HomeMy WebLinkAbout021903 PC Agenda· In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
p ease contacl the office of the Ci~ Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the
City to make reas0nable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title ]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
FEBRUARY 19, 2003 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2003-009
· CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Olhasso
Roll Call:
Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and'Chiniaeff
PUBLI~:COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes
each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda,. a
salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the
Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR ·
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent C~lehdar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be remoVed from the
· Consent Calendar for separate actiOn.
I Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the'Agenda of February 19, 2003
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2003\02-19-O3.doc
1
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of November 6, 2002
2.2 Approve the Minutes of November 20, 2002
2.3 Approve the Minutes of December 4, 2002
2.4 Approve the Minutes of January 15, 2003
3
Director's Hearing Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for January, 2003
COMMISSION BUSINESS
· Development Review Process
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a
public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the
approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the
Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Continued from January 15, 2003
4
Planninq Application No. PA02-0272, PA02-02711 PA02-02731 and PA02-0274 A General
Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use desiRnation from Neiqhborhood
Commercial to Community Commercial1 A Specific Plan Amendment for the Marqarita
Villaqe Specific Plan to amend the land use desiqnation of Planninq Area 19 from
Nei,qhborhood Commercial to Community. Commercial and to amend the text within the
Specific Plan, A Development Plan for the desiqn, construction and operation of a 48,372
square foot qrocery store, a 13,217 square foot dru,q store, a 11,571 square foot shop
buildinq, a 10,568'square foot shop buildinq, and a 9,603 square foot shop buildin,q, A
Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive throuqh at a 13,217 square foot druq store, and to
permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot qrocery store and a 13,217 square foot
dru,q store, located on the south side of Rancho California Road and east of Meadows
Parkway, Rick Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
R~PLAN COMM~Agendas~2003\02-19-03.doc
2
4.1 That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study,
which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CiTY COUNCIL
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001.
4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA
VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 19 FROM
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 954-030-001.
4.4 Adopt
a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY
STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571
SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT
SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 SQUARE FOOT SHOP
BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH. OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARIONAY
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001.
R:~P LANCOMM'~gendas~003~02-19-03,doc
3
4.5 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE
THROUGH AT A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND
TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,372 SQUARE
FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG
STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001.
New Items
5 P annin.q Application No. PA02-0340 To establish a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in
association with a future retail commercial shoppinq center located on the southeast and.
southwest corners of Pechanqa Parkway and State Hiqhway 79 South, Matthew Harris,
Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0340
(Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality
Act;
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0340, A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO
ESTABLISH GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR THE FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT OF A RETAIL/COMMERCIAL SHOPPING
COMPLEX ON A 14.3 ACRE SITE. THE SITE IS GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST
CORNERS OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND PECHANGA
PARKWAY ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS.
961-010-001,004 &005.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: March 5, 2003 - Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
R:~P LAN COM M~Agendas~2003~02-19-03.dcc
4
ITEM #2
MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2002 pLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 6, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, November 6, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent:
Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Principal Planner Hazen,
Associate Planner Harris,
Associate Planner Rush,
Project Planner McCoy, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1
2
AFlenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 6, 2002.
Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October 2002.
R: PlanComm/minutes/110602
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 2.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent.
3
Planninq Application No. PA00-0507 Jefferson Avenue Inn, for the design and
construction of a 70-room, four-story hotel buildinq on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel
located adiacent to the Winchester freeway off-ramp next to the Comfort Inn Hotel at
the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza - Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner II
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the submitted design
changes and make a final decision on the proposed project. The original Staff
recommendation was for denial or redesign.
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-049
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN -
HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT
A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000 SQUARE FOOT
HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL,
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF
JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 910-282-007.
3.3 Or Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN -
HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT
A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000 SQUARE FOOT
HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL,
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF
JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 910-282-007.
Via overheads, Project Planner McCoy presented the staff report (of record), highlighting
the rationale for the inn's recent name change from the Hampton Inn Suites to the
Jefferson Avenue Inn due to discrepancies involving the authorization of the use of the
R: PtanComm/minutes/110602 2
name Hampton Inn Suites; specified the design changes the applicant has implemented
per the Planning Commission's recommendations from the August 21, 2002, Planning
Commission meeting, listed as follows:
· The relocation of the trash enclosure (which had been expressed as a concern by
the adjacent hotel use representatives);
· The revised landscape plan with additional shade trees along the eastern property
line as well as two additional specimen trees in the landscape planters near the front
entrance;
· The added two exterior courtyard seating areas proximate to the west and south
entrances (denoted on the revised landscape plan);
· That the fountain design would be modified in order that the fountain be visible from
both sides of the porte cochere; and
· The revised colored elevation plans denoting the stone veneer exterior finish.
Continuing his presentation, Project Planner McCoy relayed that the applicant did not
eliminate the 4t~ floor or reduce the building footprint, as recommended by some of the
Planning Commissioners at the August 21st Planning Commission meeting; noted that in
the agenda, staff has attached both a resolution for approval (Item 3.2) and a resolution
for denial (Item 3.3) for the project; and advised that it was staff's recommendation that
the Planning Commission take final action on this application.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, presented the project plan; commenting
on the decorative balcony treatments added to the majority of the rooms, advised that if
it were the Planning Commission's desire that this element be added to every room, the
applicant would be agreeable. In response to Commissioner Guerdero's previously
stated concern regarding traffic impacts, Mr. Markham noted that if it were the Planning
Commission's desire, the applicant would be agreeable to an added condition requiring
that the Jefferson Avenue median improvements be completed prior to the issuance of
occupancy; and specified the revisions to the plan (i.e., the relocated trash enclosure,
the added landscaping, the added walkways and courtyards), advising that it was the
applicant's opinion that the project met the criteria for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
increase, reiterating the benefits of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) which would be
reduced if the FAR were reduced.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that the
applicant has stated that he would be agreeable to the Planning Commission further
conditioning the project, limiting the applicant's ability to occupy the building until the City
completed the median construction project; noted that for this particular site there would
not be a break in the median or a signal at this time; and advised that the Public Works
Department would not be opposed to this added condition. Mr. Markham clarified that if
the applicant were ready to occupy the building and the City had not completed the
median work, the applicant would most likely take the responsibility for the construction
of the median in order to obtain occupancy.
Commissioner Telesio acknowledged the difficulties associated with this particular lot;
noted that the applicant had implemented the majority of the Planning Commission's
recommendations; relayed that he had not yet determined whether the project met the
criteria of an exceptional landscape plan or architectural plan, qualifying the project for
the FAR increase.
R: PlanComm/rninutes/110602 3
In light of the TOT revenue, which would benefit the City, and the applicant's willingness
to accept the additional condition regarding the median work, Commissioner Olhasso
relayed that she could support the project, as proposed, with the FAR increase.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Commissioner Telesio and Commissioner Olhasso
concurred that the balcony treatments should be placed on every window.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Markham relayed that the fountain treatment could be
redesigned to be two-sided in order that it could be visible from the inside and the
outside of the porte cochere.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing and to approve the
project subject to the following modifications:
Add-
That a condition be added that prior to occupancy, the Jefferson Avenue
median project would be completed;
· That the balcony treatment would be added to all the rooms; and
· That the fountain design would be modified in order that the fountain be
visible from both sides of the porte cochere.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio (Ultimately this motion passed;
see below).
Mr. Markham relayed that the added conditions were acceptable to the applicant.
For informational purposes, Project Planner McCoy relayed that staff would review the
revised fountain design to ensure the appropriate orientation.
At this time, voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of
Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent.
4
Planninq Application No. PA02-0387 & PA02-0388 Application to construct, establish
and operate a 30,000 square foot office buildinq and to divide the site into two
separate parcels of 1.41 acres and 4.28 acres respectively located on the East side
of Count,/Center Drive, approximately 740 feet nodh of Ynez Road (APN 910-110-
045), Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Requesting a continuance to December 6, 2002.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to continue Item No. 4 to the Planning
Commission meeting of December 6, 2002. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Othasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners
Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent.
R: PlanCornm/minutes/110602 4
Planninq Application No. PA02-0322 An Extension of Time to desiqn and construct a
56,000 square foot office complex consistinq of ten buildinqs located on the nodh
side of Ridqe Park Drive, between Rancho California Road and Vincent Moraqa
Drive, Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0322 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-050
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0322 (THE FIRST ONE YEAR
EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR PA 00-0072
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT
AND OPERATE A 56,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
COMPLEX CONSISTING OF TEN (10) BUILDINGS ON
FOUR ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
RIDGE PARK DRIVE, BETWEEN RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 940-310-
028 AND 032
Associate Planner Harris presented the staff report (of record), recommending approval
of the time extension and the project, conditioned as follows:
That Condition No. 4d be added, requiring that all onsite compact parking spaces
be converted to standard size spaces;
That Condition No. 9 be added, requiring that the site address be painted on the
roof of the office buildings;
That Condition No. 15 be amended to require that landscaping construction
drawings be both reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a building permit;
That the development of the project comply with the latest edition of the Building
Codes (2001) and the California Disabled Access Regulations (1999) adopted by
the City; and,
That Condition Nos. 87-90 be required, relating to maintenance of landscaping,
street light maintenance, and the use of the City's franchise waste hauler.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's inquiry regarding the applicant's amenability to the
modified conditions of approval, Associate Planner Harris indicated that staff had sent
the amended conditions to the applicant; however, no response has been received to
date.
R: PlanComm/minutes/t10602 5
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing and approve the
application with staff's recommendations including the added/amended conditions (as
reflected on page 5). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice
vote reflected approval with the exception Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson
who were absent.
6
Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0473 A Variance to permit a 10-foot reduction for the
rear yard setback and a 2-foot reduction for the front yard setback located on the
east side of Avenida De Pasqual and north of Sierra Bonita (945-110-019), Rick
Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0473 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-051
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0473, A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
A 10-FOOT REDUCTION FOR THE REAR YARD
SETBACK AND 2-FOOT REDUCTION FOR THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
AVENIDA DE PASQUAL AND NORTH OF SIERRA
BONITA, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR°S PARCEL NO. 945-
110-019.
Associate Planner Rush presented the staff report (of record) and requested approval of
staff's recommendation with the Conditions of Approval as proposed.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's inquiry regarding the applicant's responsibility for
the current circumstances of the lot, Associate Planner Rush clarified the following:
That the applicant purchased the site prior to the construction of the tennis court
which is located to the rear portion of the site;
That when the adjacent home and tennis court were built, the original orientation
of the rear yard of the applicant's home would be facing the lighted tennis court.
That reorienting the home so that the side yard would be facing the tennis court,
would create far less of a hardship for the applicant; and that reorienting the
home would encroach 10 feet into the side yard setback.
Responding to Commissioner Telesio's query regarding the sequence of events,
Associate Planner Rush advised that the adjacent tennis court was built after the
applicant had purchased the property.
R: PlanComm/minutes/110602 6
For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Rush confirmed that the property met
codes as far as setbacks, etc. Associate Planner Rush added that in doing research,
according to the most current grading plan that staff could locate, the tennis court is
actually sited on the east side of the property and should have been on the west side.
Mr. Joe Saputo, 31265 Sierra Bonita, advised the Commission that the original grading
plans sited the tennis court in the location referred to by Associate Planner Rush.
However, the plans for the tennis court were modified after the property was originally
graded; because it was determined by the City that a drainage ditch would need to be
installed, thereby, not leaving enough room to build the tennis court in it original location.
Mr. Saputo stated that the modifications were approved by the City.
Mr. Saputo advised the Commission that he purchased the property to build an exclusive
home and to enjoy the existing privacy. In Mr. Saputo's opinion, permitting the applicant
to encroach into the side yard setback would cause the loss of some of his privacy and
would lower the value of homes in the area. Mr. Saputo pointed out that his property is
graded five feet below the level of the applicant's property and, therefore, Mr. Coltrane is
not actually looking at a 24-foot fence. Mr. Saputo added that at the time of the grading,
he offered the applicant the opportunity to also grade his property therein gaining 20 feet
of flat pad to re-orient his home in a way that would be less intrusive and still agreeable
to the applicant.
As a point of clarification for Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Saputo advised that the tennis
court was to be constructed on the same flat pad but it would have been located along
the fence on the north side of the pad. However, after the grading was completed and
as a result of rain, damage resulted to the grading and the grading had to be redone
after approval by the City to make the land more compact; and noted that because there
was no longer room to put the court in its original location, the tennis coud was
relocated, with approval from the City, and placed it in its current location.
Because most activities take place in the rear yard, Commissioner Telesio stated that
there would be minor impact to Mr. Saputo's property with the home sited as proposed
(side yard facing the tennis courts).
Since the applicant's property is situated about five feet above the level of his property,
Mr. Saputo related concern that some of his view may be lost due to the closer proximity
of the applicant's home.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Art Coltrane, 45338 Clubhouse Drive, clarified
that Mr. Saputo had lowered his pad approximately four to five feet prior to the
construction of his home and tennis court; that he had chosen not to lower the pad on
his property; and, therefore, Mr. Saputo is responsible for the current situation.
In response to Mr. Saputo's letter and his concerns regarding the liability of an errant
tennis ball, it was noted by Mr. Coltrane that tennis balls are hit from north to south and
his home would be oriented north to south; therefore, he wouldn't envision errant tennis
balls being a concern.
Considering the contributory factors created by Mr. Saputo, Commissioner Telesio
supported staff's recommendation to approve the request of the applicant for a variance.
R: PlanComm/minutes/110602 7
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice
vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson
who were absent.
7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0147 A Conditional Use PermitJDevelopment Plan to
desitin, construct and operate a sixty-five foot hi.qh-unmanned wireless
telecommunication facility desiqned as a monopine and the installation of four
equipment cabinets mounted on a sixty-six-square foot pad located at 44501
Rainbow Canyon Road, Rick Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0147 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-052
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0147, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCT A SIXTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH UNMANNED
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY DESIGNED AS
A MONOPINE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF FOUR
EQUIPMENT CABINETS MOUNTED ON A SIXTY-SIX
SQUARE FOOT PAD LOCATED AT 44501 RAINBOW
CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 922-220-004
Associate Planner Rush presented the staff report of record and indicated that staff is
requesting approval.
Replying to Chairman Chiniaeff's query, Associate Planner Rush indicated that the
proposed monopine design would be similar to the one located on Margarita Road and
noted the following:
That the exhibits in Attachment No. 3 were representational of the actual
antennae that would be installed;
That the conditions of approval require that the antennae are within the foliage
and are painted green;
That after installation of the antennae, an inspection will be conducted to ensure
compliance with the submitted exhibits.
R: PtanComm/minutes/110602 8
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and
Mathewson who were absent.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
No additional comments were made.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Providing a Planning Department update, Planning Director Ubnoske noted the
following:
Woodside Homes siqn - Code Enforcement determined that the sign was on
private property, and therefore, its location would not be an issue; that the sign
adheres to permissible square footage but that it is too tall; that Code
Enforcement requested that the height issue be addressed; and that the issue
was not addressed, therefore, a citation has been issued.
Pianninq Commission Schedule for 2003 - Acting Administrative Secretary
Mclntyre is scheduling the year 2003 for Planning Commission meetings noting
that the Commission had agreed to January 15, and 29, 2003, meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:46 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to Thursday,
November 20, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R: PlanComrn/mlnutes/110602 9
MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 20, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, November 20, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City
Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Guerriero.
ROLLCALL
Present: Commissioners Guerdero, *Mathewson, Telesio, and
Chairman Chiniaeff.
*(It is noted that Commissioner Mathewson arrived at
6:08 P.M.)
Absent:
Commissioner OIhasso.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Development Services Administrator McCarthy,
Principal Planner Hazen,
Principal Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Harris,
Associate Planner Papp,
Assistant Planner Preisendanz,
Project Planner McCoy, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 20, 2002.
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 I
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioners Mathewson and Olhasso who were absent.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2
Planninq Application No. PA02-0260 A proposal to chanqe the General Plan and
Zoninq designations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office on a
2.75-acre parcel located on southwest corner of De Portola and Marqadta Roads,
Emery Papp, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA02-0260;
2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260 TO CHANGE
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING
DESIGNATIONS FROM VERY LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75
ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
WEST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA AND MARGARITA
ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR
PARCEL NO. 959-050-007.
It is noted that Commissioner Mathewson arrived to the meeting at 6:08 P.M.
Via overheads, Associate Planner Papp provided an overview of the staff report (of
record), noting that this item was continued from the August 21, 2002 Planning
Commission meeting due to the desire of the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
(HOA) for a continuance of 90 days due to challenging the traffic analysis for this project;
provided additional information regarding the traffic analysis and in padicular the road
conditions, trip counts, the road classifications, and the anticipated future traffic on De
Portola Road; and relayed that staff has determined that an independent traffic study
was not required.
The applicant provided an overview of the application
Reverend Mike McNeff, representing Valley Christian Fellowship, the applicant, noted
concurrence with the staff repod; relayed that the HOA was willing to support the
proposal, subject to specific added conditions, advising that these conditions could be a
part of a development plan when submitted; noted that via the CC&Rs the HOA retains
control over the redevelopment of this parcel; opined that the proposed rezoning
(Professional Office) was a more logical zone for this area; and for Commissioner
Telesio, relayed that the letter dated June 21st from the HOA denoted their conditions
R:P~anCommJminutes/112002 2
associated with a previous potential buyer for this property, advising that the buyer
ultimately dropped out due to the conditions being too restrictive.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that a zoning change
was a legislative act, advising that it was not recommended that conditions be added to
a legislative action.
The public was invited to comment
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed revised general land use
designation at this particular site:
Mr. Jeremy Wickman
Mr. Kevin Johnson
24673 Leafwood Drive
30707 Centaur Court
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the proposal, relaying the following
comments:
o The proposed zoning was consistent with the manner in which the area was being
developed at this time; and
Noted the church's desire to gain a permanent location after utilizing the school's
facilities for the past three to four years, advising that the monies from the sale of this
property would be attributed toward a permanent church facility.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed revised general land use
designation at this particular site:
Ms. Rebecca Weersing
Ms. Jeen Bennett
Ms. Kathleen Stowe
Ms. Don Stowe
Mr. Herman Thorne
Mr. Larry Markham
Mr. Neal Ziff
Mr. Jack Williams
41775 Yorba Avenue
29201 Ynez Road
30241 Cabrillo Avenue
30241 Cabrillo Avenue
30851 De Portola Road
30105 Cabrillo Avenue
43801 Coronado Drive
41640 Yorba Avenue
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal, relaying the
following comments:
o There was no demonstrated need to make a change in the zoning;
Alternate properties on the southeastern portion of Margarita Road, which were
rezoned, still have not be redeveloped;
o Recommended reviewing the rezoning of this property during the General Plan
update;
Recommended that prior to changing the zoning the permitted uses allowed in the
new zone be investigated, specifically as to their impacts;
R:PlanCornm/minutes/112002 3
o The proposed zone change would reduce the rural integrity of the Los Ranchitos
area;
o This parcel was appropriately zoned residential;
o Recommended that the parcel of discussion be required to implement an equestrian
trail in order to provide connectivity with existing trails;
Referenced a letter dated November 20, 2002 (the date of this hearing) written to the
Chairman of the Planning Commission from the Los Ranchitos HOA, outlining the
communications between the HOA and the church use representatives, as well as
specifying the HOA's concerns regarding land use compatibility, traffic analysis,
access, the permitted uses within the proposed zone, the FAR, and building height
permitted in this zone (Professional Office), and buffering issues;
o The rural character of Temecula, which would be impacted by this proposed zone
change, was one the City's most attractive characteristics; and
The fear that the rezoning of this parcel would set a precedent in this area.
It is noted for the record that the Planning Commission did not receive the submittals
from the HOA (which were provided to staff at the time of this hearing) prior to the
hearing.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Stowe relayed his concern that if this zone change were
approved, other properties would also be changed from residential to commercial which
would negatively impact traffic.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero, the applicant relayed that it was the church's
goal to sell this padicular parcel and develop a church building on an alternate site.
Commissioner Guerriero advised that he was not convinced at this particular time that a
zone change was necessary.
While empathizing with the goals and desires of the church representatives,
Commissioner Mathewson noted that he was reluctant to support the request, advising
that the information provided did not justify implementing a zone change; and suggested
that for proposed zone changes such as this one, a Planned Development Overlay
(PDO) be developed.
Commissioner Telesio noted that he disagreed with the comments relaying that the
proposed zone change would create inconsistencies, relaying that there was commercial
property to the south and to the east of this site, and that the parcel was located on a
major arterial; noted that access to De Portola Road could be addressed; advised that at
the previous hearing when this item was addressed a proximate homeowner had noted
his support of the proposed zone change; concurred that the permitted uses allowed
with the zone change should be addressed, as well as access issues; and relayed that
he could support the proposed zone change.
Chairman Chiniaeff provided an overview of the parcels in this location, two of which
were within the HOA, and three of which were not; noted his concern with a potential
P,:PlanComm/minutes/112002 4
hospital use proximate to this area; with respect to the concern regarding alternate
parcels being rezoned if this application were approved, advised that the potential for
future requests for rezoning exist at this time, opining that the logical boundary was De
Portola Road in his view; and queried whether it was feasible to develop a PDO for this
rezoning request.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that this
application request did not include a PDO, advising that the Planning Commission, as
well as staff, would have the opportunity to review whatever development plan was
submitted for this parcel and to ensure that there would be adequate buffering.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Principal Planner Hogan noted that the area to the east of this
property was within the Paseo del Sol Specific Plan and was zoned commercial, relaying
that to the best of his knowledge there would be no equestrian trails in this area.
Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, concurred that this rezoning
request should be considered during the General Plan update process.
In response to the Planning Commission's discussion regarding continuing this matter
off calendar, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that it would be appropriate to
forward a recommendation to the City Council that the rezoning not be approved, and to
recommend that the matter be reviewed during the General Plan update process.
In order to not forward an incorrect message to the City Council which would imply that
the Planning Commission would not desire this parcel to be considered for rezoning,
Commissioner Telesio relayed a desire to recommend to the City Council that the
rezoning be considered during the General Plan update process. In response, Assistant
City Attorney Cudey advised that this recommendation could be included in the motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to
recommend to the City Council that this application not be approved, and that this
parcel's rezoning be considered during the General Plan review process. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent..
3
Planning Application No. PA01-0418, PA01-0509, PA01-0510 Change the General
Plan Land Use Desiqnations from Business Park (BP) to Community Commercial
(CC) on three parcels; and Amend the Regional Center Specific Plan to remove Lot
1 of TPM 30107 from the Specific Plan; and Chanqe the Zoninq Desiqnations from
SP-7 to CC on one parcel, and from BP to CC on two parcels located on the south
side of Overland Drive between Marqarita and Ynez Roads, Emery Papp, Associate
Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application Nos. 01-0418, 01-0509
and 01-0510;
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PlanComrn/rninutes/112002 5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-054
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 01-0418, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM
BUSINESS PARK (BP) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
(CC) ON THREE PARCELS; PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 01-0509, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO
REMOVE ONE PARCEL FROM THE REGIONAL
CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-7); AND PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0510, A ZONE CHANGE FROM
BP TO CC ON TWO PARCELS, AND FROM SP-7 TO CC
ON ONE PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF OVERLAND DRIVE BETWEEN
MARGARITA AND YNEZ ROADS, AND GENERALLY
KNOWN AS LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF PM 30107.
By way of overheads, Associate Planner Papp presented the staff report (as per agenda
material), highlighting the location of the parcels which were proposed to be rezoned and
re-designated in the General Plan, advising that the proposal included removing one lot
from the Regional Center Specific Plan; noted the benefits to the City with the proposed
changes; provided additional informational regarding the noise and traffic impacts
associated with this proposal which would not be significant; noted that staff was
recommending that there be no type of drive-through, or service station uses permitted
in the Community Commercial areas as well as restricting alternate uses (as denoted in
the staff report); relayed that this property was adjacent to three major arterials, and was
within walking distance of two high density residential project areas; advised that the
proposed zoning change would reduce the allowable FAR and lot coverage; noted that
st th
the Negative Declaration was circulated from October 31 to November 19 , advising
that staff had received no comments; provided additional information regarding the
burrowing owl issue which had been addressed; and noted that the applicant would be
required to obtain clearance from the Department of Fish and Game regarding the
presence, or the lack thereof, of Riverside Fairy shrimp in the drainage channel.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Papp confirmed that it was
anticipated that the proposed change would create the potential for additional jobs,
noting that the type of work was not analyzed; advised that specific project impacts
would be evaluated during the Design Review Process, noting that the southwestern
corner parcel had been conditioned to include an additional twelve foot setback along
Margarita Road. For clarification, for Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning
Ubnoske additionally relayed that professional office development was permitted in
Community Commercial zones.
Mr. Terry Jackson, representing the applicant, thanked the staff for their arduous efforts
regarding this project; and concurred with the conditions associated with the proposal.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to ctose the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Chairman Chiniaeff. (Ultimately
this motion passed; see page 7.)
R:PlanCommhninutes/112002 6
For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional
information regarding professional office uses being permitted within Community
Commercial; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding
the permitted FAR and height of the buildings in the proposed zoning.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner
Olhasso who was absent.
Planning Application No. PA02-0549 Application to consolidate five smaller two-story
apartment buildinqs into two three-story apadment buildinqs in Sub-Area D, reducinq
the overall number of apartment buildinqs on-site to 22 and thereby creatinq more
open space on-site located south of Hiqhway 79 South, north of Temecula Creek,
east of Jedediah Smith Road, and west of Avenida De Missions, Emery Papp,
Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0549; and
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-055
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0549, A SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE APPLICATION TO CONSOLIDATE
SEVERAL SMALLER TWO-STORY APARTMENT
BUILDINGS INTO FOUR ADDITIONAL THREE-STORY
APARTMENT BUILDINGS, GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, BETWEEN
JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND AVENIDA DE MISSIONS,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 96'1-010-006.
Via exhibits, Associate Planner Papp provided the staff report (of record), noting the
applicant's desire to consolidate some of the apartment buildings in Sub-Area D in order
to create more onsite Open Space and parking spaces; noted the differentials between
the original proposal for Subarea D and this particular proposal, noting the
reconfiguration of building space; and relayed that Community Services staff was
concerned regarding the trail at the southerly portion of the site being only separated by
approximately four feet from the proximate building, noting various options that the
applicant could utilize to address this issue.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Papp relayed that he would revise the
resolution to more clearly identify the building reconfiguration, which would result in the
project having five additional 3-story buildings (noting that with the consolidation of the
buildings, two new 3-story buildings would be created which was what was indicated in
the resolution.)
R:Plar~Comm/minutes/112002 7
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Papp relayed that the
parking would be increased by eight spaces; provided additional information regarding
the increased Open Space; and for Commissioner Telesio, confirmed that several of the
buildings were slightly rotated to change the orientation.
Mr. Steve McCormick, representing the applicant, presented an alternate graphic in
order to clarify the Planning Commission's questions, specifying the location of the
proposed buildings and the building sizes, and comparing this plan with the original
project plan; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the applicant was willing to comply to
the added requirements regarding the trail and its proximity to one of the buildings (as
referenced during the staff report); and for Commissioner Guerriero, specified that
Building No. R19 would be a 2-story building.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero's comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske
relayed that if it was the Planning Commission's direction staff could implement changes
into the Design Guidelines if determined necessary, as part of the substantial
conformance. Associate Planner Papp noted that there would be no changes regarding
the materials or the color scheme, while there were minor modifications in the roof plans
due to the changes in the number of stories. The applicant confirmed that this proposal
would conform to the materials and colors included in the original Conditions of
Approval.
MOTION: Math moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's
recommendation, subject to the following:
Add-
That Building No. R14 be further separated from the trail, being revised to the
satisfaction of the Community Services District staff;
That if after staff investigated, if it was determined that the Design Guidelines
should be revised, that this revision be implemented as part of the substantial
conformance; and
· That the title of the resolution be modified to provide further clarity regarding
the proposal.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0112 To desiqn, construct and operate an unmanned
70-foot tall Nextel Wireless telecommunication monopole structure and a 200-square
foot telecommunications equipment shelter Rancho California Water District Norma
Marsha Reservoir Site, located on the east side of Margarita Road, south of Rancho
California Road and north of Rancho Vista Road, Michael McCoy, Project Planner II
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption from CEQA (Class 32, in fill development)
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 8
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-056
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0112 A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN,
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SEVENTY-FOOT TALL
UNMANNED NEXTEL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
MONOPINE FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO
CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA
RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.
954-020-005 & 0tl.
Project Planner McCoy provided a brief overview of the staff report (of record),
highlighting the design of the monopole, and the site analysis; presented the existing
facilities within a mile's radius of this proposed site; noted the recommended revisions to
the Conditions of Approval, as follows: that Condition Nos. 10-12 should indicate that the
requirements were required Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits in lieu of Prior to
the Issuance of Grading Permits, and Condition Nos. 16-18 should indicate the
requirement Prior to Final Inspection in lieu of Prior to Final Occupancy.
For Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, Principal Planner Hazen
provided additional information regarding Condition No. 17 (regarding the requirement
for the applicant to schedule an inspection of the facility by staff prior to final inspection),
advising that staff would be inspecting the installation, comparing the facility to the
photograph of the existing monopole. Commissioner Guerriero requested in the future
that this inspection information be included in the staff report.
Principal Planner Hazen relayed that in the future staff would be requiring applicant to
provide photographs of the monopole proposed for installation.
For clarification, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning Commission
could condition the project, requiring that the monopole design shall substantially
conform to the Exhibit Photograph presented, including the branch allocation and
arrangement.
Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that in the future staff provide information regarding
whether the proposed facility's design would be consistent with the existing facility on
Margarita Road that the Planning Commission was pleased with.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy provided additional
information regarding collocation of a second facility at this proposed site.
Ms. Barbara Saito, representing the applicant, thanked Project Planner McCoy and
Principal Planner Hazen for their diligent efforts regarding this project; with respect to the
architectural drawings of the trees, clarified that although the drawings may not appear
to be consistent with the existing facility located at the water tower site, these were the
same drawings which had been submitted for that facility, and that this proposed
monopole would be a replica of the Margarita Road monopole (the water tower site) if
that was the desire of the Planning Commission, advising that this proposed monopine
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 9
would be approximately 20 feet lower in height from ground elevation than the Margarita
Road installation; relayed that the sample materials provided were from the
manufacturer of the existing monopine, advising that if the Planning Commission had
viewed an alternate tree which was visually more pleasing the applicant would be willing
to contact those manufacturers; for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the applicant was
going to install a monopine that replicated the existing tree on Margarita Road; and
noted that AT&T has approached the applicant regarding collocating at this facility,
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation subject to the modifications to the Conditions of Approval as
stated in the staff report (see page 9 of the minutes, the first paragraph.) The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
Planninq Application No. PA02-0342 Development Plan to construct, establish and
operate a 22,260 square foot industrial/warehouse buildinq with second-story office
on 1.1 acres located east side of Bostik Court, approximately 170 feet south of
Winchester Road (APN 909-360-008), Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0342
(Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental
Quality Act;
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-057
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0342, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A
22,260 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL/ WAREHOUSE
BUILDING WITH SECOND-STORY OFFICE. THE SITE
IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
BOSTIK COURT, APPROXIMATELY 170 FEET SOUTH
OF WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 909-360-008
By way of overhead maps, Associate Planner Harris provided a brief overview of the
staff report (per agenda material).
Mr. Shane Shaw, representing the applicant, thanked staff for their arduous work with
respect to this project; and for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional
information regarding the enhanced concrete treatment.
Mr. Brian Murphy, representing the applicant, provided a history of the development of
this project being developed in the City of Temecula; distributed a catalogue of the
products which were sold by this particular company; and for Commissioner Guerriero,
noted that truck deliveries would primarily take place in the buildings across the street
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 10
since this particular building would be primarily utilized for Research and Development
(R&D).
Commissioner Guerriero congratulated the applicant regarding the company's success,
and welcomed the project to Temecula.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staffs recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was
absent.
Planninq Application No. PA02-0397 Development Plan to construct, operate and
establish an 11,642 square foot executive suite office buildinq on .95 acres locate at
27247 Madison Avenue, nodh of Sanborn Avenue; submitted by Herron+Rumansoff
Architects, Inc., Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0397
(Development Plan); pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental
Quality Act;
7.2 Adopt a Motion to continue for redesign.
Via overhead maps, Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the project plan (of
record), highlighting the location, and the underlying zoning (Service Commercial);
relayed the rationale for staff's recommendation to continue this item in order that the
applicant could redesign the site plan which does not meet the Design Guidelines,
specifying the differential regarding the building's setback; noted the property owners
rationale for locating the building at the rear of the property which was due to the desire
to not have a rear-facing entry and to avoid four-sided architecture.
Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the constraints of the parcel.
Concurring that there were site constraints, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that
the building would most likely need be reduced in size to move the building further
forward; and noted that the majority of the surrounding lots were vacant.
Mr. Kevin Brown, the applicant, relayed that he would be the owner and user as well as
the landlord for the remaining suites in this project; with respect to the setback issue,
advised that the proposed location of the building was the most functional; relayed that
there was mature landscaping existing at this time; noted that he had one of the smallest
lots in this area with a unique shape which provided constraints; opined that to relocate
the building on the lot and/or reduce the building size would detract from the building's
architecture; and when comparing this project to those in the surrounding area, opined
that this project had more architectural detail due to the colors, texture, and theme
elements.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Brown specified the color concrete variations proposed
on the building; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the column treatments were
R:PianComm/minutesl 112002 11
extended approximately seven feet from the building, for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirming
that this element was recessed.
Mr. Brown presented the proposed landscape plan.
Mr. Russell Rumansoff, architect representing the applicant, presented the design
elements of this particular project; advised that for this padicular site, the current
proposal reflected the most appropriate location for the building; for Chairman Chiniaeff,
noted that the straight-line appearance of the roof was a positive strong architectural
element.
Mr. Ron Sullivan, 27710 Jefferson Avenue #301, noted his support of this particular
project, including the design elements; and relayed the visual benefits of staggering the
building setbacks in this area.
Mr. Glen Caldwell, 27740 Jefferson Avenue, relayed his support of this proposal,
advising that the North Jefferson Business Park needed a quality project such as this
one.
Ms. Anne Marie Hecht Brown, representing the applicant, provided additional information
regarding the landscape plan; and relayed hopes that the Planning Commission would
support the project's proposed design, opining that this was a beautiful building
proposal.
Commissioner Guerriero concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff's previous concerns
regarding the proposed flat roof design.
Commissioner Mathewson advised that the building needed further articulation; and
concurred that the parapet treatment was weak.
With respect to the citing of the building, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could
support the proposed location.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Brown relayed that there was a color differentiation
treatment at the roof line; advised that the CC&Rs restrict the project to a flat metal roof;
for Commissioner Guerriero, noted that it was his understanding that he would also be
restricted from adding a tile fa~;ade; and advised that the proposed project had more
articulation than the alternate projects in this area.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Brown noted that when the building was
constructed, the awnings could be made round to create a softer impact, or antiquated-
style spears could be added with swale awnings. Mrs. Brown, representing the
applicant, relayed that in her experience the black colored awnings held up well over
time.
Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, recommended that the awning
design be revised as the applicant had expressed a willingness to do in order to create a
more consistent design.
Commissioner Telesio acknowledged the difficulties with respect to modifying the roof
design.
R:PlanComm/min utes/112002 12
Commissioners Guerriero and Telesio suggested that the applicant consider widening
the color band treatment near the parapet to create visual interest.
Commissioner Mathewson advised that in his opinion the building appeared box-like,
and the roof design was weak.
Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the applicant consider implementing additional
architectural treatments as had been suggested by the Planning Commission,
Commissioner Telesio recommending that the depth of the portico be increased.
For Principal Planner Hazen, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning
Commission could approve an alternate roof treatment but that if the applicant had
private pady constraints, i.e., the CC&Rs, the applicant might never get the authority to
build the approved project.
The applicant suggested implementation of a larger cornice treatment at the top of the
building to create visual interest.
Mr. Rumansoff, representing the North Jefferson Business Park, confirmed that a tile
roof was prohibited, and that a variance had never been granted; commented on the
existing projects in this area; and for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the roof
restrictions were solely related to materials.
For Mr. Rumansoff, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that he review recently
approved projects in Temecula to obtain the concept of the level of architecture the
Planning Commission would support.
Commissioner Guerriero recommended that there be some type of bolder treatment
added to the top of the building to reduce the long horizontal appearance.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the December 18~h
Planning Commission meeting in order for staff and the applicant to work together to
implement additional design elements. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Telesio. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.)
In response to the applicant's queries, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could
support the project if the color band was enlarged (at the top of the building) and if the
awnings design was revised, which was echoed by Commissioner Guerriero.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the linear appearance be broken up, that
the colonnades be taken fudher out, and that the walkway be extended out. In response,
the applicant relayed that the Classic Mediterranean style had recessed colonnades.
Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the applicant submit pictures of Class
Mediterranean architecture to staff.
At this time voice vote reflected approval of the motion with the exception of
Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
R:Plat~Comm/minutes/112002 13
8
Planninq Application No. PA02-0223 A Request for a findin.q of Public Convenience
or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upclrade the existinq Type-20
(Off Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license to a Type 21 (Off Sale General) license
authorizinq the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption off the
premises where sold located in the Moraqa Plaza Shoppinq Center at 29762 Rancho
California Road on the nodh side of Rancho California Road, between Lyndie Lane
and Moraqa Road known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-310-022, Rolfe Preisendanz,
Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0223 (Public
Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) per the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved);
8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR
A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE
CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF
SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF-
SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE
MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, BE'I~NEEN LYNDIE LANE AND
MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. APN 921-310-022.
8.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0223 A MINOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL
BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE
20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE
21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE
MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETVVEEN LYNDIE LANE AND
MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. APN 921-310-022.
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 14
Staff presented the staff report
Assistant P~anner Preisendanz provided an overview of the staff report (of record),
relaying the rationale for staff recommending denial of this particular request for the
finding to upgrade this use's current Alcohol Beverage Control License (ABC) from a
Type 20 to a Type 21, noting the following:
· That currently per the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control's (ABC's) data, ten
percent (10%) of this use's sales were related to alcohol;
That based on ABC's determination there currently exists an over-concentration of
licenses within this census tract, noting that while there were 12 Off-Sale Licenses in
this census tract, only five should have been permitted (per information from ABC);
· That due to the data from ABC, staff could not make the finding justifying the
upgrade of this current ABC license;
That if this request was approved and an upgraded license was issued, the current
license would still remain in circulation in that census tract and could be sold (per
information obtained from ABC);
That on the questionnaire criteria, which aids in determining whether a use warrants
a finding for granting a request for an ABC license, seven out of the ten questions did
not meet the criteria (per agenda material); and
That if the Planning Commission determined that there was a Finding of Public
Convenience or Necessity, then the Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would need
to be approved as well, and staff would request that the item be continued in order
that the necessary findings, conditions, and resolutions could be prepared.
