM File Corrs\City CORRS\NISC\1994\ZQtlE.RCC ~lllCO! C[nfeg,,P~ ~ kit~B*"N IX, Xll, · .~C3~ OF TJBF~B/XO!I~B Tract: PereeL Tract: 161~ 1 3 4 6 ? 8 10 11 13 15 17 ~0 71 23 ~5 Tract: 16178-3 1 5 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 16178 16178-2 16178-3 Prese~ usesee Furniture FLoor Covering Notorcycte Sales/Service Furniture/CLothing (used) Hini Storage Office Office Fire Statio~ Office Office Office Tile Sales Stereo/Audio Repairs Pet Store clothing (used) Church church Garden Supplies Furniture vacant Building FLoor Covering Church Beauty Shop Auto Leasing/Auto Parts Auto Repairs (Not in Association) Vacant Land Vacant Land Vacant Land Auto Repair Auto Repair Office/iarehouse Office/Marehouse Office/Warehotse Office Auto Repair Auto Repair Church Church TV Repairs Sign Shop I I Nutti- Pr'qNaed Tenlnt Zanege Buildings $C SC LI PO,SP PO,BP (ANY) PO,BP PO,BP PO,BP SC SC SC SC,LI / LI I~NCON CO1OIERCE CENTER PID, BEB II~ RECAP OF UBEB/2ONEB P~E 2 : IV I~,BBOCXI~TION Tract: 16178-2 1 3 7 11 13 present Usage Church/Tel Ctothtng/Apptience/Day Care/Contractor Erecttonics Wareh~e Erecttonics t~arehouse/Party RentaLs Cormtruction Equipment Nachine Shop Auto Repaip Auto Repair Auto Repair Vacant BuiLding Vacant BuiLding Vacant BuiLding Vacant BuiLding propoeed PO (CUP) $C,PO#BP,LI LI L! SC L] L! SC,LI SC,LZ $C,L! Rutti - Tenm~t BuiLdings \ASSOC\CHARTS\USEZQNES.RCC HARRIlqGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER RECEIVED ims'e. VIA U · S · I~IL XND FACSZHILE (909-694-6477) CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive .. Temecula, California 92590~ Attention: Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner, Planning Department Re: Property at 27941 Front Street Temecula Development Code, General Plan Dear Mr. Meyer: This letter is written to you as requested following my discussions with you at the Workshop held on May 23, 1994 for Sub-. Area No. 2 at the Temecula Community Recreation Center. First.of all, I wish to thank you for "listening". is not an easy task to do so. It I have previouely talked with you on the telephone and corresponded with you under dates of March 16 and March 23, 1994 with respect to the above-referenced Property. In order to facilitate action upon my requests contained herein, I will briefly describe the Property at 27941 Front Street as related in my previous telephone conversations and correspondence as follows: My family has owned the Property at 27941 Front Street for more than 20 years. The Property is identified in the Assessor's records as Assessment Parcel Nos. 921050021-6, 921050015-1, and 921050014-0, and consists of four legal lots; Lots 18 and 19 of Tract 3751, and Lots 14 and 15 of Tract 3841 (collectively the "Property"). The Property is under lease to the Borg Warner Corporation, subleased to BW/IP International, Inc. which vacated the premises; the remaining term of the HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER Mr. John Meyer CITY OF TEMECULA May 26, 1994 Page 2 lease/sublease is approximately four and one-half years. The improvements to the Proper~y consist of an approximate 28,000 square air-conditioned concrete tilt-up building with a concrete block wall enclosing a concrete surfaced rear yard area (the "rear area"), and an approximate 12,000 square foot air-conditioned office/showroom area (the "front area") fronting on Front Street. A large paved parking lot is located on Lots 14 and a portion of 15. The total land area of the Proper~y is 227,122 square feet. The Property fronts on Front Street and extends the entire block between Calle Cortez Street and Los Haciendas Street. The Property has excellent unobstructed freeway visibility and is between the two 1-15 freeway "on and off" ramps of Winchester Road and Rancho California Road. The rear portion has been subleased to Endar Corp. for the manufacture, storage and distribution of florasense products. I have again reviewed the draft Development Code (dated March 30, 1994) with the Schedule of Permitted Uses (dated April 12, 1994) and a portion of the City of Temecula Land Use Element Draft (dated December 6, 1993). I (as well as most others expressing their views at the Workshop) feel that while the overall purpose is commendable, the draft Development Code and the Schedule of Uses is overly complicated and restrictive. With respect to the subject Property at 27941 Front Street, the General Plan designation of Business Park is not workable. The draft Development Code designation of BP or Business- Park is not workable and is in fact the worst possible designation. Such designation neither conforms to th~ existing improvements and use nor any rea}istic future development or use for the Property. You indicated at the Workshop that the City of Temecula would be amending the General Plan to correct errors which had become apparent upon closer examination of certain properties. As I have stated to you, I unfortunately had no notice of the various proceedings leading to the adoption of the General Plan. I respectfully request that the City of Temecula proceed to amend as soon as possible the designation for the subject Property at 27941 Front Street from Business Park ("BP") to Service Commercial~ ("SC")~. The Service Commercial designation should permit the existing improvements to be put to some economic use. Without the ability to use the Property.for the purposes set forth under the Service Commercial designatioD, I and all of the realtors HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER Mr. John Meyer CITY OF TEMECULA May 26, 1994 Page 3 that I have spoken to in the Temecula area believe it will be extremely difficult to put the existing improvements to any use. In the interim, pending the amendment of the General Plan for the Property to Service Commercial, I would like the cooperation of the City to enable the vacant portion of the Property to be leased for such purposes as are permitted for Service Commercial. I have found from experience that vacant properties become a rather costly, unattractive nuisance and I wish to avoid the same. · Please advise me as to any further information or documentation which you require at this time and as to when I might expect a decision to include in the City of Temecula's amendments to the General Plan the Property to change its designation from Business Park ("BP") to Service Commercial ("SC") and what the timetable with respect to the same might be. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, EBD:tml cc: Robert Browning BW/IP INTERNATIONAL EBDTMLLT,016 VI~ F~CSINILE & U.S. LAW OFFIC{iS HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER September 28, 1994 Y~IL (909-694-6477) 8EP 3 0 ]394"' John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Property at 27941 Front Street Temecula Development Co., General Plant Dear Mr. Meyer: This letter is in furtherance of our several telephone conversations and my correspondence with you dated May 26, 1994 in which I respectfully requested that the City of Temecula proceed to amend as soon as possible the designation for the subject property at 27941 Front Street from Business Park ("BP") to Service Commercial ("SC"). Would. you kindly advise as to the status of the foregoing. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, ELI B. DUBROW EBD:hXw EBDHXWLT.012 BeN~Fi, BW/IP International, Inc. Sell 27455 Temecula Telephone 909 676 5662 RECEIVED June 21, 1994 JUN2 219911 Mr. John Meyer, Sr. Planner Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Property at 27941 Front Street Temecula Development Code, General Play Dear Mr. Meyer: I would like to thank you for the interest and support you have shown to myself and BW/IP concerning the usage of the above referenced property. I am requesting that the City of Temecula amend the General Plan designation of Business Park (BP) to Service Con~nercial (SC) on the above property. As you are well aware BW/IP moved from the Front Street address to our present location almost two years ago and have been in the process of subleasing that facility. The design of the building includes 12,000 square feet of office/retail space and 27,000 square feet of warehouse/manufacturing space. The manufacturing/warehouse space has been leased until August 1998. The office facility facing Front Street and 1-15 is perfect for a retail operation however the present "BP" designation prevents that type of use. This portion of that facility remains vacant at this time. BW/IP has been a major employer in this area for over 20 years and plans on remaining here for the foreseeable future. Your assistance and cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated by this corporation and the owner of the property. Finance Manager ,\ cc: Eli Dubrow, Esq. FORTNER HARDWARE CO !' , TEMECULA, CALIFO, 28115 Del Rio Rd. · 92390 714/676-5609 ~.r'.,.t., ,,,' .... ~',,~ Planning Department 43174 Business park Dr. Temecula, Ca 92590 ATTN: John Meyer RECEIVED AU6 18 Bg~ ,is'i__ ...... Dear John, Enclosed please find copy of a letter mailed to Larry Markham in March of this year showing the current building and land uses from the southwest corner of Front St. and Del Rio Rd. and along the west side of De1 Rio Rd. from that point. It appears to me that the "S.C. Zoning" best fits the current & future uses of these properties. s Truly, William E. Fortner [- TNER HARDWARE CO .* ,;-,.. TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA . 28115 Del Rio Rd., 92390 714/676-5609 Markham & Associates 41750 Winchester Rd. Temecula, Ca 92590 tN ATTN: Larry Markham Per our conversation March 23, 1994 please find a list of tenants. At 28121-31 Front St. we have six tenants. 1, MK Battery -- Battery Sales 2. PSL Electric -- Auto Related Electronic Repairs 3. Straightline Glass -- Glass & Mirror Sales & Repair 4. Best German Auto ~epair -- Auto Repair 5. Ronnies Cooling -- Radiator & Air-Conditioning Repair 6. Diam~nd Garage Door -- Garage & Overhead Door Sales & Repair Next property to the North at 28115 De1 Rio Rd. we have Forther True Value Hardware and in a smaller building a "New & Used Misc. Store" with a Dog & Cat Groomer occupying the rear 500 square feet. North o~ Fortnet Hardware we own a 30,000 square foot lot occupied by Freedom Materials, they sell sand gravel and rock etc. and GKN Rentals, an equipment rentai yard. North of GKN Rentals is a sales & storage lot that belongs to Temecula Valley Pipe & Supply. These properties seem destined for this type or similar use. Hopefully we can find a "zoning" that will be in harmony with the current usages of these properties. William E. Forther · 43174 Business pa'rk"'Dr ~:~i~!:!~:{:!:.:~-. '--' :: ~ ~' ~: ::~:~ot 020{ -' cwlle ~co~t:s E~d: :~?-~ ~ .... ~. -:- - :~: f :. .~ ~, Lot J16 ~ LM Hac~das' R0ad~:::'~{~::' Location: South ~est ~uad~ant o~ Front Street & Calla Carfez Road - north at creek · -' 22,55~ s~ua~e feet - concrete block DESCRIPTION: Location: DESCRIPTION: Location: 10'* 10' ground level loading doors 16'-20' building clear height Lot ~3 - Del Rio Road 1.43 acres of land asphalt improved parking lot South East quadrant of Del Rio Road & Calla Cortez Road - north of creek Directly West of 27999 Front Street Lot ~20 -Calle Cortez Road 1.10 acres of vacant land North West quadrant of Front Street & Calle Cortez Road Lot el6 - Las Haciendas Road 1.40 acres of vacant land South West quadrant of Front Street & Las Haciendas Road DESCRIPTION: Location: ORIGINIs, L ZONING: N~I GENEI~L PLMI ZONE: ND1 PROPOSED CITY ZONING: LIOIIT INDUSTRI~/SERVICE CO!4XERCI/~L , CONNUNITY COI~I~RCIaT./S~RVICE CONNERCIax- ~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SERVICE CO!!a~CI~L OUR TOTI~L RECallENDED ZONING: 3ohn Meyer, Aft uaes Lhe Schedule 'of Permitted Uses' CC: CARLOS H. ALVAREZ ROBERT M. ALVAREZ Sincerely, RI~MA~D M. ALV~Z ALVAP~Z PROPElSTIES 27999 Front Street Temeoula, CA 92590 j If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 676-5967. Based on the mix of our current tenants and our proposed usage for our vacant lots, it is evident that the most logical and only zoning for our area would be Service Commercial. Ergo, we feel it is absolutely imperative for the area be zoned 8ERVIC~ C~CIaL. to construct. This will be a source