Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091708 PC AgendaIncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk {951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]. AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 - 6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 2008-40 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Commissioner Chiniaeff Roll Call: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio PUBLIC 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 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. Far 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 athree-minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar 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. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of August 6, 2008 1.2 Approve the Minutes of August 20, 2008 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. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee 2 CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 20, 2008 MEETING: Planning Application Numbers PA08- 0008and PA08-0083, a Commercial Development Plan to construct a 64,000 square foot, four-story mixed use building and associated Sign Program, Cheryl KitzerowlMatt Peters RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION 48- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER PA48-4448, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCTA 66,475 SQUARE FOOT, FOUR- STORY BUILDING WITH HEIGHT INCREASE UP TO 66' 3" WITH PROPOSED USES TO INCLUDE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL AND OFFICES ON THE SECOND THROUGH FOURTH FLOORS AND PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER PA08- 4483, AN ASSOCIATED SIGN PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES A VERTICAL MARQUEE, DIRECTIONAL BLADE SIGNS, WALL/FRIEZE BUILDING SIGNS, AND WINDOW SIGNS FOR THE TRUAX BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MERCEDES AND SECOND STREETS {APNS 922- 443-412 AND 922-443-417) 3 Long Range Planning Project Number LR08-0039, Proposed Development Code Amendments to clarify or modify existing provisions of the Development Code, Betsy Lowrey RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION 48- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ZONING STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOLS AND AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE"" REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The entire agenda packet (including staff reports} will be available for viewing at City Hall's Planning Department Public Counter located at 43200 Business Park Drive and at the Temecula Library located at 30600 Pauba Road during normal business hours. The packet will be available for viewing the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting after 4:00 p. m. You may also access the packet the Friday before the meeting after 4:00 p.m on the City's website at cityoftemecu la. org. ITEn-1 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2Q08 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p. m., on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of June 18, 2008 1.2 Approve the Minutes of July 9, 2008 1.3 Approve the Minutes of July 16, 2008 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained on Item No. 1.2 and Commissioners Carey and Chiniaeff who both abstained on Item No. 1.3. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2 Appoint one Commissioner to work with staff on creating a Sustainability Plan RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Appoint Planning Commissioner Guerriero to work with staff on the Sustainability Plan. R:\MinutesPC\080608 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to appoint Commissioner Guerriero to work with staff on the Sustainability Plan. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to address the agenda out of order. 6 Planning Application Numbers PA08-0008 and PA08-0083, a Commercial Development Plan to construct a 64,000 square foot, four-story mixed use building and associated Sign Program, Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters, Case Planners RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Continue to August 20, 2008 Planning Commission hearing at the request of the applicant. Per the request of staff, Item No. 6 will be continued to August 20, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. 4 Planning Application Number PA07-0216, a Wireless Antenna Facility application for a proposed 70'-6" high Verizon Wireless Telecommunications facility incorporated into an existing self-storage facility RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA07-0216, A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY APPLICATION CONSISTING OF TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO A 70' S" HIGH FAUX LIGHT POLE AND GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN AN EXISTING SELF-STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED AT 31524 RANCHO PUEBLO ROAD (APN 959-070-024) By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Case Planner Jones highlighted the main components of staff's report as follows: • Project Description • Location • Site Plan • Elevations • Coverage • After Coverage • Environmental Determination At this time, the public hearing was opened. R:\MinutesPC\080608 2 In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query, Mr. Jones advised that it would be his opinion that the difference in diameter between the existing light poles and new proposed light poles would be 8 inches; advised that because of the added weight of the antennas the diameter was increased; and that the light poles would be placed on the storage property made to resemble athletic field light poles of the adjacent property. Mr. Cary Warren, representing Verizon Wireless, noted that the future hospital will not have an affect of the Verizon Wireless coverage. At this time the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 5 Planning Application Number PA08-0133, A Development Plan for the construction of a 18,836 square foot, two-story office building RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER PA08-0133, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY 18,836 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON A 1.06 ACRE LOT WITHIN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE {PO) ZONE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE PORTOLA ROAD, AT 43980 MARGARITA ROAD {APN 959-050-014) By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Case Planner Lowrey highlighted the main components of staff's report, such as follows: • Project Description • Location • Site Plan • Landscaping • Adjacent Office Architecture • Environmental Determination • Parking In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query, Case Planner Lowrey noted that the first two stories will be offices and that the third floor will be a mechanical room; advising that parking will be sufficient and that there is a reciprocal parking agreement between the two adjacent lots and the subject site. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Josh Sigler, representing Axis 3 Architecture, relayed that the difference between the pad level of the proposed project and adjacent homes would be 10 to 15 feet; and air conditioning R:\MinutesPC\080608 3 units would be located on the roof which will be disguised; advising that solar power will be used. Case Planner Lowrey added at the setbacks would be 25 feet from both DePortola Road and from Margarita Road. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Case Planner Lowrey noted that she has not had any correspondence from adjacent residents. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chiniaeff spoke highly of the aesthetics of the proposed project but did express some concern with the massiveness of the project compared to the adjacent businesses. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 3 CONTINUED FROM JULY 16, 2008 MEETING: Planning Application Number PA07- 0340, aMinor Conditional Use Permit to authorize a video game arcade and party facility within an existing 20,000 square foot building, Katie Le Comte, Case Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER PA07-0340, A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT VIDEO GAME ARCADE AND PARTY FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 27468 YNEZ ROAD (APN 921-320-058) Due to a conflict of interest, Commissioner Harter excused himself from the dais. By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Case Planner Le Comte, highlighted the main components of staff's report, to be as follows: • Project Description • Location • Background • Floor Plan • COA • Analysis • Environmental Determination In response to Commissioner Corey's query, Case Planner Le Comte noted that the applicant will be required to comply with the Police Department's Statement of Operation. R:\MinutesPC\080608 4 Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the application before the Commission would be a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and that if problems arise, staff would seek a remedy. Far Commissioner Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that it would be the Planning Commission's purview to add a condition that would not allow the applicant to sell alcoholic beverages, but that the applicant would have the right to seek an amendment to this in the future. Referencing Chairman Telesio's concern with Condition of Approval PL-25, Case Planner Le Comte advised that the language could be revised from supervised by an adult to supervised by a legal guardian. Chairman Telesio Hated that it would be his opinion that Conditions of Approval Nos. PD-30, PD-31 and PD-34 were not conditions but rather advisory notices. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Michel Knight, applicant, stated that in response to the concerns and queries of the Planning Commission, the following was offered: • That he would be in agreement with all Conditions of Approval • That he would not have any intention of providing alcoholic beverages • That every 3 months or so arcade games are switched with another facility • That all children's games are grouped together and will be monitored • That there will not be someone monitoring the live streaming 2417 • That an alarm will be posted on the back door • That no food service will be sold in the facility • That No alcoholic beverages will be allowed and signs will be posted throughout the facility • That vending machines for candy and sodas will be available • That video cameras are recording at all times and are kept for 30 days • That there will be two managers the age of 21 and up • That managers will be trained accordingly • That there will be a staff of 14 security guards that rotate between facilities • That he would be willing to close at 10 p.m. on the weekends • That he has one other arcade facility in operation • That the biggest problem he would have with his current facility would be patrons not paying their tabs • That the ages of the security guards would range from early twenties to mid thirties • That security will ensure that alcohol is not be permitted on the premises • That he does not know who owns the bins in the back of the building Mr. Denny Myle, Temecula, relayed his concern with the war type games being available, advising that kids will be negatively affected by the violent games and would request that the violent and "R" rated games not be allowed. Offering information with respect to Mr. Knight's business tactics, Mr. Bryce Ebeling, Menifee, requested that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request. Mr. Knight defended the negative comments made by the two speakers. R:\MinutesPC\080608 5 At this time, the public hearing was closed and then reopened Noting that Mr. Knight has the purview to submit an application to open a business in Temecula, Chief Williams relayed that he does have grave concerns with this type of business and the impacts that will be associated with it; but informed that the Police Department will be prepared to respond to any problems. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed the importance of video surveillance cameras being monitored during business hours. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern with the time of closing, Chief Williams noted that he would not anticipate any problems with the arcade closing at 11:00 p.m. as proposed; but, because of expected concerns, the Police Department will be monitoring the establishment closely. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that perhaps a Condition of Approval can be imposed that would require the establishment to close at 10:00 p.m. for one year. Commenting on Commissioner Guerriero's concern with respect to gangs and the rear of the building, Chief Williams advised that this type of establishment will inevitably attract gang members; noting that he would anticipate that the back of the establishment will become a problem. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Understanding that Mr. Knight deserves the right to open a business in Temecula, Commissioner Guerriera stated that this proposal, if approved, will be closely monitored to ensure that no problems arise with respect to gang members loitering in the rear of the establishment; and stated that he would be hopeful that that the applicant will abide by all Conditions of Approval. Relaying his view of the proposed project, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that under the CUP process, the Planning Commission has the responsibility of evaluating the types of businesses that come to the City of Temecula; stated that this type of use at this location has a great potential to create a problem for the community {gangs) that he would not be desirous of creating; that he would be of the opinion that the curfew will cause a problem with this project and would be desirous of having the establishment close at 10:00 p.m. which may limit potential problems that may arise; that he spoke with the adjacent tenants and was advised of the problems the site encountered when it operated as a haunted house; and that he would be of the opinion that the Condition of Approval relating to the amount of security officers based upon the crowd would be a conflict in and of itself. Also understanding that Mr. Knight has the purview to open a business in Temecula, Commissioner Carey expressed his concern with the type of business and its location, and the type of crowd that will be drawn to the business; and would be desirous of implementing more restrictions i.e. time of closing. Concurring with the Conditions of Approval, Chairperson Telesio relayed his willingness to give the applicant an opportunity to run a decent business; noted that any slight problem will be dealt with by the Police Department; noting for the record that the conditions are not simply R:\MinutesPC1080608 6 Conditions of Approval but Conditions of Operation; that if approved, all conditions must be satisfied or the applicant will need to return to the Planning Commission. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff will add a Condition of Approval that imposes that if the applicant wishes to incorporate alcoholic beverages in the facility, it would require Planning Commission approval; and that children under the age of 10 must be accompanied by a parent, guardian and/or adult person having custody of the child. IUIOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation subject to Conditions of Approval as well as the conditions imposed by Planning Director Ubnoske. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion with Commissioner's Carey and Chiniaeff who voted No. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that because the vote resulted in one abstention, two yeses, and two no's, this would be considered anon-approval; that the Planning Commission would have the option to consider this item terminated or the Planning Commission could establish some negotiations in order to reach an approval. Noting that this applicant has an opportunity to run a decent business, Commissioner Guerriero stated that if the applicant abides by all the Conditions of Approval, he would not see why the applicant cannot be given an opportunity to run a business in a proper fashion. Taking a strong position, Commissioner Chiniaeff Hated that he would be of the opinion that this type of use, at this location will adversely affect the community in a negative manner and would Hat be in favor of its approval. Far the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that it would be important that the Commission understand that a finding that the proposed project will or will not have an adverse affect on the general welfare of the community, must be determined. Commissioner Carey queried if there was a possibility of creating a system that would evaluate the facility, ensuring that it's running in full compliance. For Commissioner Carey, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that if the applicant violates the Conditions of Approval, then the item can be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. Chairperson Telesio noted that it would not be feasible for staff to check on the operation on a daily basis; stated that this facility will be complaint driven, and that if complaints are made, Code Enforcement will respond; and that if a Condition of Approval is broken, the item can be returned to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Carey noted that he would feel more comfortable approving the project if the closing time was changed from 11:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and that if complaints arise from adjacent uses, that Code Enforcement will immediately respond; advising that monitoring of the facility will be strictly enforced. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that it would be his opinion that the proposed project would be a detrimental impact to the heath, safety, and general welfare of the community; and noted that the amount of vacant spaces in the shopping center may become a target for blight, targeted by the proposed use. R:\MinutesPC\080608 7 Commissioner Guerriero requested continual monitoring of all surveillance cameras. Far the Planning Commission, Case Planner Le Comte advised that there will not be continual monitoring of the cameras but a condition can be imposed if this was the desire of the Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that language can be added to state that in addition to the security required by PD-16, that an individual be trained to monitor all surveillance cameras inside and outside and to contact police if and when necessary. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that a condition that imposes that all cameras shall be continually monitored; that the business close at 10:00 p.m.; noting that applicant would have the ability to return to the Planning Commission at a later point in time to request an amendment to the condition; and that if the Commission is of the opinion that a sufficient amount of time has passed without any issues, the Planning Commission can support the request. For the Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that it would be the purview of the Planning Commission if the item is to be continued to craft the language or can be crafted at this time. Chairperson Telesis relayed that in order to not prolong this application it would be his desire to craft the language at this time, noting that it would be his opinion that the applicant should be allowed to close at 11:00 p.m. as proposed. Noting that because the application would be a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that if any point in time there is a violation of a Condition of Approval, staff would have the ability to revoke the permit. Chairperson Telesio would be willing to approve the project and tighten the conditions as much as possible which would allow the applicant an opportunity to run a solid business establishment. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that it would be his opinion that in order to prevent a problem with respect to curfew, the closing time should be 10:00 p. m. Commissioner Guerriero along with Chairperson Telesio relayed that they would be willing to change the closing time to 10:00 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation adding a condition that would impose that the facility close at 10:00 p.m. versus the proposed 11:00 p.m.; that Condition of Approval PD-18 impose that all cameras specified in PD-18 shall be monitored at all times during which the use is open to the public by a security officer who shall be an addition to the security guards required by PD-16, who shall be authorized or required to summon the Police Department upon observing unlawful or disruptive activity. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Harter who abstained and Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted No. Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that staff will amend the Conditions of Approval to reflect all imposed changes ensuring that the applicant is aware of the changes to conditions and is aware that he would have the right to appeal to the City Council regarding the changes to the newly imposed requirements. R:\MinutesPC\080608 COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the aesthetics of the senior development on the corner of Margarita Road and Deportala Road. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern with respect to the senior development on Margarita and De Patola Roads, Director of Planning Ubnaske advised that that developer has defaulted on its construction loan. Director of Planning advised that she will have Code Enforcement Deputy Director Johnston provide a status report to the Commission with respect to the abandoned homes in Temecula. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No reports at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 6:40 pm, Chairman Telesio formally adjourned to August 20, 2008 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. John Telesio Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\080608 9 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p. m., an Wednesday, August 20, 2008, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Carey led the audience in the Flag salute ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Carey, Chiniaeff, Harter, and Telesio Absent: Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS Relaying his frustration, Mr. Richard M. Green, Temecula, advised of a recent dog attack that he encountered and queried on what entity would be able to assist him with his concern; and requested a feedback with respect how the Municipal Code handles RV parking on residential streets. Explaining the Municipal Code for Mr. Green, Assistant City Manager Johnson advised that animal control will follow up with respect to his dog incident and staff will contact him regarding the RV issue. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Director's Hearing Summary Report RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and File Director's Hearing Summary Report MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Staff recommended that Item No. 2 be continued to September 17, 2008. 2 CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 6, 2008 MEETING: Planning Application Numbers PA08- 0008 and PA08-0083, a Commercial Development Plan to construct a 64,000 square foot, R:\MinutesPC\082008 four-story mixed use building and associated Sign Program, Cheryl KitzerowlMatt Peters, Case Planners RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adapt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER PA08-0008, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 66,075 SQUARE FOOT, FOUR- STORY BUILDING WITH HEIGHT INCREASE UP TO 66' 3" WITH PROPOSED USES TO INCLUDE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL AND OFFICES ON THE SECOND THROUGH FOURTH FLOORS AND PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER PA08- 0083, AN ASSOCIATED SIGN PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES A VERTICAL MARQUEE, DIRECTIONAL BLADE SIGNS, WALL/FRIEZE BUILDING SIGNS, AND WINDOW SIGNS FOR THE TRUAX BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MERCEDES AND SECOND STREETS (APNS 922- 043-012 AND 922-043-017} MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to Continue Item No. 2 to September 17, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. Planning Application Number PA08-0115, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan fora 30,519 square foot mixed use project RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION 08-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER PA08-0115, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WAREHOUSE AT CREEKSIDE, A 30,519 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE PROJECT (GROUND FLOOR RESTAURANT/ PARKING PLUS THREE STORIES RESIDENTIAL) INCLUDING 32 (19 LOW INCOME AND 13 MODERATE INCOME} RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT UNITS AND A 3,400 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE (APN 922-046-012) Case Planner Peters, by way of PowerPoint Presentation, highlighted the main components of staff's report: • Project Description • Location • Site Plan • Architecture • Elevations • Residential Components R:\MinutesPC\082008 In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query regarding the proposed Murrieta Creek Trail, Deputy Director of Public Works York relayed that area in question would will be purchased by Riverside County Flood Control; noting that the intention would be to provide a service and public trail along Murrieta Creek. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bill Dalton, the applicant, highlighted the main components of the project and provided the Planning Commission with some history with respect to the building; and thanked the City Council, Planning Department and the Redevelopment Agency for its efforts in moving this project forward. For Chairperson Telesio, Director of Redevelopment Meyer provided information with respect to income qualification requirements for the proposed units. Mr. Bernard Truax, representing Truax Development, offered support to Mr. Dalton's project. Mr. Gary Thornhill, relayed his full support of the proposed project and encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project as proposed. Mr. Ed Dool, Temecula, also expressed his approval of the proposed project. Mr. Walt Allen, Temecula, relayed his full support of the project. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation as proposed. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Referencing mobile signage, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that due to the Vehicle Code and its restrictions, mobile signage would be difficult to regulate, but would be happy to explore the regulations. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No reports at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 6:35 pm, Chairman Telesio formally adjourned to September 17, 2008 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. John Telesio Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\082008 3 ITEM 2 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: September 17, 2008 PREPARED BY: Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters, Case Planners PROJECT Planning Application Number PA08-0008, a Development Plan to SUMMARY: construct a 66,075 square foot, four-story building with height increase up to 66' 3" with proposed uses to include first floor retail and offices on the second through fourth floors and Planning Application No. PA08-0083, an associated Sign Program which includes a vertical marquee, directional blade signs, wall/frieze building signs, and window signs for the Truax Building located at the northwest corner of Mercedes and Second Streets (APNs 922- 043-012 and 922-043-017) RECOMMENDATION: Approve with Conditions CEQA: Categorically Exempt Section 15332, Class 32 In-fill Development Projects PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Martina Masarani, representing Walt Allen-on behalf of Bernie Truax General Plan Community Commercial (CC) Designation: Zoning Designation: SP-5, Old Town Specific Plan, Tourist Retail Core (TRC} Existing Conditions! Land Use: Site: North South East: West: Lot Area: Vacant Marine World Building Kids World PreschooVVacant Vacant Vacant Vacant ExistinglProposed Min/Max Allowable or Required 0.52 NIA for existing legal lots Total Floor ArealRatio: 64,874 SF/2.9 100°l0 lot coverage Building Height: Four stories/66 feet 3 Four stories/55 feet maximum inches (City Council may approve increases to building height) Parking RequiredlProvided: Nane None BACKGROUND SUIVIIVIARY On January 14, 2008, Ms. Martina Masarani, representing Walt Allen Architects, submitted Planning Application No. PA08-0008, a Development Plan to construct a 66,000 square foot building with retail commercial on the first floor, and office space on the second through fourth floors. On March 31, 2008, Ms. Martina Masarani, representing Walt Allen Architects, submitted Planning Application No. PA08-0083, a Sign Program for the proposed building. This item was previously scheduled for the August 6, 2008 and August 20, 2008 Planning Commission meetings, but was continued at the applicant's request to allow staff and the applicant additional time to clarify several Public Works Conditions relating to the construction of improvements. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, however the applicant does not accept several Public Works' Conditions of Approval regarding street improvement requirements. ANALYSIS Site Plan The project conforms to the development regulations of the Tourist Retail Core (TRC} zoning district in the Old Town Specific Plan in terms of lot area, lot dimensions, side and rear yard setbacks, and lot coverage. The proposed building is located at the northwest corner of Mercedes and Second Streets. The primary building entrance has been designed as a corner entry at Mercedes and Second Streets. Direct entrances to the ground floor retail are provided along the street. Pedestrian access and amenities are also proposed along the north (existing alley) and west elevations. A covered arcade is also provided along the north (alley) elevation. The Old Town Specific Plan (TRC zoning district) requires aten-foot front setback which can be reduced to zero feet if an eight-foot continuous arcade is provided. However, Footnote 3 of Table III-2 of the Specific Plan allows the Planning Director to reduce this setback if it is determined that a lesser distance will achieve the streetscape goals of the Specific Plan by providing a well defined street edge that is simple and uncluttered. Staff has determined that a reduced front setback far the proposed project is justified because the proposed building meets the intent of the setback regulations and policies of the Old Town Specific Plan by providing far an active street elevation. The project provides a zero setback along Mercedes and Second Streets. The retail business entrances are all recessed entrances enhanced by proposed awnings. Large retail display windows and landscape planters are provided along these street elevations to provide for an active and enhanced pedestrian experience. In addition, aten-foot sidewalk is provided along the street frontages within the public right-of-way, along with benches and additional landscaping. The existing alley will be improved with decorative pavers, landscaping and benches. These improvements add to the pedestrian amenities far the project. It is the City's intent to allow for these improvements within the alley by granting an encroachment permit. Should, at some time in the future, the alley be required for vehicular use, the property owner would be required to remove the pedestrian amenities and improve the alley as required by the Public Works Department. z The applicant has been conditioned {COA #PL-18) to obtain an easement from the adjacent property to the west in order to provide a minimum 15-foot driveway required to service the trash for the project. As proposed, the applicant will need an easement ranging from two feet to five feet. This easement will need to be in place prior to the City issuing a grading permit for the project. In the event that the easement is not attainable, the 15-foot driveway would need to be accommodated on the project site and the building footprint would be modified accordingly. The applicant is aware of this issue and has agreed to this condition. Architecture The architectural design of the building is consistent with the Classic Revival style identified in the Old Town Specific Plan (page IV-22) and faithfully replicates a building constructed in an urban commercial center at the turn of the century. The building is symmetrically arranged with monumental proportion. The propased elevations achieve a historic look and overarching design to create a prominent building in Old Town with strong character. The building will be concrete tilt-up construction with steel framing internal support. Dark wainscoting, contrasting rock face textures, frieze band, awnings, and display and spandrel glass provide far variations on the elevations. In addition, a large projecting cornice adds a dramatic cap to the building from the street level. As designed, the fourth story penthouse is setback as much as 28 feet from the street elevations. The proposed awnings, which are encouraged in the Specific Plan (pg. 1 V-29) along the first floor will project into the public right-of-way, and as such, an encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department. The proposed building has four stories and a height of 66' 3", where the Old Town Specific Plan allows three stories and 50 feet in the TRC zone. However, Section III.F.8 of the Specific Plan allows the City Council to approve increases to the building height limitations. Staff has determined that an increase to the height limitations for the proposed project is justified because the proposed building complies with the architecture and design guidelines and achieves the objectives, goals, and policies of the Old Town Specific Plan as relates to "protecting the street grid pattern," "screening mechanical equipment," and "providing mixed uses." The project will be conditioned {COA PL-13} that final approval of this Development Plan is contingent upon City Council approval of the proposed building height of 66 feet 3 inches and four stories. Landscaping Street trees are proposed along Mercedes and Second Streets. Planter boxes are propased along the building street elevations. Planter pots are proposed along the pedestrian walks at the north and west elevations. The project also proposes to provide benches for the public to sit, relax, and enjoy the Old Town experience along the north (alley), east (Mercedes) and south (Second Street) elevations. Sign Program A Sign Program has been processed concurrently with the Development Plan. The program calls for a vertical marquee sign at the corner of Second and Mercedes Streets to identify the building name (i.e. Truax Building}, FriezeM(all Mounted Signs just above the first floor retail shop windows and awnings (one sign per tenant except corner tenants allowed two), directional! blade signs, and tenant window signs. The propased 24-foot vertical marquee sign located above the second floor will project approximately five feet into the public right-of-way, and as such, an encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department. The wall mounted signs shall be 30-square foot maximum, and formed by individually cut letters. All 3 sizes, colors, materials, and finishes are consistent with the goals of the Old Town Specific Plan. OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD (OTLRB) The project was presented to the OTLRB on July 14, 2008. At this meeting, the Board expressed support for the project. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on July 26, 2008 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600-foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (CEQA Section 15332, Class 32 In-fill Development Projects}. FINDINGS Development Plan The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use policies for Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan and the Tourist Retail Core designation in the Old Town Specific Plan. The Genera! Plan has listed the proposed uses, including retail, professional office, and service-oriented businesses, as typical uses in the Community Commercial designation. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Sign Program The proposed signs enhance the development, and are in harmony with, and visually related to all of the signs included in the Sign Program. All of the signs shall be included in the Sign Program. This shall be accomplished by incorporating several common design elements such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type, or sign shape. All signage proposed for the Truax Building is included in the Sign Program. The Sign Program allows for a vertical marquee sign at the corner of Second and Mercedes Streets, Frieze/Vl/a11 4 Mounted Signs just above the first floor retail shop windows and awnings, direcfionaUblade signs, and tenant window signs. The sign types provide for visual interest and an upscale theme. The proposed signs enhance the development, and are in harmony with and visually related to the buildings and/or the developments they identify by utilizing materials, color, or design motifs included in the building being identified. The proposed vertical marquee sign is consistent with the period architecture. The wall and window signage is carefully placed to promote the business while maintaining the building's architectural style. The proposed signs enhance the development and are in harmony with and visually related to surrounding development by not adversely affecting surrounding land uses or obscuring adjacent approved signs. The surrounding development wi11 not be adversely affected by the proposed signage. The proposed project is located in OId Town Specific Plan area. Allowing new signs would not adversely affect the surrounding development or neighborhoods, or obscure any adjacent approved signs. The Sign Program accommodates future revisions which may be required due to changes in building tenants. The Development Code allows revisions to Sign Programs either by completing a Minor or Major Modification application to the original Sign Program. New signage or a change in signage will be permitted administratively by the Planning Department. The proposed program satisfies the intent of the sign criteria in the Development Code, except that flexibility is allowed with regards to sign area, number, location, and height. The proposed Sign Program is consistent with the sign standards listed in the Old Town Specific Plan while satisfying the applicants request in sign variation in sizes, colors, and styles. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Plan Reductions Sign Program PC Resolution Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval Draft CC Resolution Public Correspondence Notice of Public Hearing /' ~~5~ \~~~ORr~FR~s F- ~~ C7 r ~ ~ \ r m ~~~~ ~ ~ , ~` ~ ~` o , ~.p~~ O~~ ~ ~ f ~~ ~~ ~ ProjectSite ,, ~, ,, ~ ~ ,,,. ~,~ ~,~ ~ ~~~~~o ~~ 5~ / ~o o % ~~o o~aA Tod ~n / ~. tiT sT 5~ ' '~~¢~~ ,, \\ ~, N ~ S~Nr~~c F,Rg~i S~ ~R4 0 35 70 140 210 280 ~ ~ - ~. Feet -- ` _. _ ~ ~ .~ C7 z A a ~-rry ~ -~~' H W x H Z W a O a W W Q H ~ ~~ ~~ .~.._. ~~~ ~~ ry~ W ~. ~ C :_,_, ~ ~~ cN ~a 6' H U W ti 0 x a r k ')~ c a 11'C ~`z_ 3 x 3 J y H a t. ~ , ' l ~ ~., t_ l_ l 1. ~- l-- l_ l l _ L_ L ~_ ~ ~- ~ ~ I, ~ ~ ~, I ,, . 1 H a w U z 0 U w v1 1 ~_ ~ ~ ~_ l l l L t ~ ~ l i l t( (( l l C ~i Z F"~ w W 0 F L F /. f E C U ~.. ,. ~. ~_ ~ l l ( ~ t l l ( L t l L ( ~ .~ t 1, l_ l l l t l ( ( ( ( l l ( l ( l l l l ~i tea" tl i ~'~ ~31 ~ " ~ .~~ _ _ a ~ o ii ~a1~aM v~v ~~a~~v Pik a 6uip~mg xenal ayl = ~ ~ ~ r ,~,~_ ~ ~-~ eg k \ ( i~ ^ ~ (~ a ~«t°~ ii ~k ~ ~j" '~ @ 8x gpY~ 8~ ~ F ~ i; l I~ ~ ~ ' ~C ~ ~ ae aaa ~. 1 : Cg~~,,~ ,~ Il ~~ ~~ r~.~~~ S aan eaaa ~ ~. ^3i + 'a 4 ~ ~'~'~~ '~itr i & @ @ ff SR \ r ~ i: U'r y III - ( ~ ~~~~ F~~ y $ ~ ~£ a~R~~~k~ ~ ~"~~ ~ ~ S i ~ 3 t~ ~ ~ S a d~s~ecs sesa £Sns 3p " p q Q $ „- ~ P ~ ~ / ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ 1~11 p p E ~ ~q y~, - ¢F6 yX 9~ e ~~ [ S ~ ~ ~ ~ I `~ ~ +~ v~ ~ ~ e y y @ S ~9p ~ gg . pgH ~Ex~ '~ x~ R g l S Y t ~ `,,., 3`lY i~, I ;~y ~ p e a s s § ~ g dk l"~~ 4$_ $Q- ef ~.~° ~ 8a ~ ~ 3 ~ ~+~., ~~ 1f~n ~ ,} :PFP~.. ~ ~ ~ ey 4 gas ~FBk fan $ A H 5 8 x 3~ ~ e E Y ~ I , ,~ ~ I~ ~ J ~~ W~ pg g fi ~ ~ ~ p d ~@ g ~s ~ ~ B€ ;8~ a°° * Sg ~ ~ 3~~ 9 `' + ? ~ ~~ K Ry y y f tg y g R~~e86~~ 3 d6~i6 ~6 ~Y iE [ Rips (bhp gg$~ ~6 i ~ ~E -~~ I ~ ~ ~.' ; ~ ~ C!f 413 ~~ , ~J ~ ~ 1~ i ~ ~ d x i' f `~1R9 xr<a ~~ W W ~ p fie' ~ qg ~€ 4 ~ fr4( i[yy. tl~ l~ii li r,,. B .~ bT 1 ~ 6f ~ ~~Y~ ~ AA A r e P g a _ v ¢# @@ '} .. 2 e 9 € "~ A s, ~~9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y R ~ _._~. ~ @psg gg ppqq E 3~ 5 ~~ ~f ~ ~i ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~8 ~k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' R ~'R 9 p 5 Sp8 $y jj'' p p R LY ` k° ~`di 4t@ g'Lp ~~P~c_n 8 A ~ ~~ d ~ y ~ ~ gu ~~ q ~ gY~gE'~~~ LoL $ ~ ~ pg p °9v ~'~ ~ ~~~ ~ d g ~ p ~ ~ Y F qq S ~ [[Cg, gYAA ~ ~4 ~~ &~Bg~ b~9 9 YC R + ° $ A$ ~ 3 Y P 8 S$ pq§, y ~ S'3~~ag~~F S3i3J ~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ug } r k 9 p~6~.~~~q~qd) 5> @Eygj ~9 ~p$gpP SS ~ k~}{{£~£ EY4 ~ PPS ~ 8 Pk ~ S4@b H C ~S § y. ~.y g g gg ~ % pp f ~Y3$~X 3~3$3~E 8~a38~ ~3k EE Y 3® ~ % gg d ~ y ~d Ah ~ ~ Y as99 { g ~~ §~ ~.p ag 3s ~q~~Ca, q3bQbF3§3~3 $ ~ `~ A ~' F Y PZ .."A 7 °i ~ 6 BF :. ( x nan a n E B3YV9P k [ 4 jS~ 4i ~ 6epav u4'. S 3 3 'S gd~ga ~$3 a Y~~p'$q: 'pp Q ~ k3k S3k~~~S°3~ 6 G 0g ~; ~S ~ ~ ~ o _ `a ~ea 6 ~ e ~'~ p Y~ ~ g ~°$ ~fl ~B ~~k ~ ~ ~ g~g § 4 ~ $ 3a@ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~$4 ~ ~~ a~k1~ F€e ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~=y~$oki~~~ k~ i d ? d t4 ~ a fr g E~ € ~ ~ € ~ ° y& g qy pp && gg gg ~ ~~~~~9~~~4~~i~~ ~~~~~~~d~~9~~8s~ ~e~~ ~ ~~~~~ ?~~~s~~6~S~ ~~~~~$~w~~ ~~~ r ~ ~ ® ~v d 9 ~s ~ ~~ ~ d3 d : ~~ ~ ~ ~ gg t ss aa qgq@§j{$ ~ ~g gg $ ga E g~ ~ ¢ 4g 6 g e ~ ~ 4$g g gE x x P ~ tp$~ ¢ ¢ ~ Ypg3E'~¢685 3eee ,4 ~n'~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~~~ i #~S ~~~~ is~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 6~~~~i~B ~ ~ pp pp 5 ~ ~ }~~. 5~ p$ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8? ~6 ~4 ~~ ~~ 7 ~ g~ld d ~33 3 d 3 s6 3s ? P s ~ s3 s 9 $s..d4ae ~a, ad P~ ~~ b O0 a~~ ~~~ ? ~ Y~ ~ W ~x ~ a $ ° n y { ~ 1~ g e~gg ~ ; y a ~ ~~, ~ ~ 'e °3 =a°:d ~, $~ `fig EAed ~~~~~, ~ o=m ~~v~~~~ ~~ 2c.g a I ~"y a ~e=o~ ~~ ~raxge ~ ~ ~m .-,.®-= a.°~ z '~~ ~~ n ~" ~'"s ~6 ~$"~ ;hg ~~la. `p@~Ras~~ ~~ o ~Q~~ W U~ Sg~ a~ 0 e ~ o ~= y U v q ~" ! € I! "` , „ ! x ~ n ~ 8 z ~%d ~( m ~_ i _ - ° °~ z z n L~ 0 JI ~{ . __ q _ 4 < ~--- ~-~~ rc~ g Y ! ~F II~IV E & ` I Q T a~ ~i I. I~ I I ~ I I I I,,' o n i-I ~ ~., ~.I I 61 I I a' 8 ykU s '~I ~ I c ~ T~ a~ ~~^~ Q J m I `m~ ~ B p. ~~ _ ~ `a5 n R P~ I '° -.w ~y5gn~ ~WO &,,I~~ L. I I a ~-,1 ~ 1..~ ~ r ~ e I. ! } Iff & RI 1 W ^ ~ --~~ ~I ~ e YY $..a u ¢ 4~ ~ I m y: _ i-OI LL ~ f a I I ~~ w I ~_ ;. l e I E 'S~ ~~ ~ I L ~I I _' I ` I" ° I °~~ i S ~ ,p I ~ ~b~ xx~a. I ~ I % ~4 I~ I ~g ,. I~ x I I g' q r ~~ c ~a f Pit I, °(`L ~,%~l ~ ~s'`'`''~$~ ~ lr~al i e t ! ,.. ,p, ,u~ " ~ _~ ~ ~~a.,,.i~~,F -_ ~ ,~ I r~ ~- 1 } ~' I~ ~~ , i i ~.~~ ~ i ~ I ~~ :1.. j 1 7 I I I ~ (-1 i I ` I' d I I ' I I I I i I I i t I I '! $~ ~4Y ~' Bd ~~ a ~' ersnr_x"' " ~_~ 4W-3H( ) >vua~ • 9NIVNV1d 531IDIBV NO1Ni1~3N ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ - -(431561 ni We5[[I~S41:W 295L4bJ Yl3tlbnv 3ave3a r3wuroo cem W3v+dlmos ro st:u O ~ y ~~ uozq ds a= o,~,ol loo ` ( 3NH1~31IH~21V13dtlJSONVI ~ N ~Z~ OT7 NMOl Q10133kllS ON003S aavn~o J ~ ~ n a v p a dnodo vdewvH~v ~ ~, ;- oNia~ina xvnei ~=3roNd i o p i ,.„~~ o W o z Q J d C7 z F Q U.. e _ e~° ~ ~ ~ ~ 2= i ;~ ~ ~ ~pz aK g ~s ~€ 75~ a Z xl Lk s~~ ~ Yr ~& ~ a J [~'. 'sl' M1~~ 3$ 3 Y' ~ 133F115 aNJZ w m w 0 U yy 00 °m8 ¢K wa ¢U 2~ S2 4~ C ~~3 $ ~ "I~ ~ o ~ ° Y ~ ? o _ 44 ~ ~ £ N '~-_ ' A 3 F F d ~ 2 ~ 4 ' m r l 3 .h c _ a y h e~18 ~I ~ ~i ~ ~ i ~ ~ a s e. ,4 s € x a ~ 3 ~ ~~~ zl ~ .W a '~ 1 ~ 4 E [ a $ 3 1 8~ w ~ $ ~~; Y N e, ~ .'s ~ ~ b ~ ~ yy a ~ ~ s ~ e '~' 4 & ~~ _a ._ _ __ _. & _. ~ ° '. 3~ I ~ 3 9E 5~ r a € 8 ~~ ~ : 8 O. o ., ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ 40 @ hL C¢iWW~~W LL'h>OWWJC ~WW ~U~(~j0 p~2 4 U>-~ W¢ KI-ti0 i OC¢ o13 ¢mmU f ~rcm0ow ~~~tl'6 ~ _ _B~O .~~~ ~~ ,~ a 6wp~m8 x2nal aul - ~ 9 f tlIV ~alld d aa$IBM {!~! wa Q ~ ~ ~ c~` t J r 8 n A I ~ V ~ ~ o O n ~ ~ j ~ 3 t Z y~{ ~ q y gg a $ p 5y ~ ~ C 4f~ R. $a tl9 $1 F~ $3~ ^ g ¢ _ ~ J ~ < aF N i` ~ ~ Z 4 ~('~ `'F Q +~ a ~ gg y 33 & ~g 4 ~$fs ~ 4 & d ~& ~ 3 } p~ ~~g p I z w _ _ _ ~ 5 z 83~~RCfj Sg~ ~S4 ~'~~54~ ~~ka a~ pal o~ p-,.,. $ $1 0 x~ y e m 4 ~ ~ ~ $ 8 &~f ~e ~ ~ 9 a ~~ ~ y°R„ ~ ~~ %~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ -___~ ~ ~ j z (eyF~ [p[e[ ~ yp~pq y3y$a E~3 $1{~ $a $ 5 ;{ 1} $aR ]T]yy s$9 ~ [$.(p' O~iSs }e°y3~ p w ~ ~ " u ~ a 4 <1~9 N~2 ~~@~~~~tle~6 ~a ~g8 %G 03 ci3'S :oYp ;~, AJ3 FW 02 F. ~ ~~ ~ IW- ® ... e s e _ o , r. , e n i ~ .S YJL1oF~ [Y to ~ ~p5° ¢ h v~ / I _-- _ -- _ _. -- -. / o /~ I phi k . -- _ -- ~ eo ~ - -~-°^^°' 1J IN150N0'J1S# /.. e A y.. my 0 "~~~ e ~. p .. ~~, 8g - ~:.'~ ~- ~ ^~ ~ _~ ~ ~ I 11 I 9 '.,(' j ~~ ~~ ~~ '' ~` I I ~ I ~ ~ oS I O T ~ J J/ I ~ t [Ue gg U ~ a@ ' ~ °>c~ s~~ ~ n I m I a ~ e ., a ~, .,., , . m ~ ~ ° ~p 8 ~ - = - ~, „~ ~ C~ ;~ I I ~ ,~, ~ o) gU ~ ~ I m ~ ~ @ ( ~ ~~ p z~g ~ '~ ~ u @ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 9 y sus a ~ li w ~ ~ ~ ! I ( ~ ~ ~~ € h ~ L ~ ~ V f ~ ~ I ~, .~ I ~, ~ ~ -i ,i ~~ .a,, -- -~-~-- - - -- ----- --- --- ----- --- -- ~~~N~s aN~xi ' _. C 7-III ~ ~ .__. _.. _,. _. _..___ .. _.___-- -,--___._ -:-' V\ { I I j 2~ jC ~ ~ h ~, I ~~~ ~''' f g ,~ ~ - - 8 ~ r VIV 'uaIIV Fi ~aAeM ~a,~ s i1$ a BWp~InB x2n.il ayl - ~- ~ ~ E `o. ~i w~ f- ~~ °w' ~~ ~' 3 ~J w h LL 2 5 n tt 0 0 LL amw .i ::. ~ N viv ~aIIV d aa31HM 33a i l~~a Guip~m8 xEn.l,j. a41 m # $ a ~ - i33als oNa -- W ~~ h W~ WI U W 3 El> _~_- i i i L----------------------------------------~- 2 O W VI 2 a 0 0 J LL VIV'ualld Fi~a318M }~~e 6Uip~mB xsnal ayl -~ ~~~ ¢t a 133211S ONZ ti W W N W W U W 3 ~~ ~z n '" ~ ( ~_ w 0 z z R K O O LL VIV 'usIIV 'FJ ~apaM ass Big, 6uip~m8 renal a41 1332I1S ONZ 41 W 0 lil U W 3 _r CV i Q ~I s` w w x r O LL 3 a ~~~ ~;~:g 9 r- "~ VIV 'uaI1V'd ~aIIBM iia36 PI. 8 1 41 ~: 4 Q g ¢ ¢V ~ § §~ §~ §~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 5 Si s t ~ g8 ~ ~ 9 s ~~ M~M~ ~~ ~~ 43 9~g p$p ~~ e~ E}~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $&~ g s ~ 8 9~ v$ ~p~ ~ ¢~ pS 5g 8t@a ~a ~~ ~a $ c3 pp~i €a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~s~~ k ~~ 4~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a ~# ~~ ~~ ~~ oooooa oaoo noooo~oo~~~ w Z N °z Q m m wwm ww ~~il '_"_ gy VIV '~alltl ~d ~a)IeM ~ ' Sill. PI. 8 1 ul ~E §p 9~ S` lea g ~~ ~ $ ~ ~~ e £ 5 &R ~ d S ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ 4 ~~ 4~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~a ~l ~~ ~~ ~$ 000000 0000©oooooaooo -~ 9 ~' N a i .: .~~®. a ,~~.,~`~~ s3s _ 9 v viv ~aIIV'F! ~a11BM ~ ~ 6wp~ing X2nal ayl - =- f f ~, °` a ~ , a 's ~W h u "a Waiter R. Allen o i c h i t e C t + a s s o c i a t e s SIGN PROGRAM for Truax Building located at 41915 2nd Street Old Town Temecula, CA prepared for The Truax Group and City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 June 13, 2008 !.~~ L~l~~l~ll\~/I~ ;~~ '~~~ ~ ;U~ Sign Program Truax Building, Old Town Temecula 1of10 Walter R. AIIen orc h~fect asscc ~c;t~s Table of Contents 1 DEFINITIONS 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 3 APPROVALS 4 PROHIBITED SIGNS 5 FRIEZE SIGNS 6 BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS (projecting) 7 DIRECTIONAL SIGNS (projecting) 8 WINDOW /DOOR LETTERING 9 INDIVIDUALLY CUT LETTER 10 SUITE ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION 1 1 SAMPLE FONTS EXHIBITS: APPROVED COLOR PALETTE SITE PLAN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Sign Program Truax Building, Old Town Temecula 2 of 10 1Nalter o i c h i t e c t iR.sA~~en CJ S O L i r e 1 e ~. This Sign Program has been prepared for the purpose of establishing and maintaining high standards of quality and aesthetics throughout and around the Truax Building. The Sign Program is intended to allow flexibility in signage to accommodate tenant needs and to maintain continuity within the building. It is important to establish this standard to ensure coordinated proportional exposure for all tenants. In the best interest of all tenants, the Owner has developed the following sign criteria to allow each tenant adequate room for creativity. Tenant shalt be responsible for the design, permitting, fabrication and installation of their individual business signs within the limits of this sign program. Conformance shall be strictly enforced. The property Owner of the tenant's expense shall remove any non-conforming signs. DEFINITIONS Frieze /Wall Mounted Sign -Single sided sign fastened directly to the surface of the building's lower frieze. Projecting Sign - A double-sided sign supported by a decorative metal bracket mounted to the surface of the building so that the sign hangs perpendicular to the face of the building. Window Lettering - Signage directly applied to the surface of a suite window in lieu of a fabricated sign. 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 2.1 All signs and their installation must comply with the Temecula Municipal Code Title 17.28 Sign Standards and California building codes, as well as with these criteria. The tenants' sign contractor shall obtain all permits required prior to fabrication. 