Staff addressed the questions of the Planninq Commission
Via overheads, for Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant Planner Preisendanz specified the data
included in the staff report, denoting the existing Type 21 licenses in this census tract,
Chairman Chiniaeff concluding that the majority of these particular licenses were at
restaurants (many of which were located in the mall) and the big box uses, advising that
there were approximately three or four of these licenses for liquor store uses.
Assistant Planner Preisendanz clarified that ABC does not distinguish between liquor
store licenses and the big box uses' licenses, reiterating that if this license was granted,
the current license could be added to the number of licensed uses in this census tract
since the license could be sold.
The applicant's representative provided an overview of the proposal
Dr. Sami Jihad, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding this
issue, relaying the following:
· That the process of attempting to upgrade the current ABC license from Type 20 to
Type 21 has been frustrating;
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 15
· Referencing Attachment 9 in the staff repod, noted that the Police Department
consented to the Finding of Public Convenience;
Referencing Attachment 11 (per the agenda material), relayed data that the Finding
of Convenience had been met since customers suppoded the convenience which
would be provided by having this use a one-stop shopping place;
That although the applicant opined that a Minor CUP was not needed at this location
since the Planning Department confirmed that this was a pre-existing legal
nonconforming use, the applicant was willing to comply with the conditions
associated with the CUP, which was a permit that could be revoked at the discretion
of the Planning Director;
That the application had been submitted to the City approximately 7 months ago,
relaying the problems the applicant had in receiving a response from staff for a
lengthy period;
That ABC failed to notify the City of the applicant's intent to cancel the current
license if the upgraded license was granted, ergo the approval of the license would
not render an additional license in the census tract (referencing a letter dated
November 6, 2002, from ABC confirming the applicant's consent to cancel the
existing license concurrent with the approval of an upgrade, which was provided to
the Planning Commission at the hearing):
· That the use had been in business for two years with no violations;
· That the current existing licenses were primarily for large box uses;
· That 160 letters were sent to the neighbors informing them of the applicant's request
for an upgraded liquor license, and that as of today not one neighbor had responded.
· That this use had demonstrated support of the community, and in particular the
schools and churches; and
· Appealed to the Planning Commission to grant the request for a Finding of Public
Convenience warranting the upgraded license (Type 21).
The public was invited to comment
The following individuals spoke as proponents of the applicant's proposal:
Mr. Dereas Roman
Ms. Cindie Jackson
42200 Rancho California Road
42105 Del Monte Street
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the proposal for the following
reasons:
· Opined that this request for an upgraded license should be granted based on the
Finding of Public Convenience; and
R:PianComm/minutes/112002 16
· Emphasized the convenience for the residents to not have to travel to a larger box
use to obtain distilled spirits.
Rev. Larry Fisher, 42101 Moraga Road, relayed his opposition to the applicant's
proposal, noting the proximity of a church, a day care center, and an elementary school
to this use; advised that the church was experiencing problems with individuals
consuming alcohol in the wooded area proximate to the church and school; advised that
the Sheriff's Posse came out on Saturday, November 16~ to survey the area due to
recent problems; specified his concern regarding children cutting through this use's
property to access the church which could create a dangerous situation unless the cut-
through traffic was physically restricted; and urged the Planning Commission to deny the
applicant's request for an upgraded liquor license.
In response to Rev. Fisher, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that denying this particular request
would not prevent individuals from purchasing liquor at this use since at this time they
could purchase wine and beer, that if individuals desired to have distilled spirits they
could obtain it at alternate big box uses, and that if individuals frequented the wooded
area to consumer alcohol proximate to the school and church, this particular applicant's
proposal would not impact the problem.
Rev. Fisher clarified his concern that easier access to distilled spirits could worsen the
existing problem, exacerbating the danger to children in the area; and concurred with
ABC that a license should not be granted to a use within close proximity to a school or
church.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Rev. Fisher noted that while the agenda material
included data stating that the Police Depadment offered no opposition to the request, the
Sheriff's Posse was patrolling the area on Saturday, November 16~.
Assistant Planner Preisendanz commented on the Police Department's response to the
applicant's request for an upgraded license.
The applicant's representative provided rebuttal
Mr. Jihad relayed that he had had previous conversations with Rev. Fisher wherein he
had offered to install a fence to prevent pedestrian cut-through traffic from this particular
use to the church, noting the applicant's willingness to be conditioned as such; and
reiterated that this use has had no violations in the two years it has been in business.
The Planninq Commission offered closinq comments
Noting his consistent opposition to a proliferation of liquor licenses, Commissioner
Guerriero noted that alternate larger cities were attempting to reduce the number of
liquor licenses due to the proliferation of such licensing; concurred with the data that
there was a proliferation of liquor licenses in this census tract; opined that the applicant's
request was solely based on the desire to raise retail sales and that having a Type 21
alcohol license would not create convenience due to the proximate accessibility; noted
that when the Police Department conducted "Sting Operations" it was this type of
business, typically, that was cited for violations; and relayed his opposition to approving
this request.
R:PtanComm/minutes/112002 17
Referencing the applicant's comments that this approval would not further worsen the
proliferation of such licensed uses, Commissioner Mathewson noted that even the
applicant recognized that there was a less than ideal situation with the number of
licensed uses in this area; and advised that while he had no doubt that this use was an
asset to the community, he could not justify a Finding of Public Convenience in this area,
and ergo would not support the request.
Relaying that he did not share the views of the Planning Commissioners' previous
comments, Commissioner Telesio advised that he was a proponent of a small business
improving its business, noting that there appeared to be a bias with respect to the larger
businesses being granted upgraded licenses (i.e., the Vons, the Ralph's market stores);
noted that while the upgraded license would not serve as a convenience for everyone, it
would serve as a convenience for those who desire to purchase alcohol and not travel to
the larger uses;.advised that since the Potice Department offered no opposition to the
requirements for an upgraded license there must not be a direct preponderance of
evidence of crime associated with this request; with regard to the trespass issues,
recommended that a fence be installed which the applicant was in agreement to; and
relayed that the approval of this license would not add to the number of existing licenses.
Concurring with Commissioner Telesio, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the Finding of
Convenience could be met due to residents being able to walk to this use, relaying the
emphasis in the City on pedestrian travel; advised that while he was opposed to the
abuse of alcohol, this was a business that residents frequented; relayed that the
numbers associated with the current licenses located in a census tract were arbitrary
findings.
FAILED MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to
approve staff's recommendation for denial of the request for a Finding of Public
Convenience or Necessity to upgrade the current Alcohol Beverage License.
Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected failure of the
motion due to Commissioner Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff voting no and the vote
being split.
Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that a split vote reflected no action since there
was not a majority vote in either direction, i.e., either approval or denial.
MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to continue this item to the December 4t~ Planning
Commission meeting in hopes of having a full Commission present. Commissioner
Telesio seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.)
For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske and Assistant City Attorney
Curley relayed that Commissioner Olhasso would be provided a copy of all the testimony
heard at this hearing prior to voting on this item.
At this time voice vote was taken regarding the motion and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
R:P[anComm/minutes/112002 18
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she
would discuss with Administrative Secretary Mclntyre expediting the forwarding
of the Planning Commission's mail.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Principal Planner Hazen noted that staff
would follow up on the Bel Villagio project to address paint and colored awnings
being implemented which were not consistent with the Planning Commission
approval.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske
relayed that she would provide additional direction to the planners regarding not
needing to provide a verbal report of the material the Planning Commission had
obtained in their packets and had reviewed. Assistant City Attorney Cudey noted
that in a few alternate jurisdictions staff would question the Planning Commission
as to whether they desired a verbal staff report in addition to the written
provision.
Providing further comments, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the maps
and diagrams associated with the projects be moved nearer to the front of the
agenda item material in order to be more accessible.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the small-
sized plans were placed in the agenda material for the purpose of the record.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that at a future point in time the agenda
packets might be placed on discs.
Chairman Chiniaeff noted that he was not getting paid the meeting fee for all the
meetings he was attending.
For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed when an item
was continued, the public hearing remained open and public testimony would be
heard, noting that the public could be advised to not repeat comments.
Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed, for Commissioner Guerriero, the latitude
and the parameters provided to an applicant during the presentation.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No additional input.
R:PlanCommlminutes/112002 19
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:20 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular
meeting to be held on Wednesday, December 4, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 20
MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 4, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 4, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:07 P.M.,
on Wednesday, December 4, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Olhasso.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriem, *Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff.
* - Commissioner Mathewson arrived at 6:21 P.M.
None.
Absent:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 4, 2002.
2 Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for November 2002.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who had not yet arrived.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planninq Application No. PA02-0387 & PA02-0388 Application to construct, establish
and operate a 30,000 square foot office buildin.q and to subdivide the site into two
parcels of 1.41 acres and 4.28 acres respectively, located on the East side of County
Center Drive, approximately 740 feet noah of Ynez Road (APN 910-1!0-045)`
Matthew Harris1 Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Requesting a continuance to January 15, 2003.
Chairman Chiniaeff informed the public that the applicant has requested a continuance
to the meeting of January 15, 2003.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who had not yet arrived.
4
Planninq Application No. PA02-0223 A request for a findinq of Public Convenience or
Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upqrade the existin.q Type-20 (Off
Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license to a Type 21 (Off Sale General) license
authorizinq the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption off the
premises where sold located in the Moraqa Plaza Shoppin.q Center at 29762 Rancho
California Road on the noah side of Rancho California Road, between Lyndie Lane
and Moraqa Road known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-310-022, Rolfe Preisendanz,
Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0223 (Public
Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) per the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved).
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-058
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR
A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE
CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF
SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF-
SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE
MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND
MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. APN 921-310-022.
4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-059
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0223 A MINOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL
BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE
20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE
21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE
MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND
MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. APN 921-310-022.
Staff presented the staff report
Principal Planner Hazen reviewed the Planning Commission's rationale for continuing
this matter from the November 20, 2002 meeting, advising that since there were only
four Planning Commissioners present and the support for denial and approval was split,
the Planning Commission continued the item to this meeting in hopes of having the full
Commission present.
For the record, Commissioner OIhasso, who had been absent from the November 20,
2002 meeting, noted that she had reviewed the taped record and the draft minutes
regarding this item.
The applicant's representative provided an overview of the proposal
Dr. Sami Jihad, representing the applicant, provided the following information regarding
this particular application:
Noted that with approval of this request for a Type 21 license, the number of licenses
in this census tract would not increase due to the applicant's intent to cancel the
current license if the upgraded license was granted [referencing a letter provided in
the agenda material dated November 6, 2002 from the Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC) Board confirming the intent of the applicant;]
That with respect to the impact of the upgraded license on the community, relayed
that there would be no negative impacts, noting that the Police Department relayed
no opposition to the upgraded license, that the Temecula Valley Unified School
District had written a letter thanking this applicant for continued support, that the
community offered its support of the upgraded license via the petition with over 500
signatures (per agenda material), and that of the 160 letters sent to neighboring
residents, the applicant had received no protests; and
That with respect to the applicant's role in the community, that the applicant has
offered to install a chain-linked fence across the 1st Baptist Church's property, has
donated to community activities and charitable organizations and schools, has
maintained an excellent record with the Police Department with no violations, and
had been a businessman in Temecula for eight years prior to his two years at the
present business location.
The public was invited to comment
Reverend Larry Fisher, 42101 Moraga Road, confirmed that while the applicant offered
to install a fence at the neighboring chumh use, it would have to traverse through a
Southern California Edison right-of-way and would most likely need additional review
and approval; presented a box of trash comprised primarily of empty liquor bottles that
he had collected in a ten-minute period of time from the wooded bank area proximate to
the chumh; provided photographs of the bank and its proximity to the pre-school as well
as pictures of debris on the slope behind the mini-mart including empty alcohol
containers; and clarified that his greatest concern was the proximity of children to this
use, noting his opposition to the upgrading of this liquor license.
Closing comments were offered
Commissioner Guerriero advised that while he had no doubt that the applicant was an
excellent businessman in the community, his concern was based on the proliferation of
full liquor licenses in the community; and noted that he did not support this particular
proposal.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that in the eight years of doing business, this owner has
had no complaints from the community, the Police Department, the surrounding
businesses and has had no violations with respect to the use of his current license;
clarified that approval of the applicant's request would not add an additional liquor
license to this tract, but would simply expand his license; questioned the equity of every
major grocery store in this area receiving the upgraded license when requested while the
small businessman was required to go through this process, noting that this
businessman was in business in the community for a longer period than several of the
larger grocery stores which had the upgraded licenses; opined that the fact that the
upgraded license would aid in keeping the convenience store viable was not grounds for
denying this request, noting his support of aiding in keeping the small businessman
going; noted the comments of the residents expressed at the November 20, 2002
meeting whereby support for this request was relayed; advised that the upgraded license
would serve as a convenience for the residents in this area; and relayed that he would
support this proposal, querying the rationale for not providing the small businessman the
same options as a large big box use.
With respect to this business being viable, Commissioner Olhasso opined that the owner
would most likely not have purchased the business two years ago if it was not viable;
advised that while generally she was on the side of business, in this case she was on
the side of the ABC and staff, relaying that she supported staff's recommendation to
deny the proposal; with respect to the big box uses obtaining the upgraded liquor
licenses, relayed that the trade area associated with the larger uses was greater, noting
that the trade area for this store was less than desirable, opining that an upgraded liquor
license could create additional negative impacts.
It is noted that Commissioner Mathewson arrived at 6:21 P.M.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley and Minute Clerk Hansen
summarized the public testimony provided earlier in this hearing on the record, and
Commissioner Mathewson reviewed the photographs that had been presented by
Reverend Fisher.
In response to Commissioner Olhasso's comments, Mr. Jihad clarified that ABC was not
opposed to the upgraded license; and noted that this business qualified as a pre-existing
legal non-conforming use, that approval for an upgraded license could be granted by the
Director of Planning, that the applicant had been willing to come before the Planning
Commission regarding this matter, and that the applicant had complied with ABC and
staff.
Commissioner Mathewson advised that the critical factor regarding this issue was
whether the Planning Commission could make a Finding of Public Convenience or
Necessity, opining that this application did not meet this criterion.
Advising that at the November 20th hearing this particular census tract with the existing
licensed uses was discussed, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that census tracts were
arbitrary; noted that the licensed uses in this tract were primarily large grocery stores or
restaurants; reiterated that approval of this request would not add an additional license
to the community; opined that this project did meet the criteria to qualify for a Finding of
Public Convenience, which was echoed by Commissioner Telesio; and confirmed that
per conversations with Police Chief Domenoe, the Police Department was not in
opposition to the request for an upgraded license at this use.
Commissioner Telesio noted that he had visited the site in order to investigate
pedestrian activities, advising that he had viewed pedestrians accessing this site; and
relayed the past efforts of staff and the Planning Commission to create pedestrian-
oriented uses, noting that this request qualified for a Finding of Convenience due to
being pedestrian accessible to the neighboring residents.
Commissioner Guerriero commented on the dangers for the community associated with
a proliferation of licensed uses.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation, denying
this application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote
reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff
who voted n._9o.
NEWITEMS
5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0271, PA02-0272, PA02-0273, and PA02-0274 A
General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use desi.qnation from
Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commercial, A Specific Plan Amendment
for the Marqarita Villaqe Specific Plan to amend the land use desiqnation of Planninq
Area 19 from Neiqhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and amendinq
the text within the Specific Plan, A Development Plan for the desiqn, construction
and operation of a 48,427 square foot qrocery store, a 16,640 square foot dru.q store,
a 11,230 square foot shop buildinq, a 8,780 square foot shop buildinq, a 6,220
square foot shop buildinq and a 4,670 square foot shop buildinq, A Conditional Use
Permit to operate a drive throu.qh at a 16,640 square foot druq store, and to permit
the sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square foot grocery store and a 16,640 square foot
druq store located on the south side of Rancho California Road and east of
Meadows Parkway Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0272, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND
TIlE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 954-030-001
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA
19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE
TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 954-030-001
5.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,427
SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP
BUILDING, A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A
6,220 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 4,670
SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001
5.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A
DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG
STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT
A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A
16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001
Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated staff's opinion that the General Plan land use
designation of Neighborhood Commemial is accurate for the subject site; stated that
staff will further explore the matter; and advised that it would be appropriate, at this
time, to take public testimony.
It was noted by Associate Planner Rush that e-mails were received from Dr. Albert
Ball, 31836 Corte Mendoza; and Ms. Maria Bissell, 41645 Corte Higuera, relaying their
opposition to the proposed center (copies of the e-mails were distributed to the
Planning Commissioners).
In response to the Planning Commissioners, Principal Planner Hazen and Associate
Planner Rush noted the following:
That the intent of the Community Commercial designation in the General Plan
would be a use that would serve the entire City; that the intent of the
Neighborhood Commercial designation would be more for the benefit of a
neighborhood core;
At this
That, as per the Development Code, the maximum allowable lot coverage for
Neighborhood Commercial is .40 with a density bonus and the target Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) is .25 (105,000 square feet); that the target Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for Community Commercial is .30 maximum allowable lot coverage with
a density bonus of 1.0; that the Community Commercial designation would
permit more square footage on a lot; that the height limitation for the
Neighborhood Commemial designation would be 35' and for the Community
Commercial designation, it would be 50'; that the proposed plan would be at
approximately 95,000 square feet;
That Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road have been designated as
major arterials (110' right of ways);
That the significant land use differences between the Neighborhood
Commercial and Community Commemial designations would be the size of the
grocery store; the drive-thru, which would require for all zones, a Conditional
Use Permit; and the gas station;
That there are mitigation measures within the initial study; that if the project
were approved, a negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program
would be adopted;
That the proposed site would lend itself to pedestrian access;
That the noise associated with the loading activities of a 48,000 square foot
grocery store would be more intense than those of a 25,000 square foot
grocery store;
That a center with a 48,000 square foot grocery store would be out of scale
considering the adjacent smaller-sized residential homes and would not be
compatible with the existing environment;
That a Neighborhood Commercial center would be in scale with the Zono's
Center at Margarita/Pauba Roads;
That adjacent homes were approved by the County and when built, the zoning
for the area of discussion was Tourist Commercial Highway, which would
permit a grocery store;
That an Environmental Negative Declaration was circulated but no responses
were received;
That staff would be of the opinion that pedestrian linkages throughout the site
are lacking and that if approved, staff would request the ability to further work
with the applicant to address concerns.
time, the public hearing was opened.
Public Input
Mr. John Clement, applicant, introduced his project team - Mr. Richard Salus, attorney,
and Mr. Brian Wolfe, project architect. Proceeding with a project overview, the above-
mentioned individuals noted the following:
Zoning history - relaying that the property of discussion should not have the
Neighborhood Commemial zone designation; that the County Development
Agreement continued into affect when the property was sold; that when action
was taken to change the zoning, several issues occurred:
o The property owner did not consent to the change and, therefore, zone
change would be void;
At the time of the zone change, notices were not provided to the owner;
that the applicant received notice of an action pending as a recipient in a
bounded area but not expressly reflecting the subject site;
o Desirous to continue working with the City and to move project forward
and to work within bounds proposed by the City.
Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle, representing the applicant, noted the
following:
That the original document was Development Agreement No. 5 (11/7/1988) part
of Specific Plan Amendment No. I to the Specific Plan; subsequently
Amendment No. 2 in 1996; Amendment No. 3 in 10/28/1997; that Amendment
Nos. I and 2 were primarily for residential purposes; Amendment Nos. 3 and 4
were part of the Temeku Hills Specific Plan; that an error was made in
Amendment No. 3 (1997) which included areas that should not have been
included; and that Amendment No. 4 was submitted in December 1997 and was
approved by the City Council on January 27, 1998;
That the property of discussion was not included in the application for
Amendment No .4; that a notice was sent with regard to change and lot
coverage areas (areas included were west of Meadows Parkway and north of
Rancho California Road but not the subject site);
That after Amendment No. 4 was approved, a revised text package was
received by staff from the consultant; that this revised package reflected the
change to include the Neighborhood Commercial designation;
That when the General Plan was adopted in 1993, the property of discussion
was under the original Development Agreement; that the property of discussion
was zone changed to Neighborhood Commemial without the acquiescence or
notice to the applicant; that in 1993, the subject site was reflected as a 6.7 acre
parcel; that the area of discussion has always been 9.77 acres;
That research would indicate that the subject site is zoned Tourist Commercial
Highway, as zoned in 1988 (Planning Area 19 in the Development Agreement
and Specific Plan); that there has been no change, to date, to that document;
R:PlanComm/min ut es/120402 9
In an effort to rectify the zoning issue, Mr. Salus relayed his willingness to continue to
work with the Assistant City Attorney's office and staff.
By way of color renderings, Mr. John Clement commented on his workings with City
staff for the past two years, noting the following:
· That the 10-acre parcel would accommodate a grocery/drug store; that
specific economic factors are necessary to finance a site of this size;
· That the site plan has been changed on several occasions in an effort to
mitigate concerns, noting the following:
o Continued equestrian trails and sidewalks
o Front entry to the project site (Ranch California Road) - soft edges,
vineyard theme, Iow signage
o Meadows Parkway entrance - broad sidewalk surround the entire
center
o Downtown theme - benches, water features, gathering area
· That the loading dock area will be completely enclosed with a solid gate
That the separate building (located on Rancho California Road/Meadows
Parkway) was intended to function as a restaurant or some other
Neighborhood Commercial permitted use;
· That there will be pedestrian links throughout the entire center;
· That all components/uses of the center were designed as Neighborhood
Commercial in an effort to service the local neighborhood;
That Neighborhood Commercial would permit a 25,000 square foot grocery
store; that it would be the applicant's desire to increase the size of the
grocery store to 48,000 square feet.
Addressing concerns raised by the neighboring residents, Mr. Clement noted the
following:
· Visual noise/loading
That the maximum height standard for Neighborhood Commercial is
35'; that the proposed center was designed at 28'; that the proposed
rotunda will be 35'; and that the arch treatment could be altered;
o That the architectural finish of all building will be the same on all four
sides;
· Noise
That, as per City Code, an external level of 65 decibels is permitted;
that an acoustical study reflected that the proposed center, after
completion, may experience an external level of 62.5 decibels; that
the 62.5 decibels would primarily be comprised of street noise
versus center noise; and that the center would actually function as a
noise buffer;
· Center hours as well as delivery hours
· Loading
o Dock will be oriented away from homes
o Dockwill be enclosed
· Buffering from residences
Neighborhood Commemial standards require a minimum 25' setback
residential; that the average setback will be 52'; that the maximum
setback will be 65'; and that the minimum setback will be 32'; that the
existing natural slope will provide a 25' to 35' buffer;
· Out-of-scale
That Neighborhood Commercial standards permit a maximum lot
coverage of 25%; that the proposed center will have a lot coverage
of 22.5%;
· Environmental
That, as per the City's Notice to issue a Notice of proposed
declaration (November 12, 2002), the proposed project will not have
a significant impact upon the environment.
With the exception of the proposed size of the grocery store (48,000 square feet), Mr.
Clement reiterated that the proposed center was designed as a Neighborhood
Commercial center.
In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Clement advised that notices of plans were
sent to four neighboring homeowners associations; that he had received one letter in
full support; that the project team has met with specific groups for input; and that efforts
have been undertaken to address the concerns of those residents more directly
affected by the proposed center.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Clement noted that Vons and Sav-On had indicated
a willingness to modify its business hours with those businesses located on Rancho
California Road and that no specific hours have been set for deliveries.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Clement confirmed that, as per the
Neighborhood Commercial use, the proposed drive-through would require a Conditional
Use Permit and that the grocery store will not be utilizing trash compactors at this
particular location.
At 7:36 P.M. a short recess was called and the Planning Commission reconvened with
its regularly scheduled business at 7:48 P.M.
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed project:
- Ms. Robin Greer
- Mr. Bob Crowtler
- Mr. Robert Rasband
- Ms. Christine Helwig
- Ms. Pat Lindahl
- Mr. Al Ogle
30090 Rancho California Road
41536 Yankee Run
32044 Merlot Crest
38225 Via de Oro
45660 Camino Rubi
43053 Margarita Road
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the project for the following
reasons:
· That the developer has addressed community/Planning Department issues with
regard to the project;
· That the neighborhood area has a need for this center and that without it, there
will be continued traffic impact on Rancho California Road and Winchester
Road;
· That the size of the store will not greatly impact inventory deliveries;
· That a 25,000 square foot grocery store would be functionally obsolete;
· That several smaller stores versus a larger grocery store could create other
problems;
· That the proposed center will be a visual asset and enhancement to the
aesthetics of the neighborhood;
· That the residents of this neighborhood were aware that something would be
constructed on this particular parcel;
· That similar concerns were raised with the Plaza del Sol Center; that two years
after the construction of that center, neighboring residents are pleased with the
center and no major problems have arisen.
Written communication received in opposition to the center
- Ms. Lisa Wigand
- Mr. Richard Schafer
- Mr. John Kelsey
- Mr. Wayne Arter
- Mr. Paul Jacob
33539 Code Figueroa (by way of letter)
31418 Code Tunas (by way of letter)
41875 Code Lara (by way of letter)
32271 Code Las Cruces (by way of letter)
32370 Corte Zamora (by way of letter)
The following individuals relayed their opposition to the proposed center:
- Mr. George Marshall
- Mr. Tony Harris
- Mr. Wayne Arter
- Mr. Paul Jacobs
- Mr. Ed Lindsey
Mr. Donald McLaughlin
Mrs. Pam Stangl
Mr. Robert McAIlister
Ms. Jenifer AIvarado
Ms. Jodi Harris
Ms. Petra Valasakos-Darmento
- Mr. William Madden
- Mr. Steven Hagl
- Ms. Christine Crawford
- Mr. Jefferson Smith
- Mr. Michael Crawford
31880 Code Positas
416629 Code Higuera
32271 Corte Las Cruces
32370 Code Zamora
42375 Camino Merano
32205 Corte Chatada
31945 Camino Marea
31580 Culbertson Lane
41528 Riesling Court
41629 Code Higuera
41665 Code Higuera
41653 Corte Higuera
41613 Code Higuera
32057 Corte La Puenta
31708 Paseo de las Olas
32057 Code La Puenta
The above-noted individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed center for the
following reasons:
· That the area of discussion will not be conducive to pedestrian traffic
· That the proposed center would only minimize traffic trips for a few residents
That the proposed center will provide minimal added services/goods to those
already being provided by existing shopping centers; that there is no need for
an additional grocery store
· That the existing zone for the property of discussion should remain as is or the
parcel should be converted into a park
· That the center would create noise, view, traffic, visual aesthetic, bright lights,
and air pollution impacts as well as raise concerns for the safety of the children
· That the signal on Paseo de las Olas would create stacking problems which
could impact the residential driveway within close proximity of that signal
· That the neighboring residents were advised that the property of discussion
was commercially zoned but that it was zoned Neighborhood Commemial
· That there would be objection to the proposed zone change (Community
Commercial) but no objection to a Neighborhood Commercial center
· That if the center were approved, a 24' deceleration lane should be provided
· That the proposed use would not be the most appropriate land use for the
property of discussion
· That other existing grocery stores throughout the City are separated from
abutting residences by either a City street or a water run-off
· That truck deliveries may be made during the time when children are walking to
the neighboring school
That the property of discussion is an unique piece of property which is
completely surrounded by single-family houses and, therefore, the proposed
center would not be compatible with its surroundings
· That if approved, there could be the potential sale of alcohol 60' from his
resident
· That the proposed project would decrease the property values of the
neighboring homes.
Respondin.q to the public, the applicant/applicant representatives stated the
followin.q:
· That Vons had completed a demographic analysis and it reflected the support of
the proposed grocery store
· That the proposed center would function as a neighborhood center and,
therefore, as per the traffic study, would be viewed as a traffic mitigator
That the delivery trucks would not travel on Meadows Parkway; that truck entry
would be on Rancho California Road; that Meadows Parkways could be
designated as a no truck delivery street
That the residents have indicated a willingness to accept a Neighborhood
Commercial center; that the project meets or falls below the standards of
Neighborhood Commemial (lower in height, density, greater setbacks); that the
only difference would be a larger grocery store (48,000 square feet)
That project packages were sent to four different homeowners associations; that
Mr. Markham had met with two homeowners association boards to provide
information; that a meeting was offered to all homeowners associations; that a
letter of support was received from one association and no interest was
expressed in meeting with the project representatives; that project packages
were as well sent to 18 abutting property owners.
In response to the Plannin.q Commissioners, the applicant/applicant
representatives stated the foilowin.q:
· That the market study specified trade areas
· That, as originally presented to staff two years ago, because of the culvert, there
will be no building located on Rancho California Road
It was noted by staff that staff had never been supportive of a grocery
store of this size and that when location of the market was considered
(into the eastern corner), a 48,000 square foot grocery store was never
of discussion
That the allowable massing, as per Neighborhood Commercial, would be
25% building to land area coverage; that the proposed project will be at
22.5%; that the allowable height standard for neighborhood commercial
is 35'; and that the proposed project will be at 28'.
Further addressing the site plan and the proposed layout, Principal Planner Hazen
noted the following:
· That the proposed site design is inadequate
· That two entrances are being proposed off Meadows Parkway
· That the center access off Rancho California Road is driving the design of this
project; that staff is desirous of one driveway off Rancho Califonria Road
· That in order to access any of the two proposed patio areas one would have to
cross major access points
· That in order to access Building E, one would have to cross a main driveway
entrance
R:PlanCom~minut es/120402 15
· That there will be a dead end driveway in the corner located near the proposed
drugstore
· That the grade differential between the streets and parking lot will be
approximately 4' to 5' downgrade
· That in order to access Building F, one would have to cross a drive aisle.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's comment to address the General Plan issue,
Planning Director Ubnoske advised that because this application was not submitted
with the request for a Planned Development Overlay (PDO), staff has not addressed
that issue with the applicant; that staff has addressed the Development Agreement with
the applicant; and that the primary issue of concern is the site design.
Commissioner Olhasso relayed her objection to the construction of a gas station in this
center.
Recognizing the site design issues, Commissioner Telesio noted that until zoning
issues are resolved the Planning Commission will not be in a position to take action.
Assistant City Attorney Curley provided information with regard to the Development
Agreement and the zoning issues and noted that he would anticipate providing
additional information by the next Planning Commission meeting.
If the applicant were held to construct a 25,000 square foot grocery store,
Commissioner Telesio questioned whether or not the applicant would be willing to
proceed. If the applicant were not willing to proceed, Mr. Telesio noted that there would
be no need to proceed with the redesign of the center.
Whether the zoning were to remain Neighborhood Commercial or changed to
Community Commercial, Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated staff's concern with the
massing of the proposed 48,000 square foot grocery store and its location on the site
plan.
In light of staff's recommendation to construct a 25,000 square foot grocery store,
Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Telesio and questioned why
the Commission would continue to discuss the matter if the applicant were insistent on
constructing a 48,000 square foot grocery store.
Having been personally involved with the site plan of discussion in the late 1980s, early
1990s, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the original concept for the property of
discussion was a neighborhood-oriented shopping center with a grocery store and a
gas station in an effort to keep individuals from driving to the Plaza which was, at that
time, the only shopping center with the exception of Stater Brothers which was across
the freeway; that the intent of the center was to reduce traffic trips on Rancho California
Road; and that in terms of a 48,000 square foot grocery store, if the proposed size were
not approved, the remaining allowable square footage could be utilized by several
smaller stores and, thereby, generating just as much traffic as a 48,000 square foot
grocery store.
Reiterating comments made by Chairman Chiniaeff, Commissioner Olhasso noted that
the area of discussion was intended to serve the surrounding neighborhoods and that
considering its close proximity to the residential homes, she would not concur with the
property function as a Tourist Commercial Highway center. Ms. Olhasso suggested that
the site plan issues be addressed; that a grocery store be permitted in order to serve
the neighborhood it was intended to serve; that gathering areas such as those at Tower
Plaza be considered; and that the proposed hours of operation are unacceptable.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended that staff and the applicant continue its efforts
to resolve the site layout issues to ensure the neighboring residents' concerns are
addressed.
Echoing previously made comments, Commissioner Telesio reiterated the original
intent of the subject site - to serve the neighborhood; stated that by serving the
neighborhood, traffic trips would be reduced on Rancho California Road; that the
proposed concept is sound but that the site design needs to be addressed; and that
those issues should be addressed by the applicant and staff.
Responding to the Commission's direction to revisit the site design and to concurrently
address the legal issues with regard to zoning, the applicant's representative confirmed
that a gas station will not be constructed on the subject site and relayed a willingness to
continue the matter to the January 15, 2003, Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to continue the matter to the January 15, 2003,
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso
and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who
abstained.
The Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to continue meeting with the
neighboring residents.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
A. For Commissioner Olhasso, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the Code
Enforcement Report will be presented to the Commission at its January 15, 2003,
meeting.
B. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the
issue of parked cars on Ynez Road (located on the dirt lot) is being addressed.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Wirth regard to Agenda Item No. 5, Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated that staff has
and will continue to work with the applicant and advised that thers would be a
considerable difference between a 48,000 square foot grocery store and a 25,000
square foot grocery store and 25,000 square feet of other buildings, giving staff a greater
flexibility with the site layout versus working with one massive building.
Ms. Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that Saied Naaseh has accepted the Senior
Planner position; that Kelly Mclntyre has accepted the Administrative Secretary position;
and that interviews have been scheduled for next week for the Associate Planner
position.
With regard to Administrative Secretary Mclntyre opening the Commissioners' mail in an
effort to apprise the Commissioners of upcoming events, Chairman Chiniaeff advised
that because of his frequent visits to City Hall, there would be no need for her to open
his mail; Commissioner Olhasso voiced no objection to her opening her mail;
Commissioner Telesio noted that unless the mail is marked confidential, he would have
no objection to it being opened; and Commissioner Mathewson concurred with
Commissioner Telesio and noted that all e-mails should be sent to his work e-mail
address.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:43 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday,
December 18, 2002, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 15, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, January 15, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Deputy City Manager Thornhill,
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Battalion Chief McBride,
Senior Engineer Alegria,
Principal Planner Hazen,
Associate Planner Harris,
Associate Planner Rush,
Associate Planner Thornsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 15, 2003.
2 Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for December 2002.
R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 1
It is noted that this item was pulled for separate consideration.
MOTION: Commissioner OIhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and
to pull Item No. 2 for separate consideration. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
At this time the Planning Commission considered Consent Calendar Item No. 2.
2 Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for December 2002.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that since Director's Hearing
Case No. PA02-0622 was regarding a proposal for a Minor CUP, and was exempt from
the requirements of a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN), it was handled
at the Director's Hearing. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that restaurants did not
require the PCN, as per State Law.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 2. The
motion was seconded by Chairman Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3 Planninq Application No. PA02-0397 A Development Plan to construct, operate and
establish an 11,642 square foot executive office buildinR located at 27247 Madison
Avenue, north of Sanborn Avenue, Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0397
(Development Plan); pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental
Quality Act;
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0397, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND ESTABLISH
AN 11,642 SQUARE FOOT EXECUTIVE OFFICE
BUILDING ON A VACANT .95 ACRE SITE, LOCATED
AT 27247 MADISON AVENUE, NORTH OF SANBORN,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-272-012.
R:PianComm/rninut es/011503 2
Via color renderings overhead, Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the staff
report (of record), highlighting the revisions to the plan the applicant had implemented
in response to the Planning Commission recommendations, noting the added
projected structural offset in the center of the building, the enhancements to the
parapet cap and the addition of four light sconces; advised that the applicant did not
incorporate a revision in the canvas awning design although the Planning
Commission had recommended this modification; and noted alternate architectural
enhancements included in this particular proposal.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Assistant Planner Preisendanz confirmed that the
applicant had relayed at the last hearing the CC&Rs restriction which prohibited a tile
roof from being installed in this business center; for Commissioner Telesio, provided
additional information regarding the added projecting architectural treatment on the
front elevation; in response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries regarding the
implementation of curved windows on the front of the building and not on the side
elevations, relayed the applicant's goal keep the alternate elevations simpler; and
noted that the cap element on the building was a fiat plain treatment.
Mr. Kevin Brown, the applicant, provided additional information regarding the rationale
for the windows being arched on the front elevation, noting that these offices would
most likely have higher ceilings; with respect to the straight awnings, noted that the
Bel Villagio project (a project the Planning Commission had recommended that the
applicant visit) had also incorporated straight awnings, advising that on the sides of
the awnings wrought iron spear treatments would most likely be added and the
awnings made larger; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that there would be four
large wrought iron coach-style lighting fixtures on the front of the building; and with
respect to an alternate rendering depicting eight fixtures, confirmed his preference for
four fixtures, advising that when the building was being constructed it would be a
better time to gauge the mass of the building and implement the additional treatments
needed to create balance.
Referencing photographs he had taken of the Bel Villagio Project, Chairman Chiniaeff
advised that the addition of a similar pop-out treatment in the center of the front
elevation of this proposed project would aid in breaking up the linear appearance. In
response, Mr. Brown relayed his desire to maintain the Iinear appearance in order to
implement a plan consistent with a timeless classic design style.
Mr. Patricia Herron, architect representing the applicant, referenced the photographs
of the Bel Villagio project, noting that that was a different type of project since it was
retail whereas this particular project would be utilized for offices; and cautioned the
Planning Commission with respect to recommending that too many light fixtures be
added which could create a negative visual appearance.
For Commissioner Telesio, Ms. Herron specified that there were four light fixtures
proposed; and noted, for Commissioner Mathewson, that she was unaware that one
of the drawings denoted eight light fixtures.
In light of the restrictions on this project due to the existing CC&Rs, which govern the
roofing material, Commissioners Guerriero and Telesio relayed that they could
support the proposal.
R:PlanComm/minut es/O 11503 3
Although he was not excited regarding the proposed design, Commissioner
Mathewson relayed that he would not deny approval of this project; and noted his
desire to hear the comments of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Olhasso recommended that a tile inset treatment be added on the front
elevation as well as a pop-out treatment, which had been previously recommended by
Chairman Chiniaeff.
Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the building still had a box-like appearance, opining
that the applicant could have implemented improvements; and recommended that the
parapet be offset with the width of the cornice to break up the massing.
Commissioner Guerriero relayed that he could support the recommendation to add
tile insets.
The applicant provided the rationale for not desiring the implementation of tile inset
treatments.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice
vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff who voted n_go.
4
Planninq Application No. PA02-0387 & PA02-0388 Application to construct, establish
and operate a 30,000 square foot office buildinq and to subdivide the site into two
parcels of 1.41 acres and 4.28 acres respectively located on the east side of County
Center Drive, approximately 740 feet north of Ynez Road (APN 910-110-045),
Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Requesting a continuance to February 19, 2003
Associate Planner Harris relayed that staff had received a request from the applicant
requesting a withdrawal of the proposal.