of new construction for the city and consequently jobs for the local residents. We would bid the construction ourselves, utilizing our local trade exclusively and outside sources only where absolutely necessary. If the zoning was changed to Light Industrial or Community Commercial, the development would be shelved. which contrasted. the different~'d~st~iCtS for tide area,' we noticed that The Rancho Army Navy Store and p~evious Roger Dunn Golf Sh~p .are. general merchandise retail stores,~.wMch ~e allowed ~der Service Co~ercial. AdditionallI,'=it is i~erative that ~e'zo~n~ at 27999 Front Street corresponds ~o the lot on Del ~o aoadj TheIdr~veway ~or the R~cho A~I Navy Store b~lding will be utilized as'th~ entrIwaI for the development ~ on Del R~o Road. ;~. In ~act, it wi I 1 ' be d~igned accordingly as an ext~sion o~ the 27999 Front Street building. ' The project which we propose ~or the lots at Las Haciendas ~d Calle Cortez are also best served bl ~e Se~ice C~rcial Zone. The project was previousl~ allowed b~ the cit~ ~d co~t~,' as a 36,000 square ~oot ~xed ~e project containing reta~l, o~ice ~d light fabrication. Service Co~erc~al is the only district which would our project ~easible. Should the ~age be adopted as Service Co~ercial we anticipate construction within 1995 which will take aro~d 9 mont~ RANCHO CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE ("M/I) 676~029 DONALD L. MARTIN PATR|CIA $. MARTIN MAILING ADDRESS 12122 WOODLAWN AVE. · ANTA ANAo CALIFORNIA City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business l~ark Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attn: Mr. John R. Meyer Subject: Property Use Designations under the General Plan and Pro- posed Zone restrictions. Re: 28404 Felix Valdez, Temecula, C-]jfornia Lot 6 Tract 12549 Rancho California Industrial Park II AP # 921-280-006-4 As you know, the referenced property was designated Profes- sional Office {PO) under the general plan, although the County Desig- nation and zone were 'MSC'. This PO designation is very obviously inappropriate for the past, present, and future {at least the next thirty to fifty years) use of the property. The property owners were asked to recommend a new designa- tion from those in the General Plan. Since the General Plan is indeed eGeneral', we were provided the very specific draft Zoning schedules which are planned for the various designations. Upon review it was clear that none of the draft schedules were acceptable to most of the parcels. Although some changes have been made in the draft schedules, they wilt still present a significant hardship to most of the property owners. As a result, there has been no consensus among the owners to present to the City. After a careful review of the draft sche. dules, I wo..uJdI~like request ~(or more correctly, the ~eaet unsui~b]e) dee~nation, The SC designation and associated draft schedules allow the present use of the property to continue. Some prior uses would not be allowed, and this restricts the potential uses in the future. MEMBER BUNKIST GROWERS MEMBER CALAVO GROWERS Please consider this letter a formal request to the City of Temecula to implement the change of use desi$~nation to Service Commer- cial. It is imperative that any change in use designation specifical- ly authorizes continuation of the present uses and sireliar or deriva- tive uses on a permanent basis. This authorization must include the type of use and the Floor Area Ratio presently existing. This FAR was consistent with the county zone requirements when the present tenant occupied the property, and falls near the low end of the FAR range listed for SC zones. It apparently exceeds the very low Target FAR by a small amount -- depending on the de*~ls of how it is calculated. Please advise me if any other action is necessary on my part. Yours truly, Donald L0 Martin 12132 Woodlawn Ave., .qante Aria, California 92705 Tel: (714) 544-2339 (714) 742-2008 0ellular (909) 676-5029 Week ends MEYER064 R .CF, IVED JUL 12 19M, CITY OF TEMECU City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, OaBfornia 92590 Attn: Mr. John R. Meyer, Senior Planner Subject: Draft Development Code Attached to this letter is a request for a Use Designation change for Lot 6 Tract 12549 of the Rancho California Industrial Park II. Also attached is a set of listings of the draft Devel- opment Code which would be applied to the various Use Designa- tions. The data has been sorted by Use Designation and provides a more convenient way to see what can and can not be done in a given area. I hope this is of some use -- and I have included a copy of the data on a disk for use by anyone familiar with dBASE files. : As I have discussed before, I believe there is a major flaw in the way this zoning is being approached - in that it appears to start with the lowest possible level of detail and leaves it to the property owner to try to discern any broader rationale for the placement of these very specific uses. Examples of uses which I believe should be described as simply examples of a much broader classification are: Art Supply Stores Bookstores Camera Shop (saies/minor repairs) Florist Shop Glass and Mirrors~ Retail Sales Hobby Supply Shop Ice Cream Parlor Photographic Studio Watch Repair -- and many more --- These all tend to be relatively small businesses~ requiring minimal utility services, and generating moderate traffic. In fact, I would suggest that a much better classification system would be based on such physical parameters as maximum space required~ utility service demands per unit area~ range of custom- er traffic generated, range of supplier traffic generated, emis~ sions of all kinds (including noise), external supply storage requirements, and s~m~l~r items. I fail to see why it should be necessary to specifica~y list Hobby Supply Shops, Art Supply Stores, Camera Shop, and Watch Repair -- perhaps Art is a Hobby! With the present approach, you have many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of detailed uses to list. Where are the jewelry stores, ~opy Centers, Music Stores, Ski Shops, Golf Shops, etc., etc., etc.? The