2.2 The Owner maintains following signs: 2.1.1 Building Identification sign mounted on the building face. 2.1.2 Building/Suite addressed on building face, window or above door. The tenants maintain the following signs: 2.1.3 Tenant identification sign on the building's lower frieze. Sign Program Truax Building, Old Town Temecula 3 of 10 Walter R. Allen orC t~~tec t - ossoc~o?es 2.3 Acceptable signage on doors and windows is as follows: 2.3.1 Window lettering shall be permitted at the main public entrance to each business, consisting of business name, hours and emergency phone number. 2.3.2 Second and third story businesses may have one window sign with the business name only. 2.4 Colors on all signs shall be limited to four (4) and from the approved color palette attached. The sign color palette is based on the colors used through out the building and Sherwin Williams Preservation Palette as described in the Old Town Specific Plan. 2.4.1 Nationally recognized logos shall be allowed upon receiving a written approval from the Owner and the City of Temecula Planning Department prior to the installation. 2.4.2 Logos may include text only as a part of the image. See example. Individual text shall not be permitted. 2.5 Alt signs shall be kept in "like new" condition. On notice by the Owner, a Tenant shall be required to refurbish any sign, which does not qualify as being of the accepted standard. 2.6 Signs shall be free of all labels and manufacturer's advertising with the exception of code requirements. 2.7 No animated, flashing or audible signs, no exposed lamps, conduits, crossovers or control devices shall be permitted. 2.8 Upon removal of any sign by Tenant, any damage to the building surface shall be repaired by Tenant, or by the Owner at Tenant's cost. Sign Program Truax Building, Old Town Temecula 4 of 10 Walter R. Alien ~~c i,~tec 1 ossc~ ~r~~es 2.9 2.10 All signs shall be illuminated from an external source. Internally illuminated signs shall not be permitted. Retail signs on frieze at street level shall be illuminated by Insight's Compact-5 rotable luminaire housing constructed of an extruded aluminum. Exceptions to these criteria shall be perr the Owner and the Planning department. 3. APPROVALS the approval of 3.1 The design and construction of Tenant's exterior sign must receive written approval by Owner and a permit by the City of Temecula before fabrication. Owner approval shall be based on: 3.1.1 Conformity to the sign criteria established for the building, including fabrication and method of installation. 3.1.2 Harmony of the proposed sign with the design standards of the building. 3.2 The Owner has the specific right to refuse approval of any sign which does not conform to the specific criteria set forth herein or any design not in harmony with design standards of the building. To secure Owner approval, three (3) copies of the design drawings of the sign shall be submitted to the Owner or Owner's agent. The sign drawings must indicate an elevation drawing with the following information: 3.2.1 Type, style, color and size of all lettering. 3.2.2 The location of the sign in relation to store frontage. 3.2.3 Colors, finishes and types of materials. 3.2.4 Method of attachment to wall. 3.3 For approval, send three (3) copies of the complete sign package to the Owner or Owner's agent. Sign Program Truax Building, Old Town Temecula 5 of 10 Walter R. Allen p~ C li i tf~C t ~ OSSUt i~;~`FS 3.4 All signs shall be consistent with the Sign Program and have the proper permitting from the City of Temecula as required by the Temecula Municipal code prior to installation. 4. PROHIBITED SIGNS 4.1 Signs constituting a traffic hazard 4.2 Immoral or unlawful advertising 4.3 Animated, audible or moving signs 4.4 Off premise signs 4.5 Painted wall signs 4.6 Balloons, pennants and flags 4.7 Signs affixed to vehicles for the purpose of stationary advertisement 4.8 Freestanding freeway-oriented signs 4.9 Wall mounted or protruding signs above the 1St floor frieze. Building Identification projecting sign above the building main entry is permitted. 4.10 Awning signage shall not be permitted. 5. FRIEZE SIGNS (Exhibit A) 5.1 Frieze signs shall be located on all four (4) building's sides. The area designated for each sign is uniform for all tenants; 23' long x 2' tall, and the sign shalt be centered in this area. The sign size shall be thirty (30) square feet (max.) and formed by individually cut letters not exceeding twelve (12) feet in length. The lettering shall be centered with a minimum of 20" from the edge of the sign box horizontally and 4" vertically. Refer to Exhibit -Partial exterior elevations. 5.1.1 Nationally recognized logos shall be permitted within the sign envelop. The logo shall comply with Sections 2.4 of this program. 5.2 One sign per tenant shall be permitted with exceptions for the corner suites, where the Tenant shall be permitted one (1) sign per elevation. 5.2.1 Exception shall be granted if there is one (1) tenant per building elevation. The location and number of signs shall remain the same as indicated on the exterior elevations exhibit. The signage shall require review and approval by the Owner and Planning department. Sign Program Truax Building, Old Town Temecula 6 of 10 Waiter R. Alien OrChit~Ci ~ OS60~._ ~Uf FS 5.3 Sign styles: 5.3.1 Kiln dried, wood sandblasted 5.3.2 Hand carved wood or like material. Like materials shall be approved on a case by case basis, subject to approval by the Old Town Local Review Board and the Director of Planning 5.3.3 Hand painted on solid wood, not laminated (NO plywood). 5.3.4 Stamped metal to match building ornamental metal. 5.4 Alt lettering and signs shall be hand painted and/or antiqued in appearance. The color palette as described in Section 2.4. of this program. 6. BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN (projecting) 6.1 The Building Identification sign (Exhibit B) shall be located at the building corner facing Mercedes and 2nd Street. The sign dimension shall be 24' tall x 3' wide, total of seventy-two (72) square feet and mounted 48" above the top of the lower frieze cornice molding. 6.2.1 The font size shall be permitted up to 14". 6.2 The projection may encroach into the public right of way a maximum of three (3) feet subject to the approval of the director of Public Works and Director of Planning, and the Building officials. 6.3 The identification sign shall be double sided. And mounted to a decorative bracket either painted or rusticated. (Not real rust.) Bracket design, fabrication, approval and installation are the responsibilities of the Owner. 6.4 Style of projecting signs shall be stamped metal to match building ornamental metal, with hand painted lettering and artwork. All projecting signs shall be aged and/or antiqued in effects and appearance. 6.5 The color of the sign's background shall be Vista Paint no. 7293 and the font color shall be Dunn Edwards no. 6136. An additional two colors can be added from the approved color palette as described in Section 2.4. of this program. Sign Program Truax Building, Old Town Temecula 7 of 10 Waiter R. Allen U~:_ hi12C i ~ OSSOC iU,E `. 6.6 Projecting signs shall be only attached to buildings, not to poles or other signs. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS (projecting) 7.1 Directional signs are not permitted for tenant's advertisement 7.2 Directional frieze sign above the building entrance at Alley shall identify the Truax Building and its side entrance. The area designated for this sign is eight (8) feet long x two (2) feet tall. The letters shall be cast into the concrete frieze and shall become a permanent part of the building (Exhibit C). 7.3 Directional projecting sign to identify the Paseo walk and to direct the pedestrian to the Alley shall be placed at the building face at Paseo at approximately eleven (11) feet above the finish grade. The sign shall be three (3) feet long and two (2) feet tall (Exhibit D). 7.4 Directional projecting signs shall be no more than six (6) square feet and shall not extend more than four (4) feet from the wall surface. 7.5 Directional projecting signs shall have the same copy and only up to two (2) lines of copy. 7.6 Colors of the projecting signs shall be as described in Section 6.6 of this program. 8. WINDOW /DOOR LETTERING (Exhibit E) 8.1 Lettering on windows and doors shall not exceed 20% of total window/door assembly area for the first floor. Nationally recognized logos are permitted as described in Section 2.4. of this program. 8.2 Second and third floor window lettering shall not exceed 30% of total window assembly area. Nationally recognized logos are permitted as described in Section 2.4. of this program. 8.3 Window lettering shall be of period style as listed under Section 12, Fonts of the Sign Program. Sign Program Truax Building, Old Town Temecula 8 of 10 Water R. A~~en o~cr,~tE~~ci ~ ossoci~s±es 8.4 Window signage shall be hand painted or vinyl cut as stipulated below. Gold Leaf is recommended to enhance the lettering design. Vinyl cut signs and letters are permitted only in conjunction with Gold Leaf. Vinyl cut signage shall require review and approval by the Owner and Planning department. 8.5 Colors for window signage shall be as described in Section 2.4 of this program. 9. INDIVIDUALLY CUT LETTERS 9.1 Individually cut letters shall be kiln dried 2" thick wood sand blasted for aged effect or metal rusticated to match the building ornamental metal. 9.2 All letters shall be primed and painted, or sealed and stained. Letters shall be of a color that contrasts with the surface on which they are installed. The letters can have araised'/4" pin striped outer edge in a contrasting tone, similar color. Colors on individually cut letters shall be as described in Section 2.4 of this program. 9.2 Maximum character height is 10". 9.3 Signage formed by individually cut letters shall not exceed 12 feet in length. Sign Program Truax Building, Old Town Temecula 9 of 10 ...:::em Walter R. Allen OI G f1!1EC 1 + CJSSOc.iU1E5 10. SUITE ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION 10.1 The identification of each suite's address shall be displayed in b" high numbers /letters over the main entry doorway in the transom on ground level. 10.2 Letters shall match Dunn Edwards no. 6136 Terracotta Sand. 11 11.1 11.2 SAMPLE FONTS Fonts shall be of historic character and should be a simple serif font. Other fonts must be submitted to the Owner and Planning department for review and approval. Sample fonts: Century Schoolbook 01d Town. Front Street Bookstore Classic Garamond Old Town Front Street Bookstore Sign Program Truax Building, Old Town Temecula 10 of 10 iVIERCEDES ST. -------------------------------------~1 FRIEZE SIGN BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN DIRECTIONAL PROJECTING SIGN SITE PLAN N ~- u ~' v~ ~' ul r'-i L i ~~ o, ~~ ~© VP -8-1860 (SW2831) 2 VP-8-1858 (SW2829) VI' 7293 NIGHT i l~~ 61 ~6 TERRACOTTA SAND APPROVED COLOR PALETTE SOi.]~TH (Sf~COND STftI;L1') ~ENTIFI( ~()RT~~ (ALLEY) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EXHIBIT .EAST (MERCI~DES S'CI~EET) WEST (>>~sE,,o) St. } I 1 24'-2 I/2' / 23'-2 U2" / I~'-o' I'-8' 12'-0' I'-8' i ,~. r TENANT c FRIEZE SIGNS .~,. o^ S i ~; N ^o ~\ 0 0 BOTTOM OF rv~ ~ FRIEZE ~ ~ EXHIBIT A - TENANT WINDOW AND FRIEZE SIGNS WINDOW SIGNAGE EXHIBIT B - BUILDINGIDENTIFICATION SIGN 2'-O" 3'-0 ~ ~ RDOF FRIEZE SIGNAGE, 3RJ FAR. MAX, 30 SF AREA ON FRIEZE DESIGNATED FOR SIGNAGE DECORATIVE 2ND F~ R. FRIEZE WORK SUITE IDENTIFICATION FABRIC AWNING WINDOW SIGNAGE PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EXHIBIT 0 v b a ~ BOTTOM OF FRIEZE DIRECTORY FRIEZE SIGN CAST IN CONCRETE EXHIBIT D - DIRECTIONALPROJECTING SIGN AT PASEO EXHIBIT C - DIRECTIONAL SIGN ON FRIEZE o` o n~ m` EXHIBIT E - LETTERING ON GLASS EXHIBIT E - LETTERING ON GLASS AT BUILDING ENTRY AT ALLEY AT BUILDING ENTRY AT PASEO 0 _~ 4~ ry~ N IJ'!~ 8'-O'' i PC RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER PA08-8008, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 66,073 SQUARE FOOT, FOUR- STORY BUILDING WITH HEIGHT INCREASE UP TO 66' 3" WITH PROPOSED USES TO INCLUDE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL AND OFFICES ON THE SECOND THROUGH FOURTH FLOORS AND PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER PA08-0083, AN ASSOCIATED SIGN PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES A VERTICAL MARQUEE, DIRECTIONAL BLADE SIGNS, WALL/FRIEZE BUILDING SIGNS, AND WINDOW SIGNS FOR THE TRUAX BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MERCEDES AND SECOND STREETS (APNS 922-043-012 AND 922-043-017) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commissian of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 14, 2008, Ms. Martina Masarani, representing Walt Allen Architects, filed Planning Application Na. PA08-0008, a Development Plan Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. On March 31, 2008, Ms. Martina Masarani, representing Walt Allen Architects, filed Planning Application Na. PAO$-0083, Sign Program Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The Applications were processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. D. On July 14, 2008, the applications were reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board. E. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on September 17, 2008, 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. F. At the conclusion of the Commissian hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application Numbers PA08-0008 and PA08-0083, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Applications hereby finds, determines and declares that: Development Plan, Section 17.05.020E A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use policies for Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan and the Tourist Retail Core designation in the Old Town Specific Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed uses, including retail, professional ofl<ce, and service-oriented businesses, as typical uses in the Community Commercial designation. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Sign Program, Section 17.28.0806 A. The proposed signs enhance the development, and are in harmony with, and visually related to all of the signs included in the Sign Program. B. All of the signs shall be included in the Sign Program. This shall be accomplished by incorporating several common design elements such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type, or sign shape; Al! signage proposed for the Truax Building is included in the Sign Program. The Sign Program allows for a vertical marquee sign at the corner of Second and Mercedes Streets, Frieze/Wall Mounted Signs just above the first floor retail shop windows and awnings, directr""oral/blade signs, and tenant window signs. The sign types provide for visual interest and an upscale theme. C. The proposed signs enhance the development, and are in harmony with and visually related to the buildings and/or the developments they identify by utilizing materials, color, or design motifs included in the building being identified; The proposed vertical marquee sign is consistent with the period architecture. The wall and window signage is carefully placed to promote businesses while maintaining the building's architectural style. D. The proposed signs enhance the development and are in harmony with and visually related to surrounding development by not adversely affecting surrounding land uses or obscuring adjacent approved signs; The surrounding development will not be adversely affected by the proposed signage. The proposed project is located in Old Town Specific Plan area. Allowing new signs would not adversely affect the surrounding development or neighborhoods, or obscure any adjacent approved signs. E. The Sign Program accommodates future revisions which may be required due to changes in building tenants; The Development Code allows revisions to Sign Programs eitherby completing a Minor or Major Modification application to the original Sign Program. New signage or a change in signage will be permitted administratively bythe Planning Department. F. The proposed program satisfies the intent of the sign criteria in the Development Code, except that flexibility is allowed with regards to sign area, number, location, and height; The proposed Sign Program is consistent with the sign standards listed in the Old Town Speci~rc Plan while satisfying the applicant's request in sign variation in sizes, colors, and styles. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the fallowing environmental findings and determinations in cannectian with the approval of the Development Plan and Sign Program Applications: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (CEQA Section 15332, Class 32 In-fill Development}; 1. The project site is 0.52 acres located in Old Town (urban area}. The proposed building is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. No significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality will result from approving the project with the proposed Conditions of Approval. 2. The site has been previously disturbed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare ar threatened species. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application Nos. PA08-0008, a Development Plan to construct a 66,075 square foot, four-story building, and PA08-0083, a Sign Program for the proposed building located at the northwest corner of Mercedes and Second Streets in Old Town, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 17t" day of September 2008. John Telesio. Chairman ATTEST: 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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 08- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17t" day of September 2008, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA08-0008 Project Description: A Development Plan to construct a 66,075 square foot, four-story building with increased building height up to 66' 3" with proposed uses to include first floor retail and offices on the second through fourth floors Assessor's Parcel No. MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 922-043-012 and 922-043-017 Commercial OfficelRetail Commercial Service CommerciallOffice September 17, 2008 September 17, 2010 Within 48 Hours of the Approval of This Project PL-1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars {$64.00} for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Department 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}}. PL-2. The applicant shall review and sign the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an original signature to the Planning Department. General Requirements PL-3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall herebyagree 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 instrumentalitythereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and 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. PL-4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. PL-5. This approval shall be used within two 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 year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, ar the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. PL-6. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan. PL-7. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. PL-8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. PL-9. 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. PL-10. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Departmentfor permanentfiling two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved color and materials board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the color and materials board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. PL-11. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staff's prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. MATERIAL Concrete Limestone Veneer Concrete Panels signage Boxes Metal Clad Wood Windows COLOR Pebble - Rockface texture {building base) Tan - Rockface texture {1St floor band) Tan -Smooth texture (1 St floor) Tan Deep Brown Slate Blue, Clear Glass Metal Clad Cornice {Penthouse) Silver Stucco (Penthouse) Buff Concrete Cornice Buff Fabric Awnings Night on the Town PL-12. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. PL-13. Final approval of this development plan is contingent upon City Council approval of the proposed building height of 66 feet 3 inches and four stories. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) PL-14. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer{s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. PL-15. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. PL-16. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavationlconstruction of the site, archaeologicallcultural resources, ar any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at hislher sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessaryto allow the City to consult and/ar authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological! cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeologicallcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notifythe property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning." PL-17. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. PL-18. A 15-foot access drive to service the trash receptacles from Second Street shall be provided. If the proposed off-site easement is not granted prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the site plan shall be modified to accommodate full access on-site. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) PL-19. All downspouts shall be internalized. PL-20. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended bythese 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 plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. PL-21. The Landscaping and I rrigation Plans shall include a note stating that "Two landscape site inspections are required: One inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for final planting inspection." PL-22. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating that "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." PL-23. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan), and the locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the Tentative Map. PL-24. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractarwho shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. PL-25. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to-head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/ owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. PL-26. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide athree-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required bythe Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. PL-27. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, and hardscape) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. PL-28. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." PL-29. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on anine-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard nine-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. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit PL-30. An applicant shall submit a letter of substantial conformance, subject to field verification by the Planning Director or his/her designee. Said letter of substantial conformance shall be prepared bythe project designer and shall indicate that all plant materials and irrigation system components have been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape and irrigation plans. If a certificate of use and occupancy is not required for the project, such letter of substantial conformance shall be submitted priorto scheduling for the final inspection. PL-31. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipmentfrom view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping the covered mansard roof element or other screening reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. PL-32. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. PL-33. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed. PL-34. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. OUTSIDE AGENCIES PL-36. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 14, 2008, a copy of which is attached. PL-36. The applicant shall complywith the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated February 11, 2008, a copy of which is attached. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT General Conditionsllnformation B-1. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2007 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2007 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. B-2. Provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans. B-3. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. B-4. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Ordinance Number 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. B-5. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. B-6. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. B-7. Commercial and industrial project trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. B-8. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance Number 94-21, specifically Section G{1} of Riverside County Ordinance Number 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Mandaythrough Fridayfrom 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and Saturdayfrom 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays. B-9. The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees are subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Prior to Submitting for Plan Review B-10. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings. At Plan Review Submittal B-11. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review. B-12. Provide number and type of restroom fixtures, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2007 edition of the California Plumbing Code. B-13. Provide precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. B-14. Provide truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) B-15. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction B-16. Apre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector priorto the start of the building construction. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Conditionsllnformation CS-1. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as, regular solid waste containers. CS-2. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. CS-3. The applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. CS-4. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, landscaping, walls and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. CS-5. A 15 foot wide and 16 foot vertical clearance shall be provided from Second Street to the trash enclosure. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) CS-6. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. CS-7. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting, which ever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application, submit an approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the advanced energy fees. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements F-1. 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. F-2. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure fora 4-hour duration. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). F-3. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. A combination of on-site and off site 6" x 4" x 2-2 '/" outlets on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required {CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). F-4. 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 {CFC Chapter 5, Section 508.5). F-5. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.4). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) F-6. The developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. 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. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being metforthe on-site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 14, Section 1412 and Chapter 5, Section 501.3}. F-7. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. F-8. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted bythe installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy F-9. Hydrant locations shall be identified bythe installation of reflective markers (blue dots} per City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E. F-10. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial buildings shall have a minimum of 12-inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of 6- inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. (CFC Chapter 5, Section 505.1 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F-11. A "Knox-Box" shall be provided at the fire sprinkler riser room. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5, Section 506). F-12. 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. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable. POLICE DEPARTMENT General Requirements PD-1. Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding all buildings are kept at a height of no more than three feet or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery shall be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from breaking into the buildings utilizing lower level windows. PD-2. Applicant shall ensure all trees surrounding all building rooftops be kept at a distance to deter roof accessibility by"would-be burglars." Since trees also act as a natural ladder, the branches must be pruned to have asix-foot clearance from the buildings. PD-3. Berms shall not exceed three feet in height. PD-4. The placement of all landscaping shall be in compliance with guidelines from Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (OPTED}. PD-5. All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex shall be energy saving and minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting Ordinance, California Government Code 8565. PD-6. All exterior lighting to be in compliance with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655. PD-7. All exterior doors to have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above each door. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one-foot candle illumination at ground level, evenly dispersed. PD-8. All exterior night lighting shall be wall mount light fixtures to provide sufficient lighting during hours of darkness. PD-9. Applicant shall complywith the Governor's orderto address the power crisis. This order became effective March 18, 2001 calling for a substantial reduction from businesses to cut usage during non-business hours. The order, in part, states, "All California retail establishments, including, but not limited to, shopping centers, auto malls and dealerships, shall substantially reduce maximum outdoor lighting capability during non- business hours except as necessaryfar the health and safety of the public, employees or property." Failure to comply with this order following a warning bylaw enforcement officials shall be punishable as a misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $1000 in accordance with Section 8565 of the California Government Code. PD-10. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. PD-11. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings must be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being discovered. Report all such crimes to the Temecula Police 24- hourdispatch Center at {951} 696-HELP. PD-12. Upon completion of construction, the buildings shall have a monitored alarm system installed and monitored 24 hours a day by a designated private alarm company to notify the Temecula Police Department of any intrusion. All multi-tenant offices/suites (businesses located within a specific building shall have their own alarm system. This condition is not applicable if the business is opened 2417. PD-13. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange". PD-14. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the buildings shall be placed in a well- lit, highlyvisible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the buildings. PD-15. All disabled parking stalls an the premises shall be marked in accordance with Section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. PD-16. All retailing businesses shall contact the California Retailers Association for their booklet on the California Retail Theft Law at California Retailers Association, 1127 Eleventh Street, Suite 1030, Sacramento, CA 95814, {916) 443-1975. Penal Code 490.5 affords merchants the opportunity to recover their losses through a civil demand program. PD-17. Businesses desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the Crime Prevention and Plans Unit of the Temecula Police Department. PD-18. Employee training regarding retaillcredit card theft, citizens' arrest procedures, personal safety, business security, shoplifting or any other related crime prevention training procedures is also available through the Crime Prevention Unit. PD-19. Any business that serves or sells any type of alcoholic beverages will comply with all guidelines within the Business and Profession Codes and all other guidelines associated with the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. PD-20. Contact the Temecula Police Department for inspections and training for both employees and owners. This includes special events held at business locations where alcohol will be served for a fee and the event is open to the general public. PD-21. The Temecula Police Department affords all retailers the opportunity to participate in the "Inkless Ink Program." At a minimal cost of less that $40 for inkless inkpads, retailers can take a thumbprint of every customer using a personal check to pay for services. A decal is also posted on the front entry of the business advising customers of the "Inkless Ink Program" in use. If the business becomes a victim of check fraud, the Police Department will be able to track the suspect with the thumbprint. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements PW-1. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the developer at no costto 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. PW-2. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all 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. PW-3. 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. PW-4. All improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted an standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. PW-5. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent post-construction water quality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent non-permitted runoff from discharging off site or entering any storm drain system or receiving water. PW-6. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be accepted by the City prior to the initial grading plan check. The WQMP will be prepared by a registered civil engineer and include site design Best Management Practices, (BMPs) source controls, and treatment mechanisms. PW-7. Project improvements shall be coordinated with City of Temecula project number PW 06-07. PW-8. Conditions of Approval are based on the Site Plan dated June 10, 2008 and the conceptual grading plan dated June 5, 2008. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(sj PW-9. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the commencement of grading. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect the site (public and private) and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. PW-10. The developer shall post securityand 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 in accordance with Grading Ordinance Section 18.24.120. PW-11. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soil conditions of the site, and provide recommendations forthe construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. PW-12. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction. PW-13. 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. PW-14. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control. PW-15. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be available at the site throughout the duration of construction activities. PW-16. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Planning Department, or other affected agencies. PW-17. 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. PW-18. 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. PW-19. The developer shall obtain letters of easements for any off site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters shall be in format as directed by the Department of Public Works. PW-20. The developer shall record a fifteen (15) foot wide access easement with the southwesterly adjacent property to provide for trash and delivery services. PW-21. 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. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) PW-22. Improvement plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5°~ minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00°!o minimum overA.C. paving. Driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Number 207A. c. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Number 800. d. Concrete sidewalk and ramp shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standards 401 and 402. e. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries. f. All street and driveway center line intersections shall be at 90 degrees. g. Public street improvement plans shall include plans and profiles showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. h. 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. PW-23. The developer shall construct all public improvements outlined in these conditions to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. PW-24. Improve Mercedes Street (Local Street Standards for Old Town - 60' RlW) to include installation of half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, colored rolled curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer}. PW-25. Improve Second Street (Local Road Standards for Old Town - 60' RI1N) to include installation of half width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, colored rolled curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). PW-26. Improve the 20 (twenty) foot alley along the northwesterly boundary to include installation of full-width improvements or as directed by the Director of Planning. PW-27. An encroachment permit will be required for any street furniture within the 20 (foot) a I ley. PW-28. Loading/unloading parking zones shall be provided for the project. These may be provided along the project frontage or within the alley along the northwesterly boundary; and are subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works and the Public and Traffic Safety Commission. PW-29. Any accessory building structure and/or fixtures within the public right-of-way requires approval by the Director of Public Works and issuance of an encroachment permit. PW-30. The developer shall improve a fifteen {15) foot wide access easement with the southwesterly adjacent property to provide for trash and delivery services. PW-31. Dedication of right-of-way for a modified corner property line cut-off per City of Temecula Standard No. 603A. PW-32. All street improvement designs shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections. PW-33. The developer shall construct all public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works including street improvements, which may include, but not limited to, pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drive approach, streetlights, sewer and domestic water systems, under grounding of proposed and existing utility distribution lines, and storm drain facilities. PW-34. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered civil ortraffic engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. PW-35. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantiallyconstructed inaccordance 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. PW-36. 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. PW-37. 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 Certificate of Occupancy PW-3$. The project shall demonstrate the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for immediate implementation. PW-39. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works the developer shall receive written clearance from Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, or other affected agencies. PW-40. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. PW-41. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. PW-42. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. CO~.~iTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF F AGENCY HEALTH ~ ~ $ zoos City of Temecula Planning Department c/o Cheryl Kitzerow /Matt Peters PO BOX 9033 Temecula, CA 92589A033 14 March 2008 RE: PA08-0008 The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has received and reviewed the PA08- 0008 for a Commercial Development Plan to construct a 64,000 squaze foot; 4-story mixed use building located at the northwest corner of 2nd Street and Mercedes Street (Pre-App PR07-0003). Uses proposed include 1 S` floor retail and offices on the 2~ thru 4~' floors, under the applicant: Walt Allen Architect APN 922-040-012 should request water and sewer availability letters for customer use from the purveyors. Food vending or restaurant use of any portion of the building shall require food plan check compliance by the County of Riverside DEH. Please call Bonnie Dierking, Supervising RES at 951.461.0284 within 24 hours of the City's receipt fax of these conditions. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 951.600.6180 Sincerely, /~/~~i/ Gregor Dellenbach, REHS EHS080409 Lora( Enforcement Agency Y,6. 5 ..? ~0 Ziv-_ ., i~. Cif 920, L80 (5~1, 9~. c.~2. ~ 1. 9S 178:-9653 ~ 4C3D Lemon Sheet 9th. Floo F i iers.~c'e; CA 92~~i Land Use and L{pater F.nylneering ^ p'+. .,_. 1L06. Ri -?ide. CA 9L ~~ i?p6 • 9~ ~.,c-t 98C = F3X 'H51~ 955-8903. 4080 Lemon S ree~, Zad ~o. • F;ivee~ide- CA 92501 ~'*n~~ Februazy11,2008 02-12-2008 iY~i1YLY Cheryl I{itzerow, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department Board oCDisectora Post Office Box 9033 NiBimn E. Plummer Temecula, CA 92589-9033 President Ralph B. Deily SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY Sr. Vice President Stephev J. Corova TRUAX BUILDING BevRDruhe LOTS NO. 11 THROUGH NO. 16 OF BLOCK 18; MAP ua. D. Berman BOOK 15/726; APN 922-043-012 AND APN 922-043-017 Jnhv E. Hoagland [WALT ALLEN ARCHITECT) Iaureece M. I.ibeu Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the olBcera: boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and fronts an existing Bran d. Brady c ' M 24-inch diameter water pipeline within Mercedes Street and Second Stteet (1305 `"`r° a°'g`r Philli 4 F Pressure Zone). Water service to the project would be available upon the p orbes Assistant General Manager/ com letion of financial arran ements between RC WD and the property owner. P g chierF;nanu~ o~Brer dnhv G. o'°°°°"' Aasutent Ceveral Manager/ If new water facilities are re uired for water service fire protecflon or other tl , Evgineeringk Operations purposes, the customer will-need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Perry R ceark Di f Pl Please note that separate water meters aze required .for landscape irri ation recWr o annivg g . Jeffrey D. Armstrong Confrouer Irl addition, water availability is contingent upon the pro ert owner si ni Ke16RGaroia Di t i `B " ~ ~ p y g ng an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any to RCWD a r c ecre ' ' c Dfiehcel cnw tt , . Sanitary sewer service to the subject project, if available, would be rovided b P Y . e BeatBesf&EriegerLLP Eastern Municipal Water District. General Couva l If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact an Engineering 5ert%ces Representative aYthis offlce at (95i) 296-6900.. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ~.. Corey F. Wallace, P.E. Development Engineering Manager cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor 08\CW:at01 TFEG - v.a rvarer mmncc 42335 Winchester Road Yost Office BOx 901] Temecula, California 92589-9019 (951)296b900 • FAX (951)296-6860 ' www ranchowater com RESOLUTION NO.08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A HEIGHT INCREASE OF ONE-STORY FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER PA08-0008, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MERCEDES AND SECOND STREETS {APNS 922-043- 012 AND 922-043-017) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 14, 2008, Ms. Martina Masarani, representing Walt Allen Architects, filed Planning Application No. PA08-0081, Development Plan Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. D. On July 14, 2008, the application was reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board. E. On September 17, 2008 the Planning Commission considered the Applications at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and other interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify in either support or opposition to this matter. F. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. G. The City Council considered the request for a height increase to sixty-six feet three inches and four stories on October 14, 2008, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. H. The Council approved the height increase after finding that the project conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , 2008. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIQE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 08- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk 1~'.r. &~Mis. Joc H. Ismb ~¢ ~i~ 53~SL'asta Way ' Hemel, CA 92543'' A~r~ ~ 9 ~ ,~~ Issues from the Private Sector/ neighborhood point of view: • Lack of adequate parking for 150+ cars/ rentable space vs. city parking. • Zero lot-line building makes the structure have no landscaping/ open area. • No stop signs on the intersections of Mercedes & Second. • Parking & Safety issues by not having the parking "bollard/ radius/ bulb". • Limited View Corridor & Shadow Effects on Natural Light. • The Paseo Feature is desirable for the business synergistic element. Issues from the Public Sector/ for the City of Temecula: 1. Total lack of parking adequate for build-out @ density 250,OOp sq. ft. /block. Note: Underground or cantilevered parking for 64,847 square feet on 6 city lots. 2. Recessed/ Tiered/ Set Backs/ per each level of building: monolithic structure; the view corridors; shadow effects, etc. 3. Future Entitlements for other property owners (will they be compromised?) 4. Equal opportunities for neighborhood to "free parking" by City of Temecula. 5. Maybe the City of Temecula should build 3 more parking structures in Old Town. 6. All employees should have parking as part of their own business model. 7. Public Sector (City) should provide "free parking" to encourage business activities. 8. Does the lack of any parking by developers mean there is no handicapped parking as state in Title 24? 9. Should the public-at-large be subjected to discriminations by the City of Temecula for density issues, entitlement processes, or any parking issues that may now exist or imthe future? . 