It is noted that this Item was withdrawn.
5
Planninq Application No. PA02-0587 to construct, establish and operate two-story
western re.qional corporate offices for KTM Motorcycles totalin.q 43,161 square feet
includinq research and development facilities and associated 2.06 acre outdoor test
field located on the west side of Via Industria, between Roick Drive and Rio Nedo,
Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No.
PA02-0587 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act;
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PlanCornm/minutes/011503 4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0587, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE
REGIONAL CORPORATE OFFICES FOR KTM
MOTORCYCLES TOTALING 43,161 SQUARE FEET,
INCLUDING ASSOCIATED RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR
MOTORCYCLE TEST AREA. THE SITE IS GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VIA INDUSTRIA
BETWEEN ROICK DRIVE AND RIO NEDO ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-320-001
THRU 004.
Commissioner Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining from this item, and left the
dais at this time.
By way of overhead maps, Associate Planner Harris provided an overview of the project
(of record), highlighting the proposed location, the site layout, the parking provisions, the
two-acre test field, the architectural design which would be similar to the company's
headquarters which was located in Austria, the three vedical elements, the proposed
color application, the drought tolerant landscape plan, and the noise analysis which
revealed that there would be no significant impacts; and advised that the applicant has
agreed to construct an eight-foot berm along the frontage of the project and a seven-foot
concrete wall on top of that (which was not required.)
Mr. Walt Allen, architect representing the applicant, noted the plan to fast-rack the
project, advising that staff was so efficient that it was the applicant who held the project
up; commended the following individuals for their diligent efforts regarding this project:
Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Principal Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris,
Landscape Architect Elliot, Senior Engineer AIegria, Assistant Engineer Bostre-Le,
Battalion Chief McBride, Deputy Building Official Harold, and Senior Inspector Smith;
and for informational purposes, relayed that his partner was almost singularly
responsible for the proposed design of this project.
Mr. John Zolikoff, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Mathewson, provided
additional information regarding the noise study, confirming that seven motorcycles
would be the maximum being tested at one time, that the noise levels from the
motorcycles varied per the use of varying types of silencers, that all of their motorcycles
had some type of silencer, that with the incorporation of the berm and the wall (which
was not required) the decibels would be further decreased; noted the applicant's desire
to be a good neighbor; confirmed that seven motorcycles were utilized in the study; and
echoed Mr. Allen's comments regarding staff's wonderful work regarding this project.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that staff was present
when the noise study was conducted, advising that the study did not take into
consideration the added berm and wall. Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided
additional information regarding the noise readings taken up on the ridge (while he was
present) which would not negatively impact any residents; relayed that the project was
R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 5
conditioned to address any noise impacts if it were determined that there were negative
impacts in the future at this use; and noted that there were no noise sensitive uses in the
Industrial Zones.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant relayed that the height of the colored band at the
top of the building was 33 feet.
Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she was pleased with the architecture, that it was a
benefit to the City to have this company's regional headquaders in Temecula; and
commended staff and the architecture with respect to this project.
Thanking staff for the clarification regarding the noise study, Commissioner Mathewson
relayed that he was pleased with the proposed design and would support the proposal.
Commissioner Telesio welcomed the applicant to the City of Temecula, which was
echoed by Chairman Chiniaeff.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner OIhasso and voice
vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained.
Planninq Application No. PA02o0308 A Proposal to construct and operate two
industrial/warehouse buildinqs totalinq 22,664 square feet (Buildinq A at 11,204
square feet and Buildinq B at 11,460 square feet) on a 1.97-acre parcel located on
the west side of Bostik Court, approximately 330 feet south of Winchester Road,
Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0308
(Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CaIifornia Environmental
Quality Act;
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0308, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE TVVO
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS FOR WAREHOUSE,
MANUFACTURING AND OFFICE USE, TOTALING
22,664 SQUARE FEET (WITH BUILDING "A" AT 11,204
SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" AT 11,460 SQUARE
FEET). THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF BOSTIK COURT, APPROXIMATELY 330
FEET SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-037
R:PlanComm/minuteslO11503 6
Via renderings, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (per agenda
material), highlighting the location, the access point, the architectural design, the
enhanced articulations, the proposed color application, and the landscape plan
including the proposal to landscape the slope.
Mr. Shane Shaw, representing the applicant, provided a history of his experience with
Associate Planner Associate Planner Thornsley, noting that he had provided
recommendations for the applicant to further enhance the project, commending
Associate Planner Thornsley for his great work regarding this project; and with
respect to the slope at the rear of the property, relayed the concerns regarding the
weekly maintenance of landscaping this area due to the two-to-one sloping, noting
that the applicant was open to suggestions of the Planning Commission regarding this
matter.
Mr. Kelli Jones, representing the Westside Business Center Association, read into the
record a letter dated December 17, 2002, from the Association, outlining the Board's
concerns regarding maintenance of the proposed landscaping on the slope; and for
Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the Association was opposed to this portion of the
landscape plan, noting that this proposal would not be consistent with the existing
development in this area.
Associate Planner Thornsley relayed that he had attempted to call the Association's
representative but that he had been provided the wrong phone number on the
previous referenced letter; advised that when this area was mapped, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program required that these slopes be landscaped per the City's
landscape standards ergo the development of this particular landscaping proposal on
the slope; noted that most slopes in the City were two-to-one slopes; and confirmed
that there was a mix of trees proposed on the slope, for Commissioner Mathewson,
noting that most of the plantings were groundcover plants which would not require
weekly maintenance.
Mr. Don Slater, the applicant, relayed that in this area there was not one other slope
planted as per the City's landscape standards, querying why this one project would
be required to add this landscaping.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Ms. Jones confirmed that currently the Business Association
maintains the slopes in this area.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thornsley provided
additional information regarding the existing landscaping at the developed sites in this
area.
Mr. Brian Murphy, 38332 Corte Algera, property owner in this area, relayed that he,
too, was opposed to the higher landscape standards being imposed on this project,
advising that the Planning Commission's determination regarding this issue would
impact the project he was in the midst of planning in this area.
For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that this tract map was subject
to being conditioned to landscape per the City's landscape standards (via the
Development Code); advised that if the applicant had concerns regarding
maintenance that the applicant should pursue installation of drought tolerant plants,
R: PlanComm/minutes/011503 7
noting that staff could work with the applicant to investigate planting a different
species of plant if that was the direction of the Planning Commission, Deputy Director
of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding it being typical that
landscaping would be enhanced when development occurred.
Mr. Shaw relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to being conditioned to work
with staff regarding alternatives for the landscape plan subject to the approval of staff.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item in order that staff could
work with the applicant regarding alternatives with respect to the landscape plan.
(Ultimately this motion died for lack of a second,)
Commissioner Mathewson advised that would not support reducing the number of
plantings solely because alternate projects had not been conditioned as such.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that he would support moving forward with the proposal,
and that the applicant work with staff regarding implementing drought tolerant plantings
as long as the minimum Code requirements were met.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Condition No. 9 (regarding landscaping) could
be amended to reference the Planning Commission direction.
.MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation, subject to the following:
Modify-
That Condition No. 9 be revised to state that a landscape plan shall be
submitted and approved per the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and in
conformance with the Design Guidelines.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0272, PA02-0271, PA02-0273, and PA02-0274 A
General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from
Neic~hborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, A Specific Plan Amendment
for the Marqarita Villacle Specific Plan to amend the land use desiqnation of Planning
Area 19 from Neiqhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and to amend
the text within the Specific Plan, A Development Plan for the desiqn, construction
and operation of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, a 16,640 square foot druq store,
a 11,230 square foot shop buildinq, a 10,000 square foot shop buildinq, and a 8,780
square foot shop buildinq, A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive throuqh at a
16,640 square foot druq store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square
foot qrocery store and a 16,640 square foot druq store located on the south side of
Rancho California Road and east of Meadows Parkway, Rick Rush, Associate
Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 8
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-
0272, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 954-030-001.
7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-
0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA
t9 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE
TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 954-030-00t.
7.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-
0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,427
SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP
BUILDING, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING
AND A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING,
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 954-030-001.
7.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 9
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-
0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A
DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG
STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT
A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A
16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001.
Commissioner Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining from this Item and left the
dais at this time.
Staff presented the project plan
Associate Planner Rush relayed that this matter had been continued from December 4,
2002 for the following reasons: 1) legal concerns, which were raised by the applicant at
the last meeting, and 2) recommended site design modifications.
Noting the research conducted, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the Zoning
and the General Plan Land Use Designation (Neighborhood Commercial) that staff has
been relying on was correct; provided additional information regarding ex parle
communications with respect to this project, noting that a staff member had called and
queried the Commissioners as to whether they had provided specific direction to staff to
bring back a form of approval for this particular proposal; clarified that during this
questioning there were no deliberations, or efforts to form a consensus or to direct the
Planning Commission. For the record, Commissioners Olhasso, Mathewson, and
Chiniaeff confirmed Assistant City Attorney Curley's statements regarding staff
questioning the Commissioners with respect to direction that had been provided by the
Planning Commission at the December 4, 2002 meeting, Commissioner Telesio noting
that he did not receive a telephone call.
Providing an overview of the proposal, Associate Planner Rush relayed the following:
That per the Planning Commission's direction, the applicant and staff met on
December 26~ to discuss staff's concerns regarding the site plan;
That the following concerns were addressed: 1 ) the east driveway entrance
was moved further west, 2) the throat area was increased, 3) the drive-
through for the drug store was relocated, 4) the building at the rear of the site
was removed and the square footage added to an alternate building, 5) the
trash enclosure and loading area issues were addressed regarding Shop C,
and 6) the loading dock was relocated.
That the following concerns were not addressed to staff's satisfaction: 1) the
proposal still identified two additional access points which negatively impact
internal circulation (staff recommending that there be one access point off of
R:PtanCommJminutes/O 11503 10
each of the two streets, 2) adequate pedestrian linkages have not been
created internally, and the buildings have not been clustered.
That based on additional research, this site was approximately 8.49 acres (without
the slope or the equestrian easement) which was closer to a Neighborhood
Commercial designation than a Community Commercial designation;
Referencing the table on page 4 of the staff repod, indicated that there were no
existing large-scale grocery stores in the City of Temecula on a parcel this small;
and for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the figures denoting the acreage
of each site were net figures, i.e., calculated without slopes;
Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that all of the grocery stores denoted on the table
were either within a mixed use project or a strip center, advising that the
proposed project would primarily be a market; and relayed that with respect to
the lack of pedestrian orientation with the proposed project, that not one of the
grocery stores on the table were designed so that an individual could park and
walk to all the buildings in the center, as staff had recommended being
implemented into this project plan;
Principal Planner Hazen clarified that staff's intent with the table was to indicate
that when the applicant had stated that the proposed site was too large to be
zoned as Neighborhood Commercial, that in the City of Temecula existing
large-scale grocery stores were sited on larger commercial sites, as well as to
demonstrate that these alternate sites were buffered by streets or non-single-
family residential uses.
The applicant provided an overview of the proposal
Regarding this padicular project, Mr. John Clement, the applicant, relayed the following:
· That revisions were incorporated into the project at the request of staff;
That all of the residents residing adjacent to the slope were notified (via a hand-
delivered letter delivered approximately ten days ago) of the new site plan; that the
applicant offered to meet and discuss the plan, that the applicant received one
phone call and one letter in response, and that last night (January 14th) the applicant
met with Mr. Harris and his family to discuss the site plan.
That while the applicant disagreed with Assistant City Attorney Curley's findings
regarding the Zoning and the Land Use designation, it was the applicant's desire to
move forward with the project, relaying hopes that an agreement could be reached;
· That the site was 9.77 acres per a survey that was conducted;
That it was the applicant's opinion that a single entrance to the site would not be
appropriate, and that the two proposed entrances on each of the two streets have
been reviewed and processed through the Public Works Depadment;
R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 11
For Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that staff had recommended that the market
be relocated, and that the previous location which aligned the market away from the
homes was the applicant's preference;
· That of the 15 new comments staff provided regarding the project, the applicant was
able to satisfy 12 of those comments;
Mr. Brian Wolf, architect representing the applicant, relayed the following information
regarding the project:
That with respect to the pedestrian linkages, there was an 8-foot wide connection
with a lavender hedge, olive trees, and benches which created a pedestrian
orientation, additionally noting the seating area buffered to the landscaped slope,
and the 30-foot-by-100-foot hardscaped opportunity for seating with landscaping;
· That the corner tower treatment has been enhanced;
· That with respect to the relocation of the drive-through at staff's request, noted his
preference to the previous plan;
· That with respect to the driveway issues, singular access (on each street) would be
problematic;
· That with respect to the reorientation of the loading area, that he supported this
revision;
· That the entry statement had been improved; and
· That part of the landscaping setback was an equestrian trail, which would be an
added community amenity, advising that this area would serve as an effective buffer.
Providing additional clarification, Mr. Clement noted the following:
That the hours of operation for the proposed Vons and Sav-On uses would be from
6:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M., noting Von's written agreement to restrict trucking deliveries
to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., advising, for Commissioner Mathewson, that
Sav-On has verbally agreed to match Vons restrictions;
· That the applicant had requested the Zone change (to Community Commercial) at
the direction of staff; and
That this proposal was actually a Neighborhood Commercial project with consistent
uses, under the total allowable building area, well in excess of the required distance
to residential, well under the height restrictions, and that the sole consideration for an
exception was the allotment of the size of the market, proposed to be 48,000 square
feet.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Wolf confirmed that the pavement would be
enhanced in the pedestrian area, noting alternate treatments proposed in this area, i.e.,
a fountain, seating amenities, light posts, and tree grates.
R:PianCommlminutes/011503 12
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Clement relayed that the mechanical roof
equipment would be integral to the building and fully enclosed architecturally, Mr. Wolf
clarifying that the applicant was willing to treat this screening architecturally to match the
cornice of the building, advising that on the smaller buildings the equipment would be
screened behind the parapets; and noted that if there was concern, a roof screen could
be incorporated on the smaller buildings.
With respect to the enclosed loading dock, for Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Clement
relayed that the noise study was conducted without consideration of the full enclosure;
for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the dock would be fully enclosed with a roof and
sides, advising that the door mechanism would be similar to a garage door, which rolled
up onto the roof.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that it was his
understanding that the block wall on the property line would serve as the mitigation for
the noise impacts for the truck loading area.
Referencing the Initial Study Document, Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant,
noted that on page 14, in Section 11 a., c., the study indicated that the source of the
noise impacts was from vehicles traveling on Rancho California Road and Meadows
Parkway, advising that the enclosure would mitigate this particular impact; for
Commissioner Mathewson, noted that Item No. 10 on page 14 (of the Initial Study)
required the truck engines to be turned off during delivery operations. Chairman
Chiniaeff advised that an updated noise study would be important for the applicant to
)rovide, one in which the enclosure was taken into consideration.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Clement advised that the drive-through has always been
~art of the Sav-On proposal, but that he could question the Save-On representatives as
to whether inclusion of the drive-through was a deal-breaker issue for this use.
The public was invited to comment
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project, as proposed:
Mr. Tony Harris
Ms. Pamela Stangl
Ms. Devin Darmento
Mr. Paul Jacobs
Ms. Christine Crawford
Mr. Mike Crawford
Mr. Don McLaughlin
41629 Code Higuera
31945 Camino Higuera
41665 Corte Higuera
32370 Code Zamora
32057 Corte La Puerta
32057 Code La Puerta
32205 Code Chatado
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal, due to the
following concerns:
The noise, light, and traffic impacts;
Safety issues proximate to the middle school and the Association's playing fields
along Meadows Parkway due to the increased traffic;
Alcohol being sold so near to the school and the residential development,
recommending that the Planning Commission deny approval based on the two
additional alcohol licenses this proposal included;
R:PlanComrn/minutes/011503 13
o Questioned the need for another strip center;
Environmental concerns, i.e., rainwater run-off, the hillside, trash overflow, and the
handling of the trash at the market without a trash compactor;
o Encroachment into wine country;
o Truck delivery impacts;
Truck access;
o The applicant's poor community relations;
o A gas station being a permitted use at the site;
o The parcel size in relationship to the proposal;
o The internal truck route which traversed over the area in front of the market which did
not appear feasible, noting the likelihood of the trucks to exit onto Rancho California
Road, relaying that this path would traverse over the primary walking area;
o The noise impacts related to pressure-washing the parking lot which was typically
done in the middle of the night;
o Mr. Jacobs noted that he did not receive the notice the applicant had stated was
hand delivered;
Requested that the Planning Commission uphold the General Plan designation and
solely allow Neighborhood Commercial uses on this site which limited the maximum
size of a building to 33,000 square feet;
That the argument which stated that one 50,000-square-foot building would generate
the same traffic as two 25,000-square-foot buildings should be suppoded via a traffic
study;
Urged the Planning Commission to not consider relevant preconceived notions of
what might have been envisioned at this intersection more than a decade ago;
Suggested rezoning the area to Tourist Commercial as a gateway to Wine Country;
Relayed no opposition to the development of smaller stores, i.e., a Trader Joe's;
o Questioned which Homeowner Associations had expressed support of the proposal,
as was stated by the applicant; and
o The proposed market was too close to the neighboring residences.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Jacobs relayed that he did not reside on the ridge,
and, for Chairman Chiniaeff, that he would not be opposed to the development of
residential units on the property.
The applicant provided rebuttal
In response to the expressed comments, Mr. Clement relayed the following information:
· That a traffic study was conducted which reflected that the proposed project would
be a form of traffic mitigation due to drawing customers from the local community;
· That the data indicated that the total proposed square footage was under what was
permitted in Neighborhood Commercial;
· That the demographics of this area would not support the development of a Trader
Joe's use or a Henry's; and
For Commissioner Telesio, relayed that a Trader Joe's use would have the same
locating dock configuration as proposed in this project, and that the additional square
footage would be extended in smaller uses (1500 to 2500 square foot uses) which
R:P)anCommJminutes/011503 14
the traffic study revealed would have a higher total traffic count than a larger use, as
was proposed with this project.
Mr. Wolf relayed the following information:
For Commissioner OIhasso, that the applicant would be willing to restrict the hours of
trash truck pickup and on-site maintenance to be consistent with the truck delivery
times;
· That the project's lighting would be in compliance with City Ordinances;
· That the proposal would not generate more traffic than a Neighborhood Commercial
project; and
· For Commissioner Olhasso, advised that the exit proximate to Building E would be
restricted to right-only exits (per the installation a median).
Referencing the Initial Study, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the analysis did
conclude that this project, as proposed, would generate less traffic than a Neighborhood
Commercial proposal. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that the
formulas utilized for Neighborhood Commercial for traffic generated were higher per
square foot than for Community Commercial, confirming, for Chairman Chiniaeff, that a
50,000-square-foot market would generate less traffic than two 25,000-square-foot
markets.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Larry Markham noted that a letter dated October
22"d from the Rancho Vista Estates HOA expressed support for the project; advised that
the applicant had utilized the City provided list of HOAs as well as its names, addresses
and phone numbers; and noted that he had attended Mr. Harris's HOA meeting and the
Temeku Hills HOA meeting for informational purposes.
The Planninq Commission relayed closing comments
For informational purposes, Commissioner OIhasso relayed that in response to her
previous request for demographic information, that data was provided to her at this
hearing which included income and dwelling units existing, as well as future forecasts for
the two-mile radius of this center; advised that there was an economic need for this
center; that the small scale of the center (in comparison to centers such as the Ralph's'
Center at Butterfield Stage Road/Highway 79 South) would be more user-friendly,
noting her preference for this size of a center from a planning perspective; that although
she was not pleased with the big box drug store use on the corner, that if this satisfied
staff's requirements to create a main street orientation with Buildings C and D that she
could accept the proposal; that she was pleased with Building E and the proposed
walkway; that the Specific Plan anticipated residential development in this area when
this area was designated Neighborhood Commercial and that these services were now
needed in this area; relayed that prior to developing a Trader Joe's use, the traffic counts
would have to be much higher (per a requirement of Trader Joe's); and opined that
Tourist Commercial Zoning would not be appropriate at this site.
Referencing the public comments, Commissioner Telesio relayed that those with
concerns regarding the proposal were those that resided proximate to the project site;
R:PianComm/minutes/011503 15
clarified that the sole differential between this proposal and a Neighborhood Commercial
project was the square footage of the grocery store, and not the total square footage of
the project; reiterated that the testimony from staff was that smaller buildings (totaling
the same square footage) would generate additional traffic; relayed that in the early
planning stage the County had determined that there would be a need for this type of
center at this particular location, advising that that need now exists; noted that with a few
minor revisions he could support the project, advising that to remove the drive-through
component from the proposed Save-On use would address a few of the concerns; and
relayed that the proposed truck route on site should be revised.
Commissioner Mathewson advised that the concerns expressed by the residents
regarding this project (i.e., traffic, lighting, truck deliveries, pressure-washing, etc.,)
would be impacts experienced whether this site was developed as Community
Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial, reiterating that the fundamental differential
was the size of the proposed market and that the resulting difference would be the
massing, noting that in his opinion this impact was not significant as long as the roof-
mounted equipment was screened; reiterated that this project, as proposed, would
generate less traffic than a Neighborhood Commercial site; noted that while there were
issues that needed to be addressed, he would not oppose the proposed change in the
Zoning and the Land Use designation; relayed his concern regarding the noise impacts
from the truck deliveries, noting that it was important to him that the updated noise study
be provided; concurred with the recommendation to remove the drive-through; and
opined that the site plan needed to be revised with respect to the Save-On location, the
loading dock, and the internal circulation; and urged the applicant to work diligently to
address these issues with staff and to make additional efforts to outreach into the
community.
Providing a historical overview of the this padicular property, Chairman Chiniaeff noted
that the original plan for this site was to have a market and gas station developed in
order to serve this residential area; relayed that the proposed project would generate
lesser impacts than a Neighborhood Commercial project; concurred that the on-site
circulation needed to be addressed, offering the following recommendation: that the
circulation route for trucks entering the site should be pass Meadows Parkway, turning in
right at the easterly driveway, coming straight in, backing into the loading dock on the
alternate side of the building and then exiting on Meadows Parkway; relayed that he was
not opposed to the larger-sized market; recommended that there be a condition added,
restricting all drive-through and gas station uses; advised that he was not opposed to the
proposed driveways; and in response to the applicant, noted that the Planning
Commission was not recommending a revision with respect to the relocation of the
buildings on site due to a consensus not being met.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant's
representatives relayed that the loading dock could be located further back on the
building, confirming that this area would be screened, as previously described; and for
Commissioner Telesio, noted that typically the drug store uses desired to have the
building front orientation to the street.
Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she was not strongly in support of a drug store use
on this site, concurring with the recommendation to remove the proposed drive-through
element; and advised that she was not pleased with the front entry of the drug store use
facing the street.
R:PtanComm/rninuteslO 11503 16
Since the Planning Commission discussions were leaning towards continuing this
matter, Assistant City Attorney Curley apprised the Commission that staff would revise
Recommendation Nos. 7.1-7.4 to reflect recommendations of approval as well as
including the Planning Commission's recommended revisions (including the associated
resolutions), and that staff would bring back the revised recommendations to the
Planning Commission. in response, the applicant relayed agreement.
Providing specific direction, Commissioner Mathewson relayed hopes that both staff and
the applicant would work arduously to address the issues of concern, reiterating his
desire for the applicant to bring back a revised noise study addressing the impacts with
inclusion of the enclosed loading area. Commissioners O[hasso and Mathewson
clarifying to the applicant that the Planning Commission did not desire to have this
project brought back until the recommended revisions had been implemented.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the February 19,
2003 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
O~hasso. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.)
Additional discussion ensued between staff and the applicant regarding the scheduling
of meeting times to discuss the project, Assistant City Attorney Curley advising that staff
would be available to meet with the applicant, Director of Planning Ubnoske noting the
impodance of the applicant's entire development team being present at the meetings,
relaying the past difficulties when the applicant's architect had not been present.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of
Commissioner Guerriero who abstained.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that staff
would be providing additional information regarding Code Enforcement.
Relaying kudos, Commissioner Telesio recognized Assistant Planner
Preisendanz, noting that he was the 2002 Employee of the Year.
Commissioner Mathewson requested that staff direct applicants to provide
consistency with respect to the information provided, i.e., drawings, and
renderings, and that the material presented represent the applicant's intended
proposal.
In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the City currently had this
policy in place, advising that staff could either note the discrepancies in the staff
report, or it could be relayed to the applicant that the item would be continued
until the data provided was consistent.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske' queries, it was relayed that
Commissioner Guerriero and Chairman Chiniaeff would be able to attend the
national conference held from March 29~h through April 2"".
R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 17
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the Code Enforcement reports would be
becoming more detailed in the near future.
Updating the Planning Commission regarding recruitment efforts, Director of
Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Department would be recruiting
once again for the position of Associate Planner.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:20 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular
adiourned meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 29, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the
City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R:PlanCommlminutes/O 11503 18
ITEM #3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ClTY OFTEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
February 19, 2003
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for January 2003
January 16, 2003 PA02-0609 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate Christian Approved
chumh services in an existing building Science
located at 28900 Old Town Front Street, Society
Suite 105
January23,2003 PA02-0331 A Tentative Parcel Map (30786) to Rilington Approved
subdivide two existing pamels totaling 3.85 Bella
acres into three single-family residential Villaggio
parcels located on the south side of Pauba
Road and west of Margarita Road.
i January30,2003 PA02-0511 The fifth and final one-year Extension of Yogesh Continued
Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Goradia to 2/6/03
25004 located north of Nicholas Road and
east of Seraphina Road
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
P:~LAN N IHG'~D IRHEAP.'uVIEMO~2003'~Iamax7 2003.m~mo.dec
1
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
P:WLANN ING~DIRHEAR~VIEMO~2003~J~nua~ 2003.memo.doc
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
January 16, 2003 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temeculs, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard, There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
Item No. 1:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
ACTION:
PA02-0609 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
Christian Science Society
Located at 28900 Old Town Front Street, Suite 105
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate chumh services in a
existing building located at 28900 Old Town Front Street, Suite 105;
Submitted.by Christian Science Society
This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class I Categorical
Exemption 15301 (Existing Facilities)
Dan Long, Associate Planner
APPROVED
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
January 23, 2003 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner,
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
Item No. 1:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
ACTION:
PA02-0331 (Tentative Pamel Map Number 30786).
Rilington Bella Villagio
Located on the south side of Pauba Road and approximately 2,000
feet west of Margarita Road.
A Tentative Parcel Map (30786) to subdivide two existing pamels
totaling 3.85 acres into three single-family residential parcels located
in the Low-Density Residential (L-l) zone. (APN #945-090-011 &
012)
Project is exempt from C EQA provisions in accordance with Class 15
Categorical Exemption 15315 (Minor Land Division).
Matt Harris, Associate Planner
APPROVED
P:kPLANNINGkDIRHEAR~AgendasL2003\01-23~)3 ACTION AGENDA.doc
1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
January 30, 2003 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
Item No. 1:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. 02-0511 (Extension of Time)
Yogesh Goredia
Northerly of Nicholas Road and east of Seraphina Road
The fifth and final one-year Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 25004
Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative
Declaration was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and
Negative Declarations).
Rick Rush
CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 6, 2003
P:~PLANNING~DIRHEAR~Ageadask2003\01-30-03 ACTION AGENDA.doc
1
ITEM #4
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 19, 2003
Planning Application No(s). 02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL, ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
3. ADOPTa Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA
19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 954-030-001.
R:'d) Pk2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
4. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING,
A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 SQUARE
FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
5. ADOPTa Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 13,217 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL
AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 13,217
SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH
OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Venture Point, John Clement
PROPOSAL:
PA02-0272: A General Plan Amendment to amend the
General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood
Commercial to Community Commercial.
PA02-0271: A Specific Plan Amendment for the Margarita
Village Specific Plan to amend the land use designation of
Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to
Community Commercial and to amend the text within the
Specific Plan.
PA02-0273: A Development Plan for the design, construction
and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217
square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot shop building, a
10,568 square foot shop building, and a 9,603 square foot
shop building.
R:',D P',2002\02-0273 Meadow Village,Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
2
PA02-0274: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive
through at a 13,217 square foot drug store, and to permit the
sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and a
13,217 square foot drug store.
LOCATION:
South side of Rancho California Road and East of Meadows
Parkway
EXISTING ZONING:
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
South: Medium Density Residential (M)
East: Medium Density Residential (M)
West: Medium High Density Residential (MH)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Single-Family Homes
South: Single-Family Homes
East: Single-Family Homes
West: Single-Family Homes
BACKGROUND
The following staff report shall serve as supplemental analysis to the two previous staff reports
presented to the Planning Commission, dated December 4, 2002 and January 15, 2003 (see
attached). Atthe January 15, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, staff and the applicant were
directed to resolve the outstanding site design issues. Since that meeting, staff and the applicant
have met and resolved all of the site design issues.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Amendment
Per the Planning Commission's direction, staff has prepared a resolution in which the Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment. The
Commission has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element
is consistent with all of the elements the General Plan. The key overriding factor of support is the
Planning Commission's belief that a supermarket on the site is appropriate and will help reduce
vehicle trips to other supermarkets.
Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment of the Margarita Village Specific Plan to change the land use designation
from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commemial is consistent with the proposed General
Plan Amendment. The proposed text changes have addressed concerns raised by the Planning
Commission in regards to restricting gas stations from being a permitted use on the site.
R:~J) PL2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
3
Development Plan
Staff and the applicant have met and resolved the remaining site design issues. The following is a
list of site design changes:
· The access point on Rancho California nearest to Meadows Parkway has been shifted further to
the east.
· The size of the proposed Drug Store has been reduced from 16,640 square feet to 13,217
square feet. The reduction of the building has allowed for vehicle access around the entire
building.
· The entry for the Drug Store has been oriented inward towards Shop C and Shop D, which has
created a pedestrian linkage between all three buildings.
· The pharmacy pickup window has been relocated from the west building elevation to the south
building elevation and reduced to one drive aisle.
· The loading dock area has been reduced in size and relocated from the south building elevation
to west building elevation.
· Parking fields have been added adjacent to the Drug Store for customer convenience and to
eliminate pedestrian and vehicle conflicts.
· Shops D has been increased from 9,230 square feet to 10,568 square feet.
· The loading area for the Market has been relocated.
· The drive aisle around the rear of the market has been eliminated.
Conditional Use Permit
As previously stated, the applicant is proposing to relocate the pharmacy pickup window to the south
building elevation. The applicant has furnished staff with a letter from Albertson's, who owns Sav-
On (see attached), stating that the pharmacy pickup window is an important integral part of the their
store that adds convenience to the surrounding community. They further state that the pickup
window will be reduced to one lane and will only be used for items normally associated with
prescription drugs. Planning staff has reviewed this proposed change and is in support of the new
location of the pharmacy pickup window. It is the opinion of staff that due to the Iow volume of
vehicles utilizing the pickup window and its new location, the use will not adversely affect the overall
site.
The proposed project is located in Census Tract 0432.21. According to information obtained from
the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (see attached), the aforementioned Census Tract
does not have an over concentration of Type 21 (off-sale) licenses. The Census Tract 0432.21
permits 11 off-sale licenses and currently there is only one active license within the Census Tract.
Staff has reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit and has found that the proposed request
for the Type 21 licenses for the Sav-On Drugstore and Vons are consistent with Section 17.10.020B
(Alcoholic Beverage Sales). Neither of the proposed businesses are located within five hundred feet
of any religious institutions, schools or public parks. Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity
are not needed.
R:~D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\S~aff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Environmental Study (lES) was prepared for this project. The lES determined that the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment with regards to aesthetics, air
quality and noise. However, due to the design of the project and mitigation measures imposed upon
the project through conditions of approval and the project's Mitigation Monitoring Program,
environmental effects are not considered to be significant. Any impacts will be mitigated to levels
less than significant with implementation of the following mitigation measures:
Aesthetics
· The applicant shall be required to screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of
the adjacent residence, utilizing architectural elements.
Air Quality
· The project will be required to have daily trash pickups that will eliminate any potential
objectionable odors.
Noise
· All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate
the noise generated by delivery trucks.
· Provide a 7-foot high parapet wall that will block the line of site from the backyard of the nearby
homes to the exposed roof and ventilation systems of Building A and Building E.
· Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
· Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines to be turned off during delivery operations.
FINDINGS
Staff has made the following findings of approval, which are reflected in the attached resolutions:
General Plan Amendment
The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit a supermarket to be sited on the subject
parcel. The proposed site is a suitable location for a supermarket and will serve as a traffic
mitagator for the surrounding area. The project as proposed will decrease vehicle trips to other
supermarkets located to the west and south of the proposed project. The proposed project
meets the Circulation Elements goal of maintaining a Level of Service "D" or better at all
intersections in the City of Temecula during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better dudng
non-peak hours.
As stated in the Overview section of the General Plan, "every General Plan amendment must be
consistent with the rest of the General Plan". The proposed General Plan Amendment is
consistent with the entire General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal number three
requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The
proposed land use change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial will
enhance residential neighborhoods by providing access to a supermarket.
R:~D 1~2002\ff2-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19~03.doc
5
Specific Plan Amendment
· The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the proposed land use designation for
the General Plan. The text changes as proposed are also consistent with the General Plan.
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F)
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Community
Commemial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has
listed the proposed uses as typical uses in the Community Commemial designation. The
proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the
Community Commemial zoning district. The project has been conditioned by the Building
Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes.
The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in table 17.08.040B
of the City of Temecula's Development Code. The proposed amhitecture and site layout for the
project has been reviewed utilizing the Commemial Development Performance Standards of the
Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to
circulation; architectural design and site plan design.
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E)
la. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the general plan. The
proposed drive through and request for alcohol sales meets the purpose and intent of a
conditional use permit as defined in Section 17.04.010A of the development code.
1 b. The nature of the proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the
community. The proposed drive through for the drug store has been located in area that will not
conflict with pedestrian foot traffic. The drive through window will actually serve as a benefit to
the surrounding neighbors. Staff has determined with statistics from the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, Census Tract 0432.21 permits 11 off-sale licenses and currently
there is only one active license within the Census Tract. The two proposed requests for off-sale
liquor licensees would not create an undue concentration of Type-21 licenses in the area.
lc. Staff has reviewed the proposed project against the development code requirements shopping
centers and has found that the project meets or exceeds all of the requirements.
ld. This application has been brought before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing where
members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the Planning
Commission renders their decision.
CONCLUSION ! RECOMMENDATION
Staff has revised the resolutions for the project per Planning Commission direction. The resolutions
now read that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit.
R:\D Px2002\02~0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19~)3.doc
6
Attachments:
1. General Plan Amendment PC Resolution - Blue Page 8
2. Specific Plan Amendment PC Resolution - Blue Page 11
Exhibit A - Margarita Village Text Changes - Blue Page 14
3. Development Plan PC Resolution - Blue Page 15
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 18
4. Conditional Use Permit PC Resolution - Blue Page 32
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 35
5. Exhibits - Blue Page 38
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Floor Plan
F. Grading Plan
G. Elevation (Al)
H. Elevation (A2)
I. Elevation (A3)
J. Elevation (A4)
K. Elevation (A5)
L. Landscape Plan
M. Color and Material Board
6. Initial Study - Blue Page 50
7. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 51
8. Planning Commission Staff Report (12-04-02) - Blue Page 52
9. Planning Commission Staff Report (1-15-03) - Blue Page 53
10. Sav-On letter dated January 7, 2003 - Blue Page 54
11. Sav-On letter dated January 16, 2003 - Blue Page 55
12. Vons letter dated February 4, 2003 - Blue Page 56
13. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control - Blue Page 57
RSD P~2002\024T273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
7
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PC RESOLUTION
R?,D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
8
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0272 General Plan
Amendment, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 2003, at duly noticed public hearings as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did
testify either in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit a supermarket to be sited on the
subject parcel. The proposed site is a suitable location for a supermarket and will serve as a traffic
mitigator for the surrounding area. The project as proposed will decrease vehicle trips to other
supermarkets located to the west and south of the proposed project. The proposed project meets
the Circulation Elements goal of maintaining a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections in the
City of Temecula during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours.
2. As stated in the Overview section of the General Plan, "every General Plan
amendment must be consistent with the rest of the General Plan". The proposed General Plan
Amendment is consistent with the entire General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal
number three requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods.
The proposed land use change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial will
enhance residential neighborhoods by providing access to a supermarket.
R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Smff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
9
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 19th day of February 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular'-~eeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 2003, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Vitlage'tStaff Repoa PC 2-19~}3.doc
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PC RESOLUTION
R:'d) P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA
19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 954-030-001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0271 Specific Plan
Amendment, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 2003, at duly noticed public hearings as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did
testify either in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findin,qs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the proposed land use
designation for the General Plan. The text changes as proposed and incorporated as attached
Exhibit A are also consistent with the General Plan.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
R?~D PL2002\02-0273 Meadow Village;Staff Repont PC 2~19-03.doc
12
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 19th day of February 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular~eeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 2003, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'d) P~2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
13
EXHIBIT A
MARGARITA VILLAGE TEXT CHANGES
R:',D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff RepoR PC 2-19-03,doc
Margarita
Village
Specific Plan No. 3
Amendment No. 6
City of Temecula
November, 2002
Margarita
Village
Amendment No. 6
of
Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 3
Lead Agency:
City of Tem~ula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Tem¢¢ula, CA 92589-9033
909.694.6400
Contact: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
Prepared by:
MDMG, Inc.