property owners, tenants, and the general public, should have the maximum amount of freedom possible to determine what uses are acceptable. Only when a use would have a significant detrimental impact of the general class desired should. it be prohibited. This is especially true where the property has been developed before the excessively restrictive regulations are to be imposed. Undeveloped land, with the concurrence (or compensation) of the owners can impose almost any restrictions desired. That is often done with CC&R's. If you provide me with updates to the Development Code as is approaches adoption, I wili update the computer file. Your truly, Donald L. Martin MEY06304 28377 Felix Valdez Ave. Temecula, CA 92590 676-2233 RECEIVED ~ay 8, ~995 Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92590 Attn: John Meyers- Sr. Planner Dear John; This letter is to notify you that I will require a Light Industrial (LI) zoning on my commercial property, located at 28377 Felix Valdez Ave. I operate a Homeowner/Contractor rental equipment business at this location. I purchased this lot in 1980, from KACOR Development and the whole Phase II Industrial Park was zoned Manufacturing One (M1). This lot zoning was proper to place an equipment rental yard with outside storage. We constructed a building mid-1985 and moved our equipment rental business from a lease space into our new facilities that year, and our equipment rental business has continued at this location to date. I believe Riverside County changed the zoning from M1 to MSC (Manufacturing Service Commercial) in 1987. This zoning was still proper for an equipment rental yard. I firmly believe it is only proper that this parcel continues with the proper zoning of Light Industrial'(LI). This LI zoning is what the planning department's Matrix of Zoning show is the only permitted zoning for an equipment rental (business with outside storage). This facility was designed and built with the specific needs of an equipment rental business, and will continue in that use. It is imperative that this parcel retains its proper zoning of Light Industrial (LI). I purchased this lot with sole purpose of a site for an equipment rental business and that is the only purpose that it has been used for. The zoning has been consistent with this use for all the past years and should be in the future. This also would be consistent with proposed (LI) zoning of the two parcels (the Alvarez Properties) to the immediate north of my property. Also the property to the immediate west also has proposed (LI) zoning. This property is owned by Calavo, an avocado packing and distribution facility. The Calavo facility also continues just south of my property. The property immediately south of my property is occupied by an electrical wholesale supply distributor, Mission Electric. The owner of the electrical supply company is also a part owner in the building. Although, your proposed zoning, for the Mission Electric building, is for Service Commercial (SC), your zoning matrix shows the more appropriate zoning should be LI, because this type of business is more in line with a pl-m~ing supply yard or a distribution facility. Also the entire industrial park area west of my property has a proposed LI zoning. My requirement for a LI zoning is consistent with the property around and to the western area of my property, also, plus the fact my property has had the consistent use as an equipment'rental facility and has had the proper permitted zoning entirely in the past. These facts necessitate a LI zoning for my property. I am sure you will come to the same conclusion. If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact me. Sincerely, iRECi smxoa PLAI(HIHO DIPARTMEHT CZT[ OF T c Ca 92590 "~*· ~ V IV ~P~:-~8545 ~eli/~ ,Vl]d~'. ' ~elixUValdes ' : me of, ,vinO~t~a~a:~: l~li'i~ a ~= Roads'.-:~- DIS~IPIION:'4 sin~l~ St'oEl'?~lti-t~a~t· i~d~trial buildings" ~ - 40,784 square f~at";:~ooncr~te kilt-up eonstruotion':;: 10' 12, gro~d level:.loading doors ' 2 parking stalls per 1,000 sf ~,t~pical industrtal;~, 16 ' -22 ' bull dine cl ear height - typical industrial~:~-.~ The projects were built in 1984' and 1986 to acCoaxnodste the th~'~2~.~,~ current asC zoning, but spect~ically desired ~o~ industrial ~a~e..,' , .. - . PROFESSION~ OFFICE -, . .... .~.-~. Mr. NEW GENERAL PLAN ZONE: NEW PROPOSED CITY ZONING: OUR RECOMMENDED ZONING: ~ohn Meyer, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL As I watched another potential tenant drive off, I was disturbed to realize that they left because their usage would not fit into the zoning . for our building. This is a situation which should never be encountered, because all buildings are designed and built to accon~uodate uses compatible to the zoning in their area. It would be foolish to build an '=~ industrial building in an area which only allowed office usage in their zoning. If it is foolish to build a building which is not compatible with its' zoning, then the same argument can be made when a city changes :~ in Temecula. Eighty to Ninety percent of the buildings in this area are standard concrete-tilt up edifices, inclined to your typical industrial uses. But, in the adoption of the new city general plan, this area was newly zoned Professional Office. It is impossible for standard industrial buildings, to attract office users with limited professional office buildout and insufficient parking. Because of this serious problem, I am writing to explain our plight and make a sound recommendation for a Light Industrial Zoning. the zoning on an existing building so that it is non eompatible with its designed for uses making the edifice obsolete. This is the actual situation which took place in the area in and around Felix Valdes Street property would no "possess th~s probl~';because?:onl:~he south of the project.;~ ~aiaVo Tie' ialready zo~i~':Light V~.Industrial~' F&go, p~ece o~ property ~ould adj~ ~ e~stiB~ Li~h~ Ind~trial pXece/area. u 1 >o ~ . , especially not [ro~essional ~:" ~ice~= 1~ ~&}' ~a~e typical ind~tr~al :. concrete ti 1 t-up ~0nst ructi 0n;:;[10% o~fCe bui ldout, .10 '12 t. gro~d 1 eVel. ' truck doors, a 16~-22' ~nterior clear'height ~d 2 parking stalls per :: :. 