10. Parks & Open Spaces for: enjoyment, health; fresh air; lunch breaks; etc. 11.Affordable Housing. in the most"expensive land in the Temecula Valley MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: ~,N DATE: ~~UU SUBJECT: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works September 10, 2008 Response to Modification Requests to Public Works Conditions / Planning Application PA 08-0008, Truax Building I am providing the following comments in response to Mr. Truax's letter dated September 5, 2008 regarding our Public Works conditions of approval. The proposed Truax Building is a multistory structure proposed in Old Town at the northwest corner of Mercedes Street and Second Street. The applicant has completed the design of their building and it is located within the ten foot building set-back and directly adjacent to the City street right-of-way. This design approach creates challenges by eliminating the ability to accommodate grade changes along the street right-of-way. With a "set-back design" grade changes can easily be transi[ioned between the back of the sidewalk to the building. This project's design approach and the natural street cross-fall have resulted in an undesirable building threshold. The applicant intends to improve his entrance by modifying the public sidewalk area. Their solution is to install a corner choker bulb that they believe will provide more area for them to soften the abrupt grade transitions. Public Works has reviewed Mr. Truax's letter point by point. This memorandum is intended to provide the Planning Commission with our Public Works Department position. I will be prepared to respond in more detail and respond to questions regazding the letter at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Truax has made three main requests (summarized at the end of his letter) 1) Allow modification of our City standard curb return to allow a choker bulb similaz to those along portions of Old Town Front Street, 2) Vacate the dedicated alley (adjacent to the north project limits), 3) Allow additional choker bulbs at alleys on both Mercedes Street and Second Street. Response 1) Choker Bulb The Mercedes Street and Second Street intersection was designed by a professional civil engineer, reviewed by City engineers, approved by City Council, and is being constructed. This intersection design complies with City Standard Drawing 602 and Caltrans design criteria. Choker bulbs have not been pursued along Mercedes Street with other recent private projects and they were only considered at the Main Street Plaza where heavier pedestrian use is expected. When the applicant requested a choker bulb on Mercedes and Second Street our engineers could not support the request primarily because Mercedes Street and Second Street will serve as a local circulation route and large vehicles turning right from Mercedes Street to Second Street cannot maneuver the [urn without their rear wheels sweeping over the sidewalk or their vehicle entering opposing traffic lanes. Adding further concern is the fact that the curbs and gutters are rolled not vertical. Many large vehicles may not be aware when their rear tires begin to cross the sidewalk. Considering all of the features of this location, it is my opinion that any perceived or real benefits of using a choker bulb is outweighed by the risk of pedestrians being hit while standing on the sidewalk where they have the expectation that they are in a safe location. On Old Town Front Street large vehicles have the choice to turn right or continue straight using other routes. When the Old Town Streetscape project was completed in 1998 the City was confronted with complaints that even school buses could not maneuver right turns to or from Old Town Front Street at Main Street. The school buses would become stuck and had to wait for opposing traffic to backup to allow the school buses to make their full turn. The City and schools were able to reestablish the bus routes to avoid right toms. On Mercedes Street and Second Street drivers do not have the option to reroute or choose to avoid the turn. Response 2) Vacate the alley The Public Works Department does not have a firm position whether the north alley is vacated or remains a public alley. The alley was dedicated and is under the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, unless vacated, the Public Works Department has conditioned the alley be improved with the development as required by our Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan. We have added language that the condition is satisfied if the decision is to vacate the alley. A street vacation is a separate process from the Site Plan Approval and we cannot predetermine the outcome of the public hearing. No formal decision or actions have been made to determine whether this alley is to remain. Response 3) Allow additional choker bulbs at the alleys on Mercedes Street and Second Street Placing additional choker bulbs on an alley would require careful review as they could create confusion or be misinterpreted as mid-block crossings which the Ci[y does not support. All street design approaches must be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department [o ensure proper applications of engineering judgment. Summary While [he applicant desires to change design components within the public right-of-way and we understand that they have opinions and rational to support their views, it is ultimately our responsibility to ensure that the public right-of-way is constructed and managed in accordance with sound professional engineering judgment. The Old Town Streetscape project did not result in a mandate to use choker bulbs throughout Old Town; however the Streetscape project did demonstrate that buses, trucks, and emergency vehicles cannot maneuver the choker bulbs without mounting the sidewalk or entering opposing traffic. The applicant and his representatives have made numerous attempts to change the public road design to fix their grade issues. If the applicant presents modifications that can help their entrance without compromising the public right-of-way, we will be happy to consider them. All of the Public Works conditions are consistent with city standards and practices and are consistent with the orderly development of the City's street system. I highly recommend that the Public Works conditions remain as submitted. 9 TRUAX DEVELOPMENT September 5, 2008 Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92591 Subject: PA08-0008, Truax Building Dear Chairman Chiniaeff and Members of the Commission: As you know, we requested a continuance of our project from the August 20th Planning Commission meeting to the September 17th meeting. The purpose of the continuance was to allow us additional time to outline our objections to some proposed Public Works conditions of approval relating to right-of--way improvements fronting our proposed. project. We have had numerous meetings with Public Works and management staff try and resolve our differences, but have not been successful in getting staff to support our position on nearly every issue of concern. The first issue relates to the frontage improvements at the corner of Mercedes and 2nd Streets. The standard Public Works conditions relating to these improvements creates, in our opinion, substantial hardships for our proposed project, applies inappropriate suburban development models to Old Town, and seriously degrades what we believe is the City's vision for Old Town. There are several conditions that result in the construction of a standard curb radius that is normally applied outside of Old Town without the bulbs (or chokers) that were constructed during the streetscape improvements project completed by the city over ten years ago. This demonstration project, in our opinion, clearly established the expectations and the vision for a pedestrian oriented downtown that had its roots in the Old Town Specific Plan, a plan adopted by ordinance in 1994 by the City Council. However, over the past several years, none of the recently approved projects in Old Town have been conditioned to install the bulbs similar to'the ones that exist along,Front Street and portions of Main Street. It is our opinion that this is a movement in the wrong direction that needs to be rectified and the city should be requiring the bulbs on all new development (including city projects) consistent with the approved demonstration project, for the following reasons: • The bulbs at the corners are a proven and effective traffic calming technique, and we believe that they have probably saved lives and prevented many injuries since they were installed. • The bulbs provide significantly greater site clearance at the comers for pedestrians, reduce the distance and time to safely cross the street, clearly delineate parking areas for vehicles, prevent parking at the corners, and greatly enhance the pedestrian experience in Old Town. • The bulbs make it significantly easier to comply with ADA requirements because of the additional sidewalk area extending further into the right-of--way. • Large trucks are discouraged from operating in Old Town under the Old Town Specific Plan requirements (Section 2). This section contains policies that require the redirection of large trucks away from Old Town and recommends the consideration of weight limits on the streets for large vehicles. Conversely, the standard 35 foot radius without the bulbs, in our opinion, creates a number of issues and does not adequately protect pedestrians to the same extent that the bulbs do. Other than providing for a slightly greater turning radius and possibly better protection for pedestrians standing at the corners, the proposed standard curb results in the following conditions at this location: • Faster vehicle speeds through the intersection, thus placing pedestrians crossing at these locations at greater risk: • Poor sightline and increased crossing distances for pedestrians, making it more hazardous when crossing the street. As it specifically relates to this project, the elevation difference between the street and the elevations of the front of the building, combined with the unrestricted turning movements, creates a potentially hazardous condition for pedestrians crossing from the north side of the street to the south. side, particularly when the property to the south is developed. Sight clearance will also be adversely impacted by future vehicles parking along Mercedes Street, and traffic turning movements will not be restricted by stop signs or lights. Thus, in our opinion, pedestrians will be placed at even greater risk of being hit at this location. Mercedes Street will have a completely different look than Front and Main Streets; the streetscape appears to be inferior in quality and may, in fact, reduce property values along Mercedes Street. Even with the 35 foot radius, very large trucks still cannot make turns without crossing into the oncoming lane. • The elevation difference between Mercedes and the proposed building also makes ADA compliance nearly impossible to achieve and will be very costly for the applicant to make compliant. The bulbs, on the other hand, provide for a longer distance of travel, which reduces the angle of the slope. and better: allows the applicant o meet the 2% slope for ADA compliance. • Under the standard curb scenario, the applicant will be required to dedicate up to 10 feet of additional right-of--way, which adversely impacts the design of the building and the quality of the streetscape. Consequently, it is our strong belief that the standard citywide Public Works radius requirement should not be installed as a condition of approval for this project. In our opinion, the imposition of the standard condition on this and other projects in Old Town creates a greater public safety issue for moving pedestrians than what we believe are the questionable benefits associated with improved truck turning movements. and the remote possibility that a standing pedestrian may be hit in a bulbed corner. It is further our belief that the current bulbs help create the existing safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian experience that the city has worked so hard and spent so much time and effort to achieve in Old Town. Therefore, we respectfully request relief from all conditions that require the standard 35 foot radius and would request that the applicant be conditioned to construct the same bulb condition that exists elsewhere along Front and Main Streets that was originally installed as part of the streetscape demonstration project. in addition,. the applicant will pay for all costs associated with the 35 foofradius with bulb design, even though the improvements for all other properties along Mercedes are being performed by the city at no costs to the owners. In addition to the aforementioned concerns, we also have issues with several other Public Works conditions, many of which relate specifically to this matter. These are: PW-7 -This condition requires compliance with the street improvements currently underway along Mercedes Street. This creates a condition that is inconsistent with existing streetscape improvements along Front and Main Streets and creates ADA challenges for the applicant. Applicant agrees to coordinate efforts with the city if he is permitted to construct the 35 foot curbs :with bulbs design. Recommendatiom belete condition PW-13 -This condition requires the applicant to deal with drainage upstream of his property. Shouldn't the city be ensuring that .the upstream drainage issues mesh with applicant's plans, not the other way around? Recommendation: Delete reference to "upstream." PW-23 -Why are General Plan standards being applied to Old Town? Recommendation: Amend condition to require applicant to build improvements consistent with the existing improvements along Front and Main Streets. PW-24 -The City should complete their improvements along Mercedes Street, but not burden the applicant with the responsibility of doing improvements that are currently being done by the City for all other properties along Mercedes Street. Recommendation: Delete this condition. PW-25 -Why is applicaht being required to improve an additional 12' of road improvements when the improvements already exist? Recommendation: Delete additional 12' requirement. PW-27 Applicant requests vacation of alley. If the alley is vacated as requested no encroachment permit is necessary: Recommendation: Allow the applicant to vacate the alley, consistent with portions of the alley previously vacated to the west of the project site; and, delete the condition. PW-28 -The loading zone is indicated on the site plan. Recommendation: Modify condition to require loading/unloading at location shown on site plan. PW-29 -The applicant feels that there seems to be reluctance on the part of the Public Works department to grant an encroachment pcrmif for awnings to paztially extend into the right-of--way: The Old Town Specific Plan cohtains specific provisions that allow for these encroachments. Recommendation: Modify the condition to require Public Works to grant an encroachment permit for the plans as submitted. PW-31 -This condition is linked to PW-7. Recommendation: This condition is only acceptable if the applicant is permitted to construct a 35 foot radius curbs with bulbs. To this end, the applicant believes that there is a reasonable compromise and a rather simple solution to nearly all the above referenced conflicts with Public Works conditions, and that is: allow the applicant to construct curbs with a 35 foot radius with a bulb at the corner. vacate the alley, and allow bulbs to be constructed at the vacated alley and Mercedes Street, and at the service entry on 2nd St This solution still provides for trucks to safely make turns at Mercedes and 2nd Streets. More importantly, it creates a safer, more comfortable pedestrian environment, restores the bulbs back into the Old'Town streetscape, and is more consistent with the Council's visiom for Old Town, the intent of the Old Town Specific Plan and the streetscape demonstration project. Lastly, it is our recommendation that the City amend the Old Town Specific Plan to require the 35 foot radius with bulb standard at all intersections in Old Town, with the exception of the existing streetscape demonstration project on Front and Main Streets. It is our opinion that this is a very reasonable compromise and, as we stated previously, resolves most of the issues between the applicant and the Public Works Department. Thank you for your careful consideration of these concerns. We look forwazd to discussing these matters with you at our public hearing on the 17th. Sincerely, `/ Bernard-Truax` ~ \ ;, ( u ,, Notice of Public Hearing 19sy ~ A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case Nos: Planning Application Numbers PA08-0008 and PA08-0083 Applicant: Ms. Martina Masarani,lNalt Allen Architects, on behalf of Bernie Truax Location: Northwest corner of Mercedes and Second Streets Proposal: A Development Plan, and associated Sign Program, to construct a 66,075 square foot, four- story building including proposed first floor retail and offices on the second through fourth floors Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be issued in compliance with CEQA (Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill Development). Case Planner: Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Date of Hearing: August 6, 2008 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or priorto, the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. ITEM 3 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: September 17, 2008 PREPARED BY: Betsy Lowrey, Case Planner APPLICANT NAME: Citywide PROJECT Long Range Planning Project Number LR08-0039, proposed SUMMARY: Development Code amendments amending zoning standards applicable to educational institutions and schools and amending the Temecula Municipal Code CEQA: Categorically Exempt Section 15061(b)(3) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve an Amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. BACKGROUND SUMMARY On March 19, 2008, the Planning Commission considered whether an amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code should be pursued by staff in order to remove the distinction in the Development Code that exists between zoning standards for public schools, which includes charter schools, and zoning standards for private schools (kindergarten through grade twelve). The Planning Commission determined that, from a land use perspective, there is no difference between public and private schools. There was also discussion that certain zones, such as Light Industrial and Highway Tourist, should not permit schools at all. Ultimately, the Planning Commission directed that the proposal be brought forward to City Council for consideration with the following recommendations: 1. That an amendment to the Development Code be considered to provide that all schools be processed and reviewed in the same manner (except Temecula Valley Unified School District, which is exempt). 2. That all schools require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (except Temecula Valley Unified School District, which is exempt), and not be permitted outright, so that the placement of schools and their relationship to surrounding uses, as well as CEQA impacts, can be analyzed on a case by case basis with each Conditional Use Permit application. On May 13, 2008, the City Council considered the March 19, 2008 Planning Commission recommendations. Several speakers attended the meeting, including Jennifer Cauzza and other representatives of Julian Charter School, who spoke in support of an amendment to the Development Code. Dave Gallaher representing Temecula Valley Unified School District {TVUSD) also spoke in support of a Development Code amendment so long as a CUP is required for all schools as recommended by the Planning Commission to ensure adequate analysis of the school impacts by the City (although TVUSD schools would be exempt since permits are obtained at the State level). Dave Gallaher recommended that the City involve TVUSD with incoming school CUP applications to allow TVUSD the opportunity to communicate and share ideas with potential new schools. He stated that TUUSD would not have control over approval of the CUP but would appreciate the opportunity for early communications between schools, particularly charter schools since it could even possibly result in TVUSD sponsoring the charter school. No speakers were opposed to the proposal. After Council discussion, a motion was made and approved to farm an Ad-Hoc Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Pro Tem Maryann Edwards and Councilmember Chuck Washington to advise staff regarding drafting an Ordinance applicable to the zoning standards of schools, including all private and public schools {and public charter schools), as well as colleges and universities. Staff met with the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on June 24, 2008 and presented an overview of the land use requirements mandated at the State level for schools, including traditional and charter public schools, private schools and public and private colleges and universities in order to clarify how schools are reviewed at the State level in comparison to a Conditional Use Permit review at the City level. Staff further presented to the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee a preliminary proposal for a Development Code amendment consistent with the Planning Commission's March 19, 2008 recommendation. The Ad-Hoc Subcommittee agreed that, as a policy, staff should distribute a copy of all future CUP submittals far schools to TVUSD, as well as to the California Department of Transportation-Aeronautics Division, the Airport Land Use Commission, and the California Department of Toxic Substances (in addition to other appropriate outside agencies) to ensure adequate outside agency review for school site proposals. Furthermore, the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee directed staff to draft an Ordinance that has the following provisions: 1. Kindergarten through Grade Twelve (K-12) public and private schools are processed and reviewed in the same manner and would require a Conditional Use Permit {CUP) (except Temecula Valley Unified School District may be exempt pursuant to State law). Furthermore, all colleges and universities (except State universities and community colleges exempt pursuant to State Law} shall also be required to process a Conditional Use Permit. A CUP will ensure that the placement of schools and their relationship to surrounding uses, as well as CEQA impacts, are analyzed on a case by case basis with each Conditional Use Permit application. 2. Allow K-12 public and private schools, and colleges and universities, to be located within all commercial Zoning Districts city-wide with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Ad-Hoc Subcommittee noted they would like the Planning Commission to further discuss at the public hearing for the proposed amendment whether there are specific Zoning Districts where schools should not be conditionally permitted (such as Light Industrial or Highway Tourist) for further consideration by the City Council to disallow schools in those particular zone{s). 3. Ensure that vocational and trade schools, such as cosmetology schools and other specialized vocations, would not be subject to the same process as K-12 schools and colleges and universities, since they are viewed more as a business than a conventional school. z ANALYSIS Staff is proposing amendments to the Development Code consistent with the directives of the Council and Ad-Hoc Subcommittee as outlined below: 1. Staff is proposing an amendment to the Development Code to ensure all Kindergarten through Grade Twelve (K-12) public and private schools are processed and reviewed in the same manner by utilizing the existing term "Educational Institution" as redefined to serve as reference for all K-12 schools (public and private) and also incorporates colleges and universities. The term Educational Institution removes any inference within the Development Code that distinguishes public schools from private schools. Furthermore staff is proposing that all Educational Institutions [except those exempt by State law] will be required to obtain approval of a Conditional Use Permit {to ensure that the placement of schools and their relationship to surrounding uses, as well as CEQA impacts, are analyzed on a case by case basis with each Conditional Use Permit application) by placing a "C" (for permitted by conditional use permit) within all rows where the Description of Use is "Educational institution" within all land use tables of Title 17 as follows: A. A "C" (for permitted by Conditional Use Permit) has been placed within all rows where the Description of Use is "Educational Institution" in Neighborhood Commercial {NC), Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Professional Office (PO), Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI). The Ad-Hoc Subcommittee requests that the Planning Commission discuss at the public hearing whether there are specific Zoning Districts where schools should not be conditionally permitted (such as Light Industrial or Highway Tourist) for further consideration by the City Council to disallow schools in those zone(s). B. A "C" (for permitted by Conditional Use Permit) has been placed within all rows where the Description of Use is "Educational Institution" in all Planned Development Overlay Districts, except if the Planned Development Overlay District prohibits schools (then it will remain prohibited). It is important to note that Linfield Planned Development Overlay-7 has been revised to require a Conditional Use Permit; however, Linfield has an approved Master Plan Conditional Use Permit for all of their school facilities and this amendment will not harm their entitlement nor preclude Linfield from modifying their existing and legal Conditional Use Permit. 2. Staff has defined the term "School, trade or vocational" and replaced all references to "Schools, business and professional" with "Schools, trade or vocational" to clarify the intent of the Development Code since the terms were used interchangeably and this clarifies its description. The land use permissions will remain the same. Staff has made a few minor clarifications to ensure uniformity throughout the Development Code consistent with these modifications. A redlined proposal of Development Code amendments is attached as Attachment "A." 3 LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on September 6, 2008. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIIIIINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be issued in compliance with CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 77 of the Temecula Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. Staff concluded that there is no possibility that the Code amendments may have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed Development Code Amendments are minor policy changes and clarifications to Title 77 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Staff has determined that the land use impact for a school does not change based on whether the school is public or private. Since private schools are permitted in certain Zoning Districts where public schools are not permitted and since public schools are permitted in certain Zoning Districts where private schools are not permitted, an Amendment is proposed to establish "Educational Institution" as the term for purposes of maintaining consistency between public and private schools in all zoning districts. Staff has further determined that all Educational Institutions, including kindergarten through grade twelve schools, and colleges and universities, shall be required to process a Conditional Use Permit which will require asite-specific review and CEQA analysis. The proposed Amendment will strengthen the City's ability to conduct a CEQA review for future Educational Institutions since certain Zoning Districts did not previously require a Conditional Use Permit analysis for Educational Institutions whereas the proposed amendment will require that no Educational Institution shall be permitted without analysis of a Conditional Use Permit, which requires asite-specific CEQA review for every application including colleges and universities where the City is the lead agency. These proposed amendments are minor clarifications of the Code and will ensure compliance with CEQA. As such, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 77 of the Temecula Municipal Code will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Municipal Code amendments in Long Range Planning Project No. LR08-0039, hereby makes the following additional findings as required by Section 17.01.040 ("Relationship to General Plan") of the Temecula Municipal Code. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Gode are allowed in the land use designations in which the uses are located, as shown on the land use map, or are described in the text of the General Plan, The proposed amendments to Title 77 of the Temecula Municipal Code are in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. The proposed amendments to Title 7 7 of the Temecula Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan and atl applicable provisions contained therein. ATTACHMENTS PC Resolution Exhibit A -Draft CC Ordinance Attachment "A" (a redlined proposal of Development Code amendments) March 19, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes May 13, 2008 City Council Staff Report and Minutes Notice of Public Hearing PC RESOLUTION N0.08- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ZONING STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOLS AND AMENDING THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On September 17, 2008, the Planning Commission identified a need to amend the adopted Municipal Code to add a new chapter to the Temecula Municipal Code regarding amending zoning standards applicable to educational institutions and schools and amending the Temecula Municipal Code {Long Range Planning Project Number LR08-0039). B. The Ordinance was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the application and environmental review an September 17, 2008, 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. D. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve Long Range Planning Project Number LR08-0039 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the application hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are allowed in the land use designations in which the uses are located, as shown on the land use map, or are described in the text of the General Plan. B. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. C. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are consistent with the general plan and all applicable provisions contained therein. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Ordinance No. 08- {amending zoning standards applicable to educational institutions and schools and amending the Temecula Municipal Code} is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act {"CEQA"} pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061 (b} {3} because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. Staff concluded that there is no possibility that the Code amendments may have a significant effect an the environment because the proposed Development Code Amendments are minor policy changes and clarifications to Title 17 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Staff has determined that the land use impact for a school does not change based on whether the school is public or private. Since private schools are permitted in certain Zoning Districts where public schools are not permitted and since public schools are permitted in certain Zoning Districts where private schools are not permitted, an Amendment is proposed to establish "Educational Institution" as the term for purposes of maintaining consistency between public and private schools in all zoning districts. Staff has further determined that all Educational Institutions, including kindergarten through grade twelve schools, and colleges and universities, shall be required to process a Conditional Use Permit which will require asite-specific review and CEQA analysis. The proposed Amendment will strengthen the City's ability to conduct a CEQA review for future Educational Institutions since certain Zoning Districts did not previously require a Conditional Use Permit analysis far Educational Institutions whereas the proposed amendment will require that no Educational Institution shall be permitted without analysis of a Conditional Use Permit, which requires asite-specific CEQA review for every application including colleges and universities where the City is the lead agency. These proposed amendments are minor clarifications of the Code and will ensure compliance with CEQA. As such, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission, therefore, recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula adopt a Notice of Exemption for the proposed ordinance. Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council approve Long Range Planning Project Number LR08-0039, a proposed Citywide Ordinance as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 17th day of September 2008. John Telesio, Chairman ATTEST: 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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 08- was duly and regularly adapted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of September 2008, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ZONING STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOLS AND AMENDING THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. B. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on September 17, 2008, to consider the proposed amendments at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to the matter. C. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-_ recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Cade. D. On ,the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing an the proposed amendments at which time all persons interested in the proposed amendments had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters, and following receipt of all public testimony closed the hearing. Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in approving the proposed Municipal Code amendments in Long Range Planning Project Number LR08-0039, hereby makes the following additional findings as required by Section 17.01.040 ~"Relationship to General Plan"} of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are allowed in the land use designations in which the uses are located, as shown on the land use map, or are described in the text of the General Plan. B. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. C. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan and all applicable provisions contained therein. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"} pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061 {b)(3} because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. Staff concluded that there is na possibility that the Code amendments may have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed Development Code Amendments are minor policy changes and clarifications to Title 17 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Staff has determined that the land use impact for a school does not change based on whether the school is public or private. Since private schools are permitted in certain Zoning Districts where public schools are not permitted and since public schools are permitted in certain Zoning Districts where private schools are not permitted, an Amendment is proposed to establish "Educational Institution" as the term for purposes of maintaining consistency between public and private schools in all zoning districts. Staff has further determined that all Educational Institutions, including kindergarten through grade twelve schools, and colleges and universities, shall be required to process a Conditional Use Permit which will require asite-specific review and CEQA analysis. The proposed Amendment will strengthen the City's ability to conduct a CEQA review for future Educational Institutions since certain Zoning Districts did not previously require a Conditional Use Permit analysis for Educational Institutions whereas the proposed amendment will require that no Educational Institution shall be permitted without analysis of a Conditional Use Permit, which requires asite-specific CEQA review for every application including colleges and universities where the City is the lead agency. These proposed amendments are minor clarifications of the Code and will ensure compliance with CEQA. As such, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.34.010.E by replacing the term "Educational institution" to read as follows: ""Educational institution" means a private or public kindergarten through grade twelve school, community college, or college or university to give general academic instruction." Section 5. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.34.010.S by adding the term "Trade or vocational school" to be inserted alphabetically to read as follows: "Schools, trade or vocational" means a commercial establishment limited to offering specialized instruction in technical, commercial or trade skills, including but not limited to cosmetology school, mechanical school, driving school, real estate or other specialized instruction. This definition does not include a community college or university." Section 6. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.12.030 by deleting the rows "colleges and universities", "schools, public {elementary, jr. high, high school}" and "Schools, private" in their entirety; deleting the word "{Reserved)" immediately after the subheading "E"; and adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "C" {far conditionally permitted} inserted into the Public/Institutional District {PI} column to read as follows: Table 17.12.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses-Publicllnstitutional Districts Description of Use Publicllnstitutional District (PI} E Educational institution C Section 7. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.08.030 by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses CommerciallOfficellndustrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Religious institution, without a day care P p P C P C C center or educational institution Section 8. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.08.030 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Officellndustrial Diistricts Descri tion of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Religious institution, with an educational C C C C C C - institution Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.08.030 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses CommerciallOfficellndustrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Religious institution, with a day care C C C C C C - center Section 10. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.08.030 by deleting the row "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12}" in its entirety. Section 11. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.08.030 by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "C" (for conditionally permitted} inserted into the NC, CC, HT, SC PO, BP and LI columns to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Officellndustrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI E Educational institution C C C C C C C Section 12. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.08.030 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Officellndustrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Schools, trade or vocational - P P P P P C Section 13. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.24.040 by replacing the rows "Elementary and junior high school", "High school" and "Trade school, business school, adult education" in their entirety with new rows to read respectively as follows: Table 17.24.040 Parking Spaces Required Description of Required Number of Spaces Use Educational Facilities Elementary and 1.5 spaceslclassroom, plus 1 space/5 fixed seats in junior high school auditorium, gymnasium or similar public assembly facility {35 {kindergarten SF = 5 fixed seats} through eighth rode High school {ninth 8 spaces/classroom through twelfth grade) Trade or vocational 2 spaces/3 people based on maximum number of students school and staff, or 1 spacel35 SF of instruction GFA Section 14. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.12.050.6.3 to read as follows: "3. The height limits of this section, with the exception of corner visibility areas, shall not apply to fences constructed on recreational facilities within educational institutional properties, public parks and recreation areas, or properties with jail or detention facilities." Section 15. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.10.020.A.1.b.v to read as follows: "v. All animals shall be kept a minimum distance of seventy feet from any adjacent residence, day care center or educational institution, hospital or church that is located on an adjacent property. This requirement applies to the location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures." Section 16. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.10.020.A.1.d to read as follows: "d. Apiary; provided, that all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least four hundred feet from any public streets or highways, day care center, educational institution, park, property line to a different ownership, or from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additionally, a water source shall be provided on-site." Section 17. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.10.020.6.3 to read as follows: "3. Businesses selling alcoholic beverages and requiring a conditional use permit shall not be located within five hundred feet of any religious or educational institution, day care center or public park. This distance shall be measured between the main entrance of the alcohol selling business and the closest public entrance to the religious or educational institution, day care center or public park. This requirement shall not apply when the alcohol-selling business and the religious or educational institution, day care center or public park are both located within commercial or industrial zones." Section 18. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.106 by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District -1 Description of Use PDO-1 Religious institution, without a day care center or educational C institution Section 19. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.106 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District -1 Description of Use PDO-1 Religious institution, with an educational institution C Section 20. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.106 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District -1 Descri tion of Use PDO-1 Religious institution, with a day care center C Section 21. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.106 by deleting the row "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12}" in its entirety. Section 22. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.106 by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and a dash "-" (for use prohibited in the district} inserted into the PDT-1 column to read as follows: Table 17.22.1Q6 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District -1 Description of Use PDO-1 E Educational institution - Section 23. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.106 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.1Q6 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District -1 Description of Use PDO-1 Schools, trade or vocational - Section 24. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.126 by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlav District - 3 Descri tion of Use PDO-3 Religious institution, without a day care center or educational C institution Section 25. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.126 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlav District - 3 Description of Use PDO-3 Religious institution, with an educational institution - Section 26. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.126 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay District - 3 Description of Use PDO-3 Religious institution, with a day care center - Section 27. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.126 by deleting the row "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12}" in its entirety. Section 28. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.126 by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "C" (for permitted by conditional use permit in the district) inserted into the PDO-3 column to read as follows: Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Develo ment Overla District - 3 Description of Use PDO-3 E Educational institution C Section 29. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.126 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay District - 3 Description of Use PDO-3 Schools, trade or vocational Section 30. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.1366 by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.1366 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Develo ment Overla District - 4 Description of Use PDO~R PDO~V Religious institution, without a day care center or educational C - institution Section 31. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.1366 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.1366 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Develoament Overlay District - 4 Description of Use PDO~R PDO~V° Religious institution, with an educational institution C - Section 32. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.1366 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.1366 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Develoament Overlay District - 4 Descri tion of Use PDO-4 PDO~V° Religious institution, with a day care center C - Section 33. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.1366 by deleting the row "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12}" in its entirety. Section 34. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.1366 by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and a dash "-"(for use prohibited in the district} inserted into the PDO-4 and PDO-4V columns to read as follows: Table 17.22.1366 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District - 4 Description of Use PDO-0~ PDO-0~V~ E Educational institution - - Section 35. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.1366 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.1366 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlav District - 4 Description of Use PDO-4 PDO~V° Schools, trade or vocational - - Section 36. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.1866 by deleting the specific rows "Schools, private", "Schools, public {elementary, jr. high, high school}" and "Colleges and universities" in their entirety. Section 37. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.1866 by deleting the word "{Reserved)" immediately after the subheading "E" and adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "C"{far permitted by conditional use permit in the district} inserted into the columns entitled Area 1A & B {EI}, Area 2 {ER) and Area 3 {PI} to read as follows: Table 17.22.1866 Schedule of Permitted Uses Linfield Christian School Planned Development Overlay District - 7 Description of Use Area Description of Use Area 1A rea 2 Area 3 & 1B (ER} (PI} (EI} E Educational institution C C C Section 38. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.1866 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 11.22.186B Schedule of Permitted Uses Linfield Christian School Planned Development Overlay District - 7 Descri tion of Use Area Description of Use Area 1A Area 2 Area 3 & 1B {ER} {PI) {EI} Schools, trade or vocational C C C Section 39. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.196 by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Raad Planned Development Overlay District - 8 Description of Use PDO-8 Religious institution, without a day care center or educational C institution Section 40. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.196 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Road Planned Development Overlav District - $ Description of Use PDO-8 Religious institution, with an educational institution - Section 41. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.196 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new raw to read as follows: Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Road Planned District - 8 Description of Use PDO-8 Religious institution, with a day care center - Section 42. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.196 by deleting the row "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12}" in its entirety. Section 43. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.196 by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and a dash "-" (for use is prohibited in the district) inserted into the PD(J-8 column to read as fallows: Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Road Planned Develo ment Overla District - 8 Description of Use PDO-8 E Educational institution - Section 44. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.196 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Raad Planned Development Overlay District - 8 Description of Use PDO-8 Schools, trade or vocational p Section 45. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.216{B} by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.21G(B) Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Development Overlay District - 10 Description of Use PDO-10 Religious institution, without a day care center or educational C institution Section 46. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.216(6) by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as fallows: Table 17.22.216(6) Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Development Overlay District - 10 Description of Use PDO-10 Religious institution, with an educational institution C Section 47. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.216(6} by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.216(6) Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Development Overlay District - 10 Description of Use PDO-10 Religious institution, with a day care center P Section 48. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.216{B} by deleting the specific rows "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12}", "Colleges and universities {private and public}", "Schools, business and professional", and "Trade and vocational schools" in their entirety. Section 49. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.216{B) by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "C" {far permitted by conditional use permit in the district} inserted into the PDO-10 column to read as follows: Table 17.22.216{B) Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Develo ment Overla District - 10 Description of Use PDO-10 E Educational institution C Section 50. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.216{B} by adding a new row beneath the subheading "S" to be inserted alphabetically with "Schools, trade or vocational" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "P" (for Permitted by right in the district} inserted into the PDO-10 column to read as follows: Table 17.22.216(B) Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Development Overlay District - 10 Description of Use PDO-10 Schools, trade or vocational p Section 51. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. Section 52. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , 2008. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA } I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. - was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , 200_, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adapted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held an the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk ATTACHMENT "A" Redlined Proposal of Development Code Amendments 17.34.010 Definitions and illustrations of terms. "Educational institution" means a private or public kindergarten through grade twelve school, community college or college or university to give general academic instruction. "School, Trade or vocational" means a commercial establishment limited to offering specialized instruction in technical, commercial or trade skills, including but not limited to cosmetology school, mechanical school, driving school, real estate or other specialized instruction. This definition does not include a community college or university. 