41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B
Temecula, CA 92590
909.296.3466
Contact: Larry Markham
City of Temecula
November, ~oo:~
Mar~,arlta Villase Table of Contents
o
£ Architectural Details .................................................................................................... 1]I-20
Village "C' Architectural Guidelines .................................................................................. HI-22
a~ Introduction ................................................................................................................... fll-22
b. Residential Architectural Guidelines ........................................................................ m-22
1. Building Mass, Form and Scale .............................................................................. III-22
2. Materials and Colors ............................................................................................... ]11-27
3. Roof Structures .................. t .................................................................................... 111-27
4. Windows and Doors ................................................................................................ III-31
5. Architectural Details ............................................................................................... III-32
e. Commercial Architectural Design Guidelines .......................................................... HI-33
1. Building Scale ........................................................................................................ m-33
2. Roofs ....................................................................................................................... I11-34
3. Colors and Materials ............................................................................................ m-35
4. ArchitecturalFeatures ......................................................................................... m-3s
5. Screening of Roof Mounted Equipment ............................................................. HI-36
6. Signage ................................................................................................................... IH-37
Commercial Site Design Guidelines ........................................................................... m-38
1. Screening of Loading Areas ................................................................................. m-38
2. Integration of Landscaping .................................................................................. m-~9
3. Interface with existing residential development ................................................. m-40
4. Gathering Spaees .................................................................................................. m-41
5. Entry Paving .......................................................................................................... m-42
D. LANDSCAPE ARCHtIECUTRAL GUIDELINES ................................................................HI-43
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 111.43
a. General Information ....................................................................................................... 1II43
b. Golf Community Landscaping (Village "A") ................................................................ 1II43
2. Village "A" Landscaping Requirements .............................................................................. 11I..44
a. Project Entry Accent Palms .......................................................................................... III-44
b. Evergreen Background Grove Trees ............................................................................. !11-46
c. Informal Street Tree Groupings .................................................................................... 11146
d. Collector Loop Streetscene Trees ................................................................................. HI-47
e. Golf Course Landscaping .............................................................................................. m-47
f. Plant Materials Palette .................................................................................................. m-48
g. Streetscape .................................................................................................................... m-51
h. Arterial Highway Perimeter Streetscene ....................................................................... m-s2
i. Major and Secondary Highway Strcetseene ................................................................. m-SS
j. Multi-Family Housing Landscape Requirements ......................................................... 111-58
k. Edison/MWD Easement Streetscape ............................................................................
1. Golf Course ................................................................................................................... m-59
m. Entry Monumentation ................................................................................................... m-s9
n. Entry Monumentation Lighting .................................................................................... m-65
o. Community Walls and Fencing .................................................................................... m-65
p. Park and Recreation Amenities ..................................................................................... m-68
q. Landscape Area Maintenance Responsibility ............................................................... m49
3. Village "B" Landscaping Requirements .............................................................................. llll-70
a. Project Streetscenes ...................................................................................................... m-70
b. Plant Materials Palette ................................................................................................. m-72
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page iv
Margarita Village Table of Contents
¢. Streetscape ................................................................................................................... i11-73
d. MWD Easemem Strcetscape ....................................................................................... 111-80
e. Entry Munumentation .................................................................................................. III-80
f. Entry Monumentation Lighting ................................................................................... m-81
g. Community Walls and Fences ..................................................................................... m-81
h. Park and Recreation Amenities .................................................................................... m-8a
i. Landscape Area Maintenance Responsibility .............................................................. m-88
Village "C" Landscaping Requirements .............................................................................. m-91
a. Project Sl~.-'~asennes ............................ i ........................................................................ m-91
b. Plant Materials Palette ................................................................................................ m-99
c. Streemcape ........... : ................. : .................................................................................... m-lo3
d. Commercial Use Landscape Requirements ................................................................ m-lo4
e. Apartment Housing Landscape Requirement ...................................... : ...................... IH-110
f. Edison/MWD Easement Sl~'~scape ............................................................................ m-Ill
g. Greenbelt/Drainage Corridor ........................................................................................ m-lll
h. Entry Monumentation ................................................................................................... m-ill
i. Community Walls and Fences ....................................................................................... m-112
j. Parks and Recreation Amenities ................................................................................... m-117
k. Landscape Area Maintenance Responsibility ............................................................... m-liS
Miscellaneous Planting Guidelines ....................................................................................... 111-118
a~ Planting Time ................................................................................................................ IH-118
b. Climate Conuh~ints ...................................................................................................... m-121
c. Landscape IMaintanance Standards .............................................................................. m-121
d. Horticulmrc Soils Test .................................................................................................. 111-121
e. Irrigation ....................................................................................................................... II1-122
f. Slope Erosion Control Landscape and Irrigation .......................................................... m-122
E. SIGNAGE ............................................................................................. m-123
1. General Intent ....................................................................................................................... 111-123
2. Prohibited Signs ................................................................................................................... 111-124
3. Ketail Commercial Monument Signs ................................................................................... m-128
4. Building Mounted Signs: Retail Commercial Buildings ..................................................... 111-126
5. Multi-Tenant Building Signs ............................................................................................... m-126
6. Community Entry Monumentation ..................................................................................... m-126
7. Directional Signage .......................................................... ................................................... 1II-126
8. Temporary Signage .............................................................................................................. 111-127
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page v
$.P. Zone Ordinance Amendment
Planning Area 19.
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 19 of Specific Plan No. -1-99 3 shall be the same
as those uses permitted in the xt~:~.~.~.~.~,~.,~e~..,...,..,.., r,vw~.,.~.~..:~ ~.,..) Community
Commercial (CC) District of Chapter 17.08 of the City of Temeeula Development
Code.
-6-
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6
Description of Use I NC I CC
A
Adult business~
Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzemise/martial arts studios (less than P
5,000 sq. ft.)
Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (greater than C P
5,000 sq. ft.)
Affordable housing~
Airports
Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities C
Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient) C
Alcoholic beverage sales~ C C
Ambulance services
Animal hospital/shelter P
Antique restoration C
Antique sales P P
Apparel and accessory shops P P
Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances) P P
Arcades (pinball and video games) C
Art supply stores P P
Auction houses
Auditoriums and conference facilities C
Automobile dealers (new and used)
Automobile sales (brokerage)-showroom only (new and used)-no outdoor C
display
Automobile oil change/lube services with no major repairs C
Automobile painting and body shop
Automobile repair services C
Automobile rental C
Automobile salvage yards/impound yards
Automotive parts -sales P P
Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine - with or without an C
automated car wash~
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6
Description of Use I NC I CC
B
Bakery goods distribution
Bakery retail P P
~Bakery who esa e
Banks and financial institutions P P
Barber and beauty shops P P
Bed and breakfast C
Bicycle (sales, rentals, services) P P
Billiard parlor/pool hall C
Binding of books and similar publications
Blood bank - P
Blueprint and duplicating and copy services - P
Bookstores P P
Bowling alley P
Building material sales (with exterior storage/sales areas greater than 50
)ercent of total sales area)
Building material sales (with exterior storage/sales areas less than 50 C
)ercent of total sales area)
Butcher shop P P
C
Cabinet shop
Cabinet shops under 20,000 sq. ft, -- no outdoor storage
Camera shop (sales/minor repairs) P P
Candy/confectionery sales P P
Car wash, full service C
Carpet and rug cleaning
Catering services P P
Clothing sales P P
Coins, purchase and sales P P
Cold storage facilities
Communications and microwave installations~
Communications equipment sales C
Community care facilities P P
Computer sales and service P P
2
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6
Description of Use I NC I CC
Congregate care housing for the elderly~ P P
Construction equipment sales, service or rental
Convenience market~ C ~
C
Costume rentals P
Crematoriums
Cutlery P
D
Data processing equipment and systems C C
Day care centers C P
Delicatessen C P
Discount/department store P
Distribution facility
Drug store/pharmacy P P
Dry cleaners P P
Dry cleaning plant C
E
Emergency shelters C C
Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor storage) P
Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage)
F
Feed and grain sales
Financial, insurance, real estate offices P P
Fire and police stations P P
Floor covering sales P
Florist shop P P
Food processing
Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity ~ '~
Freight terminals
Fuel storage and distribution
Funeral parlors, mortuary P
Furniture sales P
3
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6
Description of Use I NC I CC
Furniture transfer and storage I I '
G
Garden supplies and equipment sales and service C
Gas distribution, meter and control station -
General merchandise/retail store less than 10,000 sq. ft. C P
P
Glass and mirrors, retail sales
Governmental offices C P
Grocery store, retail
Grocery store, wholesale
iuest House
Guns and firearm sales
H
Hardware stores P P
Health and exercise clubs (less than 5,000 sq. ft.) C P
P
Health and exercise clubs (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.)
Health food store P P
Health care facility P
Heliports
Hobby supply shop P
Home and business maintenance service
Hospitals
Hotels/motels
Ice cream parlor P
Impound yard
Interior decorating service
J
Junk or salvage yard
4
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6
Description of Use I NC I CC
K
Kennel (Indoor Only) I I C
L
Laboratories, film, medical, research or testing centers
Laundromat P P
Laundry service (commercial)
Libraries, museums and galleries (private) C
Liquefied petroleum, sales and distribution
Liquor stores~ C
Lithographic service
Locksmith P P
M
Machine shop
Machinery storage yard
Mail order businesses P P
Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited to, the
Following:
Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, and
fabrication of goods within enclosed building (no outside storage),
such as jewelry, furniture, art objects, clothing, labor intensive
manufacturing, assembling, and repair processes which do not
involve frequent truck traffic.
Compounding of materials, processing, assembling, packaging,
treatment or fabrication of materials and products, which require
frequent truck activity or the transfer of heavy or bulky items.
Wholesaling, storage, and warehousing within enclosed building,
freight handling, shipping, truck services and terminals, storage
and wholesaling from the premises of unrefined, raw or semi
refined products requiring further processing or manufacturing,
and outside storage.
Uses under 20,000 sq. ft. with no outside storage
5
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6
Description of Use I NC I CC
Massage P P
Medical equipment sales/rental P P
Membership clubs, organizations, lodges C C
Mini-storage or mini-warehouse4 C
Mobile home sales and service
Motion picture studio
Motorcycle sales and service
Movie theaters C
Musical and recording studio C
N
Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club~ --C--
Nurseries (retail) C
Nursing homes/convalescent homes C C
O
Office equipmentJsupplies, sales/services C P
Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than C
50,000 sq. ft.
Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 sq. ft., including, but
not limited to, business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, p p
architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance
P
Paint and wallpaper stores P
Parcel delivery services P P
Parking lots and parking structures, appurtenant to the primary use C
Pawnshop
Personal service shops P P
Pest control services C
Pet grooming/pet shop P P
Photographic studio P P
Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenclosed)
Postal distribution
6
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6
Description of Use
I NC I CC
Postal services
Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.)
Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities Commission)
Q
Reserved
I I-
R
Radio and broadcasting studios, offices
Radio/television transmitter
Recreational vehicle parks
Recreational vehicle sales
Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within an enclosed building
Recreational vehicle, trailer and boat storage-exterior yard
Recycling collection facilities
Recycling processing facilities
Religious institution, without a day care or private school
Religious institution, with a private school
Religious institution, with a day care
Residential (one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or
industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business)
Residential, multiple-family housing
Restaurant, drive-in/fast food
Restaurants and other eating establishments
Restaurants with lounge cr l!'.'c c.'t. tc."t.~
Retail support use (15 percent of total development square footage in BP
and LI)
Rooming and boarding houses
S
Scale, public I
Schools, business and professional
Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12)
C
7
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6
Description of Use I NC I CC
Scientific research and development offices and laboratories
Senior citizen housing (see also congregate care)~ P P
Solid waste disposal facility
Sports and recreational facilities C C
Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building~
Swap Meet, outdoor
Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales no outdoor storage P
iT
iTailor shop P P
Taxi or limousine service P
Tile sales P
Tobacco shop C P
C
Tool and die casting
Transfer, moving and storage
Transportation terminals and stations
Truck sales/rentals/service)
TV/VCR repair P P
U
Upholstery shop I I
V
Vending machine sales and service I I
W
Warehousing/distribution
Watch repair P P
Wedding chapels P
Welding shop
Welding supply and service (enclosed)
Y
I I
Reserved I I
8
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6
Description of Use
NC
Reserved
1. The CUP will be subject to Section 17.08.050(G).
2. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.40 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
3. See Chapter 5.22 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
4. See Section 17.08.050, special use regulations and standards, subsection (R), self-storage or mini-
warehouse facilities.
5. Only within special use overlay zone No. 1 as described in Ordinance No. 98-19.
6. In the CC, SC, HT and PO Zones, all senior housing residential projects shall use the development
and performance standards for the high density residential zone and the provisions contained in
Section 17.06.050(H). In the NC zone, all senior housing residential projects shall use the
development and pedormance standards for in medium density residential zone and the provisions
contained in Section 17.06.050(H).
7. Subject to the provisions contained in Section 17.06.050(H).
Ord. 2000-05 § 5; Ord. 2000-04 § 5; Ord. 99-24 §§ 4(B--D) and 5(B); Ord. 98-19 § 6; Ord. 98-18 § 6; Ord. 97-17 §§
3(D) and 5 (A--D); Ord. 97-06 § 2; Ord. 97-03 § 2; Ord. 96-19 §§ 2(EE) (part) and 4; Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part))
9
Margarita Villase I. Summat-/of Chan~es
I. Summary of Changes
A. Specific Plan
The Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP No. 199) was originally adopted by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on August 26, 1986 through Resolution No. 86-355. Specific Plan Amendment No. I was approved
by the Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988 via Resolution No. 88-471. Upon incorporation by the City
of Temecula in 1989, Margarita Village was in the jurisdictiun of the City. Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 was
approved by the Temecula City Council on March 26, 1996. Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 was approved by
the Temecula City Council on October 7, 1997. Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 was approved by the
Temecula City Council on February 10, 1998. Specific Plan Amendment No, 5 was approved by the
Temecula City Council on October 10, 2000.
1. Design Guidelines
The Design Guidelines, contained in Section HI of the Specific Plan, were added through
Amendment No. 1 and apply throughout the MARGARITA VILLAGE Specific Plan area. Adhering
to the village concept of the plan, these guidelines establish architectural and landscape
architectural design criteria for each of the three villages within the project. The design criteria for
each village are distinctive, yet consistency and compatibility is maintained throughout the project.
These Design Guidelines have been updated through Amendment No. 3 to reflect the shift in
Village "A" from a retirement community to a predominantly family-oriented community. Wording
has been added to the Specific Plan that gives the Director of Community Development the
authority to allow minor variations from Specific Plan standards and design guidelines without a
Specific Plan Amendment.
2. Additional Property
Approximately 127 acres of land was added to the Specific Plan by Amendment No. 1. This 127-
acre area is located south of Rancho Vista Road and west of Buttertield Stage Road in the southeast
comer of the property.
3. Land Use Changes
The following is a summary of land use changes proposed as a part of Specific Plan Amendments
No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3:
a. Post Office
A 5.0+ acre site (Planning Area 32A) was designated in Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 for post
office use on the southeast comer of Rancho California and Margarita Roads. This use is
compatible with the commercial and multi-family uses approved for adjacent properties at this
intersection. As part of Specific Plan Amendment No. 1, the church site nearby (Planning Area 31)
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page
Marsarita Village I. Summary o£ Chan~e~
B. Amendment No. 6
The following is a summary of the changes proposed as part of Specific Plan Amendment No. 6.
1. Design Guidelines
Commercial development is permitted in Planning Area 19, which is located within
Village "C'. Architectural and Site Design Guidelines have been developed to assure
high-quality development and compatibility with adjacent residential uses located in
Planning Area 14. The Architectural Design Guidelines are contained in Section "c' of
Section III (Design Guidelines). The Site Deslgn Guidelines are contained in Section "d'
Section III (Design Guidelines).
Additional language has been added to Village "C' Landscaping Requirements, Section
"b' Plant Materials Palette. This language states: "Additional Plan material, not
included on the following palette, may be allowed at the discretion Of the Director of
Planning". This will allow flexibility in plant choices which will still meet the intent of the
Specific Plan.
2. Planning Area 19 Acreage
The acreage contained within Planning Area 19 has been modified from 6.2 acres to 9.7
acres. The acreage has been clarified due to the acreage reflected on the Meadows Village
site plan.
3. Repagination
Due to the addition of the Commercial Architectural and Site Design Guidelines, existing
pages iii-32 through il]-117 will become pages III-43 through III-128.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page I-4
Margarita Village II. Project Development Plan
TABLE H-1
PROJECT SUMMARY
Residential Medium
SUBTOTAL - HOUSING
Parks
C-off Course & -
Club House
Slopes/Drainage
Facilities
Elementary Schools
School
Administration
Church Site
Post Office
Utility Easements
Roads
GRAND TOTALS
249.5 AC
576.7 AC
35.0 AC
890.2 AC
~ 9.7 ^¢
37.5 AC
141.0 AC
188 AC
23.0 AC
11.0 AC
5.3 AC
5.0 AC
31.6 AC
60.8 ^C
1,396.1 AC
2-5 DU/AC
1.3 DU/AC 0.4-2 DU/AC 46 DU
4.4 DU/AC 3,923
NOT
APPLICABLE
2.8 DU/AC 3,923 DU
'The Target Density for each Planning Area within a particular residential density category varies and is represented on
Table 1I-2. The Target Density as provided in this Table is an average, considering all Planning Areas within a residential
category. It is shown to provide an approximate density for each residential category.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amenchnent No. 6 Page Il-to
Marsarita Village II. Project Development Plan
Tn~u~ 1I-2
D~ran.~n LA~m USE Stm~lna¥
(Confnued)
35 Medium High Residential 66.1 5.5 DU/^¢ 5-8 DU/A¢ 356
36 Medium High Residential 7.5 8.0 DU/AC 5-8 DU/A¢ 62
37 Medium Residential 23.7 4.6 DU/AC 2-5 DU/AC 107
38 Medium High Residential 29.3 6.2 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 181
40 Medium High Residential 40.1 5.0 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 198
42 Medium High Residential 15.2 5.7 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 83
43 High Residential 14.6 12.0 DU/AC 8-12 DU/AC 175
44 Medium Residential 43.2 4.6 DU/AC 2-5 DU/AC 200
StrBTOTALS - RESIDENTIAL 890.2 4.4 DU/AC ~ 3t923
19 Commercial g.3 9.7 AC
5 Park 11.5
18 School/Park 14.3
38 Park 9.2
44 Park 12.5
46 Golf Course/Club House 141.0
Recreation
NOT NOT NOT
-- Slopes/Drainage ~ '
Facilities ~88 AG APPLICABLE td'PLICtmLE APPLICABLE
1 Elementary School .13:0
28 School AdminisWafion - 11.0
31 Church Site 5.3
32a Post Office Sim 5.0
-- Utility Easements 31.6
-- Major Roads 60.8
GRANI) TOTALS 1,396.1 2.8 DU/AC --- 3,923
Specific Plan No. ~, Amendment No. 6 Page II-~
Margarita Village II. Pro}ect Development Plan
h. Project Roadways
All public project roadways outside of Village "A" will be designed and constructed to
standards acceptable to the City of Temecula and will therefore be entered into the City's
system of roads for operation and maintenance. All roadways within Village "A" will be
designed and constructed to standards shown and described in the Circulation plan of the
Margarita Village Specific Plan. These standards are acceptable to the Temecula City
Engineer. At the developer's option, the roadways in Village "A" may be either publicly or
privately owned and maintained.
c. Commercial Component
It is anticipated that the population of MARGARITA VILLAGE will be served by retail commercial
center sited on 6.2 9.7 acres at the intemection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway.
(See Figure H-3, Specific Plan Use Plan.) Planning Area 19 (6.2 9.7 acres) contains these
commercial uses which form the center of the minor eastern Village Core. Most of the commercial
uses proposed will be convenience retail. Pedestrian walkways adjacent to roadways will extend
from Village "A" housing to the commercial site at the comer of Rancho California Road and
Meadows Parkway. (Please see Section e., Major Collector Road and Public Facilities System.)
Additional recreational facilities will be contained within the recreation center in Village "A".
d. Open Space Component
A major unifying element of the MARGARITA VIIJ.&GE community is the Open Space and
Recreation Plan (see Figure 11-7). This program incorporates many diverse elements in a
coordinated cohesive plan that interrelates with the Entry and Roadway Hierarchy Plan (see Figure
II-6), to strengthen and reinforce the strong sense of community design for MARGARITA VII 3.AGE.
1) Open Space Slopes and Drainage
A significant portion of the project site (178.8 acres) is being retained as open space slopes and
drainage facilities. By preserving slope areas in open space, several design and planning objectives
of the Specific Plan are met. Site planning responds to the site's natural topography. Slope areas
provide an attractive naturalistic backdrop for MARGARITA VILLAGE neighborhoods.
2) Golf Course and Clubhouse
A 141.0-acre golf course is planned in the center of Village "A," offering recreational opportunities
and scenic vistas for residents. A clubhouse/recreation center will be located near the project entry
off of Rancho California Road. This facility will serve as an activity hub for neighborhood
residents and shall include facilities such as a pool, spa, cabana, exercise facilities, kitchen
facilities, and other passive and active recreational uses.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page ll-ao
~ · o ~
m
Z
TM
$
m
ITl
Z
C~
Margarita Village II. Project Development Plan
3
TABLE H-7
PHASE IV SUMMARY
Low Residential (0.4-2 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Low Residential (0.4-2 du/ac)
13.0^C
2.2 AC
12.0AC
7
9 LoW Residential (0.4-2 du/ac) 10.0 AC 7 DU
80.9 AC 255 DU
15
16
17
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
High Residential (8-12 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
42
SUBTOTAL
OTHER LAND USE5
59.5 AC
34.4 AC
14.6 AC
43.2 AC
269.8 AC
Elementary School
13.0 AC
I
27 DU
6 DU
12 DU
183 DU
108 DU
175 DU
200 DU
973 oo
19 Commercial v.~ .... ,.~ 9.7 AC --
18 Elementary School/Park 14.3 Ac --
44 Park 12.5 ---
TOTALS 973 DU
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page II-~9
Margarita Village II. Project Development Plan
17.
Planning Area 19
a. Descriptive Summary,
Planning Area 19, illustrated in Figure II-23, has been designated as a ~.20 9.7 acre
commercial site. It is expected that this Planning Area will contain a variety of
neighborhood retail commercial and service uses for Margarita Village residents.
b. Land Use and Development Standards
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348.2922 (See Specific Plan Zone Ordinance Tab).
C. Planning Standards
· Access into Planning Area 19 may be taken from both Rancho California Road and
Meadows Parkway (See Figure II-23).
· A landscape buffer shall be provided on the boundary between the commercial uses
in Planning Area 19 and the residential uses in Planning Area 14.
· An equestrian trail shall run parallel to Rancho California Road on the north side of
Planning Area 19.
· A landscape development zone (LDZ) shall be provided along Rancho
California Road and along Meadows Parkway. The LDZ along Ranch6
California Road shall be a minimum of thirty-two feet (32'). The LDZ along
Meadows Parkway shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25'). The LDZ
shall be measured from the back of the curb.
· Please see Figure m-39, Village "C": Conceptual Landscape Plan, for the
relationship between Planning Area 19 and Planning Area 14.
· Please refer to Project-Wide Design and Textual Development Standards in Section
II.B.2, for further land use standards that apply site-wide.
· Please refer to Design Guidelines in Section III, for design-related criteria.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page II-75
Marlsarita Villal~e ~ IlL Design Guidelines
"A' is planned as a recreation-oriented community containing a variety of housing types and densities
organized around a central 18-hole golf course facility.
It is expected that each village will develop its own character and ambiance. Furthermore, it is
intended that each village theme be expressed in coordination with the project setting, which serves as
a basis around which key elements of the community can be developed.
1. Village "A"
Village "A" is proposed as an optionally gated neighborhood containing approximately 1,546
attached and detached dwelling units. An 18-hole golf course will contain a clubhouse and
several lakes and watercourses. Village "A" will also include a 12.5-acre community park. In
conceiving a design theme for Village "A", an early California Spanish theme has been selected.
All landscaping paving and architecture should strongly reflect this motif
2. Village "B"
Village "B" will contain 610 single family detached dwellings. The various communities within
Village "B" will also include very iow to medium-low density housing. Also included in this
Village is an 11.5-acre coramunity park and various manufactured slopes and greenbelts. In
addition, an elementary school is planned on 13 acres just north of La Serena Way. The basic
architectural theme is on that blends Spanish, Mediterranean and French manor styles.
3. Village "C"
A 6:.2 9.7 acre cormmercial center is proposed in Village "C" at the southeast comer of the
intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway and will include neighborhood
commercial uses. Village "C" will include a combined elementary school and park on 14.3
acres, an 11-acre school administration center, a church on a 5.3-acre parcel, and a 5-acre site for
a post office. Approximately 1,770 dwelling units are proposed in Village "C'.
The intent of Village "C" has been to establish an environment that responds to existing
surrounding ranch and equestrian communities as the area becomes increasingly urbanized. For
this reason, Village "C" should reflect or draw upon a "traditional California" theme. This
theme should reflect the character of rural California and be reflected in the architecture,
signage, landscaping, and entry treatments within the Village.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-2
Ill
Margarita ¥illa~e III. Design Guidelines
4. Village "C" Architectural Guidelines
a. Introduction
Village "C' contains residential and commercial development. The residential
component of Village "C" will have a "traditional California" architectural theme. Buildings
and accessory structures should be visually "low-key". The primary siding material will be
wood, either painted, stained, or rough-sawn and txeated with a semi-transparent preservative.
Guidelines pertaining to residential development are listed below under Section "b'.
Commercial deyelopment is permitted in Planning Area 19, which is lorated within
Village "C'. Architectural and Site Design Guidelines have been developed to assure
high-quality development and compatibility with adjacent residential uses located in
Planning Area 14. The Architectural Design Guidelines are contained in Section "c'
below. The Site Design Guidelines are contained in Section "d' below.
b. ~::~!2'[=g g{=::~ Y~.rm =---2 ~:=!: Residential Architectural Guidelines
1. Building Mass, Form and Scale
Whenever possible, incorporate the following elements into buildings and structures in
Village "C":
Use simple rectangular forms to connect building volumes and to provide
architectural continuity. In addition, the use of angles in floor plans should be
limited.
Create architectural interest by articulating wall planes (i.e. recessing and projecting
walls), below a continuous horizontal roof line.
Emphasize horizontal architectural lines such as ridge and fascia lines.
Visually break-up two story elevations with offset stories, changes in materials, or
sloping rooflines.
Avoid using oblique angles in building plans and elevations.
Avoid satisfying minimum setback requirements only. Structures of two or more
stories should be setback in excess of the minimum required setbacks whenever
possible.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page IIl-zz
NOT~ THE ILLUSTflATIONS ABOVE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND
ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL
ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPES.
FIGURE II1-11
VILLAGE 'C':
TYPICAL ELEVATIONS
Margarita Village
111-23
~d
Lq~
NOT~ THE ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND
ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL
ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPES.
FIGURE 111-12
VILLAGE 'C':
TYPICAL ELEVATIONS)
Margarita Village
111-24
NOTE THE ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND
ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL
ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPES.
FIGURE 111-13
- VILLAGE 'C':
TYPICAL ELEVATIONS
Margarita Village
NOTE THE ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND FIGURE i11-14
ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL -
ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPES,
VILLAGE 'C' '~
TYPICAL EL F_.VATIO~i
Margarita Villag~
Marl~arita Village
III. Design Guidelines
2. Materials and Colors
The form of structures will be enhanced using different building materials, surface
textures, and colors.
· :o The following building materials are acceptable:
o Wide, lapped horizontal wood siding -rough-sawn.
o Cedar shingles and commercially available sheet materials - rough-sawn in
appearance is preferred.
o Board and batten.
· :. Use medium to rough textured stucco at architectural transition points such as
comers, second stories, pop-outs and recesses, etc.
· :. Use rough-sawn wood fascia and Irim elements, including prominem lintels, above
garage doors, doors and windows.
· :° Use masonry as a horizontal element in elevations including partial height walls
incorporated with chimneys, pot shelves, architectural banding, special paving, etc.
· :° All building elevations should receive some kind of special architectural treatment.
· :. The list of permitted colors includes semi-transparent stains, earthtone paints, and
stains with selected contemporary accent colors.
· :o All colors for opaques paints and stains must be equivalent to those in the Rancho
California Development Company palette.
· 7. Use low contrast trim colors.
· :- White trim is acceptable except on fascias and corners of buildings.
o:o Restrict bright accent colors to bom doors, window trim, and shutters.
The following list includes materials, textures, and color treatments that are discouraged
on buildings and structures in Village "C":
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III'27
Marl~arita Villal~e III. Design Guidelines
o:o Smooth, narrow tongue and groove wood siding.
o:o White trim at comers of buildings or fascia to accent geomelxy.
· :- Swirl textured stucco.
· :. Large expanses of flat wall planes not articulated by material or color.
· :- Non-wood or masonry product siding materials.
· :- Use of stucco only on any single elevation.
3. Roof Structures
Use the following guidelines as a guide in designing and selecting roof forms and
materials:
o:o Simple roof geometry, emphasizing long, horizontal lines.
· ~- Shallow to moderate roof pitches (4:12 to 6:12).
· :o Predominance of side gables with cross gable, hip, or gable on hip forms where
appropriate.
o:- Roof planes may be extended over porches and entries with areas of shallower pitch
(2:12 ±).
· :o Predominance of wide cave overhangs (18"+) especially over windows, with limited
application of clipped eaves (see architectural character sketches).
· :. Exposed rafter tails.
· ~- Exclusive use of fiat, shake-like masonry roof tile, rough in appearance, dark color.
Note: Color must be integral, not a surface glaze.
· :o Heavy, protruding beams at overhangs and gable ends.
Dormers, cupolas, and louvers (at gables).
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 ~ Page III-z8
FtGURE 111-15
VILLAGE 'C':
. TYPICAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS; ROOF DETAILS
Margarita Village
III-29
FIGURE 111-16
vILLAGE 'C':
TYPICAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS; WINDOWS/DOOR TREATME
Margarita Village
III-30
Margarita Village
IlL Design Guidelines
The list below includes roof types and pitches that are discouraged on buildings in
Village "C":
· ;. Moderate eave overhangs (12"- 18").
· :- Flat roofs on any structure except open trellises or patio covers, not attached to main
buildings.
°;° Complicated roofscapes with numerous intersecting planes or varying pitches.
· .'o Exclusive use of front-facing gables on the fxont of a single unit, especially on two-
story plans.
· .*. Shad roofs.
· :- Boxad or soffit eaves.
· :. Asphalt shingles, built-up composition roofing, clay or barrel tile, or any material
terra cotta in color.
4. Windows and Doors
'+'o Vary window treatments and window types occasionally. Acceptable window types
include square light, conventional slider, character windows, and bay windows.
· :. Window flames should be colored, painted, or stained using approved colors per the
Rancho California Development Company palette, white, or dark anodized.
· ;. Use pot shelves below windows to add visual interest and color.
· .+o Use "eyebrows" or partial overhangs above windows.
· ;' Exterior doors may have decorative and/or glass panels.
· .*- French doors and decorative shutters are encouraged.
· :- Windows and window panes should have a horizontal emphasis - use longer
proportions in the horizontal direction.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page lll'3x
Marl~arita Villase III. Desiign Guidelines
Avoid building elevations with windows in a large expanse of stucco without other
architectural treatment such as wood trim, shutters or rustic facade materials.
Avoid exclusive use of conventional aluminum slide windows.
Avoid using natural alnminum or anodized window frames, other than those
permitted.
Avoid using plain undetailed fi-ont doors.
Avoid using windows that create or establish a Spanish or Mediterranean
almosphere.
Architectural Details
Design covered porehes to have shallow pitched canopies and broad roof overhangs.
When using wood as a building material, incorporate substantial posts, timbers,
planks, wide railings, and balusters into the architecture.
Use decorative porch supports with capitals, wrapped with wood trim, or with
turned portions.
Use covered breezeways to link detached garages and accessory structures.
Use wide masonry chimneys or wood-clad chimneys with low-profile caps.
Paint rain gutters, flashing, and other architectural elements ant trim constructed of
sheet metal with dark colors similar to the fascia.
Garage doors should be of identical or complementary colors, textures, and
materials as the front building elevation.
Avoid stucco chimneys.
Avoid prominent chlnmey caps.
Avoid plywood garage doors.
Avoid using arches and supports that have a Mediterranean or Spanish style.
Specific Plan No. 5, Amendment No. 6 Page III'sz
Marj~arita VilLaj~e III. Desij~n Guidelines
c. Commercial Architectural Design Guidelines
The following architectural design guidelines shah apply to Planning Area 19. Adherence
to these design guidelines will ensure that a high-quality, well-designed commercial center
will be developed which has a strong identity from the adjacent roadways and is
compatible with the adjacent residences in Planning Area 14. The architectural design
guidelines are listed below by the following headings: building scale, roofs, colors and
materials, architectural features, screening of roof-mounted equipment and signage.
Where ambiguity exists in these guidelines, or are not addressed, the City-Wide Design
Guidelines shah apply.
1. Building Scale
Larger buildings shaH be broken up into small divisions to give the appearance of
multiple bUildings.
Articulation of building facades should be utilized to break up the massing of the
buildings.
°7. Changes in building depths (offsets) are strongly encouraged.
· ~. Changes in building heights shah be utilized to break up the massing of buildings.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III'33 .
Maq~arita VillaBe III. Desil~n Guidelines
2. Roofs
· :. Varied roof heights and shapes and pitches are strongly encouraged.
· :. Cornices shall be utilized on flat roofs.
· :. Changes in roof heights shall be utilized to break up the scale of larger buildings.
· :o Cornices should be complimentary to the building shapes and colors.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III'34
Marsarita Viilase III. Desil~n Guld~li,,,~
3. Colors and Materials
· :o Primary building colors should be a combination of earth tones.
o:. Accent colors should both contrast and compliment the primary building colors.
· :. Accent colors are strongly encouraged on architectural features.
· :- Darker colors and materials should be utilized at the building base.
· ~. The use of concrete, tiles or veneer is strongly encouraged for the building base.
· :. Varied applications of stucco and/or plaster should be utilized on thebuildings.
°7° Storefronts should utilize a combination of metal and glass.
4. Architectural Features
· -*. The use of tower elements is strongly encouraged.
o:. Decorative lighting fixtures are strongly encouraged in areas of public view.
· :. The use of archway features is strongly encouraged.
':' Columns should be proportional to the building scale.
· :' Entry features are strongly encouraged.
· :. Sides and rears in public view shall require articulation.
· :- Awnings and overhangs are encouraged.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-31f
Margarita Villal~e
III. Desil!:n Guidelines
5. Screening of Roof Mounted Equipment
· :. All roof-mounted equipment shall be appropriately screened.
o~. Screening should be accomplished through the use of parapet wails.
· :- Where screening cannot be accomplished through parapet walls, alternative methods
of screening may be acceptable, provided they do not compromise the architectural
integrity of the building.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-36
Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines
6. Signage
%% Wall-mounted signage locations should be integrated into the project design.
%% Signage should be proportional to the building.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page 111'57
Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines
d. Commercial Site Design Guidelines
The site guidelines shah apply to Planning Area 19. Adherence to these guidelines will
ensure that a high-quality, well-designed commercial center will be developed which has a
strong identity from the adjacent roadways and is compatible with the adjacent
residences in Planning Aren 14. The site design guidelines are listed below by the
following headings: screening of loading arens; integration of landscaping, interface with
existing residential development, outdoor gnthering areas and entry paving. Where
ambiguity exists in these guidelines, or are not addressed, the City-Wide Design
Guidelines shaH apply.
1. Screening of LoadingAreas
Loading arens that are located at the rear of the buildings should be screened.
Walls are an acceptable method of screening larger loading areas.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-38
Margarita Villai~e III. Desil~n Guidelines
2. Integration of Landscaping
· :. Landscaping shall be integrated into the overall design of the project and shall
complement the architectural theme.
-:. Accent landscaping shall be usedat focal points of the buildings.
· :. The use of potted plants is strongly encouraged.
· :- Plantings shall be utilized at gathering/seating areas.
· :. Landscaping shall be utilized on portions of buildings that are in public view; however
do not have entries (i.e., sides) to compliment the building articulation.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-39
Marl~arita Villase III. Design Guidelines
3. Interface with existing residential development
· +'o Commercial development should be buffered from adjacent residential
development by densely landscaped areas.
· :- A combination of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs should be utilized to
screen commerc'ml uses from residential uses.
o:o Adequate minimum distances shah separate commercial from residential uses.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-4o
Margarita Village IlL Desil~n Guidelines
4. Gathering Spaces
Gathering spaces shall contain the following items:
o:- Shading. (i.e., umbrellas, shade strUctures).
°2- Plantings (i.e., a mixture of trees, shrubs, vines).
areas or potted.
· ~. Seating. (i.e., chairs, benches, seat walls).
· .*- Eating area.
These may be within planter
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-4x
Ma~$arita Villal~e III. Desil~n Guidelines
Entry Paving
Special entry paving is recommended at major project entries.
Entry paving should Utilize textures which differ from the site paving materials.
Landscape islands are encouraged at major project entries.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-42
dargarita Village III. Design Guidelines
e
1)
Village "C" Landscaping Guidelines
Proiect Streetscenes
The landscape development associated with the streetscenes along Margarita Road, La Serena Way, Rancho
California Road, Meadows Parkway, Butterfield Stage Road, Rancho Vista Road, and Pauba Road is uniform
and consistent with the existing City of Temecula community wide streetscenes.
As a general guideline to the landscape treatment of the planting areas throughout the project, the landscape
character of the above referenced major streetseenes is presented herein. Refer to the appropriate plan view and
elevation exhibits for graphic presentation of the following descriptions:
Major and Secondary Landscape Streetscene Landscape Development
The lan0scape development associated with the perimeter project strectseenes along Margarita Road, La Ser~na
Way, Rancho California Road, Meadows Parkway, Butterfield Stage Road, Rancho Vista Road, and Pauba Road
consists of:
h,.formal street tree groupings;
Evergreen background and deciduous accent grove trees;
Project thematic masonry wall or combination m~somy wall and tubular steel fence with pilasters; and,
A hierarchy of entry monumeatation.
2) Project Entry Accent Trees
California Pepper (Schinus molle) and Italian Stone Pine (Pinus pinea) are the primary evergreen canopy theme
trees utilized at points of project emphasis throughout MARGARITA VILLAGE. As such, they represent
foreground specimen accent trees at major and minor project entry monumentation features. These trees are also
repeated at significant points throughout the conununity. Such applications logically include, street intersections
and changes in street direction where a reinforcement of the project theme tree twill be recognized and will serve
a functional purpose.
The development at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows
Parkway may vary from the above requirements to use the California Pepper and Italian Stone Pine, but
shall incorporate evergreen canopy tlteme trees that support and enhance the theme of the commercial
project at that location.
3) Evergreen Background Grove Trees
Eucalyptus species and Pine trees are utilized as informal vertical evergreen background grove trees on slopes
along major perimeter streetseanes. The Aleppo Pine is not planted along Rancho California Road. These trees
may be used to block or to frame views. Wherever possible and logical, these evergreen grove trees are extended
from primary streetscenes into planting areas as background trees in order to provide visual transitions and to
unify the different parcels.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6
County Specific Plan No. 199)
Page III-80
Max§arita Village III. Design Guidelines
4)
Deciduous Accent Trees
London Plane (Platanus acerifolia) and Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) are deciduous
accent trees occurring in random groupings among the evergreen background grove trees. These
trees provide visual highlights and seasonal interest among the evergreen trees.
Informal Street Tree Groupings
Street trees occur in random informal groupings along the major' and secondary highway
landscape streetscenes. These medium scale uniform trees serve a deciduous foreground
elements providing summer shade and permitting welcome winter sun. Other applications of
these trees include interior residential street trees or as informal grove trees in the Long Valley
greenbelt drainage corridor adjacent to Rancho California Road.