1,000 square [eet[ These buildings c~only be ~ed by ind~trial ~ers,] therefore Light Industrial would be the appropriate zoning." . Light Ind~trial best' ~its our existing tenant ~es Based on Table 9.08a Schedule o~ Peatted Uses, Use Regulations - Develo~t Code. Folded by the table, the ~ollowing indicates our curr~t tenant"' uses ~d the legality o~ their ~ction within either proposed zoning. ? .~-. P - Peatted, C.U.P. - Conditional Use Pe~t, - = not peatted "" LIt~fT' :- USE 8F INDUSTRIat '. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR 3,257 CABINET SHOP 2,552 MACHINE SHOP 4,768 FILM LAB 2,547 WAREHOUSING 1,802 MEDICAL LAB 700 PRINTING SHOP 2,905 MACHINE SHOP 5,973 PL~fBING CONTRACTOR 2,010 SERVICE COMMERCIAL C.U.P. P P P - p - p - p - p P P - p C.U.P. P Based on the ntix of our current tenants and the two proposed zones, it is plainly evident that the only zoning we could have would be LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. We are 65% leased with Light Industrial and would be 26% leased under Service Con~nercial. If the zoning was changed to Service Commercial, we would also loose existing tenants who would like to expand their space. For Example, Burkey Machine Shop (5,973 sf - 15% of projects space) is currently contemplating expanding into an adjacent unit which is allowed under light industrial, but would not be allowed under service commercial. If it becomes imperative for them to expand, we will loose them because they can't expand under Service Commercial. Additional[l~;~ we are =n nego~at~o"~ i~:le~sing our :~vailahleSP~c~ U~.,~j-U :~ with ~ers who ~i~ight .Ind~tria-l,"':n~ Service Comercial~age.- .~::~(~j:j; P - Peatted, C.U.P. 7- C~ndition,1 ~.~.~Pe~, ~ ~= not ~e~tted .... It is plain and evident to see that it .is imperetive for our buildings~n.~ to be zoned Light Industrial. Without that Light Industrial Zoning, we will not be able to lease our space to these our only prospectiveiff'I:::~'~? tenants. :' Mr. Meyer, the buildings at 28545 Felix Valdez and 28373 Felix Valdez were designed for Light Industrial, the currentuses most clearly define Light Industrial, and the prospective tenants fit within the mold of Light Industrial. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the only prospective zoning which makes any logical senMe is LiQht Industrial. If you have any ~uestions, please call me at Sincerely, ~'~ /,~. ~ RICHARD M. ALVAREZ ALVAREZ PROPERTIES 27999 Front Street Temecula, CA 92590 CC: CARLOS H. ALVAKEZ ROBERT M. ALVAREZ (909) 676-5967. 28377 Felix Valdez Ave. Temecula, CA 92590 676-2233 July 6, 1994', John R. Meyers City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92590 Dear Mr. Meyers; At the close of the last meeting with Phase II Industrial Park property owners, you invited those attending to submit additional comments by letter to your office concerning the commercial zoning changes proposed by the planning department and the city administration. I think you will agree that there is more than one perspective on this matter, and I would like to give you mine. I think it would be beneficial to provide a copy of this letter to your department head, the city manager, and the city council. As you read this letter you will think that most of it does not pertain to the subject at hand, but it does. The attitude and regulations from your department and the city sends very strong messages to the business community. This in turn effects the employment and vitality of the community. I think you are not fully aware of the gravity of your decisions. I hope by the time you are finished reading this letter you have a new perspective on how this zoning changed, combined with other regulations, negatively impacts business in this and other communities. I may be only one voice, but believe me, I represent the majority of the thinking in the business conununity not the minority. I subscribe to numerous publications and read many other business and trade magazines, as well as news letters. In reading these publications I can guarantee that I am in the majority. I will list a few of these publications to show the breath of field: Chamber of Ce~,erce ( California and U.S.), Wall Street Journal, U.S. News & World Report, NFIB (National Federation of Independent Businessmen), National Write You Congressman, Independent Business, California Rental Association and American' Rental Association. I am sure you've read few if any of these publications, which is part of the problem. I do not wish to be- little nor demean you, I hope only to give you an insight and a perspective into the regears of the business world, so that you may understand how profoundly government ( and its agencies) effect business. It is imperative that you view this through the eyes of business and co~nnercial property owners, not through they eyes of a government bureaucracy. You say! But I'm paid to look through the eyes of a government bureaucracy, that's one of the problems. Government and its bureaucracies treat business as 'The Evil Impire.' You say, no we don't. Then why do you pile mountains of regulation, restrictions, and controls on business, and then tax them and their employees to pay for this government and bureaucratic controls. Why are 60% of American workers employed or paid by government. I know that all of these people are not military, police, fire fighters, public teachers, etc. You cannot count in this group; the IRS, franchise tax board, building and safety, port authorities, etc. because they are there to regulate and tax. Let's say half of the 60% are and the rest are pure government and regulators. Let's say of the remaining 40% of the work force, a total of 3-5% are business owners and corporate management, the reining 35-37% are employees of these businesses. This means that 30% of the total work force is there to govern and regulate 3-5% of that work force. If we are not 'The Evil Impire" why the 10-1 ratio. You may think my numbers are incorrect and of course government would never want to run