Each major perimeter project streetscene has as single street tree variety identifying that street.
This also aids in uniting the various neighborhoods, which occur along each streetscene.
6) Perimeter Project Street Trees
.STREET TREES
PLANT PALETTE
Margarita Road
La Serena Way
Rancho California Road
Butterfield Stage Road
Meadows Parkway
Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine)
AInus rhombifolia (White Alder)
Platanus acerifolia (London Plane Tree)
Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistache)
Ceratonia siliqua (Carob)
Albiziajutibrissin (Mimosa Tree)
Note: Ceratonia siliqua (Carob) and Albizia julibrissin (Mimosa Tree) shall prevail over the trees
listed in Figure 1II-39, "Meadows Parkway Street Scene" (Ceratonia siliqua and Eucalyptus species)
Rancho Vista Road
Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine)
Pauba Road
Schinus molle (California Pepper)
b. Plant Materials Palette
It is the intent of these guidelines to provide flexibility and diversity in plant material selection, while
maintaining a limited palette in order to give greater unity and thematic identity to the community. The
plant material lists have been selected for their appropriateness to the project theme, climatic conditions,
soil conditions and concern for maintenance.
A limited selection of materials utilized in simple, significant composition complimentary to adjacent
common landscape areas, while reinforcing the individual architectural and site setting, is encouraged.
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6
(Riverside County Specific Plan No. 199)
Page III-88
Marl~arita Village III. Design Guidelines
Overall plant material selection for given project areas, wherever possible, shall have compatible
drought resistant characteristics. Irrigation programming can then be designed to minimize water
application for the entire landscaping setting.
The limited plant material selection for common landscape areas associated with Margarita Village as
described in the text is contained in the following palette. Additional plant material, not included on
the following palette, may be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Planning. In addition, a
wider variety of plant materials compatible with the project theme and setting is listed for use by
Builder Landscape Architects in the selection of materials for model home complex developments, patio
home common areas, etc.
BOTANICAL NA_..~_
Trees - Evergreen
Arbutus unedo
Brachychiton populneus
Cedru~ deodara
Eucalyptus polyanthemos
Eucalyptus sideroxylo~ 'Rosea '
Eucalyptu~ viminalis
Eucalyptus rudis
Magnolia grand~qora
Olea europaea 'Fruitless'
Pinus canariensis
Pinus halepensis/Pinu~ eldarica
Pinus pinea
Podocarpus gracilior
Quercas agrifolia
Quercus ilex
Schinu~ molle
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake'
Trees - Deciduous
Albizia julibrissin
Alnus rhombifolia
Betula alba
Fraxinus velutina
Fraxinus uhdei 'Tomlinson '
Gingko biloba
Gleditsia tricanthos 'Shade Master'
Koelreuteria bipinnata
Koelreuteria paniculata
Lagerstroemia indica
COMMON NAME
Strawberry Tree
Bottle Tree
Deodar Cedar
Red Box Gum
Red/ton Bark
White Gum
Desert Gum
Southern Magnolia
Fruitless Olive
Canary Island Pine
Aleppo Pine
Italian Stone Pine
Fern Pine
California Live Oak
Holly Oak
California Pepper
Evergreen Elm
Mimosa Tree
White Alder
White Birch
Arizona Ash
Tomlinson Ash
Maidenhair Tree
Honey Locust
Chinese Flame Tree
Golden Rain Tree
Crape Myrtle
Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-xoo
ATrACHMENT NO. 3
DEVELOPMENT PLAN PC RESOLUTION
R:'~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
15
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING,
A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 SQUARE
FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0273 Development Plan, in a
manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 2003, at duly noticed public hearings as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did
testify either in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for
Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan
has listed the proposed uses as typical uses in the Community Commercial designation. The
proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the
Community Commercial zoning district. The project has been conditioned by the Building
Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes.
R:'~D PL2002\02-0273 Meadow Vi~lage~S~aff Report PC 2-19-03.d~c
2. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in table
17.08.040B of the City of Temecula's Development Code. The proposed amhitecture and site
layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the Commercial Development Performance
Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in
regards to circulation; architectural design and site plan design.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council conditionally approve Planning Application 02-0273 for a
Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store,
a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot shop building, a 10,568 square foot shop
building and a 9,603 square foot shop building with the conditions of approval and mitigation
measures attached as Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 19th day of February 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular~eeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 2003, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'d) P~2002\02-ff273 Meadow Village\S~aff Report PC 2-19-03.d0c
17
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXS~a ff RepOrt PC 2-194)3.doc
18
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
02-0273 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
A Development Plan for the design, construction
and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery
store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571
square foot shop building, a 10,568 square foot
shop building, and a 9,603 square foot shop
building.
DIF Category:
Service Commercial
Assessor's Parcel No.:
954-030-001
Approval Date: TBD
Expiration Date: TBD
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of one
thousand three hundred and fourteen dollars ($1314.00) for the County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resoumes Code
Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development
Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project
granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c)].
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and hold
harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers,
employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to
attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the
City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and
Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by
the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the
permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period.
The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said
R:~,D P~2002\02~0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19~)3.doc
amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City
shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally
concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold
harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or
agents.
The text of Amendment No. 6 to the Margarita Village Specific Plan shall conform to Exhibit
"N", "Margarita Village Amendment No.6 "dated February 19, 2003.
The Applicant shall submit ten (10) copies of the Amended Specific Plan to the Planning
Department within 30 days of the approval date.
All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
Development Plan.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this Development Plan.
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 substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), E (Floor Plan), F (Grading Plan), G (Elevation A1 ), H (Elevation A2), I (Elevation
A3), J (Elevation A4), K (Elevation A5), and L (Landscape Plan) and M (Color and Material
Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
10. All downspouts shall be internalized.
11.
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted on Exhibit
"M" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development
Department - Planning Division.
12.
The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
13.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
R:~D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
20
14.
The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department, which
meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance.
The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the
growth potential of the parking lot trees.
15. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department.
16.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
18.
The applicant shall screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent
residences, utilizing amhitectural elements as a screening method.. (Mitigation Measure 1).
19.
All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to
mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks.. (Mitigation Measure 3).
20.
Provide a 7-foot high parapet wall that will block the line of site from the backyard of the
nearby homes to the exposed roof and ventilation systems of Building A and Building E.
(Mitigation Measure 4).
21.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "L", or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall show temporary
irrigation and seeding for the Phase lB area. The plans shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan).
Prior to Building Occupancy
22.
The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department
for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
23.
The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on
a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inch apart. The numerals shall be
painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a
contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as
possible to the edge of the building closest to the street.
R:'d) PL2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
21
24.
In compliance with the mitigation monitoring program the applicant shall erect and post
signage at the loading docks of the supermarket and drug store that states the restricted
hours of deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and that delivery trucks shall
turn of their engines during delivery operations. (Mitigation Measure 5 & 6).
25.
In compliance with the mitigation monitoring program the applicant shall provide a document
indicating that daily trash pickups will occur that will eliminate any potential objectionable
odors. (Mitigation Measure 2).
DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC WORKS
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing
and proposed property lines, 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
26.
A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including ail on-site flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
27.
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.
28.
The Developer shall construct public improvements in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic
signal systems
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Sewer and domestic water systems
d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
29.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of
Public Works.
30.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside
Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works.
31.
All improvement, grading, and raised landscaped median plans shall be coordinated for
consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
32.
The westerly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out
movements.
R:'~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
22
33. The easterly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/dght-out/left-in
movements.
34.
The northerly driveway on Meadows Parkway will be restricted to right-in/right-out
movements.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
35.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
36.
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.
37.
A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of 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.
38.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
39.
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.
40.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
41.
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.
42.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
R:~D PX2002\024Y273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
23
43.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
44.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flow line grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance
with City Standard No. 800, 801,802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flow line grades.
g. 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.
45.
The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements
to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include
installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped
median.
i. The left turn pocket onto Meadows Parkway shall be 10 feet wide and 300
feet long at a minimum.
ii. The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the easterly
driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 200 feet long at a
minimum.
b. Improve Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include
installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped
median.
i. The left turn pocket onto Rancho California Road shall be 10 feet wide and
250 feet long at a minimum.
ii. The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the southerly
driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 150 feet long at a
minimum.
R:XD PL2002\024)273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
24
Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and
Meadows Parkway.
46.
All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed
by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City
Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property.
47.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
48.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
49.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
50.
Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all public improvements, including
signal modifications, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
51.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
52. Corner property.line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
53.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
54.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in
force at the time of building, plan submittal.
55.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, TabLe A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM at
R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
25
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a
total fire flow of 3850 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-
site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and
adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart, at each intersection
and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B).
As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
(CFC sec 902)
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6)inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
R:XD P~2002\024Y273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
26
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbem shall be of a
contrasting color to their background. Commemial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbem a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high lettem and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doom. Single-family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch lettem and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10)
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided, one per building. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in
height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4)
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doom and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81)
R:~D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-194)3.doc
27
74.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or abovegmund tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both
the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
Special Conditions
75.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention
for approval.
76.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
77.
The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Conditions
78.
All perimeter landscaping and parkways shall be maintained by the property owner or pdvate
maintenance association.
79.
The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
80.
The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure
areas.
81.
Installation of the landscape improvements within the medians shall commence pursuant to
a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent and monitored in accordance
with the TCSD inspection process.
82.
The developer, the developer's successors or assignee, shall be responsible for all
landscaping maintenance of the medians until such time as maintenance duties are
accepted by the TCSD.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
83.
A 10-foot easement along Rancho California Road for public trail purposes shall be required
by separate document.
84.
The development plan for the multi-use trail shall be approved by the Director of Community
Services.
R:'tD P\2002\02~0273 Meadow Village'Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
28
85. Landscape plans for the proposed raised medians on Rancho California Road and
Meadows Parkway shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
86.
The developer shall enter into an improvement agreement and post securities for the
landscaped medians on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway.
87.
Prior to issuance of building permit or the installation of arterial street lighting, which ever
occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit the
approved Edison streetlight improvement plans and pay the appropriate energy fees related
to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program.
88.
The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
Prior to Certificates of Occupancy
89.
The multi-use trail shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Services.
90.
Class II Bike Lanes along Meadows Parkway as required by the City's Multi-Use Trails and
Bikeways Master Plans shall be constructed.
91.
Any damage caused to existing Class II Bike Lanes on Rancho California Road during
construction will need to be repaired and/or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department.
BUILDING AND SAFETY
92.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1999 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
93.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
94.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
95.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
96. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
97.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
R:~D Px2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-I 94)3.doc
29
98. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
99.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
100. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
101. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
102. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
103. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
104. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
105. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
106. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
107. Showall building setbacks.
108.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
109. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated December 5, 2002 from the
Riverside Transit Agency.
110. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated December 27, 2002 from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
R:xl) P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
30
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
R:~D I~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
31
December 5, 2002
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517-1968
Phone: (909) 565-5000
Fax: (909) 565-5001
Mr. Rick Rush, Case Planner
Planning Dept.
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: P02-0271 and related cases at corner of Rancho California Rd and Meadows Pkwy
- Comments from RTA
Dear Mr: Rush:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed commercial development at
the SE corner of Rancho California Rd and Meadows Pkwy. RTA Bus Route 24 presently serves
Margarita Rd at Rancho California Rd, about 1¼ mile W of the site. However, the Transit Agency
anticipates a potential for new bus service at a future date on the portion of Rancho California Rd
and Meadows Pkwy adjacent to the project.
Although no site plan was included in the package you sent RTA, its staff is familiar enough with
the project to provide a few comments. RTA recognizes Temecula for consistently requiring
project designs that are pedestrian-friendly and supportive of public transit. 'To encourage and
enhance greater future transit use relative to this project, RTA recommends the site plan be
revised, if necessary, to include the following transit-friendly features:
Paved, lighted, and ADA-compliant, appropriately-placed transit bus turnouts with related
amenities should be indicated along the south side of Rancho California Rd and along the
east side of Meadows Pkwy to serve the project. The bus stops at these turnouts should
incorporate paved passenger waiting areas and adequate space for installation of
passenger benches, shelters and bus route signage by RTA or others at a future date.
· Identify pedestrian access from major tenants to the bus stops by means of designated
walkways that avoid crossing interior vehicle circulation patterns as much as possible.
If you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at (909) 565-5164
or contact me online at mmccoy~.riversidetransit.com.
Sincerely,
Michael McCoy
Senior Planner
F:\data\Planning\MikeM\Word\Dev Review\Temecula\Meadows Village - RTA Ltrhd.doc
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DEC 3 1_ 2002
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033
Attention:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/955-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
51180.1
Re: ~:)tq 0~-~07,,71
The District does not normally recommend conditions-for-tand d v sons or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The Disthct also does not plan check cry land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard repgrts for such cases. Disthct comments/recammendat OhS for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific mterast to the District including Disthct Master Dra nage P an fac ties other regional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical componentor extension of a master plan system
and Disthct Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). Ih addition, information of a general nature s
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply Disthct approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
u"'/ This pm. lect would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional interest proposed.
This project involves Disthct Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Disthct standards, and D sthct plan check and
inspection will be required for Disthct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and adm nistrat ve fees w be
requ red.
This project proposes channels storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that cou d be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted ·
Master Drainage Plan. The District woUld consider accepting ownership ot such taciht~es on wntten request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards and D~strict plan check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and adm n strat ve fees will be required.
V'/' This project is located within the limits of the District's ~UP,~,IET~ ('RA&k/T~H&C..UL~ [,/,~LcEt/'Area
Drain. age Plan for ,which ,dra..ina. ge f..e, es .ha_.ve ,be.en.Q adopted applicable tees/slIould be paid by cashier's
cnecK or money order only id tne ~qooo uon[ro~ uistdct pdor to issuance of building or grading permits,
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance off. he actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) @ermit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading recordation, or other final approvalshould not be given until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a perm t or is shown to be exempt.
If this project inv.o, lves a Federal Emergency Management Age. ncy (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City shou d
require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, p~ans and other ~nformation required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
pdor to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement fram the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water ACt
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies
indicating the prgject is exempt from these reqmrements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Cert~cation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of the Corps 404
permit. '
- -,- ~ .... ,F. Fog- ~/~¥ O.~oRJe,. ~t~'/+t~/ Very truly yours, ~
~/~C.I ~ I f ] g $ ' STUART E. MCKIBBIN
~31q-/a_ ~)i~g'-~lc~l" /"~ Senior Civil Engineer
Date: IF-- 0Z-
A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PC RESOLUTION
R:~D P~2002\02~273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19~)3.doc
32
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 13,217 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL
AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 13,217
SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH
OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0274 Conditional Use Permit, in
a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 2003, at duly noticed public hearings as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did
testify either in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the general plan.
The proposed drive through and request for alcohol sales meets the purpose and intent of a
conditional use permit as defined in Section 17.04.010A of the development code.
2. The nature of the proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the general
welfare of the community. The proposed drive through for the drug store has been located in area
that will not conflict with pedestrian foot traffic. The drive through window will actually serve as a
benefit to the surrounding neighbors. Staff has determined with statistics from the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, Census Tract 0432.21 permits 11 off-sale licenses and currentlythere
is only one active license within the Census Tract. The two proposed requests for off-sale liquor
licensees would not create an undue concentration of Type-21 licenses in the area.
R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
33
3. Staff has reviewed the proposed project against the development code requirements
shopping centers and has found that the project meets or exceeds all of the requirements.
4. This application has been brought before the Planning Commission at a Public
Hearing where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the
Planning Commission renders their decision.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council conditionally approve Planning Application 02-0274 a Conditional
Use Permit to operate a drive through at a 13,217 square foot drug store, and to permit the sale of
alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and a 13,217 square foot drug store with the
conditions of approval and mitigation measures attached as Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 19th day of February 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 2003, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',D 1~2002\02~Y273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
34
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:'d) PL2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\S~ff Report PC 2-19~03.doc
· 35
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
02-0274 (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive
through at a 13,217 square foot drug store, and to
permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot
grocery store and a 13,217 square foot drug store.
DIF Category:
Service Commercial
Assessor's Parcel No.:
954-030-001
Approval Date: TBD
Expiration Date: TBD
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One
thousand three hundred and fourteen dollars ($1314.00) for the County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code
Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development
Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project
granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c)].
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and hold
harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers,
employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to
attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the
City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and
Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by
the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the
permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period.
The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said
amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City
shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finalty
R?,D P~2002\024)273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
36
concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold
harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or
agents.
The text of Amendment No. 6 to the Margarita Village Specific Plan shall conform to Exhibit
"N", "Margarita Village Amendment No.6 "dated February 19, 2003.
The Applicant shall submit ten (10) copies of the Amended Specific Plan to the Planning
Department within 30 days of the approval date.
All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
Conditional Use Permit.
This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
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 pedod, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
Prior to Commencement of Alcohol Sales
The applicant shall be required to contact the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to
verify that there is not an over concentration of "off-sale" licenses within Census Tract
0432.21 or the Census Tract in which the parcel is located. If at the time of a request for an
"off-sale" liquor license, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control determines that the
Census Tract is over concentrated; the applicant will be required to apply for a Public
Convenience or Necessity Application with the City of Temecula.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Name printed
Date
R:'xD P',2002'~0241273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
37
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 2-! 9-03.doc
38
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- February 19, 2003
VICINITY MAP
R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
CITY OFTEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION ~ (NC) Neighborhood Commercial
EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - Specific Plan No. 3
CASE NO.- PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003
R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19q33.doc
40
CITY OF TEMECULA
B
DRUG
13,217 SF
A
MARKET
48~372 SF
NOT~
TENANT ~E~S~NG & DOOR
CONCEPTVAL ONLY. StJ~
RELATIVE TO MARKET DEM.
ADA COMPUA~ RESTRCOI
~N EACH ~ SPACE PE
8UILD~ CODE
REQUIREI~ENT FOR RRE RE
TABLE 5-A
CASE NO.- PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
EXHIBIT - D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003
SITE PLAN
R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Viliage~Stafl Report PC 2-19-03.doc
4]
CITY OF TEMECULA
B
DRUG
13,217 SF
^
MARKET
48,372 SF
NOTE
TF. NN~ D~V~NO & iX)OR
C0NC.2~JN. 0NL¥.
RE~ T0 ~ ~
IN ~ ~ SP~E PE
REQU~E~ ~ ~ RE
T~ ~k
CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003
FLOOR PLAN
R:\D P~2002~02-O273 Meadow village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
42
CITY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- February 19, 2003
GRADING PLAN
R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Repot[ PC 2-19-03.doc
43
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003
ELEVATION (Al)
R:~D P~2002~02~)273 Meadow Village'Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
EXHIBIT- H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003
ELEVATION (A2)
R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village'Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
45
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.- PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
EXHIBIT - I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003
ELEVATION (A3)
R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village'Staff Report PC 2-19~)3,doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
SHOP E. ·
CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
EXHIBIT - J
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003
ELEVATION (A4)
R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
47
CiTY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
EXHIBIT - K
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003
ELEVATION
R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
48
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
EXHIBIT- L LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003
R:'~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
49
ATrACHMENT NO. 6
INITIAL STUDY
R ~D P~2002~02~0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19~03:,~oc
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
~ Environmental Checklist
Project Title Planning Application Nos. 02-0271 (Specific Plan Amendment), 02-
0272 (General Plan Amendment), 02-0273 (Development Plan) and
02-0274 (Conditional Use Permit) - Meadows Village
Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Number Rick Rush, Associate Planner
(909) 694-6400
Project Location Generally located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road
and Meadows Parkway (APN 954-030-001).
Project Sponsor's Name and Address John Clement, Venture Point
3419 Via Lido, Newport Beach, CA 92663
General Plan Designation Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Zoning Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP-3)
Description of Project A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use
designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community
Commercial.
A Specific Plan Amendment to amend the zoning in Planning Area
19 from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial.
A Development Plan to construct a 48,372 square foot grocery store,
~ 13,217 square foot drug store, 11,571 square foot shop building,
10,568 square foot shop building and a 9,603 square foot shop
building.
A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive thru pharmacy at the
16,640 square foot drug store, and permit the sale of alcohol at the
48,427 square foot market, and the16, 640 square foot drug store.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes)
East: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes)
South: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes)
West: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes)
Other public agencies whose approval None
is required
R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village'~n[tiar Study.doc
1
Vicinity Map
R:\D P~_002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics Mineral Resources
Agricultural Resources Population and Housing X Noise
X Air Quality Population and Housing
Biological Resources, Water Public Services
Cultural Resources Recreation
Geologic Problems Transportation/Traffic
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
~i~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact~' or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
November 12, 2002
Signature Date
Rick Rush, Associate Planner
rinted name
City of Temecula
For
R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Vii[age\Initial Study.doc
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Tha~
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
1.8.
No Impact. The existing property has not been identified as a scenic vista in the City of Temecula's
General Plan.
1.5.
No Impact. Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway are not designated as scenic resources
nor is the site within the view of a state scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to
scenic resources will result from the proposed project or future development of the site.
.0.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will be located adjacent
to existing single-family units to the south and east of the project site. The single-family homes grades~
vary from sixteen feet to thirty feet above the proposed site. The proposed parapet walls for the tw~
buildings located nearest the single-family homes are approximately twenty-eight feet. Due to the
grade differences and heights of the proposed buildings the project has the potential to have roof top
equipment visible from the adjacent residents. Also, the project has storage areas and loading areas
that have the potential to be visible from the adjacent residents. Therefore, the following mitigation
measures will be implemented.
REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES
The applicant shall be required to screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of
the adjacent residences, utilizing architectural elements.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will produce a new source of substantial light and glare.
All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. Due to proximity to
residential uses, the project also has a potential to create significant light and glare impacts onsite or
impacting the surrounding area and uses. The project will be conditioned to comply with the County's
Ordinance 655 requirements. The project as conditioned will result in a less than significant impact.
R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
~oSeSsment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
del to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
~ P~tehtiaily sig~ca~ With ~ ~e~S ~rh~n'?~
: sig~ifi~t !~ Mi~t~ ;:; .~ig~i~i~h{~~
IssuesandSup~inglnfo~ation~ur~s~ : ~ ,:~ ;;l~p~.; in~0~at~d ~ ~lm~ ~ ~lmpa~;~
a. Conve~ Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X
of Statewide Impo~ance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resoumes Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which X
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
2a.-c. No ImpacL The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past the site
has not been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it
zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or
local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula
General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would
result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact
related to this issue.
3. AIR QUAMTY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Less Than
potentially · si~nificantWith , L%STi~an
sighificant MJtig~{i0n s!gh!f!c~i~t ~ NO
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact IncO~p0rated Ir~lSact impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X
of people?
3.a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. According to an Air Quality study submitted by Tom Dodson &
Associates the proposed project will comply with State and Federal air quality standards. As a part of
the study the URBEMIS 2001 model was used, which indicated that the Meadows Village project would
R:\D P',2.002~02-0273 Meadow Village\initial Study.dcc
5
fall below significance levels for construction and operational emissions as established by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District. As a consequence, a less than significant is anticipated as a
result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item 3. a,b above, the project is within acceptable~II
standards as established by thresholds for impacts associated with construction of commemial
development. The proposed site has been graded previously, which will eliminate the need for
significant grading and excavation. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a
result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. As proposed the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrators. The proposed project will fall below the significance levels
established by SCAQMD for construction and operational emissions. As a consequence a less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project may create objectionable odors during the
construction phase of the project. These impacts will be short in duration and are not considered
significant over the long term. The project shall comply with the environmental standards as detailed in
the Development Code for commercial development. The proposed project has sited a large-scale
grocery store in close proximity to single-family residences to the south and east. A large-scale grocery
store has the potential to generate objectionable odors that may affect the single-family residences.
The food waste generated and disposed of at the rear of the proposed store may create objectionable
odors for the adjacent homes. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES
The project will be required to have daily trash pickups that will eliminate any potential
objectionable odors.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Le~s,]'h~n
Significant Mitigation Signi~cant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources impact incorporated impact Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
I . Les?Than :: ~ ~
Potentially Si~h3~t~Wi~ Less.Than .
Significant ~' .Mifigath~n ~ign[fi~n( ' No
Issues and Su@poding Information Sources impact Inc~rp0rate~l Impact ~ i~act
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
No Impact. The General Plan does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site.
The site is outside the habitat area identified for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and does not contain
wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. The site has been rough graded previously into a
developable commercial pad. There is no anticipated biological impact associated with this project.
No Impact. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The
project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code
(Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
I CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
~ ': Significant ;Mitigation significant No~
Issues and Supportin~ Information Sources : im[~ct~ [n~rp(~-ated mpe~ Irnl~ct
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.57
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.57
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
No Impact. The subject site does not meet the criteria of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
5.b-d. Less Than Significant ImpacL Construction of the proposed buildings will occur on land that has
been previously graded. Due to previous land disturbance, it is unlikely that cultural resources remain
on this site. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR # 202) was adopted as a part of the Margarita
Village Specific Plan. In the comment-received portion of the EIR it was noted that that the subject
parcel was part of a cultural resources inventory conducted by Archaeological Systems Management
Inc., in conjunction with the "Draft EIR for Rancho Villages Policy Plan GPA. It was further stated that
no historic sites and only one archeological site was identified in the Margarita Village Specific Plan
area. Archeological site, Riv. 1726, is located on a knoll north of Rancho California Road, about one
mile east of Margarita Road. Additionally, neither the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental
Impact Report nor the City's General Plan identifies this project site as an area of significant cultural
resources. The project will be conditioned have a paleontologist/archaeologist or representative
R:\D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
7
present that shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow
recovery of fossils,
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Les~ T~han
Significant M!~igation Signi~ca~ No
Issues and Supporting InfOrmation Sources Impact tncorp°rated. · Itnp~ct ; inipact~,
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial X
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on X
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B X
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
ris~
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
6.a.i, ii, iii.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic
ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction and subsidence of the land) and
expansive soils, and will have a less than significant impact to erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. The project is located in Southern California,
an area that is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than
significant impact and conditioned to conform to Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary
soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and
recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval.
The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to
mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure
(including liquefaction and subsidence of the land), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils.
6.a.iv,
No Impact. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental
Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides o~
mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a resul
of this project.
6.b.c. Less Than Significant Impact. Potential impacts will be mitigated by conditions of approval to comply
with State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in
R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
8
accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the
development and shall contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to
mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure
(including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of
approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of proper compaction of the soils and landscaping.
Less Than Significant Impact. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building
construction, consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be
conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report are
complied with during construction. The soil reports will also contain recommendations for the
compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic
ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils.
.6.
No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project is
connected to the existing public sewer system in Rancho California Road; therefore, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
: S!gn~flcant~w th Less,Than ~;
Issues and Supportin~l infbmmtJbn sburces : im~ct.. I~i~ie~ ~.. :l;~i~~
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routine transport, use, or
D disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existin~l or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 05962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
t evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
R:\D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
Comments:
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in a less than significant impact in the creation
of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all
applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project
found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
7.5.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in a less than significant impact due to risk of
explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset conditions.
The Fire Department reviewed this project according to the information provide by the applicant and
found that there should be minimal hazards if designed, built, and used according to the submitted
plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
.0.
No Impact. This project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
No impact is anticipated.
No Impact. This project site is not, nor is it located near, a site that is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
7.e.,f.
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
or private airstrip. The nearest airport is French Valley, whose runway is approximately four (4) miles to
the north and west. The proposed project falls outside of the Traffic Pattern Zone as determined for the
French Valley Airport. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project is a commemial village surrounded by single-family residences. In the
development of the site the applicant will be eliminating existing potentially flammable brush. The
project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation S~gniticant NO
Issues and Supporting Informafi(~n Sources ~lmpact Incorporated Impact : i ,~!mpact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or intedere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Viilage\lnitial Study.doc
stream or river, or substantially increase the rote or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
~[~ Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional soumes of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, X
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Comments:
Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. The project is required to comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is
shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be
mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result
of this project.
8.b.f.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the
quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through
intemeption of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact
on ground waters or aquifer volume. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this
project.
8.c.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or
flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount
of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground.
Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying
hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts
shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances are required for the project to safely and
adequately handle runoff that is created. As designed the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact on the existing facilities.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to create or contribute runoff water,
which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is conditioned to accommodate the
drainage created as a result of the development of the subject site. in addition, the project is
conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is
associated with this project.
R:'~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village~nitial Study.doc
8.g. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for a commercial user within an area zoned for
commercial uses. No residential property is affected; no impact is associated with this project.
No Impact. The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such
flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100-year floodway as identified in the Cit~
Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Figure 7-3) and the Flood Insurance Rate
Map Community-Panel Number 0607420005B. No potential for exposure to significant flood hazards
will occur from developing the project site as proposed. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
8.i.j. No Impact. The project site is not subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow, as these
events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
~ Less:Tl~n
Poienfi~}ly ~i~nt wi~h ~ess Tha~
Signific~{t, ' Mitigation
Issubs and Sup~ info~ation Sou~ Impa~ In~t~d Im~ ~
a. Physically divide an established communi~? X
5. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or X
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effe~?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conse~ation plan or X
natural communi~ conse~ation plan?
Comments:
No Impact. The project site is an infill commercial parcel surrounded by single-family residences. In
the Margarita Villages Specific Plan the intent of this parcel was to create a village concept with
commercial uses to service the surrounding residents. Therefore, no impacts as a result of this project
are anticipated.
9.5.
No ImpacL The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan land use of Community
Commercial and is consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
.0.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to
pay a one-time mitigation fee. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Signiticar~ With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant N~
issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated ImpactImpact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
Comments:
10.a.b. No ImpacL The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resoumes or in the loss of
an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the
City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the
potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, it has
been determined that this area contains no deposits of significant economic value based upon available
data in a report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County,
California, Special Report 165, prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
P0t~entiall~ $ig'nif ~t~wi~ ':
, Issues a~Supmding Inf0rmafio~Sour~s ~ ;i~ ; In~morated ~;'~ :1~:.~ ~ [~i~a~~;
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
groundborne vibration or gmundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d. A substantial tempom~ or periodic increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
~ without the ~ect?
e. For a project located within an airpoA land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within ~o
miles of a public airpo~ or public use airpoA, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
11 .a.c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is located on a 9.77-acre
site directly adjacent to single-family residences. The City of Temecula's General Plan has identified
residents as sensitive receptors. A 65 CNEL has been adopted as the maximum exterior noise level
acceptable for sensitive receptors. The CNEL is an average equivalent A-weighted sound level during
a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m. and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after
10:00 p.m. The proposed site and residences are separated by a fifty-foot landscape slope and grade
elevations varying from 16 feet to 30 feet. According to the Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the
Meadows Village project by Urban Crossroads, dated May 31,2001, and revised January 30, 2003, the
primary source of noise on the project site is primarily from vehicles traveling on Rancho California and
Meadows Village. The existing noise levels exceed the 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent
Level) that are acceptable for the existing residential homes as adopted in the Noise Element of the
General Plan. The project as designed and the proposed mitigation measures will decrease the
existing noise levels to an acceptable level. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be
implemented.
R:'~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES
All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate
the noise generated by delivery trucks.
Provide a 7-foot high parapet wall that will block the line of site from the backyard of the
homes to the exposed roof and ventilation systems of Building A and Building E.
Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines to be turned off during delivery operations.
11.b.
Less Than Significant Impact. The uses conducted by the project are not activities that would expose
persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Although there
will be an increase in ground borne vibration and noise during grading and construction, these will be of
a temporary and short duration. Due to the limited nature of this exposure and by maintaining
compliance with the City Noise Ordinance there will be a less than significant impacts.
11.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient
noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of
100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However, this source of noise from construction
of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore,
construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A less than
significant impact would be anticipated.
11 .e.f.
No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore,
employees working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an
airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Less Tha~ '
Po!entially Significant W~th Less Tha~
significant Miti~fibn ~ ~ignifi~a~t.- No '
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
12.a.b.c.
No Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
project site is a commemial in-fill site surrounded by single-family residences. The project will not
displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is developed with commercial
uses within a commercial zone. Additionally, the project site is located within an existing commercial
area, which does not permit residential development. The project will neither displace housing nor
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered Government services in any of the following areas:
pot~ntia!ly 'Sig~ca~t With Less Th~
Si9hJflcant: Mitigation Si{~ nific, a.~.~t~ : NS
Issues and Suppoding Information Sources Impact Incorporated imDact; Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X
impacts associates with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
b. Fire protection? X
c. Police protection? X
d. Schools? X
e. Parks? X
f. Other public facilities? X
Comments:
13.a.b.c.e.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally
increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through City
Development Impact Fees to be used to provide public facilities. Less than significant impacts are
anticipated.
13.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to
relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the
payment of applicable School Fees. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
13.f.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside
Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval
has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain '~/ill Serve" letters from all of
the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential homes, so
extending service to this site is probable, which would result in less than significant impacts as a result
of the project.
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Sig~Y~lcant With Less,Than
Significant Mitigation Sig~i!ica~t No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact IncorpOrated impact Irn~abt
a. Would the project increase the use of existing X
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
. facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require X
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
Comments:
14.a.b. No Impact. The project is a commercial project that is relatively small in scale. The anticipated neec~I
to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this projec'~'
is unlikely. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
p6t~ntial~y si~fiifi~ w~
~; Significant i~iti~aMo~ ~' .sigr{ififa~t
Issues and Suppo~ng Information Sources Impact incorporated impa~ Impact
a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X
' service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Comments:
15.a.b.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, which
is also the land use assumed in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. According to the
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the traffic-engineering firm of Urban Crossroads, the proposed
Community Commercial land uses within the proposed project will generate less daily and AM/PM peak
hour traffic than the current zoning of Community Commemial. In addition the project is consistent with
General Plan goals and polices of maintaining a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections within
the City during peak hours. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to the
existing traffic system within the City of Temecula. Additionally, the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the
cumulative impacts during the approval process and has determined that the project's traffic impacts
warrant no further study or mitigations.
15.c.d. No Impact. The proposed development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns
by increasing the traffic levels in the vicinity. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight
overlay district. The design of the project will not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the
people utilizing the roads in the vicinity of the project because there are no sharp curves or dangerous
intersections proposed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15.e.
No Impact. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses.
project, as designed, complies with current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\D P\2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
15.f.
No Impact. The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking
requirements for commercial uses. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
No Impact. The project site is located on a road that has access to public transportation. The project
as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation. Because the project does not propose to significantly increase its employee base,
alternative transportation programs specifically designed for this project are not necessary. The project
will be required to provide bicycle racks at a rate of 1 rack per 20 required parking space per the
Development Code.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
· ~l=01en~t!~lly~; -Sig~ca~twlth ! ~ssThan~
: Si~,ific~t ~ MJ~{~fib~ ~ :
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X
applicable Regional Water Quali~ Control Board?
b. Require or result in the constru~ion of new water or X
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to se~e the X
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X
provider, which sewes or may se~e the project that it has
adequate capaci~ to se~e the project's projected
demand in addition to the pmvider's existing
commitments?
f. Be se~ed by a landfill with sufficient permi~ed capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
16.a.b.e.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements,
require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The
project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan
would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's
General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.c.
No Impact. The Drainage Study prepared for the underlying Tentative Parcel Map No. 22513 indicated
that the amount of runoff from the project is not anticipated to be any greater than what was anticipated
by construction of the site. Consequently, construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities is not anticipated.
R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
16.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor
require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems.
While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated a~
ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states.'~
"implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p.
40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
16.f.g.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any
potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in
Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
~ ~Pqt~nfially Si~i~ica~t~it~ Less~han'~ ,
S~gnJficadl~ ,r NO
Issues and Supporting Intormation Sources ~lmp~t J ; .~,l~i~at~ ~ ~"~ '~'<
~ mpact ·!..Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
Califor.nia histo~?
bo Does the project have impacts that are individually X
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects?
c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
17.a.
No Impact. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site or
in the vicinity of the project. The site lies within an existing residential area and has been zoned to
accommodate commercial development. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or
wildlife because the site has been previously graded. No historic resources are anticipated to be
impacted because grading has already occurred on the site.
17.b.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The cumulative effects from the project are
significant but they are being mitigated to less than significant levels with the incorporated mitigation.
Ail cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding
developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation
measures in place, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code, the
cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact.
17.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The commercial component will be
designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:'~D P~-002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
18
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
~other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
gative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b. impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Comments:
18.a. There were no earlier analyses specifically related to this project site. The City's General Plan and
Final Environment Impact Report and a number of special studies (listed under Sources) were used as
a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study
18.b. There were no earlier impacts, which affected this project.
18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Initial Study.
R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
SOURCES
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
City of Temecula General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted July 2, 1993
The Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 dated October 10, 2000.
Margarita Village Specific Plan Final Focused Environmental Impact Report #202 dated March 1986.
Meadows Village Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 23, 2001.
Meadows Village Traffic Analysis supplemental prepared by Urban Crossroads dated September 22,
2002.
Meadows Village Noise Study prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 31,2001.
Meadows Village Noise Study prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 31, 2001 and revised January
30, 2003.
Meadows Village Air Quality prepared by Tom Dodson and Associates dated October 29, 2002.
R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:'~D P~002~02-0273 Meadc;w Village\Staff Repod PC 2-19-03.doc 5]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Project Description: Planning Application PA02-0272 General Plan Amendment
Planning Application PA02-0271 Specific Plan Amendment
Planning Application PA02-0273 Development Plan Map
Planning Application PA02-0274 Conditional Use Permit
Location:
South side of Rancho California Road and East of Meadows
Parkway
Applicant:
John Clement
Venture Point
3419 Via Lido
Newport Beach, CA 92663
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings.
The applicant shall be required to screen all roof mounted
mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residence,
utilizing architectural elements.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measure as part of the building plan check review process.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department
AIR QUALITY
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people.
The project will be required to have daily trash pickups that will
eliminate any potential objectionable odors.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measure prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit.
Planning Department
R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village'~.titigation Monitoring Program.doc
1
NOISE
General Impact:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies, A substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project
Mitigation Measures:
All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened
with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery
trucks.
Specific Process:
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures as part of the building plan check review process.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Responsible Monitoring
Party
Planning Department
NOISE
General Impact:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
Mitigation Measures:
Provide a 7-foot high parapet wall that will block the line of site
from the backyard of the nearby homes to the exposed roof and
ventilation systems of Building A and Building E.
Specific Process:
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures as part of the building plan check review process.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Responsible Monitoring
Party
Planning Department
R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Mitigation Monitoring Prograrn.dcc
2
NOISE
General Impact:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
Mitigation Measures:
Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between
the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Specific Process:
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures as part of the final inspection review process.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit.
Responsible Monitoring
Party
Planning Department
NOISE
General Impact:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
Mitigation Measures:
Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines to be turned off
during delivery operations.
Specific Process:
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures as part of the final inspection process.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
Responsible Monitoring
Party
Planning Department
R:\D 1:~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village'dVlitigation Monitoring Program.doc
3
A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 8
DECEMBER 4, 2002 STAFF REPORT
R:~D P~2002~02~0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03~doc
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 4, 2002
Planning Application No(s). 02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division
Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward these
projects to the City Council with a recommendation for denial:
1. ADOPTa Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA
19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 954-030-001.
3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
R:kD I~2002\024)273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC.doc
1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING,
A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 6,220 SQUARE
FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 4,670 SQUARE FOOT SHOP
BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001.
4. ADOPTa Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMITTHE SALE OF ALCOHOL
AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640
SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH
OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Venture Point, John Clement
PROPOSAL:
PA02-0272: A General Plan Amendment to amend the
General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood
Commemial to Community Commemial.
PA02-0271: A Specific Plan Amendment for the Margarita
Village Specific Plan to amend the land use designation of
Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to
Community Commercial and amending the text within the
Specific Plan.
PA02-0273: A Development Plan for the design, construction
and operation of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, a 16,640
square foot drug store, a 11,230 square foot shop building, a
8,780 square foot shop building, a 6,220 square foot shop
building and a 4,670 square foot shop building.
R:XD P',2002~0242,273 Meadow VillageXS~dl Report PC.doc
2
PA02-0274: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive
through at a 16,640 square foot drug store, and to permit the
sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square foot grocery store and a
16,640 square foot drug store.
LOCATION:
South side of Rancho California Road and East of Meadows
Parkway
EXISTING ZONING:
Neighborhood Commemial (NC)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
South: Medium Density Residential (M)
East: Medium Density Residential (M)
West: Medium High Density Residential (MH)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Single-Family Homes
South: Single-Family Homes
East: Single-Family Homes
West: Single-Family Homes
BACKGROUND
May 23, 2002
August 8, 2002
September 20, 2002
October 16, 2002
October 28, 2002
October 28, 2002
October 31,2002
November 12, 2002
Project submitted
Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting
Revised plans submitted by the applicant
Staff comments for revised plans sent to applicant
Met with applicant to discuss staff comments for revised plans
Community Meeting
Met with applicant to discuss Community Meeting comments
Notice of Intent cimulated/Public Notice
During the community meeting that was held on October 28, 2002, approximately 30 residents were
in attendance. During the question and comment period two people spoke in favor of the project
and approximately twenty people spoke in opposition to the project. The following concerns raised
by the residents were related to compatibility, noise, delivery hours, traffic, size of grocery store, site
design, property values, building heights and urbanization of the wine country corridor.
On October 31,2002, staff and the applicant met to discuss the community meeting. During this
meeting the applicant requested to have the project go forward to public hearing without any further
plan revisions. Staff has also prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts associated with the proposed project.
R:~D PX2002\024Y273 Meadow Village~Staff RepoR PC.doc
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Amendment
The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use
designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial. The current Land Use
Designation was adopted November 9, 1993. As defined in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, the intent of the Neighborhood Commercial designation is to allow smaller-scale business
activities, which generally provide retail, or convenience services for the local residents in the
surrounding neighborhood. The purpose of the Community Commemial designation is to allow
larger-scale retail, professional office, and service-oriented business activities, which serve the
entire community.
Specific Plan Amendment
The site is located within the Margarita Village Specific Plan area, which was approved by the
County in 1986. The applicant requests a Specific Plan Amendment to amend the land use
designation of Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and
also amend the text within the specific plan. The proposed revised text changes have been included
as Attachment. Following is a summary of the key proposed text changes:
Addition of the Commercial Architectural Design Guidelines (Section c).
· Addition of the Site Design Guidelines (Section d).
· Modification of the acreage in Planning Area 19 from 6.2-acres as stated in the text of the
Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 5 to 9.7-acres as reflected on the recorded Pamel Map
No. 22513 (recorded October 14, 1987).
· Amendment of text references to the zoning standards for Planning Area 19 from the
Neighborhood Commercial District in Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code to the
Community Commemial District.
· Amendment of text references to the permitted uses for Planning Area 19 from the
Neighborhood Commemial District in Section 17.08.030 of the Development Code to the
Community Commercial District.
· Repagination due to the previously mentioned additions to the Specific Plan.
Development Plan
The applicant is requesting a Development Plan approval for the design, construction and operation
of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, a 16,640 square foot drug store, and four additional retail
shops of 11,230 square feet, 8,780 square feet, 6,220 square feet and 4,670 square feet.
The proposed access to the site will be taken from two driveway entrances along Meadows Parkway
and two driveway entrances off Rancho California Road. The majority of the parking for the site has
been located in front of the grocery store. The remainder of the parking has been located in front of
the proposed shop buildings.
The grocery store has been sited at the rear of the site directly adjacent to the existing single-family
residences. Shop E and Shop F have also been sited directly adjacent to the exiting residences.
The proposed drug store has been sited nearest to the corner of Rancho California and Meadows
Parkway, with the proposed drive through oriented towards the intersection.
Conditional Use Permit
A Conditional Use Permit is required to operate a drive through at the proposed drug store, and to
permit the sale of alcohol at grocery store and drug store. At this time, the applicant has not
submitted an application with the State Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC), so staff is unable to
determine whether Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity will be required.
ANALYSES
General Plan Amendment
The applicant's primary mason for requesting a General Plan Amendment is to facilitate
construction of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, which would not be permitted under the currant
Neighborhood Commemial land use designation. Staff cannot support the amendment request,
because it would represent a fundamental shift in land use policy for the site, from a neighborhood-
serving retail village to a higher intensity commercial center that targets a much broader regional
area.
Public comments received at the neighborhood meeting and throughout the review of this
application indicate that the proposed project may create nuisance visual and noise impacts to the
nearby residents, Given the topography and proposed design of the site, neighbom were concerned
that the rooftop views and loading operation of the grocery store were an unnecessary and
unacceptable alternative to a neighborhood retail village.
As was previously mentioned, the current land use designation for the site was adopted by the City
Council November 9, 1993, as part of the General Plan. At the time of adoption, the goals and
polices of the Land Use Element emphasized compatibility between future urban development and
the existing single-family residences within the community. It was further stated that residents
desire adequate buffering from non-residential uses in terms of light, noise, traffic impacts and
negative visual impacts. The proposed land use designation of Community Commemial will result in
a level of commercial activity that is not compatible with the surrounding residential uses. General
Plan Land Use Goal 3 recommends the adoption of a land use pattern that will protect and enhance
residential neighborhoods. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed amendment does not protect
or enhance the existing single-family homes.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is also inconsistent with the Community Design Element.
The element is states that standards need to be carefully developed for the Development Code to
achieve a scale of development that is in balance with surrounding area. Goal 3 of this element
states "preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or
neighborhoods". In the discussion portion of Goal 3, the preservation of the character of the single-
family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that ara "out of scale", is of
particular importance. The proposed land use change will permit futura development that is "out of
scale" in relation to the nearby homes.
Staff has concluded that the current Neighborhood Commercial designation and the typical
activities, which provide retail or convenience services for the local residents in surrounding
neighborhood is compatible with the existing neighborhoods in the area. The proposed land use
designation of Community Commercial, which provides retail, professional office, and service-
oriented business activities for the entire community is not compatible with the existing single-family
neighborhood to the south.
R:~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Smff Report PC.doc
5
Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment of the Margarita Village Specific Plan to change the land use designation
from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commemial is not consistent with the General Plan.
As previously stated, staff does not support the request and is recommending denial of the
proposed General Plan Amendment. Therefore, the Specific Plan Amendment cannot be approved
if the General Plan Amendment is denied.
The original intent of Planning Area 19 was to provide a variety of neighborhood retail commercial
and service uses for Margarita Village residents. The proposal is a request to deviate from the
original intent and provide services for the entire community. Staff does not support the proposed
amendment because of its incompatibility with the General Plan and the existing single-family
residences.
Development Plan
The proposed Development Plan is not consistent with the General Plan nor is it consistent with the
Margarita Village Specific Plan. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the
· Neighborhood Commercial zoning distdct (Development Code Section 17.08.030).
During the review process, staff expressed numerous concerns to the applicant about the proposed
development plan (see attached DRC letter). The applicant resubmitted a revised site plan on
September 20, 2002, but did not address all of the concerns expressed during DRC. The following
is a list of outstanding concerns that staff has with the proposed development plan:
· The access point on Rancho California nearest to the intersection creates internal
circulation conflicts
· The proposed site plans lack pedestrian linkages to encourage non-vehicle use.
· The large parking field in front of the grocery store is unsightly from Rancho California
Road.
· The location of the drive thru is unsightly and close to a major intersection.
· The location of loading areas inhibits pedestrian experience and creates noise conflicts.
· The location of building E is segregated from site and backs onto Meadows Parkway.
· The location of building F requires unsafe crossings by pedestrians.
· Outside gathering spots are insufficient and require unsafe pedestrian crossings.
· The location of trash enclosures will create unsightly appearance at main entries.
Should the Planning Commission and/or City Council support the General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan Amendment, staff would request that the site plan be revised to address staffs
concerns.
Conditional Use Permit
Staff has determined that the required findings necessary to approve the Conditional Use Permit
cannot be made at this time, because of insufficient information from ABC and unclear status of the
prerequisite land use approvals. In addition, staff does not support the location of the drive thru, so
it is premature to make conclusive findings for approval.
R:'xD P',2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Repor~ PC.doc
6
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Although CEQA does not require an environmental review for denied projects, staff has prepared an
Initial Study, in the event that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the applications
for approval. Staff has determined that the project could potentially result in significant
environmental impacts, unless mitigation measures are included in a Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Staff has circulated the Initial Study for public review, but has also requested additional acoustical
information from the applicant, which has not been submitted at the time of this writing. It is
anticipated that the applicant will provide the minor additional information prior to the end of the 20-
day circulation period for the Initial Study. Based on the recommendation of denial, staff
recommends that no environmental action be taken on this project.
CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is not consistent with all of the
goals and policies of the General Plan. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment. If the General Plan is denied, then
the remainder of the applications will not be consistent with the General Plan and must be denied as
well.
FINDINGS:
In support of the recommendation of denial, the following findings must be made:
General Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment is not compatible with the adjacent single-family residences,
because the land use change would permit future development that would be "out of scale"
and not compatible with the surrounding homes. The intent of the proposed Community
Commercial land use designation is to serve the entire community, which would not be
compatible with the surrounding residential setting. The existing land use designation of
Neighborhood Commercial is compatible with the surrounding land uses and should not be
amended.
As stated in the Overview section of the General Plan, "every general plan amendment must
be consistent with the rest of the general plan". The requested amendment to the General
Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial will
not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed land use Land Use
Element goal number 3, requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential
neighborhoods be adopted. The current land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the
land use to Community Commercial will be in conflict with this goal.
Policy 3.1 states "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in
terms of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation
of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic
impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit uses
that are not compatible with the existing single-family homes.
Goal number 3 of the Community Design Element, states that the preservation of the
character of the single-family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from
buildings that are "out of scale", is of particular importance. The proposed amendment is not
consistent with this goal by permitting future development that is "out of scale" in relation to
the existing homes.
R:'~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc
7
Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use
designation for the General Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commercial,
and the General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commercial.
The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it is significant
change to the planned land use of the site and is inconsistent with the overall concept of the
Margarita Village Specific Plan in that it introduces larger-scale commercial adjacent to
single-family homes.
o
The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The amendment requests to
intensify the proposed uses and scale of the site and this will create conflicts with the
surrounding single-family development,
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F)
The proposed grocery store is not in conformance with the current General Plan land use
designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The use is also not a permitted use in the
Neighborhood Commercial zoning district.
The project as proposed is not compatible with the surrounding single-family residences.
The proposed project has not taken into account the general welfare of the surrounding
property owners, The site plan has sited proposed buildings adjacent to the nearby
residents. Loading areas and trash enclosures have also been located near the adjacent
residences. The proposed site plan has access issues, as well as site design issues that will
need to be addressed in the form of a redesign.
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E)
o
The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the General Plan and the Development
Code. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial
zoning district.
o
The nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the general welfare of the
community due to a potential over-concentration of alcohol outlets in the Census tract.
However, there are insufficient facts available to make an affirmative finding.
10.
That the decision to deny the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the planning commission.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolutions- Blue Page 10
2. Exhibits- Blue Page 19
A. Vicinity map
B. General Plan map
C. Zoning map
D. Site plan
E. Floor Plan
F. Grading Plan
G. Elevation (Al)
H. Elevation (A2)
I. Elevation (A3)
J. Elevation (A4)
K. Elevation (A5)
L. Landscape Plan
M. Initial Study
N. DRC Letter
R:~,D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC.doc
9
A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTIONS
R:'~D I~20~2\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0272 General Plan
Amendment, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is not compatible with the adjacent single-family
residences, because the land use change would permit future development that would be "out of
scale" and not compatible with the surrounding homes. The intent of the proposed Community
Commercial land use designation is to serve the entire community, which would not be compatible
with the surrounding residential setting. The existing land use designation of Neighborhood
Commercial is compatible with the surrounding land uses and should not be amended.
2. As stated in the Overview section of the General Plan, "every general plan
amendment must be consistent with the rest of the general plan". The requested amendment to the
General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial will
not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed land use Land Use Element goal
number 3 requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods be
R:'xD PX2002\02qY273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC.doc
11
adopted. The current land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to Community
Commercial will be in conflict with this goal.
Policy 3.1 states "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of
size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing
vegetation and landform, the location of access mutes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other
environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit uses that are not compatible with
the existing single-family homes.
Goal number 3 of the Community Design Element, states that the preservation of the character of
the single-family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that am "out of
scale", is of particular importance. The proposed amendment is not consistent with this goal by
permitting future development that is "out of scale" in relation to the existing homes.
Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from
environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 4th day of December 2002.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular-~eeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',D P',2002',02-0273 Meadow Village,Staff Report PC.doc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA
19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 954-030-001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0271 Specific Plan
Amendment, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use
designation for the General Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commercial, and the
General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commercial.
2. The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it is
significant change to the planned land use of the site and is inconsistent with the overall concept of
the Margarita Village Specific Plan in that it introduces larger-scale commercial adjacent to single-
family homes.
RAD P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~StalI Report PC.doc
13
3. The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The amendment
requests to intensify the proposed uses and scale of the site and this will create conflicts with the
surrounding single-family development.
Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from
environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 4th day of December 2002.
A'I-rEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2002-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'xD P~.002\0243273 Meadow Vii!age, Staff Report PC.doc
14
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING,
A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 6,220 SQUARE
FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 4,670 SQUARE FOOT SHOP
BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0273 Development Plan, in a
manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, ali legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed grocery store is not in conformance with the current General Plan land
use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The use is also not a permitted use in the
Neighborhood Commercial zoning district.
2. The project as proposed is not compatible with the surrounding single-family
residences. The proposed project has not taken into account the general welfare of the surrounding
property owners. The site plan has sited proposed buildings adjacent to the nearby residents.
Loading areas and trash enclosures have also been located near the adjacent residences. The
proposed site plan has access issues, as well as site design issues that will need to be addressed in
the form of a redesign.
R:XD P~2.002',02-0273 Meadow Village~S~aff Report PC.doc
Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from
environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 4~ day of December 2002.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2002-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'xD t~.002\02qY273 Meadow ViilageXStaff Report PC.doc
16
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL
AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640
SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH
OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0274 Conditional Use Permit, in
a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and
· based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood
Commercial zoning district.
2. The nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the general welfare
of the community due to a potential over-concentration of alcohol outlets in the Census tract.
However, there are insufficient facts available to make an affirmative finding.
R:XD 1~2002X02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc
17
3. That the decision to deny the application for a conditional use permit is based on
substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the planning commission,
Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from
environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 4th day of December 2002.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2002-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
th
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4 day of December, 2002, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:X,D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC.doc
18
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
JANUARY 15, 2003 STAFF REPORT
R:'~D P',2002~2-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
53
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OFTEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 15, 2003
Planning Application No(s). 02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department- Planning Division
Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward these
projects to the City Council with a recommendation for denial:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA
19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 954-030-001.
3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
R:~.D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC l-I 5-03.doc
1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING,
A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 8,780 SQUARE
FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
4. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL
AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640
SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH
OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Venture Point, John Clement
PROPOSAL:
PA02-0272: A General Plan Amendment to amend the
General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood
Commercial to Community Commercial.
PA02-0271: A Specific Plan Amendment for the Margarita
Village Specific Plan to amend the land use designation of
Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to
Community Commercial and to amend the text within the
Specific Plan.
PA02-0273: A Development Plan for the design, construction
and operation of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, a 16,640
square foot drug store, a 11,230 square foot shop building, a
10,000 square foot shop building, and a 8,780 square foot
shop building.
R:X,D Px2002\ff2-{)273 Meadow Village'~Staff RepoR PC 1-15~}3.doc
2
PA02-0274: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive
through at a 16,640 square foot drug store, and to permit the
sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square foot grocery store and a
16,640 square foot drug store.
LOCATION:
South side of Rancho California Road and East of Meadows
Parkway
EXISTING ZONING:
Neighborhood Commemial (NC)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
South: Medium Density Residential (M)
East: Medium Density Residential (M)
West: Medium High Density Residential (MH)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Single-Family Homes
South: Single-Family Homes
East: Single-Family Homes
West: Single-Family Homes
BACKGROUND
The following shall serve as supplemental analysis to the original staff report dated December 4,
2002, which has been included as an attachment. At the December 4, 2002, Planning Commission
meeting, the Meadows Village project was continued to the January 15, 2003, meeting to allow time
for the City Attorney to research the legal issues brought up by the applicant, and for the applicant to
work on redesigning the site plan in order to address staff concerns.
After reviewing the legal issues, it has been determined by the City Attorney that the Neighborhood
Commercial zoning designation applies to the subject parcel. In a meeting held on December 17,
2002, the Assistant City Attorney communicated the opinion to the applicant and the applicant's
. attorney Greg Weilert. The applicant did not agree with this opinion, but requested that the item
move forward and a meeting be set up to discuss site design issues.
Staff and the applicant met for two hours on December 26, 2002, to discuss site design issues. On
December 27, 2002, the applicant faxed a revised site plan with the changes to staff for review. On
December 30, 2002, a conference call was held to go over the revised site plan. During this
conference call, staff informed the applicant that the revised site plan did not fully address the
fundamental concerns of the site plan.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Amendment
It is still the opinion of staff that the proposed General Plan Amendment is not compatible with the
surrounding single-family residences, nor is it consistent with the General Plan policies, Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the General Plan Amendment to
the City Council.
R:~D PL2002\02~273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc
3
During the Planning Commission meeting on December 4, 2002, the applicant stated that the
proposed site is nearly ten acres and is more suitable for the Community Commemial land use
designation. The General Plan states that the Community Commercial zoning land use designation
usually comprises between 10 to 50 acres of land. The actual usable net acreage of the site is 8.49
acres. The actual usable acreage is more consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial land use
designations, which are usually developed on less than 10 acres. Per the City's General Plan, these
projects should be compatible with adjacent residential uses and should be designed to encourage
pedestrian usage.
Staff has provided the following table, which lists all of the existing large-scale grocery stores within
the City of Temecula. The table includes the store name, location and the net acreage of the pamel
in which the grocery store is located. The table indicates that no large-scale grocery stores within
the City of Temecula are sited on a parcel as small as the preposed parcel. With the exception of
the Albertsons located on Highway 79 South. However, this store is directly adjacent to the Village
of Paseo del Sol shopping center. The Villages of Paseo del Sol shopping center is comprised of
an additional 23 acres of land. Additionally, staff has researched the areas directly adjacent to the
large-scale grocery stores listed below and have found that none of them directly abut single-family
residences.
GROCERY STORE GENERAL LOCATION ACREAGE
Vons Rancho California/Ynez Road 50.41
Food 4 Less Ynez Road/Winchester Road 41.80
Orchards Ynez Road/Rancho California 27.69
Road
Stater Bros. Highway 79 South/Redhawk 26.48
Parkway
AIbertsons Rancho California 18.76
Road/Margarita Road
Ralphs Winchester Road/Margarita 15.51
Road
Stater Bros. Jefferson Avenue/Overland 12.31
Drive
Ralphs Highway 79 SoutlVButterfield 11.37
Stage Road
Albertsons Highway 79 South/Margarita 10.72
Road
Proposed Project Rancho California/Meadows 8.49
Parkway
R:~D PX20B2\02~273 M~adow Village~Staff Repo~ PC 1-15-03.doc
4
Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment of the Margarita Village Specific Plan to change the land use designation
from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial is not consistent with the General Plan.
As previously stated, staff still does not support the request and is recommending denial of the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
Development Plan
Ori,qinal Site Plan
The following is a list of concerns that were noted in the previous staff report:
· The access point on Rancho California nearest to the intersection creates internal
circulation conflicts.
· The proposed site plans lack on-site pedestrian linkages to encourage non-vehicle use
once on the site,
· The large parking field in front of the grocery store is unsightly from Rancho California
Road.
· The location of the drive-thru is unsightly and close to a major intersection,
· The location of loading areas inhibits pedestrian experience and creates noise conflicts.
· The location of building E is segregated from the site and backs onto Meadows Parkway.
· The location of building F requires unsafe crossings by pedestrians.
· Outside gathering spots are insufficient and require unsafe pedestrian crossings.
· The location of trash enclosures will create unsightly appearance at main entries.
Revised Site Plan
The following is a summary of the proposed changes to the site plan:
· The access point along Rancho California that is furthest east has been relocated slightly to
the west.
· A longer throat area has been added to the westerly access point off of Rancho California.
· One of the shop buildings (former Shop E) has been eliminated and the square footage has
been added to another shop building (former Shop F). Parking and landscaping has been
added to the area where the shop building used to be located.
· The drive-thru has been moved to the east side of the drug store building and the building
has been rotated to line up with the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows
Parkway.
· The patio areas have been relocated to the more prominent locations on Shops C and
Shops D.
· The trash enclosure for Shops C has been relocated as requested by staff.
· The loading area for the Market has been moved.
· The loading area for Shops C has been relocated.
R:XD P',2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-154)3.doc
5
Remaininq Site Plan Concerns
Staff has reviewed the revised site plan and has determined that the following site plan issues have
not been addressed:
· Access to the site is not consistent with the access points as defined in the Margarita
Village Specific Plan. The Specific Plan identifies only two access points, one along
Meadows Parkway and one along Rancho California Road. The proposed site plan
identifies four total access points. The additional access points are dictating the design of
the site, which prevents optimum pedestrian linkages.
· The access point on Rancho California nearest to the intersection still creates internal
cimulation conflicts and should be eliminated. The access point on Meadows Parkway
nearest to Rancho California should also be eliminated. The elimination of the two access
points will provide the ability to alleviate many of the remaining site design concerns.
· The proposed site plan has not addressed staff concerns in regards to on-site pedestrian
linkages. It is the opinion of staff that the intent of the Specific Plan was to develop a
pedestrian oriented center, and without good pedestrian linkages the intent is not being
met.
· The Development Code requires that commercial buildings be clustered. Clustering of
buildings will create plaza or pedestrian malls instead of "strip commercial". The proposed
site plan is not meeting the intent of the Development Code.
· The applicant has not addressed staff's concern with the large parking field in front of the
grocery store. Staff in a DRC letter dated August 26, 2002, recommended that the
applicant relocate buildings to this area, which would serve to alleviate staff's concern.
· The location of the drive-thru has been relocated to the east side of the drug store. Staff
could support the location of the drive through if the access points off of Rancho California
and Meadows Parkway are eliminated.
The proposed Development Plan is not consistent with the General Plan nor is it consistent with the
Margarita Village Specific Plan. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the
Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (Development Code Section 17.08.030). Should the
Planning Commission support the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, staff
would request that the Planning Commission provide direction on the remaining site plan concerns
expressed by staff.
Conditional Use Permit
Staff has determined that the required findings necessary to approve the Conditional Use Permit
cannot be made at this time, because of insufficient information from ABC and the unclear status of
the prerequisite land use approvals. In addition, staff does not support the location of the drive-thru,
unless the access points on Rancho California and Meadows Parkway are eliminated.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Although CEQA does not require an environmental review for denied projects, staff has prepared an
Initial Study, in the event that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the applications
for approval. Based on the recommendation of denial, staff recommends that no environmental
action be taken on this project.
R:~D PX2002~02~0273 Meadow Village~S~'tff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc
6
CONCLUSION ! RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is not consistent with all of the
goals and policies of the General Plan. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The Specific Plan Amendment is not
consistent with the General Plan, therefore the Specific Plan Amendment should be denied. The
proposed Development Plan is net consistent with the General Plan, the Margarita Village Specific
Plan or the Development Code and should also be denied. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is
not Consistent with the General Plan, the Margarita Village Specific Plan, or the Development Code
and should be denied.
FINDINGS
Staff has made the following findings of denial, which are reflected in the attached resolutions:
General Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment is not compatible with the adjacent single-family residences,
because the land use change would permit future development that would be "out of scale"
and not compatible with the surrounding single-family detached residential zoning. The
intent of the proposed Community Commercial land use designation is to serve the entire
community, which would not be compatible with the surrounding residential setting. The
existing land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial is compatible with the
surrounding land uses and should not be amended.
As stated in the Overview section of the General Plan, "every general plan amendment must
be consistent with the rest of the general plan". The requested amendment to the General
Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial will
not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal
number 3, requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential
neighborhoods. The current land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to
Community Commercial will be in conflict with this goal.
Land Use Policy 3.1 states "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding
uses in terms of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping,
preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise
impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will
permit a scale of uses that are not compatible with the existing single-family homes.
Goal Number 3 of the Community Design Element, states that the preservation of the
character of the single-family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from
buildings that are "out of scale", is of particular importance. The proposed amendment is not
consistent with this goal by permitting future development that is "out of scale" in relation to
the existing homes.
Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use
designation for the General Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commercial,
and the General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commercial.
R:~D PL2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repoa PC 1-154)3.doc
7
The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it is a significant
change to the planned land use of the site and is inconsistent with the overall concept of the
Margarita Village Specific Plan, in that it introduces larger-scale commemial adjacent to
single-family homes.
The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The amendment requests to
intensify the proposed uses and scale of the site and this will create conflicts with the
surrounding single-family development.
Development Plan (Section 17.05o010F)
The proposed grocery store is not in conformance with the current General Plan land use
designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The land use designation as defined in the
General Plan "Neighborhood Commercial designation includes smaller-scale business
activities which generally provide retail or convenience services for the local residents in the
surrounding neighborhood (Page 2-29)." Small food markets less than 25,000 square feet
are permitted in the Neighborhood Commemial zoning district, however the proposed 48,427
square foot supermarket is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning
district (Section 17.08.030).
The proposed access points are not consistent with the access points indicated within the
Margarita Village Specific Plan for Planning Area 19. The specific plan indicates that there
should only be one access point off of Rancho California Road and one access point off of
Meadows Parkway. The access points as proposed create internal circulation conflicts and
limits the ability to redesign the site.
The Commercial Development Performance Standards found in the Development Code
states that pedestrian linkages between uses in the commemial areas shall be provided, and
new structures should be clustered to create plazas or pedestrian malls instead of rows of
commercial (Section 17.08.070(3). These performance standards are not being met.
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E)
The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the General Plan and the adopted
Margarita Village Specific Plan. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the
Neighborhood Commercial zoning district.
The nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the general welfare of the
community due to a potential over-concentration of alcohol outlets in the Census tract.
However, there are insufficient facts available to make an affirmative finding.
10.
The decision to deny the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission.
R:'~D P~002\024~273 Meadow Village'Gtaff Report PC 1-15-03.dcc
8
Attachments:
1. PC Resolutions- Blue Page 10
2. Exhibits- Blue Page 19
A. Vicinity map
B. General Plan map
C. Zoning map
D. Site plan
E. Floor Plan
F. Grading Plan
G. Elevation (Al)
H, Elevation (A2)
I. Elevation (A3)
J. Elevation (A4)
K. Elevation (A5)
L. Landscape Plan
3. Initial Study- Blue Page 31
4. Staff Report (12-04-02)- Blue Page 32
5. Derrigo Demographic Marketing Study- Blue Page 33
R:~D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Slaff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc
9
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTIONS
R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Vitlage'xStaff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc
10
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0272 General Plan
Amendment, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, and January 15, 2003 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council de.nial of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findin,qs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is not compatible with the adjacent single-family
residences, because the land use change would permit future development that would be "out of
scale" and not compatible with the surrounding single-family detached residential zoning. The intent
of the proposed Community Commemial land use designation is to serve the entire community,
which would not be compatible with the surrounding residential setting. The existing land use
designation of Neighborhood Commercial is compatible with the surrounding land uses and should
not be amended.
2. As stated in the Overview section of the General Plan, "every general plan
amendment must be consistent with the rest of the general plan", The requested amendment to the
General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commemial will
not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal number 3
requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The current
R:',D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 1-15-03.doc
1!
land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to Community Commercial will be in
conflict with this goal.
Land Use Policy 3.1 states "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in
terms of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of
existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and
other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit a scale of uses that are not
compatible with the existing single-family homes.
Goal Number 3 of the Community Design Element, states that the preservation of the character of
the single-family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that are "out of
scale", is of particular importance. The proposed amendment is not consistent with this goal by
permitting future development that is "out of scale" in relation to the existing homes.
Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from
environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 15th day of January 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular ~eeting thereof held on the 15th day of January, 2003, by the following vote
of the Commission:
AYES:
O PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'xD P~002\(Y2~0273 Meadow VRlage~Staff Report PC 1-15~}3.doc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA
19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 954-030-001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0271 Specific Plan
Amendment, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, and January 15, 2003 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use
designation for the General Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commercial, and the
General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commercial.
2. The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it is a
significant change to the planned land use of the site and is inconsistent with the overall concept of
the Margarita Village Specific Plan, in that it introduces larger-scale commercial adjacent to single-
family homes.
R:~D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15d)3.doc
13
3. The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The amendment
requests to intensify the proposed uses and scale of the site and this will create conflicts with the
surrounding single-family development.
Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from
environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 15~h day of January 2003.
Aq-I'EST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular ~eeting thereof held on the 15th day of January, 2003, by the following vote
of the Commission:
AYES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',D I'O.002\ff2-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.dcc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING,
A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 10,000 SQUARE
FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0273 Development Plan, in a
manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, and January 15, 2003 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed grocery store is not in conformance with the current General Plan land
use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The land use designation as defined in the General
Plan "Neighborhood Commercial designation includes smaller-scale business activities which
generally provide retail or convenience services for the local residents in the surrounding
neighborhood (Page 2-29)." Small food markets less than 25,000 square feet are permitted in the
Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, however the proposed 48,427 square foot supermarket is
not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (Section 17.08.030).
2. The proposed access points are not consistent with the access points indicated
within the Margarita Village Specific Plan for Planning Area 19. The specific plan indicates that there
should only be one access point off of Rancho California Road and one access point off of
R:~D P~2002~24[273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc
Meadows Parkway. The access points as proposed create internal circulation conflicts and limits
the ability to redesign the site.
The Commercial Development Performance Standards found in the Development Code states that
pedestrian linkages between uses in the commemial areas shall be provided, and new structures
should be clustered to create plazas or pedestrian malls instead of rows of commercial (Section
17.08.070C). These performance standards are not being met.
Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from
environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 15th day of January 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular ~eeting thereof held on the 15th day of January, 2003, by the following vote
of the Commission:
AYES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'~D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Vigage~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE
FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL
AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640
SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH
OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-
001.
WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0274 Conditional Use Permit, in
a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on
December 4, 2002, and January 15, 2003 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the
Application hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the General Plan and the
adopted Margarita Village Specific Plan. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the
Neighborhood Commercial zoning district.
2. The nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the general welfare
of the community due to a potential over-concentration of alcohol outlets in the Census tract.
However, there are insufficient facts available to make an affirmative finding.
3. The decision to deny the application for a conditional use permit is based on
substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission.
R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15~03.doc
Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from
environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 15~ day of January 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of January, 2003, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',.D I:N2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
JANUARY 7, 2003 SAV-ON LETTER
R:'~D P~2002~2-0273 Meadow Village\Staff ReDorl PC 2-19-03,doc
54
Jan.15. 2003 12:38PM ALBERTSONS SAVON Ne.t207 P. 2/2
January7,2003
Mx. John Clement
VENTURE POINT DEVELOPMENT
3419 Via Lido, Suite 196
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Sav-on Drug Store - Meadows Village
Temecula, CA
Dear John:
As a condition of approval for our drag stere'at this location, Albertsons is agreeable to limiting our store
hours between 6 a.m. and 12 midnight, and ~'uck delivery hours to between 6 a.m. and.9 p.m.
I can bc reached at 714.300.6779 if you require any additional information.
Best regards, ~
(leffTimbers
Senior Real Estate Manager
ALBERTSON'S. INC. / 1421 SOUTH MANHATTAN AVENUE / FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92B31-5221
ATFACHMENT NO. 11
JANUARY 16~ 2003 SAV-ON LETI'ER
FROM GUIDA SURVEYING (THU)JAN 16 2003 16:I9/ST. 16:I7/NO. 6305599371P 2
January
RE: ~,.on Drug $1ore ~9~17- Rancho California and Meadows Padcway
Dear Commissioners:
This letter ~s in response to comments heard at the Planning Commission meeling last night a~ they relate to
lhe operation of a pharmacy pick.up window at the proposed Sav-on Drug Store. AH new Sav-on Drug Stores
are designed wlth.a drive Ihrough pharmacy pick-up window, including the newer stores withia the City of
Temecula. This feature provides a service to our customers (the elderly, a~molher with sick children, pregnant
w~men, and handicapped pal~ns) who Could be challenged to enter the atom, This is e concept that is not
unique Io Say-eh but to the Drug Sfore Induslry as a whole,
Sav-on ha~ studied the impact of ~ drive through pharmacy, which indicaWs thal approximately four cars per
hour use the facility. The a~cly Concluded 1ha! Ihs drive Ihrough accounled for approximately 20% of the total
pharmacy customers on the! padioulm' day.
Sav-on is w~lting to relocate Ihs pio~-up window to an area that doee not impacl rne site circulallon. In addition,
we wiJJ reduce the facile/to a single lane with addiflonaJ s(:mening to mitigate vlsuaJ impacts. Sav-on wJU onty
operate INs pick-up window for items normaly associatm;l ~ proscription drugs. This is an allpenant/nlegraJ
pet of our atom thai adds a convenience to the suffounding c~mmunity.
Best regards.
Senior Real F. sate Manager
AL.B~R~ INC / ~ CNJI=ORJ~A I~ON / REAL ESTAI'~ 0et:V~R'rl~r:NT
3,42~ $, J,,W~..IA'FrN~ AV~NU~ / FUU. ERTO% CA 9283,L-522J (724) 300,.~77~
(?rd,) 300.~94t fax
A'I-rACHMENT NO. 12
FEBRUARY 4, 2003 VONS LE'n'ER
R:~ P',2002",0~-0273 Mea, dow Village\Staff Report PC 2-19-03 doc
FEB 04 2003 lO:33PM HP LRSERJET 3200
Fmb 04 03 07:36p HSRRIS SHIltK 310 841 GG18
p.l
p.2
Febmaxy 4, 2003
Mr, lohn Clement
VENTURE POINT DEVELOPiVffiNT
3419 Via Lido, Suite 196
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subje~: "Meadow~ Village"i SEC Meadows Parkway /
Rancho Califon~ia Road: Teme~;ula, California
VIA FACSIMILE
(949) 673-4S40
Dear John:
This letter is in respons~ to your question about our potential operating
hours, at the above-referenced location. As a condition to tho approval for our
supermarket at this location, Vons is agreeable to limiting o~r store hours to between 6
a. nt and 12 midnight daily, and our ~ruck delivery hem's to between ? a.m. and 9 p.m.
daily.
Please call me ifI may be of fisrther assistance.
Very u'u I,~e~OLIrS,
SA_,~ SI-lINK
Real Estate Area Manager
A'I-rACHMENT NO. 13
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
R:~,D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\St~.ff Report PC 2-19-03.doc
574
FEB-05-2~03 08:42
ABC RIVERSIDE
909 ?810531 P,01
Department e! Alcoho{ic Beverage Control
Riverside Oistrict Office
3737 Main Street, Suite 900
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: 909-782-4400
Fax: 909-781-0531
: State of C~lifomia
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
Bu$ineaa, Transportation & HoUsing Agency
MARIA CONTRERA$-SWEET, Sacr~ary
Fax:
(including this cover sheet)
E~ Will not
Time:
From:
Phone:
Comments:
NOTICE
'his communication is intended only for the use of lhe individual or entity to which it is
addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confldentiaJ and exempt from
. disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipienL
· you are hereby notified that any dissemination distribution or copying of th s
communication is strictly prohibited, if you have received this communication in error,
[ please notify, us immediately b,v telephone, and return the original message to us at the
above aadress.
FEB-OS-2003 08:42 ABC RIVERSIDE 909 ?810531 P.02
PREMISES ADDRESS:
LICENSE TYPE:
1. CRIME REPORTING DISTRICT
r,./ ~ Jurisdiction unable to provide statistical data.
Reporting District:
Total number of reporting districts:
Total number of offenses: --
Average number of offenses per district:
120% of average number of offenses:_ ·
Total offenses in district:
Location is within a high crime reporting district: Yes / No
2. CENSUS TRACT / UNDUE CONCENTRATION
Census Tract: ~/4,3 o~. oQ- .}_.
Population:
Number of licenses allowed:
Number of existing licenses:
Undue concentration exists: Yes t/N~'.')
/County Ratio
//
Letter of public convenience or necessity required:
Three time publication required: Yes / o.~
P'~rs'"'~n Taking Applica~n
Investigator
Governing Body / Applicant.