a . study to determine the real numbers, everybody would know for sure then. I can tell you that business is over regulated. At this point you probably wondering where I am going with this letter and what does this have to do with zoning. To help you understand, I will relate a true story, that I hope adds perspective, before I continue. George McGovern was a career politician, that had served in both houses of the U.S. Congress over decades in politics. Upon retiring he opened a restaurant business, which soon failed. At which time he made a profound but honest statement. He said that if he had understood while he was in congress, how difficult running a business was, he would have voted very different on many bills that had affected business. I am attempting to give an insight, that he obviously did not have. Before you decide on a recommendation for this zoning issue, I would like to share with you some examples of how laws, regulations, and policies effect not only business but the business climate. In one of my business magazines, 2-21/2 years ago, I read an article on a second or third generation furniture manufacture. They had waste solvents they used in their business that had to be transported to a hazardous waste sight. They had contracted with a hazardous waster hauler to properly remove these solvents. The furniture business had the proper records including manifests from the hazardous waste hauler0 as to the proper sight that these waste were to be taken. The waste hauler in actuality was taking this waste to an unauthorized sight. When the waste hauler was caught, he did not have the money to pay for the clean up of the sight. Therefore, the EPA super-fund bureaucracy demanded the furniture manufacture to pay 1.5 million dollars as his share of the clean up. The manufacture had no part in this illegal dumping and had done everything proper on his end. After spending $30,000.00 defending himself and after his attorney projected it would cost close to $300,000.00 to exonerate himself with the EPA. He made the decision to file bankruptcy and close down his manufacturing business. this sending sixty en~loyees to the uner~loyment lines. I had intended to covey a couple more examples, but I fear I could loose your attention. I could literally go on with exem~les for hours if not days. Believe me, these incidences of in~roper interference and negative regulations of business, are not isolated. This frommy own personal experience and other business associates, not just from business publications. In general, government and its " bureaucratic agencies are sending a very bad and destructive message to business. Maybe this is why larger manufactures and corporations that have the ability to move out of restrictive states like California and even the USA have done so. They got the message. Why are we having such difficulty creating jobs in America? Because government policy makes this too difficult for business. Realize, small businesses, the ones creating the jobs, are the most severely effected by these laws and regulations. You may say what does all of this have to do with zoning. A great deal really. Zoning is the projection of an attitude toward business and developers. If you project an image of restrictive hostilities, they will go somewhere else. Whey is there such a driving force to segregate an office from being next door to a small machine shop. Maybe you have an automotive shop or a sandwich shop a building or two from the others. The employees of the first two can have their car worked on while at work and'walk to the sandwich shop for lunch. The diversity is more of a positive than a negative. Where the safety of businesses, surrounding certain manufacture facilities, is concerned, I can understand zoning precautions. But zoning for segregation purposes only, does not make sense. When a developer builds a multi-unit commercial lease building, it is ir~erative not to limit the type of tenants he can place in the units. To do so can destroy the economic viability of the project. Again this discourages or prevents development and the creation of new business or the expansion of existing business. Therefore, a loss or prevention of job creation and income to the city, through associated fee and taxes. In the process of cityhood, I understand there was a phone survey of homeowners of what k/nd.of con~nity they wanted. There was no such survey of business and developers. This is not only unforgivable but a disgrace. This really lets business know where they rank, not even on the list. A closing thought for this section. When developing property or starting a new business you are betting you will win. The house odds are against you to start with. To add to these odds, will discourage player participation. Is this what you reallywant to do---think about it. Well, on to the last topic of discussion for this letter.: You probably never thought it would happen. The city council and especially the planning depart=nent have been enthusiastically promoting the 'Old Town' concept. Only a few of us, which live here now, can remember the Temecula of 10-20 years ago. I have lived andbeen in business in Temecula since 1981. How time flies, does not seem that long. Temecula market and three gas stations, but alot of real estate offices. Both myself and my wife are originally from Kansas, she, from 25 miles outside a town of 1500, which shrank to 850 by the time she left. I think both of us qualify to know what small town, 'Old Town', means. This type of town exists today in rural America. But what really is 'Old Town'. It is a central location where providers of goods and services congregate. You may have a hardware store (general store then) next to an automotive repair shop, a bank across the street from the cafe (restaurant for city folks), a gas station next to the drug store, a feed store next to the gas station. Granted the cattle feed lot is placed outside of town for obvious reasons. I think you get the point. You say: But that's a small town and in larger towns (cities) you need more order and organization. Do you really? Do