Supervisor
Over
FEB-OS-2003 08:42 ABC RIVERSIDE 909 78105J1 P.03
RNERSIDE DISTFIICTOFRCE
NUMBER OF LICEN,~ES AU'n-IORIZED
'~ENSUSTRACT pOPUEA~ON OI~,ALE ~'~O~~ ~3~MEREI:ORTING
0427.12 7539 8
0427.13 4231 5 $ "'
0427,14 2979
_ 0427,15 4502
0427.16 4784 5 4
0427.17 2790 3 2
0427.18 5072 5 4
.... 0427,19 3641 4 ~ -
., 0427,20 2996 3
0427.21 4751 5 4
0427.22t 8339 9 ,6
,,0427.23 4347 5 3 --
0428, 6451 7 5
0429.01 5289 5 4
0429.02 3829 4 ..... 8
0429.03 3929 4
0429.04 6877 7 5
0430.01 3873 4 3
0430.02 8317 g 6
0430.03 6122 6
0430.04 7853 8 6
0430.05 4118
0430.06 4046 4 3
0432.03 12111 12
0432.06 6000 6 6
0432.07 10928 11 8
0432,08 6506 7 5
0432.09 7752 8 6
0432.10 4514 5 4
0432,11 5556, 6 4
0432,12 56~1 6 4
0432.13 357E 4
0432-'14 1856~ 19 13
0432.15 2889 3
0432,16 648' 7
0432.17 2609 3 2
o432.181 5902 8 5
0432.19 7115 7
0432.20 4161
0432-22 3739 4
0432.231 5769 6 4~
0432.241 5741 8 41
0432.251 8741 6 41 -
0433.04j 5851 8 51
POPULATION AS OF 1-1..01 PAGE
FEB-SS-2883
01-30-03
09;31 AM
08:43
County Census Tract
ABC RIVERSIDE
CENSUS TRACT INFOMATION BY COUNTY & DISTRICT
WHERE COUNTY 18 83-RIVERSIDE
AND DISTRICT 18 RIVERSIDE
989 9818531 P.84
PAGr=$
On Sale On Sale Off Sale Off Sale
Aatlve Pending Active Pending
33 0432.07
33 0432.08
33 0432.10
33 0432.12
33 0432.13
33 0432.14
33 0432.15
33 0432.1.6
33 0432,17
33 0432.19
33 0432.20
33 0432.22
33 0432,23
33 0432,24
33 0432.25
33 0433.01
33 0433.02
33 0433,04
33 0433.05
33 0433.07
33 0433.08
33 0433.09
33 0433.10
33 0433.11
33 0434.01
33 0434.04
33 0434,05
33 0435,01
33 0435,03
33 0435.04
33 0435,07
33 0435.08
33 0435.10
33 0435.11
33 0436.
33 0437,
33 0437.01
33 0437,02
33 0437.03
33 0437,04
8 0 5
0 0 1
15 2 9
0 0 1
6 1 1
7 0 9
47 4 10
25 3 12
I 0 0
3 0 0
I 0 2
3 o
~ 0 1
1 0 1
~ 0
1 0 0
0 0 1
1 0 1
I 0 0
~ 0 8
4 0
~ 0 1
2 0 3
16 I 8
3 0 0
9 0 7
2 0 1
7 0 6
0 0 1
3 0 3
7 0 6
1 1 4
I 0 1
12 0 13
1 0 0
0 0 2
I 2 3
I O 0
1 0 0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 19, 2003
Planning Application No. PA02-0340 (Comprehensive Land Use Plan)
Prepared By: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
1. ADOPT a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0340
(Comprehensive Land Use Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental
Quality Act;
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0340, A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO ESTABLISH
GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
OF A RETAIL/COMMERCIAL SHOPPING COMPLEX ON A 14.3
ACRE SITE. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF STATE HIGHWAY
79 SOUTH AND PECHANGA PARKWAY ALSO KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 961-010-001,004 &005.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Rainbow Canyon LLC
PROPOSAL:
To establish a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in association
with a future retail/commercial shopping center.
LOCATION:
Southeast and southwest corners of Pechanga Parkway and
State Highway 79 South
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Professional Office (PO) & Highway Tourist (HT)
North: Very Low Density Residential (VL)
South: Open Space (OS)
East: Planned Development Overlay(PDO-4)
West: Medium Density Residential (M)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Professional Office (PO) & Highway Tourist Commercial
(HTC)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
R:kDESIGN GUIDELINES~PA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design G uidelines\Sta ffRepor t.doc
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Residential
South: Open Space
East: Vacant
West: Residential
BACKGROUND
In November of 1999, the property owner entered into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City
for the 14.3-acre subject property. In August 2002 Tentative Pamel Map No. 30180 was approved
to subdivide the property into fourteen retail/commemial pamels. The DA allows the applicant to
prepare a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which, if approved by the City, would entitle future
projects to be approved administratively. The Plan would serve as both guidelines and criteria for
the future development of the property. If approved, each of the fourteen pamels would be
developed separately with Administrative Development Plans. On June 25, 2002, the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan application was submitted to the Community Development
Department.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS
Land Uses
The portion of the project site located at the southwest corner of Pechanga Parkway and Highway
79 South is currently zoned Professional Office (PO). The remainder of the project site located
between Pechanga Parkway and Jedediah Smith Road is zoned Highway Tourist Commemial (HT).
The adopted DA (see Attachment 3) for the project site entitles the property owner to develop a wide
array of land uses permitted in each specific zoning district. Permitted uses would be processed with
an Administrative Development Plan. Conditional uses would require a Conditional Use Permit.
The only deviation from the strict application of the City's zoning standards associated with land
uses identified in the DA is the prohibition of drive-in restaurants. This prohibition only applies to the
portion of the project site located west of Pechanga Parkway. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan
document identifies "sample uses" which may be developed within the various building areas onsite
(see Exhibit A of the Plan). In addition, Section 2.01 of the Plan references the Schedule of
Permitted Uses Table included in the DA. Staff has determined that the sample uses identified on
Exhibit A of the Plan are consistent with those land uses allowed in the DA.
Site Plan
The overall project site plan (See Exhibit A of the Plan) shows a maximum of fourteen separate
buildings pads interspersed with parking and landscape areas. The majority of buildings onsite will
likely be oriented to the interior of the site with the sides and rears of the buildings fronting on
adjacent streets. A thirty-foot wide dedicated travel-way will traverse the entire length of the site with
a total of three ingress/egress points gaining direct access off Highway 79, one driveway off
Pechanga Parkway, one driveway off Jedediah Smith Road and one off Cupeno Lane, respectively.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the project shall require reciprocal parking and access
agreements between separate legal pamels allowing for a more flexible site design.
The DA requires that the site be developed in conformance with the development standards outlined
in each of the specific zoning districts on the effective date of the DA. The only deviation from these
development standards is the granting of a reduction of front yard setback along the frontages of
both Highway 79 and Pechanga Parkway. Section 4.3.3. A. of the DA allows for the front yard
setback to be reduced to zero along these two read frontages subject to City Manager (or designee)
R:',DESIGN GUIDELINES~PA02~)3~O Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines~Staf/Reporl.doc
2
approval. The applicant was initially proposing a five-foot wide landscaped setback along the entire
length of both frontages. However, in an attempt to achieve greater visual interest and additional
landscaping along the frontages, staff worked with the applicant to create variation in the setbacks
ranging from five to twelve feet in width depending on the depth of a particular parcel. Shallow
parcels w~ll have the bye-foot w~de setback, w~th deeper parcels hawng an e~ght to twelve-foot w~de
setback. Staff has determined that the overall site layout and cimulation are in conformance with the
Development Code standards. The site design of the specific individual building pads will be
evaluated under separate Administrative Development applications.
Architecture
A significant component of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the amhitectural design guidelines
section. The applicants are proposing to utilize two separate architectural styles, i.e. Mediterranean
and Wine Country that would be intermixed throughout the site. The Mediterranean style (see
Exhibit F-2) proposes the use of plaster buildings with flat roofs and parapet walls. A decorative
cornice will be incorporated at the top of the parapets. In addition, accent tower features with clay tile
roofs, decorative stone and exposed heavy wood rafter tails are encouraged to be placed at some
strategic building locations. Individual glass storefronts will be segregated with stucco columns
along front entry elevations. The base of the columns will be faced with decorative stone. Moreover,
the storefronts will be covered with fabric awnings. Heavy wood trellis features are encouraged
along various elevations. The guidelines specify two separate color schemes of three colors each to
be utilized in association with the Mediterranean style along with two decorative stone options.
Stucco pilasters and building offsets will serve to provide building articulation.
The Wine Country style (see Exhibit F-3) also encourages the use of plaster buildings with flat roofs
and parapet walls. A decorative cornice with exposed rafter tails will be provided at the top of the
parapets. Accent towers consisting of raised parapets and decorative cornices are also encouraged
to be placed at strategic portions of some buildings. Individual glass storefronts will be segregated
with columns faced with decorative deconstructing plaster and limestone along front building
elevations. Heavy wood stained lintels will span each of the individual storefronts. In addition, heavy
wood trellis features are encouraged along various elevations. Deconstructing plaster and limestone
columns and wood stained lintels are also identified on street elevations. The guidelines specify two
separate color schemes of three colors each to be utilized in association with the Wine Country style
along with two decorative limestone options. Plaster pilasters and building offsets will serve to
provide building articulation.
Staff believes the proposed guidelines are consistent with the City-wide Design Guidelines.
However, concern was expressed to the applicant regarding the lack of visual interest and glass
proposed along street elevations that would back or side onto both Highway 79 and Pechanga
Parkway. Staff requested that either real or spandrel glass be incorporated into these elevations so
as to address these concerns. The applicant does not feel that the glass is necessary and has
instead proposed that vegetated trellis work be utilized to soften the plaster walls. Staff continues to
believe that the use of glass is essential to break-up and add interest to these elevations. The
incorporation of glass has been made a recommended condition of approval (see Condition No 6).
Signage
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan outlines standards for the placement of both monument and
wall mounted signs. At staff's request, the applicant has incorporated the current sign standards of
the Development Code into the plan. With regard to freestanding monument signs, the plan shows a
total of eight-monument signs onsite (see Exhibit A of the plan). A mixture of single-tenant and multi-
tenant signs will be utilized. Staff has determined that the proposed number, size and general
R:',I)ESIGN GU IDELINES'tPA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines~S taffRepor t.doc
3
locations of both monument and wall mounted signs comply with Development Code requirements
with the following modifications:
Section 17.28.070.A.3.e. of the Development Code states "All freestanding signs shall use
amhitectural elements at the top, base and sides of the signs." The proposed monument sign
details (see Exhibit G-1 of the plan) do not show the incorporation of amhitectural elements on the
sides of the signs. In addition, Section 17.28.070.5 of the Development Code states "All
freestanding signs, except those oriented toward the freeway, shall include the street address(es) or
ranges(s) for the businesses or centers assigned by the Building Official." Staff recommends that
the signs be re-designed so as to comply with these requirements (see Condition Nos. 7 & 8),
Landscaping
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan includes landscaping guidelines and a specific landscape plan
that addresses the streetscape, rear perimeter slope, major and minor entry features and parking lot
landscaping (see Exhibit B of plan). The tenants on individual lots will be responsible for the
installation and maintenance of building perimeter landscaping. Other landscaped areas onsite will
be treated as common area and will be installed and maintained by the shopping center association.
The streetscape landscaping consists of an eight-foot wide parkway between the back of curb and
sidewalk along the entire Highway 79 South frontage. Plantings within the parkway will consist of
Red Crape Myrtle and turf. The previously approved Tentative Pamel Map requires that the parkway
landscaping be installed prior to occupancy of the first building on the subject property. An existing
slope along the rear (southern) property line will be planted with broad canopy trees including Oak
and Sycamore along with shrubbery and groundcover. The slope area will be located within a
common open space lot and shall be maintained by the shopping center owners association. In
order to ensure that the project site is immediately screened from properties to the south of the
project site, staff recommends that all slope plantings also be installed prior to occupancy of the first
building on site. This has been made a recommended condition of approval (see Condition No. 9).
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates that the plantings onsite will be consistent with both
the Temecula Development Code and the suggested plant palette (see Exhibit C-6 of the plan). In
addition, the Plan requires that both the southwest and southeast corners of Pechanga Boulevard
and State Highway 79 be improved with major entry corner statements. Moreover, minor entry
treatments will be installed at project entry drives (see Exhibit C-3 of the plan). Staff recommends
the major entry corner statements be installed at the time those particular lots are developed. In
addition, staff recommends that both minor entry treatments be installed on each side of entry drives
at the time the first abutting lot is developed. These have been made recommended conditions of
approval (see Condition Nos.10 & 11 ).
Both Planning staff and the City's landscape architect have reviewed the proposed landscape
improvements and plant palette and have found the items consistent with the City-wide Design
Guidelines and Development Code subject to several minor text revisions (see Condition Nos.12 &
13).
Environmental Determination
Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that no new significant environmental
effects have occurred since a Negative Declaration was previously adopted in 2002. The Negative
Declaration was in association with Tentative Parcel Map No. 30180 which created 14
retail/commercial lots within the project site. The proposed project only constitutes design guidelines
for the site and has no potential for significantly impacting the environment. In addition, all
environmental impacts associated with the future development of the project site have been
R:~DESIGN GU1DELINES~PA024)3~0 Rainbow Canyon Design GuidelinesXS taf fRepor t.doc
4
analyzed in the previously adopted Negative Declaration. Mitigation Measures associated with the
Negative Declaration will be incorporated into the conditions of approval associated with the
development approvals for the incremental future development of the project site.
Therefore, It is staff's opinion that this project qualifies under CEQA for a "Determination of
Consistency" exemption with a project (tentative map) for which a Negative Declaration was
previously adopted (Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations).
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as conditioned, is consistent with the
City-Wide Design Guidelines and Development Code and is sufficient to allow future administrative
approvals onsite. Therefore, staff recommends that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan be
approved.
FINDINGS
The plan to establish guidelines and criteria for the future development of a retail/commemial
shopping center complex is consistent with the City's General Plan including Land Use Element
Goal 3, Policy 3.1 given the Comprehensive Land Use Plan "considers the compatibility of the
proposed project on surrounding uses including use of materials and landscaping. In addition,
the Plan conforms with the adopted Development Agreement, City-Wide Design Guidelines and
Development Code.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Rainbow Canyon Tenant Design Guidelines - Blue Page 9
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 14
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
3. Previously Approved Development Plan - Blue Page 17
4. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30180 - Blue Page 18
R:',DESIGN GUIDELINES~PA024)340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidel~nes\StaffReport.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
R:~DES1GN GUIDELINES',PA02~0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines\StaffReporl~doc
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE crrY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0340, A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO ESTABLISH
GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
OF A RETAIL/COMMERCIAL SHOPPING COMPLEX ON A 14.3
ACRE SITE. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF STATE HIGHWAY
79 SOUTH AND PECHANGA PARKWAY ALSO KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 961-010-001,004 & 005
WHEREAS, Rainbow Canyon LLC, filed Planning Application No. PA02-0340,
(Comprehensive Land Use Plan "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula
General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
February 19, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon
the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
reference.
The above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following finding:
The plan to establish guidelines and criteria for the future development of a retail/commemial
shopping center complex is consistent with the City's General Plan including Land Use
Element Goal 3, Policy 3.1 given the Comprehensive Land Use Plan "considers the
compatibility of the proposed project on surrounding uses including use of materials and
landscaping. In addition, the Plan conforms to the adopted Development Agreement, City-
Wide Design Guidelines and Development Code.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. No new significant environmental impacts have
resulted since a Negative Declaration was previously prepared. Therefore, the project has been
found to qualify for a Determination of Consistency exemption, pursuant to Section 15162 of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
RADESIGN GU1DELINES'u°A02~)340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines~taftReporLdoc
7
Section 4. Approval/Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request to establish guidelines and policies in association
with the future development of a 14.3 acre retail/commemial shopping complex set forth on Exhibit
'A', attached hereto, and as conditioned and incorporated herein by this reference together with any
and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary as shown on Exhibit 'B'.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 19th day of February 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 2003, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',DES1GN GUIDELINES~PA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines~Sm f~Repor t,doc
8
EXHIBIT A
RAINBOW CANYON TENANT DESIGN GUIDELINES
(SEE ENCLOSED BINDER)
R:X, DES1GN GUIDELINES~PA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines~S tafPReporl.doc
9
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~DESIGN GUIDELINESXPA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guide~ines~S ~a ffRepor t.doc
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
PA02-0340 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Project Description:
Planning Application to establish guidelines and
criteria in association with the future
development of a retail/commercial shopping
complex on a 14.3-acre site.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
961-010-001,004 & 005
Approval Date:
February 19, 2003
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DIVISION
November 15, 2009
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-
Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption required under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not
delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency, or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officem, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and the landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
RADESIGN GUIDELlNES~PA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines~S ta ffRepor t.doc
II
This approval shall be used prior to the expiration date specified; otherwise, it shall become
null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by
this approval that is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
Ten (10) copies of the final amended, Design Guidelines shall be submitted to the Planning
Department within 30 days of approval. These guidelines will incorporate all conditions of
approval which relate to architecture, landscaping and signage identified below.
ARCHITECTURE
Either real or spandrel glass shall be incorporated into all rear and side building elevations
that can be viewed from adjacent public streets. Actual samples shall be reviewed and
approved prior to approval of any Development Plan for buildings facing along Highway 79
or Pechanga Parkway.
SlGNAGE
All freestanding signs shall incorporate architectural elements at the top, base and sides of
the signs.
All freestanding signs shall include the street address(es) or ranges(s) for the businesses or
center assigned by the Building Official.
LANDSCAPING
o
Plantings and irrigation within the entire length and width of the rear slope common lot
(located along the southern property line) shall be installed prior to occupancy of the first
building permit.
10.
Major entry corner statements and associated irrigation on lots 12 & 14 shall be installed
prior to occupancy of buildings on those parcels.
11.
Minor entry features and irrigation at each side of entry drives shall both be installed prior to
occupancy of a building on either abutting lot.
12.
The following text modifications shall apply to the landscaping portion of the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan:
Section 12.00 LANDSCAPING, page 9, paragraph 2, shall read as follows:
These guidelines are complementary to City Development Code and City-Wide Design
Guidelines. All requirements of the Development Code and recommendations of the
City-Wide Design Guidelines shall be met. The guidelines are flexible...
· Section 8.00 SITE UTILITIES, page 4, paragraph 8.03, shall read as follows:
The word "reasonably" shall be deleted from paragraph 8.03.
13. The following modifications shall apply to the respective landscaping exhibits:
R:',DES IGN GU 1DELINES'xPA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines~S ta fiRepor t.doc
12
· Exhibits B and C-6 - Minimum tree sizes for all trees shall comply with the following City-
Wide Design Guideline standard: 20% at 36" box, 30% at 24" box; and 50% at 15 gallon.
· Exhibit C-3 - Lantana shall be deleted from the Exhibit.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
R:kDESIGN GUIDELINES~PA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines\S ta ffRepor t.doc
13
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:',DESIGN GU1DEL1NES',PA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design GuidelinesXStaffReport.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0340
{~11 EXHIBIT - A
· PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 19, 2003
VICINITY MAP
R:~DESIGN GUIDELINES~PA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines~StaffRepo~.doc
]5
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION - (PO) PROFESSIONAL OFFICE & (H~ HIGHWAY TOURIST COMMERCIAL
EXHIBIT C - ZONING
DESIGNATION - (PO) PROFESSIONAL OFFICE & HIGHWAY TOURIST
CASE NO. - PA02-0340
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 19, 2003
R:~DESIGN GUIDELINES~PA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines~StaffRepod.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:~DESIGN GUIDELINES~PA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines\StaffReporl.doc
17
EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES
Pursuant to Government Code
Sections 6103 and 27383
DOC t1'::2000--007423
01/07/2000'08:0eR Fee~NC
P~ge t of 87
'~ Ga~y L,
Rssessor, County CJerk & Recorder
Development Agreement
between
Pala Rainbow, LLC
and
City of Temecula
effective December 16, 1999
1. On November 3, 1999, following a duly noticed and conducted public
hearing, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this
Agreement;
On November 9, 1999, after a duly noticed public hearing and pursuant to
CEQA, the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration for this Agreement and the Project;
3. On November 9, 1999, after a duly noticed public heating, the City Council
determined that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the General Plan of the CITY;
4. On November 9, 1999, at, er a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council
introduced Ordinance No.99-31- approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement and
· on November 16, 1999, the City Council adopted the Ordinance, a copy of which is on file in the
Development Services Department at the CITY, and adopted the findings and conditions pertaining
thereto, including those relating to the environmental documentation for the Project.
F. The CITY has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of
the Project as well as the various potential benefits to the CITY by the development of the Project
and concluded that the Project is in the best interests of the City.
G. In consideration of the substantial public improvements and benefits to be provided
by OWNER and the Project, and in order to strengthen the public financing and planning process
and reduce the economic costs of development, by this Agreement, CITY intends to give OWNER
assurance that OWNER can proceed with the development of the Project for the Term of this
Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agr6ement and in accordance With CITY's
General Plan, ordinances, policies, rules and regulations existing as of the Effective Date. In
reliance on CITY's covenants in this Agreement concerning the Development of the Property,
OWNER has and Will in the future incur substantial costs in site preparation and the construction
and installation of major infrastructure and facilities in order to make the Project feasible.
H. Pursuant to Section 65867.5 of the Development Agreement Legislation, the City
Council has found and determined that: (i) this Agreement and the Existing Project Approvals
implement the goals and policies of CITY's General Plan, provide balanced and diversified land
uses and impose appropriate standards and requirements With respect to land development and
usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within CITY, (ii) this
Agreement is in the best interests of and not detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare of CITY and its residents; (iii) adopting this Agreement is consistent with CITY's General
Plan and constitutes a present exercise of the CITY's police power; and (iv) this Agreement is being
entered into. pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the
Development Agreement Legislation.
I. CITY and OWNER agree that it may be beneficial to enter into additional
agreements or to modify this Agreement with respect to the implementation of the separate
components of the Project when more information concerning the details of each component is
available, and that this Agreement should expressly allow for such contemplated additional
agreements or modifications to this Agreement.
\\TEM£C_F8101\¥OLl ~p~z~PL~JqNINGX~TAFFRlrr~7~PA.9~ Do~lo~ A~doc
shall also include the text of the zoning district designations of any zoning district applicable to the
site of the Project in effect On the Effective Date.
1.10. Future Development Approvals. "Future Development Approvals" means those
entitlements and approvals contemplated, necessary, and requested by CITY or OWNER to cause
the Development to occur upon the Property subsequent to completion of the Project and approved
by the City currently upon or after the Effective Date. The parties hereto expressly anticipate
Owner will institute mixed uses on the property that may include some combination of Business
Park-Light Industrial, Office Professional, Residential and Commercial uses.
1.11. Off-site Improvements. "Off-site Improvements" means physical infi'astructure
improvements or facilities which are not and will not be located on the Property. Certain Off-site
Improvements may be spec'ifeally addressed in this Agreement; all others will be dependent upon
the Development and the required Future Development Approvals.
1.12. 'On-site Improvements. "On-site Improvements" means physical infrastructure
improvements or facilities that are or will be located on the Property. Certain On-site
Improvements may be specifically addressed in this Agreement; all others will be dependent upon
the Development and the required Future Development Approvals.
1.13. OWNER. "OWNER" is initially PALA RAINBOW, LLC and all successors in
interest, in whole or part, to this entity.
1.14. Planning Commission. "Planning Commission" means the duly appointed and
constituted planning commission of CITY.
1.15. Proiect. "Project" means t~e adoption of this Agreement thus securing the scope
and intensity of land uses to be developed upon the parcel which is approximately fourteen and
three tenths (14.3) acres in area and which is generally located adjacent to State Highway 79 South
at Pala Road. The uses permitted and scope of the Development shall be consistent with the
development standards set forth in the zoning district in effect on the Effective Date (copies of
which are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference) subject to the
express limitations in this Agreement. Under this Agreement, the following uses are classified as
General merchandise/retail store uses: camera shops, clothing sales, Computer sales and service,
furniture sales, and hardware stores. In addition, this Agreement also permits one of these general
merchandise/retail stores to be as large as 20,000 square feet.
1.16 Proieet Approval. "Project Approval" means the accomplishment of the actions as
described in Section 1.15.
2. General Provisions.
2.1. Binding Covenants. The provisions of this Agreement to the extent permitted by
law shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the
benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all
successors in interest to the parties hereto.
\\TEMEC_FS 10 IWOLI kD~PLANNING~TAFFIIFl~73 PA99 l~w2opmml
2.6. Amendment of Development Agreement.
2.6.1. Initiation of Amendment. Either party may propose an amendment to this
Agreement and both parties agree that it may be beneficial to enter into additional agreements or
modifications of this Agreement in connection with the implementation of the separate components
of the Project.
2.6.2. Procedure. Except a~ set forth in Section 2.6.4 below, the procedure for
proposing and adopting an amendment to this Agreement shall be the same as the procedure
required for entering into this Agreement in the first instance.
2.6.3. Consent. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, any amendment
to this Agreement shall require the written consent of both parties. No amendment to all or any
provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by duly
authorized representatives of each of the parties.
2.6.4. Operating Memoranda. The parties acknowledge that refinements and
further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to
the details and performance of the parties under this Agreement. The parties desire to retain a
certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Development and with respect to those
items covered in general terms under this Agreement. If and when the parties mutually find that
changes, adjustments, or clarifications are appropriate to further the intended purposes of this
Agreement, they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes, adjustments, or
clarifications without amendment to this Agreement through operating memoranda mutually
approved by the parties, which, at, er execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a
pan hereof and may be further changed and amended from time to time as necessary, with further
approval by City Manager, on behalf of the CITY and by any corporate officer or other person
designated for such purpose in a writing signed by a corporate officer on behalf of OWNER.
Unless otherwise required by law or by the Project Approvals, no such changes, adjustments, or
clarifications shall require prior notice or hearing.
3. Description of Development.
3.1. Development and Control of Development.
3.1.1. Project. While this Agreement is in effect, OWNER shall have the vested
right to implement the Development authorized by the Project pursuant to this Agreement and the
Project Approvals and CITY shall have the right to control the Development in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, the
Existing Regulations shall control the design and development, Future Development Approvals and
all On-Site Improvements~and Off-Site Improvements and appurtenances in connection therewith.
3.1.2. Timing of Development. Regardless of any future enactment, by initiative,
or otherwise, OWNER shall have the discretion to develop the Future Development in one phase or
in multiple phases at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective
business judgment. Specifically, CITY agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to apply for and
receive permits, maps, occupancy certificates and other entitlements to develop and use the
\\TEMEC_F810 I\VOL BDep~XPL.~INING~STAFFRPT~73 P.a~9 D~wlopm~a Agz~nm~do~ 6
me*asures in addition to those referenced in the Project Approvals or deemed reasonably necessary
in light of the development activity proposal.
3.1.3.2. Other Permits. CITY further agrees to reasonably
cooperate with OWNER in securing any County, State and Federal permits or authorizations which
may be required in connection with development of the Project. This cooperation shall not entail
any economic contribution by City.
3.2. Rules, Regulations and Official Policies~ Except as otherwise specified in this
Agreement and the Project Approvals, the rules, regulations and official policies governing the
permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the provisions for
reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the design, improvement and construction
standards and specifications applicable to Development of the Property shall be the Existing
Regulations. In connection with any subsequent approval or action which CITY is permitted or has
the right to make under this Agreement relating to the Project, CITY shall exercise its discretion or
take action in a manner which complies and is consistent with this Agreement, the Existing
Regulations and such other standards, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. An
overview and non-exhaustive list of Existing Regulations is listed in Exhibit "C". CITY has
certified two copies of each of the documents listed on Exhibit "C". CITY has retained one set of
the certified documents and has provided OWNER with the second set.
3.3. Reserved Authority.
3.3.1. Uniform Codes. This Agreement shall not prevent CITY from applying
new rules, regulations and policies relating to uniform codes adopted by the State of California, as
State Codes, such as the Uniform Building Code, National Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code or Uniform Fire Code, as amended, and the application of the aforementioned uniform codes
is hereby approved including as the same may be amended by CITY fi.om time to time.
3.3.2. State and Federal Laws and Regulations. In the event that State or
Federal laws or regulations prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of
this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be
necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations; provided, however, that this
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or
regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions
impractical to enforce. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not adopt or undertake any
regulation, program or action, or fall to take any action which is inconsistent or in conflict with this
Agreement until CITY makes a finding that such regulation, program action or inaction is required
(as opposed to permitted) to comply with such State and Federal laws or regulations after taking
into consideration all reasonable alternatives.
3.3.3. Regulation for Health and Safety. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in this Agreement, CITY shall have the right to apply CITY regulations (including
amendments to the Existing Regulations) adopted by the CITY alter the Effective Date, in
connection with any Future Development Approvals, or deny, or impose conditions of approval on,
any Future Development Approvals in CITY's sole discretion if such application is required to
this Agreement, or any portion hereof, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while
such litigation, including any appellate review, is pending.
3.4.4. Consistency Between This Agreement and Current Laws. CITY
represents that at the Effective Date there are no rules, regulations, ordinances, policies or other
measures of the CITY in force as of the Agreement Date that would interfere with Development
and use of all or any part of the Property according this Agreement.
3.5. Future Amendments to Development Plan. The following rules apply to future
amendments to the Development Plan:
3.5.1. OWNER's Written Consent. Any Development Plan amendment to
which OWNER does not agree in writing shai! not apply to the Property or the Project while this
Agreement is in effect.
3.5.2. Concurrent Development Agreement Amendment. Any Development
Plan amendment requiring amendment of this Agreement shall be processed concurrently with an
amendment to this Agreement.
3.5.3. Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly set forth within this Agreement,
a Development Plan amendment will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties
and obligations of the parties under this Agreement.
4. Obligations of the Parties.
4.1. Benefits to CITY. The direct and indirect benefits CITY (including, without
limitation the existing and future residents of CITY) will receive pursuant to the implementation of
the Agreement include, but are not limited to, the following:
4.1.1. Comprehensive Planning. Providing a comprehensive planning effort;
4.1.2. Short Term Employment. Creating substantial employment opportunities
through the construction and development phase;
4.1.3 Long Term Employment. Creating substantial employment opportunities
subsequent to the Development;
4.1.4 Improvements. The development of the Property, including offsite
infrastructure improvements; and
4.1.5 Settlement of Litigation. The adoption of this Agreement shall result in the
settlement of an eminent domain action between the parties.
4.2. Development Fees. Certain presently undefined development impact and
processing fees will be imposed on the Future Development Approvals as conditions of approval.
Owner shall be responsible for payment of such fees as they may become due. The fees charged by
the City of Temecula shall be at the rate effective for such action on January 1, 1999.
~$8B_8874:~3 ~o
4.3.5 Administrative Discretion - Site Design and ]Planning.
The OWNER and CITY recognize that certain on-site circumstances may
require deviation from the strict application of CITY's zoning standards. The CITY desires to
allow for the administrative discretion of certain of the design issues for the facilitation of
OWNER's site planning purposes. The CITY hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his or her
designee, to act on or to determine that such matter should, be acted upon by the CITY Planning
Commission, the following issues:
A. Reduced Set Back on Highway 79 South and Pala Road
The front yard set back may be reduced to zero, or any dimension
less than the generally applicable front yard setback amount, in the discretion of the City Manager
after consideration of the OWNER's proposals and subject to reasonably accepted, planning
principles.
On-site Landscape Area Requirements Incorporating Wetlands
Mitigation Area
The panics recognize that a portion of land owned by OWNER is
currently limited in its development potential because it is reserved as wetlands mitigation land.
The City Manager, or his or her designee, may, in their reasonable discretion, allow all or some
portion of the wetland mitigation area (as shown on Exhibit "F') to be calculated as a portion of
OWNER's on-site landscaping requirements for the approximately 14.3 acre subject site.
4.4 Limitation on Restaurant Uses. Concurrently with the quit claim referenced in
Section 4.5(B)(1), OWNER agrees to impose, to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY, covenants
and conditions upon that portion of the Property located west of Pala Road which serve to prohibit
drive-in restaurant uses on such portion of the Property. The restricted area is shown on Exhibit
"G." The covenants shall insure that no diminution or release of the land use limitation may occur
without the prior written consent of CITY.
4.5 Related Real Property Conveyances; Conditions to Development Agreement.
A. Intent of the Parties
The CITY an~l OWNER agree that the timely completion of the related real
estate transactions described hereafter are a material component of the consideration each party has
relied upon in its respective decision to enter into this Agreement. OWNER and CITY, individually
and collectively, represent that neither party would have entered into this Agreement but for the
promises of the other to transfer the interests in real property described hereunder to the other
party. Further, OWNER and CITY, individually and collectively, agree that the failure of any one
of the conveyances to be completed in a timely manner will be an event of default under Section 10
of this Agreement.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL I'~'pt~PLANNIN~TAFFRlrIX273 pA99
2888-8874~
cost of $0.75/SF. The additional consideration for Parcel 2 would be 5,744 at $4.00/SF less 4,299
SF at $0.75/SF or $19,751.75.
Total consideration for the additional fight-of-way is $26,491.75.
2. OWNER has agreed to enter into a License Agreement C'License")
substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "I-I" for the purpose of insuring CITY access to
the wetlands mitigation area described in the Action as Parcel B. The License shall be conveyed at
such time as OWNER receives consideration, in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00), fi.om the CITY.
4.6 Termination of Eminent Domain Action. In addition to the other compensation
in this Agreement, the entire deposit in the eminent domain action (Riverside County Superior
Court Case No. RIC 315426, referred to in the rest of this section as the "Action") of Two
Hundred Ninety-five Thousand Dollars ($295,000.00), plus any interest that accrued on the
deposit, shall be immediately released to OWNER. Once OWNER receives such funds, OWNER
shall, at CITY's Option, either (a) stipulate to a final order of condemnation for the "subject
property" defined in the Complaint in Eminent Domain in the Action, or Co) sign and deliver a deed
transferring said "subject Property" to CITY, with CITY then dismissing OWNER fi.om the Action.
5. Further Assurances to OWNER Regarding Exercise of ReserVed Authority.
5.1. Adoption of General Plan and Granting of Other ]Project Approvals. In
preparing and adopting any general plan amendment, zoning district change and in granting the
other Project Approvals, CITY reserves its right to and shall consider the health, safety and welfare
of the residents of CITY.
5.2. . Assurances to OWNER. The parties further acknowledge that the public benefits
to. be provided by OWNER to CITY pursuant to this Agreement are in consideration for and
reliance upon assurances that the Property can be developed in accordance with the Project
Approvals and this Agreement. Accordingly, while recognizing that the Development of the
Property may be affected by exercise of the authority and rights reserved and excepted as provided
in Sections 3.3.1 and 3..3.2. ("Reserved Authority") or this Agreement, OWNER is concerned that
normally the judiciary extends to local agencies significant deference in the adoption of land use
regulations which might permit CITY in violation of the Reserved Authority, to attempt to apply
regulations which are inconsistent with the Project Approvals pursuant to the exercise of the
Reserved Authority. Accordingly, OWNER desires assurances that CITY shall not and CITY
agrees that it shah not further restrict or limit the development of the Property in violation of this
Agreement except in strict accordance with the Reserved Authority.
5.3. Judicial Review. Based on the foregoing, in the event OWNER .judicially
(including by way of a reference proceeding) challenges the application of a future land use
regulation as being in violation of this Agreement and as not being a land use regulation adopted
pursuant to the Reserved Authority, OWNER shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that
such role, regulation or policy is inconsistent with the Existing Regulations and the Project
Approvals and CITY shall thereafter bear the burden of proof in establishing that such regulation
was adopted pursuant to and in accordance with the Reserved Authority and was not applied by
CITY in violation of this Agreement.
28~-~1174~3 14
IIII Illlll Illlll Ill IIIlll IIIII Illlll
-' 9.2. Good-Faith Compliance. During each periodic review, OWNER shall be required
to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. OWNER agrees to
furnish such reasonable evidence of good faith compliance as CITY, in the exercise of its
reasonable discretion, may require. If requested by OWNER, CITY agrees to provide to OWNER,
a certificate that OWNER or a Development Transferee is in compliance with the terms of this
Agreement, provided OWNER reimburses CITY for all reasonable and direct costs and fees
incurred by CITY with respect thereto.
9.3. Failure to Conduct Annual Review. The failure of the CITY to conduct the
annual review shall not be an OWNER default. Further, OWNER shall not be entitled to any
remedy for CITY failure to conduct this annual review.
9.4. Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the annual review, the CITY
Council may at any time initiate a review of this Agreement by giving written notice to OWNER.
Within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice,' OWNER shall submit evidence to the
CITY.Council of OWNER's good faith compliance with this Agreement and such review and
determination shall proceed in the same manner as provided for the annual review. The City
Council shall initiate its review pursuant to this Section 9.4 only if it has probable cause to believe
the CITY's general health, safety or welfare is at risk as a result of specific acts or failures to act by
OWNER.
9.5 Administration of Agreement. Any decision by CITY staff concerning the
interpretation and administration of this Agreement and Development of the Property in accordance
herewith may be appealed by OWNER to the City Council, provided that any such appeal shall be
filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after OWNER receives notice of the staff decision.
The City Council shall render, at a noticed public hearing, its decision to affirm, reverse or modify
the staff decision within thirty (30) days at, er the appeal was filed.
9.6. Availability of Documents. If requested by OWNER, CITY agrees to provide to
OWNER copies of any documents, reports or other items reviewed, accumulated or prepared by or
for CITY in connection with any periodic compliance review by CITY, .provided OWNER
reimburses CITY for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by CITY with respect
thereto. CITY shall respond to OWNER's request on or before ten (10) business days have
elapsed from CITY's receipt of such request.
10. Events of Default: Remedies and Termination.
Unless amended or canceled as provided in Section 8, or modified or suspended
pursuant to Government Code Section 65869.5 or terminated pursuant to this Section 10, this'
Agreement is enforceable by either party hereto.
10.1. Defaults by OWNER. If CITY determines on the basis of a preponderance of the
evidence that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, CITY shall, by written notice to OWNER, specify the manner in which OWNER has
failed to so comply and state the steps OWNER must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within
sixty (60) days after the effective date of notice from CITY specifying the manner in which
OWNER has failed to so comply, OWNER does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to
\\TEMEC_F8101 \VOLI ~Dc~s~PLP. NNnqOxSTAFFRPT~73PA99 l~wlopmm~ Agreementdoc 16
IlllllJlll Illlll ltl Jlllll Jllll IIIIll III IIllll IIlllll
to' the reference procedures of the California Code of Civil procedure Sections 638, et seq.
OWNER and CITY shall agree upon a single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact
or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue ail legai and equitable relief appropriate
under the circumstances of the controversy before him. If OWNER and CITY are unable to agree
on a referee within ten (10) days ora written request to do so by either party hereto, either party
may seek to have one appointed pursuant to the Caiifornia Code of Civil Procedure Section 640.
The cost of such proceeding shall initiaily be borne equally by the parties. Any referee selected
pursuant to this Section 10.4 shail be considered a temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article
6, Section 21 of the California Constitution.
10.5. Estoppel Certificates. Either party may at any time deliver written notice to the
other party requesting an estoppel certificate (the "Estoppel Certificate") stating:
10.5. 1. The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the
parties.
10.5.2. The Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing
or, if so amended, identifying the amendments.