we loose convenience and togetherness through segregation? Do we loose a sense of wholeness. I read today in the Wall Street Journal of a trend of moving management from their closed door offices to the arena of open theater of cubicals. This to ensure better con=nunication of all and the feeling of common purpose and increased productivity. What is best for the connon good and the order of things? When conten~lating utopia, does it not exist in ones mind, for each has his own idea of what utopia is, and therefore, no true utopia exists for all of man. Guide lines are important in modern life, but they should not stifle innovation and creation. Take time to ponder you decision before you make it. To attempt to micro manage and over regulate the country at all levels is not only undemocratic, because it unduly takes freedoms away, but it also is destructive to our economy and our society. Therefore, I believe it is in the best interest of the community to leave the zoning as MSC or the equivalent. Si~.erely~,~ Ga~Rumsey ~' P.S. I am including an article that recently appeared in the "Wall Street Journal". I believe it pertains to my letter. 43174 Business' Park Temecula, Ca 92590 FROP~R~/'-'~"7 Parcel 2!~(APN 921-2S0~0020)- Felix Valdes ~oad L~TION: ~ Ran. Cal. Rd. one North,. Captains Cabin on ~est,- ' Fel .' Val. Rd~ oneSouth,' Xx-Bsn~ BId.' on E~st . DZSalPTION: 1.24 Acres of Vacnt Lnd ORIGINAL ZONING: NE~ GENERAL PL/~ ZONe: NBIq PROPOSE CITY ZONING: MHC PROFgBSIONIL OFFICE PROFIBSIONAL OFFICE OUR RECONN~ND~D ZONING: PROFKBSlONAL OFFICE Mr. Oohn Neyer, Our vacant piece of property located on Felix Valdez Road, would most likely warrant itself to Professional Office lonin~ due to the adjacent property uses. On the east side of the property sits a two story bank/office structure while on the west side stands Captains Cabin Restaurant and a two story office structure. Bein~ that our property is sandwiched between the two and to alleviate any potential spot zonin~ problem, it seem obvious that the zonin~ must be Professional Office. Ergo, we a~ree with the City and 6eneral Plans recommended zonin~ for our property as Professional Office. If you have any questions, please call me at Sincerely, RI~aRD M. ALVAREZ ALVAREZ PROPERTIES 27999 Front Street Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 676-5967. CO: CARLO8 H. ROBERT M. ALVAREZ ALVAREZ City of Temecula Planning Department In th Environmeatal Study I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION I. N~me of Project: CJelleral plan ,,Amt~ltimellt~ 2. Case Nunabets: N/A 3. Location of Project: City Wade (See A,,em,~ "A" - Vicinity Maps & List of Assessor Parcel Numbers ) 4. Description of Project: General Plan Amendm~ui~ which will change the Land Use Designation of various parcels within the City 5, Dale of Environmental Assessment: July 6, 1995 6. Nam~ of Proponent: 7. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: City of Temecula John Meyer, City of Temecula PlanninE Dept. 43174 Business Perk Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 694-6400 ENVIRONMENTAL llV!PACTS (EXD!an~tiOnS tO all the auswen are provided in Seaion IH) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Mavb~ No a. Unstable eardl conditions or in changes geologic substructures? Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? _ _X_ g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake? ILk u ,pm~ 7113/91 mf 1 ~ 11/282 h. Bxposure of people or propmy W geologic hs-~Is such ~s eanhq,,-t-~, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, gro,md failure, Or ~imilar hazards? i. Any d~welopm~t w~hin sm Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? 2. Air. W'~I ~he proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movememt, temperature, or moisture or any chan2e in cli,~nt~-~ whether locally or reSiona!ly? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the come o~ direction of wafer movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pafi~r/B, or the rare and amount of surface runoft?. c. Alterations to the come or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the mount of surface water in any water body?. e. Discharge inw surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direa additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquif~r by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Bxposure of people or property to water related h~Txrds such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the divenity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? m m m m X X X ~ May_t~ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, tin~n~cl, or endangered species of planis? __ __ c. lnU'oduction of new species of plains into an area of native ve2e~afion, or in a barrier to the normal replenishme~ of existing species? __ __ d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? __ __ 5. Aninml Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the divea~ity of species, or numbers of any species of animels (animals includes 811 land animals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, shellfish, b~nthic organi~ms, and/or insects)? __ __ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or andangered species of animals? __ __ c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __ d. A barrier to the migrM:ion or movelnent of animnls? __ __ e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ __ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ __ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? __ __ c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? __ __ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? __ __ 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? X b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described in a commqnity or general plan? _K. __ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any namrel resources? __ __ b. The depletion of any nourenewshle natural resource? __ __ H9 X 7113/95 mf 3 }sksd 11t2/92 lO. 11. 12. 