10.5.3. No default in the performance of the requesting party's obligations under the
Agreement exists or, if a default does exist, the nature and amount of any default. A party
receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting
party within thirty (30) days after receipt of the request. The City Manager or any person
designated by the City Manager may sign Estoppel Certificates on behaif of the CITY. Any officer
of OWNER may sign on behalf of OWNER. An Estoppel Certificate may be relied on by assignees
and mortgagees.
10.5.4. In the event that one party requests an Estoppel Certificate from the other,
the requesting party shall reimburse the other party for all reasonable and direct costs and fees
incurred by such party with respect thereto.
11. Waivers and Delays.
11.1. No Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the
provisions of this Agreement by the other party, and failure by a party to exercise its fights upon a
default by the other party hereto, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to demand strict
compliance by such other party in the future.
11.2. Third Parties. Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a
third person, except as provided in Section 11.3.
11.3. Force Maieure. OWNER shall not be deemed to be in default where failure or
delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods,
earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor
difficulties beyond OWNER control, government regulations (including, without limitation, locai,
state and federal environmental and natural resource regulations), voter initiative or referenda,
\\TEMEC_FS 10 IWOLI'~D~pts~PLANIqlNGWYAFFRPT~73pA99 Developme~ A~dec
18
II Il ll I Ill Ill IIIIII II II II
Pala Rainbow, LLC
27349 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 102
Temecula, California 92590
Attn.: Michelle D. Schierberl, Managing Member
With a copy to:
Lorenz Alhadeff Cannon & Rose, LLP
27555 Ynez Road, Suke 203
Temecula, California 92591-4677
Attn.: Philip D. Oberhansley, Esq.
Any notice given as required herein shall be deemed given only if in writing and upon delivery
personally or by independent courier service. A party may change its address for notices by giving
notice in writing to the other party as required herein and thereaRer notices shall be addressed and
transmitted to the new address.
13. · Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is brought by either party against the other for breach of
this Agreement, including actions derivative from the performance of this Agreement, or to compel
performance under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, and shall also be entitled to recover its contribution for the
costs of the referee referred to in Section 10.4 above as an item of damage and/or recoverable
costs.
14. Recording. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation hereto shall be recorded,
at no cost to CITY, in the Official Records of Riverside County by the City Clerk within the period
required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code.
15. Effect of Agreement on Title.
15.1. Effect on Title. OWNER and CITY agree that this Agreement shall not continue
as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Agreement has terminated.
15.2. Encumbrances and Lenders' Rights. OWNER and CITY hereby agree that this
Agreement shall not prevent or limit any owner of any interest in the Property, or any portion
thereof, at any time or from time to time in any manner, at its or their sole discretion, from
encumbering the Property, the improvements thereon, or any portion thereof with any mortgage,
deed of trust sale and leaseback arrangement or other security device. CITY acknowledges that
any Lender (as hereinafter defined) may require certain interpretations of or modifications to the
Agreement or the project and City agrees,, upon request, from time to time, to meet with the
property owner(s) and/or representatives of such Lenders to negotiate in good faith any such
request for interpretation or modification. CITY further agrees that it will not unreasonably
withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification to the extent such
interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Agreement. A
default under this Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any
Lender.
\\TEME~_FS 101 \VOL 1 ~k-gls~LANNINGWrAFFRPT~73 pAg~ l~wlo~l~t 2O
· 18.2. Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for
convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
18.3. .Gender. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the
feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive.
18.4. No Joint and Several Liability. At any time that there is more than one OWNER,
no breach hereof by an OWNER shall constitute a breach by any other OWNER.. Any remedy,
obligation, or liability, including but not limited to the obligations to defend and indemnify CITY,
arising by reason of such breach shall be applicable solely to the OWNER that committed the
breach. However, CITY shall send a copy of any notice of violation to all OWNERS, including
those not in breach.
18.5. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this
Agreement of which time is an element.
18.6. Recitals. All Recitals set forth herein are incorporated in this Agreement as though
fully set forth herein.
18.7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
panics with respect to the subject matter hereof, and the Agreement supersedes all previous
negotiations, discussion and agreements between the parties, and no paroi evidence of any prior or
other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof.
19. Extension of Maps. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a), any
tentative map approved which relates to all or a portion of the Property shall be extended for the
greater of (i) the Term of the Agreement or (ii) expiration of the tentative map pursuant to Section
66452.6.
20. Not for Benefit of Third ]Parties. This Agreement and all provisions hereof are for the
exclusive benefit of CITY and OWNER and its Development Transferees and shall not be
construed to benefit or be enforceable by any third party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the
day and year dated below.
Dated: Do¢~lo-.c lb , 1999
ATTEST:
"CITY"
CITY OF TEMECI~
a municipal co7
Steven J. ~ord,~Mayor X,.
S~ate of California )
County of ~/~?ss
On '~£.-e~oe.J' ~ IqqCj before me, ~.~5~/0/~ /6ff. ff~ ~
person~y appe~ed ~7~/~ ~)~-~/ , person~y ~o~ to me o~d
to me on the basis o~ satisfa~o~ e~den~ to be the person(s) whose nme(s) i~me subscribed to
the Mt~ ~s~ment ~d ac~owledg~ to me that h~sh~th~ ex~uted ~e sine ~ ~er/thek
authored capaeiW(ies), ~d that by h~er/thek si~amr~s) on the in~mment the permn(s), or
the emiw upon beh~ofw~ch the person(s) a~ed, executed ~e instrument.
~!~ Commiss~cm#11986.51 ~
Witness my hand and official seal.
EXHIItlT A
PROPERTY OWNED BY PALA RAINBOW, LLC
\\TEMEC_F~ 10 IWOLI~Depts~PLANNIIqG~b'TAFFRPT~73PA~) I)~vel,,l~..~l Ai~r~me~.doc
25
EXHIBIT B
ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
\\TEMEC_F510 I~VOL l~Dep~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~73PA99 Development 26
CHAPTER 17.08
COMMERCIAUOFFICE/INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
SECTIONS:
17.08.010
17.08.020
17.08.030
17.08.040
17.08.050
17.08.060
17.08.070
17.08.080
Purpose and intent.
Description of commercial/office/industrial districts.
Use regulations.
Development standards.
Special use regulations and standards.
Landscape requirements and standards.
Commercial/office/industrial performance standards.
Environmental standards.
17.08.010 PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The following zoning districts are intended to provide regulations for the safe, efficient and creative
design of the commercial, office and industrial areas within the city. The zoning districts are
intended to be consistent with the land use designations that are described in the land use eleme, nt
of the Temecula general plan. In certain situations several zoning districts are established to
implement the goals and objectives of the general plan.
The commercial/office/industrial zoning districts are intended to permit the range of industrial or
commercial uses in areas where uses are consistent with the general plan. It is further intended
to accomplish the following:
Provide for appropriate commercial areas to provide the city with a sound retail and
industrial base with employment opportunities for the community.
To ensure compatibility of retail commercial and office uses with adjacent land uses and to
minimize traffic congestion and overloading of the city's utility systems.
To encourage and assure that new commercial and industrial development will be planned
in a comprehensive manner with high standards of architecture, landscape and site design.
(Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part))
17.08.020 DESCRIPTION oF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.
The purpose and intent of the zoning districts are described as follows:
Neighborhood Commercial (NC). The neighborhood commercial designation includes
smaller-scale business activities which generally provide retail or convenience services for
the local residents in the surrounding neighborhood. Typical uses include traditional small
food markets (floor area less than twenty-five thousand square feet), drug stores, clothing
stores, sporting goods, offices, hardware stores, child care and community facilities.
tnciudes
Community Commercial (CC). The community commercial designation includes retail,
professional office and service-oriented business activities which serve the entire
community. Community commercial areas typically include some neighborhood commercial
uses as well as larger retail uses including department stores, theaters, restaurants,
professional offices, specialty retail stores and shopping centers.
Amendments as of June 1. 1999 Chapter 17.08 - 1
17.08.030 USE REGULATIONS.
The land uses list in the following Table 17.08.030 shall be permitted in one or more of the
commercial zoning districts as indicated in the columns corresponding to each residential district.
Where indicated with a letter "P" the use shall be a permitted use: Where indicated with a "-," the
use is prohibited within the zone. A letter "C" indicates the use shall be conditionally permitted
subject to the approval.of a conditional use permit.
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts
Desc.p.on o, Use
A
Adult business-subject to Chapter 5.08 of the
Temecula Municipal Code
Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts C F P F C (
studios (less than 5,000 sq. ft.)
Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts
studios (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.) I '-
Airports -
Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities C C C C
Alcohol and drug treatment (o-tp=tient) C C C P
Alcoholic beverage sales ¢ C C
Ambulance services P P F F
Animal hospital/shelter P P P F
Antique restoration
Antique sales P P P
Apparel and accessory shops I= P P
Appliance sales and repairs (household and small F p C
appliances)
Arcades (pinball and video games) E C I ¢ -,
Art supply stores F P F -
Auction houses C F C
Auditoriums and conference facilities ¢ C ¢ C C
Automobile dealers (new and used) C -
Automobile sales (brokerege)-showroom only (new C C F -
and used)-no outdoor display
Automobile repair services C C F
Automobile rental ¢ C F
Automobile painting and body shop C
Automobile salvage yards/impound yards
Automobile service stations with or without an F P F C C F
automated car wash
Automotive oil change/lube services with no major (: P F - F
repairs
Automotive parts-sales I: F P F - F
Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine- C C' ¢ Cl C C
with or without an automated car wash
Inclucies Amendments as of June 1, 1999
Chapter 17.08- 3
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
CommerciallOffice/Industrial Districts
Desc,lptlon o, use
Communications equipment sales'{ C~ I ' I C I ' I I F
Community care facilities
Computer sa,es and service
Congregate care housing for the elderly F P
Construction equipment sales, service or rental
Contractor's equipment, sales, Service or rental
I
Convenience market P C
Costume rentals
Crematoriums ~ '~
D
Data processing equipment and systems ( ~ P
Day care centers ( F P P
Delicatessen ( F P P
Discount/department store F
Distribution facility
Drug store/pharmacy F P P
Dry cleaners F P P
Dry cleaning plant I(~ C
E
Emergency shelters
Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor storage)
Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage)
F
Feed and grain sales
Financial, insurance, real estate offices P
Fire and police stations P
Floor covering sales P
Florist shop P ~ P
Food processing
Fortunetelling, spiritualism, or similar activity
Includes Amendments as of June 1, 1999
Chapter 17.08 - 5
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Commercial/Officellndustrial Districts
Description of Use I NC I Cl'l IHT I S~C I PO I EiP IL
K
Kennel I I Ci I' ! i- I i F
L
Laboratories, film, medical, research or testing ' ~ I F
centers
Laundromat F P
Laundry service (commercial)
Libraries, museums and galleries (private) ¢
C
C
Liquified petroleum, sales and distribution ' - I '
Liquor stores ~ C C I '
Lithographic service ,,F
Locksmith F I F P I F
M
Machine shop F
Machinery storage yard C
Mail order businesses F P F
Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited
to, the following:
Custom-made product, processing, assembling, F F
packaging, and fabrication of goods within enclosed
building (no outside storage), such as jewelry,
furniture, art objects, clothing, labor intensive
manufacturing, assembling, and repair processes
which do not involve frequent truck traffic.
Compounding of materials, processing, assembling,
packaging, treatment or fabrication of materials and
products which require frequent truck activity or the
transfer of heavy or bulky items. Wholesaling,
storage, and warehousing within enclosed building,
freight handling, shipping, truck services and
terminals, storage and wholesaling from the premises
of unrefined, raw or semirefined products requiring
further processing or manufacturing, and outside
storage.
Uses under 20,000 sq. ft. with no outside storage
Massage P P
Includes Arnen0ments as of June 1, 1999 Chapter 17.08 - 7
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts
Description of Use
Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals,
books, etc.)
Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public
Utilities Commission)
Q
Reserved
R
Radio and broadcasting studios, offices
Radio/television transmitter
Recreational vehicle parks
Recreational vehicle sales
Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within
an enclosed building
Recreational vehicle, trailer and boat storage-exterior
yard
Recycling collection facilities
Recycling processing facilities
Religious institution, without a daycare or private
school
Religious institution, with a private school
..... =,__s institution, with a daycare
Residential (one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a
commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor
of the business)
Residential, multiple-family housing
Restaurant, drive-in/fast food
Restaurants and other eating establishments
Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment
Retail support use (15 percent of total development
square footage in BP and LI)
Rooming and boarding houses
S
Scale, public
Schools, business and professional
Includes Amenclments as of June 1, 1999
Chapter 17.08 - 9
I
Z
Reserved
Table 17.08.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts
Description of Use
1. The CUP will be subject to Section 17.08.050(G)·
2. Subject to standards outlined in appendix.
3.
4.
see Chapter 5.22 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
See Section 17.080.050(R), special use regulations and standards for self-storage or mini-
warehouse facilities.
(Ord. 96-19 §§ 2(EE)(part) and 4; Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part);Ord. 97-03 § 2;Ord. ~7-06 § 2; Ord 97-
17§(5))
17.08.040 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
The development standards listed below are the minimum standards for development with the
respective zoning districts. It is intended that these standards will be met in addition to the
commercial/office/industrial performance standards of Section 17.08.070. Considerations for
approval of develop~ment plans and for awarding floor area ratio bonuses will be based upon both
the development standards and the degree of conformance with the performance standards. In the
event of a conflict between the development standards and the performance standards, the director
of planning shall determine which requirement best implements the intent of the development code.
Separate development standards have been established for developments on a single lot and for
those commercial shopping centers or industrial planned developments whicl~ include multiple
structures on one or more lots.
Includes Amendments as of June 1. 1999
2888-8874~3
The following Table 17.08.040B provides the development standards for the Commercial/Office
and Industrial Districts for a development on a separate lot.
Table 17.08.040B
Development Standards - Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts
For a Development on a Separate Lot
Commercial/Development
Standards NC C .~ HT S PO E L
Minimum net lot area (sq. ft.) 30,000 30,l100 20,000 40,1100 40,000 40, 00 40,t~00
sq.~. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq ft. sq. ft.
ratio 0.215 0.: l0 0.30 0.; i0 0.50 I 0. 0 0.~ 0
Target
floor
area
Maximum floor area ratio with 0.40 1. 3 1.0 1. 5 1.0 1 1.
intensity bonus as per Section
17.08.050
Minimum width at required 50 It. 50 ft. 80 ft. 10(ft. 80 ft. 10t ft. 10(: ft.
front setback area
Minimum depth 100;ft. 10(ff. 100ff. 12(ff. 120 ft.
Minimum frontage on a street 30 ~t. 30 ~t. 50 ft. 80 It. 60 ft. 8(~ ~. 80 ~t.
Yard area adjacent to a street:
Arterial street 25 ~t. 15 ~t. 25 ff. 25 ~t. 20 ff. 20
Collector 25
Local 151t. 10~t. 15ft. 15~t. 10ft. 10
Interior side yard 0i (: 0 C 0 0
Rear yard 15~t. 10 [I.. 10ff. 10
Accessory structure-side/rear 5 f~. 5 !l. 5 ft. 5 f~ 5 ft. 5 5 f
setback ·
Yard areas adjacent to 25h. 25~t. 30ft. 30~t. · 25ff. 30 t. 40 ~,.
residentially zoned property.
/
Maximum height 35 .irt. 50 ~t. 75 ft. 50
Maximum percent of lot 25~,,~ 30
coverage
Minimum required landscaped 25~Yo 20
open space
Fence, wall or hedge- 6 f. 6
maximum height
Accessory structure- 12~t. 12 ~t. 12ft. 121[. 12ft. 12 ~. 12 ~t.
maximum height
Fence, wall or hedge 6 t. 6 fl Not 6 I;.
screening outdoor storage- allowed
minimum height
Fence, wallor hedge 6ft. 8l. 8ft. 121 Not 12 ~. 12 ~t.
screening outdoor storage- i allowed
maximum height
(Ord. 96-19 § 2tEE) (part) and (FF) and 3(B) and (C); Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part); Ord. 98-14 § 3)
Injuries Arnenctments as of June 1. 1999 Chapter 17.08 - 13
The applicant shall submit with his application, three Sets of typed gummed labels,
listing the name and address of all businesses within a shopping center and all
landowners within a three-hundred-foot radius of the shopping center or arcade.
Each application shall contain a description of the types of machines, a floor plan,
and hours of operation.
Car Washes. A conditional use permit shall be required for all full-service or self-service car
washes within the commercial districts. Car washes shall comply with the following cdteda:
Such business shall be located at least two hundred feet from any residential
district.
2. Wash bays and vacuum areas shall be screened from public view.
Regular monitoring of the facility by an attendant shall be provided during business
hours to control noise, litter, and other nuisances.
Hours of operation shall be limited to seven a.m. to ten p.m., unless otherwise
specifically established as a condition of approval. Automatic shut-off of water an.d
electrical systems, except for security and fire protection, shall be provided during
non-business hours.
Permanent Indoor Swap Meet Facilities.
Indoor swap meets shall be established only in buildings containing five thousand
square feet or more of gross floor area.
City business licenses and state seller permits shall be obtained by every tenant
operating a stall space.
No more than one business license shall be granted per one hundred fifty square
feet of building floor area.
The minimum average square footage of a partitioned cubicle or stall space (booth)
shall be one hundred fifty square feet. The minimum size for an individual stall shall
be one hundred square feet, and no more than twenty-five stall spaces shall be
permitted to contain one hundred square feet.
5. No adult business, as defined in the Temecula Municipal Code shall be permitted.
No loudspeakers or sound equipment which can be heard from exterior or
semipublic areas shall be used on the premises.
Each stall space shall be par!itioned with partition walls at a height of not less than
five feet, six inches. Scissor-type gating shall not be used to separate vendors or
vending areas.
All floor areas of indoor tenant spaces, shall be covered with a high-grade tile or
carpeting.
Includes Amendments as of June 1, 1999 Chapter 17.08 · 15
Ko
Outside Storage and Service Areas.
1. Outside storage should be confined to the rear of the principal structure(s), rear two-
thirds of the lot, whichever is more restrictive. All storage areas shall be located on
appropriate paving and be screened from public view from any adjoining properties
and from the public rights-of-way by appropriately designed walls, fencing and
landscaping.
2. Storage on Vacant Lots. When permitted by the zoning district regulations or by a
development permit outside storage on a vacant lot shall be screened from.public
view from any adjoining properties and from the public right-of-way by appropriately
designed, walls, fencing and landscaping.
Lighting. All lighting fixtures, including spotlights, electrical reflectors and other means of
illumination for signs, structures, landscaping, parking, loading, unloading and similar areas,
shall be focused, directed and arranged to prevent glare or direct illumination on streets or
adjoining property.
Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment used in the manufacturing process may be
required to be enclosed in a building and roof-mounted accessor7 equipment may ..be
required to be screened from view.
Retail Sales. Retail sales and services that are incidental to permitted use are subject to
the following conditions:
1. The operations are contained within the main structure which houses the primary
use.
The retail sale area occupies no more than fifteen percent of the total building
square footage.
No retail sales or display of merchandise shall occur outside the structures.
Drive-Thru Facilities. Commercial uses including restaurants, financial institutions or other
business providing drive-thru facilities shall be subject to the following requirements.
1. All drive-thru facilities shall require a conditional use permit.
Pedestrian walkways should not intersect the drive-thru aisles. If peclestdan
walkways do cross the drive aisles, they shall be clearly marked with paving or
striping.
Drive-thru aisle shall have a minimum width of eleven feet on the straight sections
and twelve feet on curved portions.
For fast food restaurants the drive-thru aisles shall have a sufficient stacking
area behind the menu board to accommodate six cars.
o
The speakers shall be located so as to protect adjoining residential areas from
excessive noise.
Inc~ucles Amendments as of June 1, 1999
Chapter 17.08 - 17
No item, or any portion thereof, shall be displayed on public property; provided,
however, items may be displayed within the public right-of-way if an encroachment
permit has first been procured from the city.
Items shall be displayed only during the hours that the business conducted inside
the'building on the premises is open for business.
No item shall be displayed in a manner that: causes a safety hazard; obstructs the
entrance to any building; interferes with, or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicle
traffic; is unsightly or creams any other condition that is detrimental to the
appearance of the premises or any surrounding property; or in any other manner
is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or causes a public nuisance.
Flag Poles. A maximum height of seventy five feet.
Self-Storage or Mini-Warehouse Facilities.
Development Standards
The following standards shall be applied to all new self-storage or mini-warehouse..
facilities:
ao
The design of the facility shall be compatible with the surrounding area in
terms of design, bulk and mass, materials and colors. Building exteriors
shall not be corrugated metal or similar surface, but shall be of finished
quality. Metal containers are prohibited.
bo
In commercial zoning districts the rear and side yard setbacks shall be a
minimum of 10 feet. In industrial zoning districts no rear or side yard
setbacks are required. The director of planning may increase the setbacks
to a maximum of 25 feet when adjacent to an existing residential
development project. The front yard setback shall maintain the setback for
the underlying zoning classification.
c. The maximum lot coverage shall be 65 percent.
The development site shall provide a minimum of 10% landscaped open
space for a project within commercial districts, In industrial districts, the
total landscaping shall be equal to the required setback areas. No interior
landscaping is required, but the setback areas shall be landscaped.
e. A manager's residential unit may be provided, but is not required.
Required parking spaces may not be rented as, or used for, vehicular
storage. However, additional parking area may be provided for vehicles,
boats, buses, trailers, etc., provided that the storage area is adequately
screened from public view with enhanced landscaping, decorative walls,
fences, or other methods as deemed appropriate by the director.
Includes Amendments as of June 1. 1999 Chapter 17,08,- 19
17.08.060
A.
c)
No display area shall be located immediately adjacent to
another display area. Landscaping sl~all be provided
between display areas.
Development adjacent to existing and proposed residential uses. All
portions of the property which abut an existing or pro'posed residential use
shall have a minimum ten foot (10') wide landscape buffer.
All other portions of the properly which do not abut a street or existing or
proposed residential uses shall have a minimum five foot (5') wide
landscape buffer.
All customer parking on the site shall be clearly identified, either through
special paint (i.e. curb painting) or signage and shall be subject to the
landscape requirements contained in Section 17.24.050H of the
Development Code.
Service bays shall not be visible from a public street and shall be adequately
screened from adjacent residential uses.
Inventory and vehicle-in-repair storage areas on the site shall be clearly
identified and will not need to be internally landscaped. If they are located
on the perimeter or adjacent to residential development or sensitive areas
they shall be screened in the manner discussed above..(Ord. 96-19 §§
2(GG)-(II); Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part); Ord 97-17 § 3(C), § 10; Ord. 98-17 § 2)
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.
Plant Materials.
Landscape design and construction shall emphasize drought-tolerant materials
when possible.
Street trees shall be planted at a minimum of one tree per thirty linear feet of street
frontage. Trees shall be a minimum fifteen-cjalion size at the time of planting.
Shrubs shall be a minimum of five gallons at the time of planting.
All landscape materials shall be subject to approval by the city for appropriateness
and consistency with the water efficient landscape ordinance.
Includes Amen~mente as of June 1. 1999
Chapter 17,08- 21
Slope banks in excess of ten feet in vertical height with slopes greater or
equal to 2:1 shall also provide one five-gallon or larger tree per each one
thousand square feet of slope area in addition to the requirements of
subsection (C)(5)(a) of this section.
All trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and var7
the slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a
permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
Where trees are planted in pedestrian areas, a protective tree grate shall be
provided.
Trees and shrubs should be planted and maintained so that they do not interfere
with utilities, light standards, sight lines for traffic safety, encroach on adjacent
property, or obstruct to the solar access rights of adjoining property owners.
(Ord. 96-19 §§ 2 (J J) and 3(D); Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part))
17.08.070 COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for uniform performance standards and
criteria for the design of commercial buildings within the city in accordance with the
recognition that the quality and compatibility of building design directly impacts the health,
safety and welfare of the residents of the community. Moreover, quality and compatible
building design promotes and preserves the stability of the city through orderly growth and
enhancement of a quality business environment. These purposes are further achieved
through the following:
The enhancement of the physical character of the community and quality of life
through sound planning and coordinated development.
Im:ludes Amendmen[~ as of June 1. 1999
Chapter 17.08 - 23
Where the character or scale is identifiable, new development should be designed
to maintain that character and to be compatible with that scale. In areas where the
character is not identifiable, new development should be designed to be
complementary or consistent with desirable characteristics of the surrounding area
in a way that contributes to the establishment of a positive character and scale for
the area through the use of similar or complementary materials, colors, or building
forms and design details.
Development should be designed to minimize detrimental impacts on surrounding
properties, including, but. not limited to, visual, noise, air quality and other
environmental impacts. Strategies for minimizing the impacts include protecting
residential areas adjacent to commercial development through screening of
circulation areas, loading areas and trash collection points or other areas that could
potentially be disruptive to the residential character of the adjacent area.
C. Commercial Development Performance Standards.
1. Circulation.
Limit egress and ingress to commercial areas to common entrance points.
Orient most of the vehicular access from side streets rather than directly
from major arterial.
Separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems should be provided
if possible. Pedestrian linkages between uses in the commercial areas
should be provided. In shopping centers, provide separate pedestrian
walkways from parking areas to the major commercial tenants. Whenever
possible, parking lots should be designed to separate vehicular circulation
routes from parking aisles.
Architectural Design.
Large buildings should be designed in such a manner to avoid excessive
mass and bulk. This can be accomplished by dividing the building form,
varying the height of the roof structure and by creating offsets in the exterior
walls.
The lower floors of commercial structures should not have blank walls.
Windows, trellises, wall articulation, and entrances can provide relief along
expansive wall surfaces.
Upper portions of multistory commercial structures can be stepped-back to
reduce the bulk and mass of the buildings and to preserve pedestrian scale.
Site Planning and Design.
Pedestrian amenities in commercial developments should be provided to
enhance the opportunities for pedestrian circulation and social activities.
Strategies to achieve this high degree of pedestrian orientation and activity
include, but are not limited to, the following:
Includes Amendments as of June 1, 1999 Chapter 17.08 - 25
2. Architectural Design.
Long unarticulated walls should be avoided. Wall planes should not extend
in a continuous direction for greater than fifty feet without an offset.
b. Outstanding building and roof forms, and distinctive windows patterns.
c. Blank wall elevations should be avoided on street frontages.
d. Highly reflective surfaces are discouraged especially at the ground level.
Wall materials should be selected that are resilient to damage from
machinery.
If rolling shutter doors are required, the doors should 'be mounted on the
inside of the bUilding to create an uncluttered appearance from the exterior.
3. Site Planning and Design.
Placement of structures which creates opportunities for plazas, courts, or
gardens, lunch areas for employees with amenities such as outdoor seating
and garden areas.
Design features which contribute to the design character of a project may
include: ceremonial entrance drives, enhanced visitor parking areas,
highlighted visitor entrance areas, decorative pedestrian plazas and
walkways, focal landscape treatments, site sculptures, employee
recreational facilities (exercise courses, jogging paths).
In order to provide security, lighting should be provided at a minimum
illumination of one footcandle across parking areas and two footcandles at
entrances. Lighting fixtures should be shielded to confine the spread of light
to adjoining properties. The design of the lighting fixtures should be
compatible with the architecture of the building.
Loading areas should generally not be located in the front of the building
where it is difficult to adequately screen the loading areas from public view.
These areas are most appropriately located in the rear or side of the
property so that the loading docks and doors are not directly in the public
view.
When walls or fences are necessary in the frontage of the property to
conceal storage and mechanical equipment areas, walls should be
architecturally treated on both sides and should be design6d to complement
and blend with the architectural design of the building.
Long expanses of fencing or walls should be avoided unless offsets
are provided, height variations, and combinations of materials are
used to avoid monotony. Landscaping along the fences and at
specific pockets should be provided.
Includes Amenclments as of June 1. 1999 Chapter 17.08 - 27
Odors, Toxics and Noxious Matter. Any existing or proposed use which produces odors,
toxic gases or noxious matter in such quantities as can or may be readily detectable at any
point outside the property lines of the premises and when such emissions are or may
become a public nuisance or hazard, the use shall be modified to prevent such releases.
Vibration. Any existing or proposed use which generates vibrations that can or may be
considered a nuisance or hazard on any adjacent property shall be cushioned or isolated
to prevent generation of such vibrations.
Glare. Any existing or proposed use that constitutes or may be considered a nuisance or
hazard on any adjacent property due to emittance of excessive light or glai'e from
mechanical or chemical processes or from reflective materials used or stored on the site
shall be shielded or otherwise modified to prevent such emissions.
Heat, Radiation and Electromagnetic Disturbances. Any existing or proposed use that can
or may generate excessive heat, electrical disturbances or radioactive emissions that can
or may be considered hazardous or a nuisance shall be shielded, contained or otherwise
modified to prevent such generations, disturbances or emissions. (Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part))
~888-B874~3
Includes Amen0ment$ as of June 1, 1999 Chapter 17.08 - 29
EXHIBIT C
NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF EXISTING REGULATIONS
4.
4.
5.
General Plan
The Developmem Code (Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code)
The Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16 of the Temecula Municipal Code)
Citywide Design Guidelines
Habitat Conservation Ordinance
Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance
Uniform Building Code, as locally adopted
Uniform Fire Code, as locally adopted
Standard Drawings for Public Works Construction
\\TEMEC_FS 101WOLI~Dq~PLANNINGLqTAFFRFrL273pA~9 D~vel~t AgreemenLdoc
28
~888-887423
6Z:
,~ o£ 8?
Reowdi~j reque~ed by and w~
recorded, mail to:
c~y ~erk
P.O. Box 9033
Tem,=o_~a, CA 92589
E.~mIX from Recording Fee per
Govt. Code Sec. 27383
City of Temecula
A.P.N. 950-110-022
(Space above th~s line fiw Recorders use).
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS NONE.
~ ,e,g~n~ry exr~,,~
Revenue and TaxatYon Code Secik)n 11922
LICENSE AGREEMENT
The CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City" and, Pala Rainbow~ LLC hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"
hereby agree as follows:
1. The right is hereby granted to City or City's designee, contractor or subcontractor to enter upon and
use the real properly of Grantor in the City of Temecula, State of California, described as follows:
Being portions of the Temecula Rancho, in the Coun~ of
Riverside, State of Califronia, which Rancho was patented to
Luis Vignes by patent recorded in Book 1, Page 37 of Patents, in
the office of the Count~ Recorder of San Diego Count~,
Califronia, also .being a portion of Parcel 43 as descr/~ /~
deed to Kacor Realty, Inc. recorded Sept~--~er 29, 1977, as
Instrument No. 192314 on file in the office of the County
Recorder of said Riverside County.
For all purposes necessary and convenient to facilitate and accomplish the construction and
maintenance of the wetland creation area described further as Pamel "B" of Order of Possession,
Case No. 315426, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside filed July 24,
1998.
A three- (3) day written notice shall be given to Grantor prior to using the rights herein granted. The
term of this agreement shall be five- (5) years from the date of said notice; or acceptance of the
wetland creation area by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and
Game, whichever is less.
It is agreed that the City shall enter upon Grantors properly whe!e appropriate, or designated by the
Grantor, for the purpose of getting construction and maintenance equipment, and a temporary water
service to and from the wetland creation area. City agrees to use reasonable care on Grantor's
property, in the process of performing such activities.
1 of 3
I Illlllll II Ill lllll I Ill Ill
STATE OF CALIFORNIA} SS.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE}
On , before
me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for the State of California, personally.
appeared
pe~naJby know, ri to me (er ~,oved to me on the ~ of
~."~ac~ory ex~dmce) to be the Ix~sen(s) where name(s) ~are
~cn%ed to the wilhin insm~nmt and acknowledged to me that
h~Jshe~hey e~,ed ~e same in hi.~her~heir authorized
c%mcity(ies), and tha~ by his, her/their sig-.n,,'e(s) on me
instrument b%e person(s), or the m~ity upon behalf of which bSe
perso.(s) ac~l. execu.~l ~hc ins~rummc
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
3 of 3
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400
Temecula, CA 92591
EXHIBIT "A"
Revised August 18, 1999
March 24, 1999
JN 15-100053- M1
Page 1 of 1
~Descri t_p_~
Pala Road Vacation
That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of
California, being those portions of Pala Road as described in Strip 1 and Cupeno Lane as
described in Strip 3 of an easement deed recorded May 16, 1990 as Instrument No. 180581 of
Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County: bounded
on the North by the southerly line of State Highway 79 as shown on Tract No. 20319 flied in
Book 181, Pages 54 through 58 of Maps in said Office of the Riverside County Recorde. r;
bounded on the West by a curve having a radius of 933.00 feet and being concentric with a~d
12.00 feet easterly from a curve in the easterly line of Pala Road as described in Parcel "A"
of an Order of Possession filed July 24, 1998 as Case No. 315426 in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Riverside; and bounded on the South by the following
described line: COMMENCING at GPS Station PINYON 1 as shown on a map filed in Book
102, Pages 50 through 65 of Records of Surveys in said Office of the Riverside County
Recorder, said Station having coordinates of N 2166428.3493 and E 6498294.9778 based on
the California State Plane Coordinate System, Nad 83, Epoch 1995.5;
thence South 76°30'20.89" West 210,105.87 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence North 80°49'34" West 92.79 feet;
thence South 78°06'16" West 70.41 feet to a point on a curve in the westerly line of said
Pala Road (110.00 feet wide) as described in said Strip 1~ said curve being concave
easterly and having a radius of 1055.00 feet.
RESERVING therefrom an easement for slope purposes over that portion included within
Parcel "M" of said Order of Possession filed July 24, 1998.
CONTAINING: 0.966 Acres, .more or less.
EXHIBIT/~attached and by this reference made a part hereof.
Ra~nd L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185
My license expires 3/31/02.
EXHIBIT M-2
EASEMENT QUIT CLAIM (PALA ROAD VACATION)
\\TEMEC_F$101WOLIkD~pt~PLANNINGSTAFFRPT~73PA99 Development Agreemen~do~ 35
~Legal Description
-Pala Road/Cupeno Lane Vacation
Revised August 18, 1999
May 24, 1999
JN 15-100053-M2
Page 2 of 2
RESERVING therefrom an easement for slope purposes over that portion included within
Cupeno Lane (60.00 feet wide) as described in said Strip 3 of a document recorded May 16,
1990 as Instrument No. 180581 of Official Records.
ALSO, RESERVING therefrom an easement for slope purposes over that portion included
within said Parcel "J" of said Order of Possession filed July 24, 1998.
CONTAINING: 1.570 Gross Acres
EXHIBIT "B" attached and by this reference made a part hereof.
Ra~ond L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185
My license expires 3/31/02.
~'85B-8874P3
EXHIBIT M-3
OWNER'S PURCHASE OF CITY OF TEMECULA REAL PROPERTY
\\TEMEC_FS 101WOL F~-.pts~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~T3 PA99 Dewl~rat A~re~mentdoc 36
I I Illlll Illlll Illlll Ill Illlll Illll Illlll ill Ill[ll Ill iii
~888-8874~3
~O0 0 '00 200 300
GRAPHIC SCALE iN FEET
/..... C/L
STATE HIGHWAY
PER TRACT NO. 20519
79
__N54'19'31"W
99.02' PER
PCL."J" OF
SUPER[OR COURT
CASE NO. 515426.
F~II~}ICATES PORTION
OF ROAD EASEMENT
PER STRIP 3 OF
iNST. NO. 1805810.R.
REC. 5/16/90
DATA TABLE
(~_ BRNG/OELTA RADIUS LENGTH
1 N54°17'24"W -- 92.12'
2 57'45'22" 220.92' 222.69'
5 N74'54'48"E -- 153.74'
4 62'48'46" 505.00' 334.37'
5 NOS'45'36"E -- 36.71'
6 06'56'52" 1571.00' 190.50'
TOTAL PARCEL=I .549 ACRES
AREA ~) =0.644 ACRES
AREA (~ =0.905 ACRES
EXHIBIT "B"
PALA ROAD
OU ! TCLA ! M
REVISED 9/14/99
MAY 24, 1999
PREPARED UN..OER THE
suP£~jj~ OF:
R~'~N~,.~ MATHE, L.S. 6185
EXPIRES 3-31-02
SHEET 1 OF' 1 SHEET
Robert Bei~.W~llia~r~ F~'ost & Associates
SCALE: 1"=100' 15 lO~5~-M~
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400
Temecula, CA 92591
August 18, 1999
J.N. 15-100053-M4
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT "A'
.Legal Description
Pala Road Right of Way
Those certain parcels of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of
California, being those portions of the Temecula Rancho patented to Luis Vignes by patent
recorded in Book 1, Page 37 of Patents in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, California, described as follows:
Parcel 1
BEGINNING at the most northwesterly corner of Parcel "B" as described in an Order of
Possession filed July 24, 1998 as Case No. 315426 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside;
thence along the southwesterly line of said Parcel "B", the westerly line of Parcel "A" of said
Case No. 315426 and the northwesterly line of Parcel "F" of said Case No. 315426 through the
following courses: South 54°17'24'. East 99.02 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave
easterly and having a radius of 1055.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears
North 72°43'51" East;
thence along said curve southerly 160.85 feet through a central angle of 08°44'09";
thence non-tangent from said curve South 17°35'51" West 19.13 feet to the northerly line of
Cupeno Lane (60.00 feet wide) as described in Strip 3 of a document recorded May 16, 1990
as Instrument No. 180581 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said
Riverside County;
thence leaving said northwesterly line of Parcel "F", along said northerly line of Cupeno
Lane South 70°10'19" West 11.91 feet;
thence North 16°31'19" East 19.28 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concentricwith said
curve in the westerly line of said Parcel "A" and having a radius of 1067.00 feet, a radial line
of said curve from said point bears North 63°59'32" East;
· f .~ e?l Description
Para'Road Right of Way
August 18, 1999
JN 15-100053-M4
Page 3 of 3
thence non-tangent from said curve North 34°26'46'' East 76.29 feet to a point on a non-tangent
curve in the southerly line of State Highway 79 as shown on Tract No. 20319 filed in Book 181,
Pages 54 through 58 of Maps in said Office of the Riverside County Recorder, a radial line
of said curve from said point bears North 06°40'45'' West;
thence leaving said parallel line, along said curve and southerly line westerly 15.86 feet
through a central angle of 00034'43'' to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING: 5744 square feet, more or less.
SUBJECT TO all covenants, rights, rights-of-way and easements of record.
EXHIBIT "B" attached and by this reference made a part hereof.
'~~. Mathe, PLS 6185
My License Expires 03/31/02
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30180
R:~DESIGN GUIDELINES\PA02-0340 Rainbow Canyon Design Guidelines~StaffReport.doc
0
I,I
I.--
Z
b..I
I---
I,M ,.