1t. 14. Risk of Upset, Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substsnces in ~e event of an accidm or upset conditiom (hazardous substm~es includes, but is not limited to, pesticid~, chemicals, oil or radiation)? The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials Cinchcling, but not limited to oil, pesticicles, chemicals, or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Pop,d~,~on. Will the proposal al~r the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the humsn population of~n area? Housiq. Will the proposal sffea existing housing or create a d~msnd for additional housing?. Tr,,n~ort~ion/Civ.,d~,~on. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public trausponation? Alterations to present paRems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to mowr vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Wfil the proposal have substantial effea upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X 15. e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other gove~r~nUd seEvices: Energy, Will the proposal result in: a. b. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energ~q _ Substantial increase in demnnd upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ 16. Ulililies. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to any of the following utilities: a. Power or ~mn~ gas? b. Comm~DiCatiOns systen~? c. Water systems? d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tnnlr~? e. Storm water drainage systems? f. Solid waste disposal systems? g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pn_~e-m of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? 17. Human Heolth. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. b. c. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in a~ impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Detrimental visual impam on the surrounding area? Maybe X X X X 7113/95 mf 5 iunid IV~}2 Cuitarsl Resotwces. Will the proposal result in: a. Th~ alt~a/~.ion or desU'ucfion of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object?. c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restri~oas to existin~ religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? M be X ill. DISCUSSION OF TH~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The purpose of the proposed General Plan AmeDdm~ntS are to modify the existin~ l~nd use designations for various parcels of land throughout the City. In November of 1993, the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan and corrispondin~ Enviwnmental Impset Report'(EIR), Mitigation Monitorin~ Program and S~eut of Overriding Comidergion. The adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendm~.ia will result in a change to the existing and future lsncl use desi_~n~on to several percels of land within the City. However, the changes to the land use designations will not result in impaas which would be considered greater than those impacts previously ex~mln~l and mitigated through the EIR for the General Plan. Therefore, staff has determined that there will be no significant impacts to the environment as a result of the General Plan Amendmeamts. W. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to either: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish, wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustai~ng levels, thresten W eliminnie a plant, bird or snimn] species, or eliminnte important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Yes Maybe No Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, e~vir0nmelta] goals? (A short term impact on the enviroument is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long term impacts will endure well inW the f~ture.) Does the prolea have impacts which are individually Jimited, but cumulatively considerable? (A projea's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X Does the project have enviromantal effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 7113/95 mf 7 lu,,iml 11/2/92 ENVIRONbI!~rFAL DErrA~IINATION On the basis of this initial evs~n~on: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significaut effect on the environmeut, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the e~vironmeat, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the Miti~stlon Measures described on the ~hed sheeu and in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will mitiga2 any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, nnd all ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .REPORT is required. signature John Meyer. Senior pJnnne~ Name and Title Date 6. 1995 ATTA~IE%fi~F wA'* Vicinity Maps & List of Assessor Parcel NHmhers ASSESSOR PARCEL ~}I:BERS 909-120-046 ~rorth 3effeson Business Park Phase 3) 909-281-019 F_.~ISTh'NG LAN~) USE DESIGNATION Business Park (BP) Highway Tourist Comm~zcial (FITC) REQUESxhD LAND USE DESIGNATION Servic,' Commercial (sO Comm,m]vy Commercial (CC) 909-270-006 to 009, 012, 013, 015 to 021, 023 to 025, 030, 909-282-001 to 006, 909-2~2-010, (Winchester Corridor) 921-480.005, 018 w 033, 042, 043, 045 (]Rancon Commerce Center) 9'21-050-003, 012, 013 921-050-014 to 016, 021 921-050-022 to 024, 921-060-001 to 004 Business Park 03P) Park fSP) Business Park (BP) Business Park (BP) Community Cormn=rcial (CC) Servic-, Commerchl (sc) Servicc Commerc/al (sc) Co~.~.erchl (CC) Service Commercial. Setrice Commercial 7. 8. 9. i0. II. 921-060-017, 021, 022, 026 ('Front Street Corridor) 921-280-004 m 012 921-281-003,005, 006 (Felix Valdez Corridor) 940300-015 - (EVSVD) 952-I10-006, 952-130-001 (DePortola Corridor) 909-310-062 CRCWI)) 911-150-035 CRorlpau~ja Spdc 1:'I~ #164) 921-090-001, 002, 046, 049, 910-130-05t (Campus Verdes Specific Plan) 9~5-050-004 (Parksjew) t:rdghway Toux:ht Commercial (E'rC) Business Park (BP) Professional Office (0) Business Park CBP) Medium Residential & Neighborhood Commercial (M~C) Business Park (BP) Mealinto RMidemial High P,.esidential & Medium P,.~sidendal ServiceCommerc~l (s~ Sen, ic~ Commercial (sod Sus~uess Park Public~in.~ku~ionsl Faddes (P) Low Mcdium 3P,~idemdal Cr-_,M) PublicUu~udonal Facilities (P) l~fessional Of'~e (o) Low Mdum Residenda~ CLM) Very Low Residential Open Spac,' (OS) (VL) I[ i II \ -~," ,, .... J L II It II ,ROAD /! /!