17.12.030 Use regulations. Table 17.12.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses-Public/Institutional Districts Description of Use Public/Institutional District (PI) (Educational institution IC 17.12.050 Special use and development standards. B. Fences, Hedges and Walls. 3. The height limits of this section, with the exception of corner visibility areas, shall not apply to fences constructed on recreational facilities within educational institutional properties, public parks and recreation areas, or properties with jail or detention facilities. Legend: P =Permitted by right in the district C =Permitted by conditional use permit - =Use is prohibited in the district 17.08.030 Use regulations. Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Officellndustrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI E Educationallnstitution C C C C C C C R Religious institution, without a day care center ar educational institution P P P C P C C Religious institution, with an educational institutian C C C C C C - Religious institution, with a day care center C C C C C C - S Schools, trade and vocational - P P P P P C 17.24.040 Parking requirements Table 17.24.040 Parking Spaces Required Description of Use Required Number of Spaces Educational Facilities Elementary and junior high school (kindergarten 1.5 spaces/classroom, plus 1 through eighth grade) spacel5 fixed seats in auditorium, gymnasium or similar public assembly facility (35 SF = 5 fixed seats) High school (ninth through twelfth grade) 8 spaces/classroom Trade or vocational school 2 spaces/3 people based on maximum number of students and staff, or 1 space/35 SF of instruction GFA 17.10.020 Supplemental development standards. Legend: P =Permitted by right in the district C =Permitted by conditional use permit - =Use is prohibited in the district A. Agricultural Uses. 1. Permitted Uses. The following agricultural uses are permitted by right in all zones, except the hillside residential and open space/conservation. a. Farms of orchards, trees, field crops, truck gardening, flowering gardening, and other similar enterprises carried on in the general field of agriculture. b. Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding or training of large or small animals, except concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, are allowed on properties one-half net acre or larger in size subject to the following requirements: i. Large animals (cattle, horses and mules). Two animals per half- acre plus one additional animal for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the age of twelve-months are not counted. ii. Small animals (burros, goats, pigs, ponies, and sheep). Two animals per half-acre plus three additional animals for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the age of six-months are not counted. iii. Poultry. Limited to fifty poultry per acre. The minimum lot size for keeping poultry is one half-acre. For lots smaller than one acre, only twelve poultry are allowed. Poultry under the age of three-months are not counted. All poultry must be confined. The keeping of roasters is prohibited. iv. Outdoor Aviary. For lots larger than one acre, limited to fifty birds per acre. For lots smaller than one acre, limited to twenty-four birds. Birds under the age ofsix-months are not counted. All birds must be confined. v. All animals shall be kept a minimum distance of seventy feet from any adjacent residence, day care center or educational institution, hospital or church that is located on an adjacent property. This requirement applies to the location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures. c. In no event shall there be any limit to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per acre, where such grazing operation is conducted on fields for the purpose of cleaning up unharvested crops, stubble, volunteer or wild growth where such grazing operation is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six-month period. d. Apiary; provided, that all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least four hundred feet from any public streets or highways, day care center, educational institution ,park, property line to a different ownership, or from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additionally, a water source shall be provided on-site. 17.10.020 Supplemental development standards. Legend: P =Permitted by right in the district C =Permitted by conditional use permit - =Use is prohibited in the district B. Alcoholic Beverage Sales. 1. All businesses or establishments offering the sale of alcoholic beverages shall require the appropriate license from the state of California. 2. Grocery stores, drug stores and discount/department stores may offer the incidental sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an otherwise allowable use as a permitted use, unless such primary uses are otherwise conditionally permitted by another provision of this title. All other businesses or establishments offering the incidental sale of alcoholic beverages, in conjunction with an otherwise allowable use, shall also require a conditional use permit. Examples of these other businesses include: golf courses, bowling alleys, and other sports and recreation facilities. 3. Businesses selling alcoholic beverages and requiring a conditional use permit shall not be located within five hundred feet of any religious or educational institution, day care center or public park. This distance shall be measured between the main entrance of the alcohol selling business and the closest public entrance to the religious or educational institution, day care center or public park. This requirement shall not apply when the alcohol-selling business and the religious ar educational institution, day care center or public park are bath located within commercial ar industrial zones. Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District-1 Description of Use PDO-1 E Educational institution - R Religious institution, with a day care center C Religious institution, with an educational institution C Religious institution, without a day care center or educational institution C S Schools, trade or vocational - hnnl~ .,.n,~~ /Linrlpy~~te~1 +hr.,, ,,.h ,.r-,,,,, ~~~ ~TMa ~^a"' y"` ~T~Sn7 _ Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay Legend: P =Permitted by right in the district C =Permitted by conditional use permit - =Use is prohibited in the district District ~ Description of Use PDO-3 E Educational institution C R Religious institution, without a day care or educational institution C Religious institution, with an educational institution~~ate~^hoel - Religious institution, with a day care center - S Schools, trade or vocational P `C~hnnl~ nri«~~ (Lindp~~~rte~ ~-niinh f~r~r~n 'I '~~ rrvm ~r~vcr ~rCmcr"' ~`.`r ~'~vr~s~ Table 17.22.1366 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District-4 Description of Use PDO- 4R PDO- 41/~ E Educational institution - - R Religious institution, without a day care center or~r,~te~al educational institution C _ Religious institution, with an educational institution~e ssbeel C - Religious institution, with a day care center C - S Schools, trade or vocational - - Table 17.22.1866 Schedule of Permitted Uses Linfield Christian School Planned Development Overlay District-7 Description of Use Area Legend: P =Permitted by right in the district C =Permitted by conditional use permit - =Use is prohibited in the district Description of Use Area 1 A & 1B (EI} Area 2 (ER) Area 3 (PI} E Educational institution C C C C rn~~nn nc ~nr~ ~~nivn rc i~inc S Crhnnlc ni ihlir (n In mnnt~nr it hinh hinh T Schools, trade or vocational "~,~inn~~ ~~~' nrnfn ccin n~~ Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District-8 Description of Use PDO-8 E Educational institution - R Religious institution, without a day care center or~r„~rte~e~educational institution C Reli ious institution, with an educational institution - Religious institution, with a day care center - S Schools, trade or vocational "~ ~cinn cc ~nr-~ nrnfnccin nil p Table 17.22.216(B} Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Development Overlay District-10 Legend: P =Permitted by right in the district C =Permitted by conditional use permit - =Use is prohibited in the district Description of Use PDO-14 C E Educational institution C R Religious institution, with a day care center P Religious institution, with an educational institution~~ate~;oel C Religious institution, without a day care or ~ educational institution C S C.~h...,l~ h~~~ir,..~~ -~r,.J r.r..F..~~i...~-~I ' Crhnnlc nriv~~n (Linrlnrn~r~nn +h rniiryh nr~rln ^17~ Schools, trade or vocational P Legend: P =Permitted by right in the district C =Permitted by conditional use permit - =Use is prohibited in the district STAFF REPORT -PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Planning Commission FROM: Betsy Lowrey, Junior Planner DATE: March 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Request for Direction from Planning Commission regarding Zoning for Public Charter Schools as Requested by Julian Charter School BACKGROUND On October 31, 2007, staff received a Conditional Use Permit application from Julian Charter School ("JCS"), a public school sponsored by Julian School District, to operate a kindergarten through eighth grade public charter school within the Service Commercial (SC) zone, generally located at the southwest corner of Madison Avenue and Buecking Drive, at 27235 Madison Avenue. On November 19, 2007, staff relayed to JCS that the proposal for a public charter school is not permitted in the Service Commercial zone. Staff followed up with a letter dated November 30, 2007 stating the same. Pursuant to Development Code Sections 17.08.030 and 17.12.030, "schools, public (elementary, junior high, high school)" are permitted only within the PubliGlnstitutional District (PI) zoning. At the direction of City staff, JCS conferred with their attorney to determine whether or not they are exempt or would be able to exempt themselves from Temecula's local zoning code. Staff indicated that if JCS seeks an exemption, the City Attorney would need to review it. On December 27, 2007, JCS submitted a Resolution of "Exemption from Zoning for Property used as a Charter School Site" along with their attorney opinion letter in support of an effort to exempt itself from local zoning requirements. The CityAttorney advised staff that, pursuant to Government Code Section 53097.3/2002 Legislation (AB 14), JCS does not have authority to exempt itself from local zoning regulations. On January 24, 2008, staff provided a letter to Julian Charter School indicating the proposal remains inconsistent with the City of Temecula Development Code. At the request of JCS, a meeting was held on February 26, 2008 between City Management/Staff and JCS. JCS requested that the City consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow public charter schools the same zoning rights as private schools. The City has since deemed the application for the Conditional Use Permit for a Public Charter School submitted by JCS incomplete. The Conditional Use Permit application is not the issue for consideration. The issue for the Planning Commission's consideration is the distinction in the Development Code between zoning for public schools and zoning for private schools (kindergarten through grade twelve). Staff requests the Planning Commission to consider whether a zoning amendment should be proposed thatwould provide the same zoning for public schools as private schools (kindergarten through grade twelve). C:\Program Files (x86)Weevia.Com\DOCUment Converter\temp\879580.doc 1 ANALYSIS Below are use regulations for schools (Kindergarten through grade twelve) within the development code. A letter "P" indicates a permitted use, =" indicates the use is prohibited, and "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 Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12) C P P C P C - Table 17.12.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses-Public/Institutional Districts Description of Use Public/Institutional District (PI) Schools, public (elementary, junior high, high school) P Schools, private C Zoning Julian Charter School must comply with City of Temecula zoning regulations and is only permitted within the Public/Institutional District (PI) zone as designated for public schools. It is important to point out; however, that the same is not true for Temecula Valley School District. State law exempts public school districts from local zoning regulations within theirjurisdictional boundaries. As a result, TVUSD may operate its public schools without City zoning approval (historically, TVUSD sites are then reclassified to PI for consistency with the City's Development Code); while Julian School District must comply with Temecula's local zoning regulations since they are outside their jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, a proposal to expand zoning for public schools would only benefit public schools not sponsored by Temecula Valley School District. Public Charter Schools vs. Private Schools The Development Code clearly delineates between public and private schools for kindergarten through grade twelve. JCS requests the City consider zoning for public schools be the same as zoning for private schools. Should the Planning Commission direct staff in this way, JCS would then propose such a Zoning Amendment for Planning Commission and City Council approval and ultimately continue forward with a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of its public charter school within the Service Commercial zone. Charter schools are public schools fully funded by the State of California (students do not pay tuition) and must be authorized by an existing local public school board, County Board of Education, or the State Board of Education. For example, Julian Charter School is authorized (sponsored) by Julian School District. It is staffs understanding, since California funding is based upon student enrollment, Temecula residents who attend Julian School District charter school (instead of Temecula Valley School District) may lower the funding that would otherwise go to TVUSD or a charter school sponsored by TVUSD. C1Program Files (x86)Weevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\879580.doc 2 Charter schools are required by the State to enter into an agreement ("Charter') detailing specific goals and operating procedures between the authorizing board (its sponsoring school district) thereby creating an ongoing working relationship and connection between the charter school and its school district. A charter school not sponsored/authorized by Temecula School District will not share such a connection or working relationship. Dr. Carol Leighty, Superintendent of the Temecula Valley Unified School District, has indicated to staff that TVUSD does not support a Development Code Amendment thatwould expand zoning for public charter schools. A representative of TVUSD will attend the Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION Based on concerns raised by the Temecula Valley School District, staff recommends that the Planning Commission not support a proposal for a Development Code Amendment to expand zoning for public charter schools. Staff further recommends that acity-initiated development code amendment provide a separate use entitled "Schools, Public Charter (kindergarten through 12~' grade)" so that Charter Schools are defined, delineated and consistent with its present use in the Public Institutional zone under "Schools, Public (elementary, junior high, high school)" in order to alleviate ambiguity regarding zoning for public charter schools. C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\DOCUment Converter\temp\879560.doc 3 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, March 19, 2008, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Referencing the Mills Act, Mr. Otto Baron, Temecula, relayed his dismay with the City and its destruction of historic buildings in Old Town. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1 Minutes 1.1 Approve the Minutes of February 20, 2008 2 Director's Hearing Case Update 2.1 Approve the Directors Hearing Case Update for January 2008 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceation of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained on Item No. 1.1. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Request for Direction from Planning Commission regarding Zoning for Public Charter Schools as requested by Julian Charter School Junior Planner provided a PowerPoint presentation, highlighting on the following: • Public Charter Schools R:\MinutesPC\031908 • Current Zoning • General Plan • Analysis • Conclusion In response to the Planning Commission's queries, Junior Planner Lowrey added the following: That it would be her opinion that there are three charter schools within the City of Temecula That River Springs Charter School was granted approval from the Riverside County Board of Education which was initially associated with Eagle's Peak Charter School (now separated) Not having done much research with respect to Charter Schools, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that the Planning Commission is being asked to ensure consistency between the uses of charter schools versus public/private schools. Junior Planner Lowrey noted that Eagles Peak would be zoned Service Commercial; River Springs: Light Industrial; and Vallejo: Residential; advised that the above-mentioned schools would be operating under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which was approved by the Riverside County Board of Education. For the Planning Commission, Junior Planner Lowrey noted that initiation of the Development Code Amendment will provide a separate use entitled "Schools, Public Charter (kindergarten through 12°i grade), so that Charter Schools are defined, delineated and consistent with its present use in the Public Institutional Zone under "Schools, Public (elementary, junior high, and high school)" in order to alleviate ambiguity regarding zoning for public charter schools. Assistant City Attorney Curley stated that this item would not be a public hearing; that the Commission is being requested to provide generalized guidance and impressions of land use changes; and relayed that the Commission is not being asked to make any land use changes or binding administrative record that would indicate a detailed process with respect to any land use changes. A. Speaking on behalf of the Jillian Charter School, Executive Director of Julian Charter Schools Cauzza, clarified the following for the Planning Commission: • That Eagles Peak Charter School would be sponsored by Julian Union High School District; that Julian Charter School is sponsored by Julian Union Elementary School District; and that River Springs Charter School is sponsored by the Riverside County Office of Education • That as of 2006, charters schools were directed to comply with local building codes • That 65% of charters schools start in churches • That she would be hopeful that the Planning Commission consider the proposed facility • That public schools receive its funding from the State and that private schools receive its funding from private individuals • That students currently attending Julian Charter School come from Temecula Valley, Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Bonsall, Menifee, Lake Elsinore, and home- schooling; noting that students would not need an infra-district transfer R:wlinutesPC\031908 That charter schools offers personalized learning for students that would not receive from a traditional public school; advising that Temecula Valley would be a centralized region to serve the surrounding cities; noting that Julian Charter School would be in compliance with all State Laws. B. Mr. Dave Gallaher, representing Temecula Valley School District, relayed that although the Temecula Valley School District would not be in opposition to Julian Charter School, the school district relayed its opposition to a Development Code Amendment that would expand zoning for public charter schools. In response to Commissioner Telesio's query, Mr. Gallaher noted that the fact that Julian Charter School has a large amount of enrollment would show its need by local and surrounding communities. For Commissioner Harter, Mr. Gallaher noted that Temecula Valley has not rejected any charter schools that have approached them, but did advise that one charter school disbanded. C. Mr. Larry Markham, representing Julian Charter School, relayed the following: • That Julian Charter School would not be here to discuss its location • That the request before the Planning Commission would be whether or not to modify the Development Code to allow charter schools the same privileges as private schools • That the operational aspect of charter schools or where the students come from would not be the issue before the Planning Commission • That the question before the Planning Commission would be whether or not the Planning Commission would support staffs recommendation • That Riverside County Code does not make a distinction between public or private schools • That the request to amend the City's Development Code would help put other charter schools already established in the City into compliance • That Julian Charter School would be in full agreement with all imposed Conditions of Approval Adding clarification to what staff is recommending, Assistant City Attorney Curley reiterated that the Planning Commission's position would be to determine whether or not the Development Code be amended to provide separate uses entitled "Schools, Public Charter" in order to remain consistent with its present use. For Commissioner Harter, Junior Planner Lowrey stated that colleges and universities would be treated differently than public and private schools. D. Relaying that her daughter is a student of Julian Charter School, Ms. Amanda Grillo, Fallbrook, spoke highly of Julian Charter School and noted its positive aspects. E. Advising that Temecula Valley School District was approached by Julian Charter School for its support, Ms. Sue Miller Hurst, Temecula, relayed on support for the school and its request to amend the City's Development Code; and noted that Julian Charter School offers special education. R:\MinutesPC\031908 F. Mr. Peter Minegar, Temecula, stated that although his kids have had success at Temecula Valley School District, he did understand the importance and need for this type of education. G. Mr. Tom Fenton, Fallbrook, relayed his full support of this type of education program. H. Mr. Brian Frunk, Murrieta, representing M.S.S. Properties, relayed his support of the requested amendment to the City's Development Code to accommodate charter schools. Ms. Elysia Luke, Sun City, informed of her daughter's success with Julian Charter School. Adding clarification, Assistant City Attorney Curley stated that the Planning Commission would be at a public policy level, not a site specific level, not an applicant right issue; the Planning Commission is being asked to recommend a legislative action; that the proponent is requesting that the Planning Commission find a need to revise the zoning laws and recommend to the City Council that the City undertake the zoning law changes that would provide a separate use entitled "Schools, Public Charter' (kindergarten through 12~' grade) in order to be consistent with its present use. Not having done research, Assistant City Attorney Curley stated that he would not be aware of a non-Temecula Valley School District school being considered a "private school". With respect to Land Use issues, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed the following: • That the City would need to explore the relationships between the different types of schools • Expressed concern with displacing opportunities for employment and transitioning over to lower intensity non-producers • Queried if the Development Code be amended to reflect where schools should be located • Queried on whether or not he City impose a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for schools the City would have jurisdiction over • Would be of the opinion that Industrial Zones would not be an appropriate location for a school as well as the Highway Tourist Zone Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, Commissioner Harter noted that although he would be a proponent of charter schools in general, he did relay his concern with the amount of schools popping up. Commissioner Carey concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Chiniaeff and Harter. Noting that the current zoning should be reviewed and amended, Chairperson Telesio noted the following: That he would be of the opinion that the impacts of a charter school versus a regular school would not differ That there would appear to be a market for charter schools and its beneficial affect upon the community R:\MinutesPC\031908 Commissioner Chiniaeff reminded the Commission that the City does not have jurisdiction over the Temecula Valley School District. After much discussion, the Planning Commission recommended the following to the City Council for consideration. • That all schools be reviewed and be conditioned in the same manner (with the exception of TVSD) schools under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) • That the City explore the placement of schools and its relationship to surrounding uses • That a CEQA analysis be imposed At this time, the Planning Commission took a 5-minute break. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS New Items 4 Planning Abolication No. PA06-0337, for the Old Town Visioning oroiect, which provides goals and recommendations to address community concerns regarding the vision for future development in Old Town and suggests a comprehensive revision to the Old Town Specific Plan to implement these goals and recommendations By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Fisk highlighted on the following aspects of staffs report: • Location • Project Description • Front Street looking • River Promenade • Goals o Historic Core o Streets o Building Heights o Architecture o Murrieta Creek Walk o Infrastructure o Residential Neighborhoods o Parking o Economic Development o North Area of Old Town (vicinity of Moreno Road) With respect to parking, Principal Planner Richardson noted that one of staffs recommendations would be to resurvey parking from the February, 2007, survey; stated that the survey was performed the Saturday before Christmas 2007 which indicated that the parking was more or less the same as the February 2007 survey with the exception of Saturday Farmers Market hours. Principal Planner Richardson also noted that this item was reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board with the consensus to move staffs recommendation forward. For the Planning Commission, Senior Planner Fisk noted that the future civic center parking structure will be free to the public. R:\MinutesPC\031908 At this time, the public hearing was opened. A. By way of overheads, Mr. AI Rattan, Temecula, commended staff for their efforts in the Visioning Project; relayed his dismay with the exclusion of Pujol Street as part of the visioning project (Historic Core); stated that more consideration would be needed with respect to south of arches; stated that there will be a lack of parking spaces (north of Main Street) at build-out; and relayed his disappointment with the architect and his inexperience with California and a downtown plan. B. Mr. Walt Allen, Temecula, thanked Assistant City Manager Johnson and staff for their efforts with the proposed visioning project; relayed his support of the project but did express concern with Recommendation 2: Streets should not be an either/or goal but rather aboth/and goal; relayed his concern with piecing-mealing the Recommendation: Future develooment advising that staffs recommendation would not be realistic. C. Mr. Ed Dool, Temecula also thanked staff for their efforts with respect to the Old Town Visioning project, but did express concern with the unbalanced parking surveys conducted by the City; and encouraged that a shuttle service for Old Town be considered to handle future growth. At this time, the public hearing was closed. For the Planning Commission, Assistant. City Manager Johnson relayed that the Planning Commission is being requested to recommend that the City Council make an amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) to implement staffs goals; stated that the goals would be a result of the six workshops raised by residents, business owners, and development community; that an amendment to the OTSP will take a year to revise; that the goals would provide a general guidance as well as the creation to form-based codes that will address the relationship between building facades and the public realm. Requesting clarification of what the Planning Commission is being asked to recommend, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it would be difficult to recommend that the City Council consider an amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan, per staffs goals, when form-based codes have not yet been created; noting that it would be his opinion that having the form-based goals developed first would give an understanding of its implementation process and how it would affect a change to the OTSP. Understanding Commissioner Chiniaeffs concern, Assistant City Manager Johnson agreed that form-based codes would have to be developed first in order to implement staffs. goals; For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Principal Planner Richardson advised that staff thoroughly reviewed the existing OTSP with respect to what could be built based on square footages of land in the specific plan which equates to 4-million square feet; noting that the preferred scenario would equate to 2.5-million square feet; relaying that the high intensity scenario would be lower than the development intensity then what could be built under the existing specific plan. R:\MinutasPC\031908 6 As per Keyser-Marston, Assistant City Manager Johnson stated that in order to ensure that Old Town is viable and functional, 50% of new development would need to be residential placing it any place throughout Old Town; noting that residential would be a downtown residential, rather than a traditional residential; relayed that the intent would be to have more residential on the west side of the creek as well as a strong residential element throughout the east side of the creek. With respect to parking, Assistant City Manager Johnson noted that the Master Plan Parking study will identify parcels that would need to be acquired by the City early-on for service parking for the short term and structured parking for long term. Principal Planner Richardson added that parking surveys be conducted on a yearly basis to determine what the utilization would be. To alleviate concerns of creating an amendment to the OTSP without having developed form- based codes and acquisition of parking parcels, Assistant City Manager advised that more research will we undertaken as well as additional workshops will be held; and added that a work shop with respect to creating form-based codes can be conducted. Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeffs concerns and comments, Commissioner Guerriero encouraged the idea of implementing a shuttle service to serve in Old Town. Commissioner Guerriero also concurred with the Old Town Local Review Board's suggestion of the City purchasing property with spark-like setting to place its historic buildings. Relaying that there will be a problem with parking if the City does not acquire parking parcels for the future, Commissioner Carey would be in full support of a trolley and/or shuttle bus for Old Town. For the Planning Commission, Assistant City Manager Johnson relayed that the City will be operating a free trolley system in the near future that will service Temecula residents. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he would not be prepared to make a recommendation to the City Council without seeing how staffs goals will be implemented. In an effort to clarify, Principal Planner Richardson relayed that the recommendation will create a new public review process holding workshops that will cover building masses, a parking management study, and design guidelines. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended to the City Council that staff move forward to seek an amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) to see how staff's goals can be implemented. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion voice vote reflected unanimous aaoroval. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Assistant City Attorney Curly briefly updated the Commission with respect to S6343 Act. R:\MinutesPC\031908 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske informed the Planning Commission with respect to the upcoming State of the City. ADJOURNMENT At 8:58 pm, Chairman Telesio formally adjourned to Aril 2. 2008 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. John Telesio Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\031908 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance Ci Mana er CITY OF TEMECUTA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director DATE: May 13, 2008 SUBJECT: Request for Direction from City Council regarding Zoning for Public Charter Schools as Requested by Julian Charter School PREPARED BY: Betsy Lowrey, Junior Planner RECOMMENDATION: The City Council provide direction to staff whether or not to proceed as recommended by the Planning Commission as follows: That an amendment to the Development Code be considered to provide that all schools be processed and reviewed in the same manner [except Temecula Valley Unified School District is exempt]. 2. That all schools require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and not be outright permitted, so that the placement of schools and their relationship to surrounding uses, as well as CEQA impacts, can be analyzed on a case by case basis with each Conditional Use Permit application. BACKGROUND: On October 31, 2007, staff received a Conditional Use Permit application from Julian Charter School, a public school sponsored by Julian School District, to operate a kindergarten through eighth grade public charter school within the Service Commercial (SC) zone, generally located at the southwest corner of Madison Avenue and Buecking Drive, at 27235 Madison Avenue. Julian Charter School must comply with City of Temecula zoning regulations and is only permitted within the Public/Institutional District (PI) zone as designated for public schools. As a result, the application for the Conditional Use Permit submitted by Julian Charter School to operate a public charter school within the Service Commercial (SC) zone is inconsistent with the Development Code. The Conditional Use Permit application has since been deemed incomplete and likewise is not the issue for consideration by City Council. On February 26, 2008, Julian Charter School requested the City to consider a proposal to amend the zoning ordinance to allow public charter schools the same zoning as private schools (kindergarten through grade twelve) and on March 19, 2008 this request was considered by the Planning Commission. A representative from the Temecula Valley Unified School District spoke indicating that while the School District is not opposed to Julian Charter School, it did not support a change to the Development Code that would expand zoning for public charter schools. Furthermore, the School District indicated that it was in favor of establishing a relationship with charter schools (or sponsoring charter schools) within their School District ratherthan being entirely independent, and noted the success of their two charter schools. Several speakers, including parents and representatives of Julian Charter School, spoke in support of amending the Development Code to provide public charter schools the same zoning as private schools. The Planning Commission discussed that the relationship ofzoning and schools should be reviewed with more scrutiny pointing out that the Development Code permits schools in certain zones with no review at all. The Planning Commission suggested that the Development Code should not permit any school that the City hasjurisdiction over (private or public) without the analysis of a Conditional Use Permit to examine its surroundings and, additionally, that certain zones such as Light Industrial and Highway Tourist should not permit schools at all. From a land use perspective, the Planning Commission commented that there is no difference between public and private schools and, in conclusion, recommended requesting that the City Council consider an amendment to the Development Code to eliminate the zoning differentiation between public and private schools, and to request the City Council to direct staff to review what zones schools would be most appropriately located with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 19, 2008 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MAY 13, 2008 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 6:15 p.m. and its regular meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 13, 2008, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Council Members: Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts, Washington, Naggar Absent: Council Members: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Niko Ayala INVOCATION The invocation was provided by Pastor Mike Wallace of Crossroads Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was presented by Temecula Valley Young Marines PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Public Works Week Proclamation In recognition of the many contributions of the Public Works Department to the health, safety, comfort, and quality of life of this community, Mayor Naggar proclaimed May 18"' through 24~', 2008, to be National Public Works Week. On behalf of the Public Works Department, Deputy Public Works Director Butler thanked the City Council for the recognition. Certificates of Aooreciation to Temecula Youth Emolovment Exoo Committee Members In honor of their efforts in making this year's Youth Employment Expo a success, the City presented the following individuals with a Certificate of Appreciation: • Ms. Lynn Laing, Partners in Education Committee • Ms. Jennifer Malek, Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce • Ms. Alice Sullivan, Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce • Ms. Laura Turnbow, Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce • Ms. Connie Hayrick, Temecula Valley Unified School District • Ms. Tracy Hunter, Temecula Valley Unified School District • Dr. Carol Leighty, Temecula Valley Unified School District • Mr. Scott Schaufele, Temecula Valley Unified School District • Ms. Yolanda Guttierez, Riverside County Economic Development Agency R:\Minutes\051308 Ms. Martha Ventura, Riverside Economic Development Agency Ms. Corinna Coran, Partners in Education Committee Ms. Karen Harr, Riverside County Office of Education On behalf of the committee, Ms. Sullivan thanked the City Council for its ongoing support. Certificate of Aooreciation to Bob Soaller Honoring along-time resident of Temecula that has been an icon in Old Town Temecula since the 1960s, Mayor Naggar, on behalf of the City of Temecula, presented Bob "the Barber" Spaller with a Certificate of Appreciation. Reminiscing the past, Mr. Spaller thanked the City Council for the recognition. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Ms. Barbara Wilder, Temecula, highlighted the City Council's achievements and relayed her appreciation of all the new facilities the City has built, and requested that residents ignore the disgruntled residents attacking the Council for false and unproven innuendos and ignore the false accusations. B. By way of overheads, Mr. Doc Lain, Temecula, expressed his concern with an article in the Press Enterprise referencing the future Civic Center site area and its potential of underlying Indian artifacts, Mr. Lain queried on the archeological documentation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. In response to Mr. Lain's query of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mayor Naggar advised that he contact the City Manager's office for clarification. C. Ms. Tracy Mackellar, Temecula, relayed her frustration with the developer of the Reserve at Crown Hill and the lack of fulfilling its Conditions of Approval as mandated by the City of Temecula and requested that the City Council hold the developer accountable for its responsibilities. D. Mr. Kevin Richards, Temecula, also relayed his dismay with the developer of the Reserve at Crown Hill and the lack of responsibilities to the residents. With respect to the Reserve at Crown Hill, City Manager Nelson advised that Mayor Pro Tem Edwards, staff, and he will be diligently working to resolve the issues of the community at the Reserve. E. Mr. Steve Phillips, Temecula, reiterated his concerns with the Reserve at Crown Hill and thanked staff for its efforts thus far. F. Mr. Michael Minniear, Temecula, relayed the issues at the Reserve at Crown Hill and requested the help of the City Council. G. Mr. Jon Billings, Temecula, echoed comments with respect to the concems of the Reserve at Crown Hill. H. Mr. Bob Mejia, Reserve at Crown Hill, Temecula, thanked the City Council for its efforts but reiterated the importance of the Council and staff continuing its efforts to resolve the issue at hand. R:\Minutes\051308 I. By way of overheads, Mr. Otto Baron, Temecula, spoke regarding the Escallier House and Bam and relayed his dismay with the future spot for the building and the destruction of the historic character of the Escallier House and Barn, and requested that the City Council reconsider its plans for the Escallier House and Barn. J. By way of handout, Ms. Nancy Baron, Temecula, echoed comments by Mr. Baron K. Ms. Kathleen Hamilton, De Luz, commented on the many reasons why individuals have chosen to reside in the City of Temecula and thanked the City Council for providing a safe and wonderful community for future generations to enjoy. L. Mr. Wayne Hall, Temecula, thanked the City Council for its efforts in addressing the abandoned home in his neighborhood and expressed his dismay with the Press Enterprise. M. Mr. Ed Dool, Temecula, congratulated the City of Temecula for receiving four awards of Exce//ence with respect to its Old Town Community Theater, The Parents Single Focus Group, The Temecula Library, and the Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park; and advised the citizens of Temecula, that the City of Temecula was ranked 18`" for the State of California for Automated Signal System which the City received $500,000 to mitigate traffic issues. N. Mr. Kassen Klein, Murrieta, commended the City Council and staff for its leadership and also gave kudos to the City for ranking 18~h in the State of California with regard to funding for an Automated Signal System. O. Mr. Gary Thornhill, Temecula, spoke regarding erroneous statements made in the City's local newspaper articles, as well as speakers who speak regarding false tales; and commended the City Council and staff for its ongoing efforts to ensure quality of life and public safety for its residents. P. Mr. Chris Pedersen, Temecula, also relayed his dismay with the false innuendos made against the City of Temecula and County of Riverside. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Referencing an article in the Press Enterprise regarding the recycling of soccer uniforms and equipment for less fortunate families, Council Member Comerchero invited the public to attend an event to collect gently used uniforms for kids which will be held on Saturday, May 17, 2008, at Ronald Reagan Sports Park, Pala Park, Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park, and Harveston Community Park. B. Understanding the concerns of the residents of the Reserve at Crown Hill, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards advised that she will continue to work with regard to this matter to ensure the issues are resolved and noted that staff is working on an Ordinance with respect to foreclosures in the community. C. Council Member Roberts referenced a letter from the Mayor of Liedschendam-Voorburg honoring Ad and Elizabet Creemers of Temecula for all their efforts in establishing the Sister City Association. D. Council Member Washington relayed his disappointment with the City Council being accused of erroneous doings and questioning the integrity of his Council Members as well as himself by a few detractors. By way of overheads, he described the California Form 700 which all Council Members are required to fill out yearly; explained the mission statement of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC); and relayed his past employment. R:\Minutes\051308 E. On behalf of the City Council and City of Temecula, Mayor Naggar honored Council Member Washington for receiving a distinguished Leadership Award from the American Planning Association and spoke regarding his prestigious position servicing as Chair on the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). Mayor Naggar relayed that a Bob's Big Boy will be coming to Temecula as well as a Morton's Steak House and/or a Ruth's Chris Steak House. By way of overheads, Mayor Naggar spoke regarding Phase I of the construction of the future Civic Center and the testing of a horse-drawn trolley system for moving patrons around Old Town. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of April 8, 2008. 3 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Citv Treasurer's Report as of March 31 2008 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of March 31, 2008. R:\Minutes\051308 5 Initiation of Citv Construction of Priority Public Imorovements with Bond Proceeds,(CFD 03 RECOMMENDATION; 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO.OS-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT IN RORIPAUGH RANCH AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING VARIOUS ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-02 (RORIPAUGH RANCH) 6 Contract for Audit Services for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30 2008 2009 and 2010 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve an agreeme Accountants, to serve 2008, 2009, and 201 $45,860, respectively; nt with Lance, Soll and Lunghard, LLP, Certified Public as the City's auditors for the fiscal years ended June 30, 0, for annual contract amounts of $43,400, $44,610, and 6.2 Approve a 10% contingency amount for the three year period; 6.3 Appoint the Mayor or his designee to meet with the auditors in order to comply with new auditing standards. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Accept Phase II of the Maintenance Facility Expansion Field Operations Center, Project No. PW03-06, as complete; 7.2 Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; 7.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. R:\Minutes1051308 8 All-Wav Ston Control -Walcott Lane and Klarer Lane RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF WALCOTT LANE AND KLARER LANE 9 Contractor Pre-Qualifications for Phase 2 of the Old Town Civic Center Proiect No PW06- 07 Ph2 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit and pre-qualify contractors to perform the work required for Phase 2 of the Old Town Civic Center Project, Project No. PW06-07(Ph2). 10 Imorovements. Proiect No. PW99-11 10.1 Approve an agreement with Geocon Inland Empire, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $125,589 to provide as needed geotechnical and material testing services for the Pechanga Parkway Phase II Street Improvements, Project No. PW99-11, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve extra work authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $12,558.90, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. 11 Agreement for Consulting Services between the Citv of Temecula and Inland Plannino and Desion. Inc.. for oreoaration of Desion Guidelines for the Old Town Soecific Plan 11.1 That the City Council approve a contract with Inland Planning & Design, Inc., for planning services in the amount of $45,000. (Considered under separate discussion; see page 7). Mayor Naggar relayed his enthusiasm with respect to Item No. 5 of the Consent Calendar, noting that these improvements will take 12 to 18 months to complete. R:1Minutes\051308 12 Second Readino of Ordinance No. 08-02-Continued to the meeting of May 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 08-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 2.10 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS A. Mr. Tom Rogers, Winchester, relayed his appreciation of the continuation of Item No. 12 in order to allow an opportunity to review Mr. Bell's comments and suggestions. B. Mr. AI Rattan, Temecula, thanked the City Council for extending Item No. 12 for further review. Mr. Rattan also referenced an article by the Press Enterprise with regard to campaign disclosure requirements. C. Mr. Bob Kowell, Murrieta, relayed his opposition to the proposed campaign finance Ordinance. D. Mr. Ed Dool, Temecula, reiterated his support of the campaign disclosure requirements. E. Mr. Chris Pedersen, Temecula, also relayed his support of the campaign disclosure requirements. MOTION: Council Member Edwards moved to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 11 which was pulled for separate discussion and Item No. 12 which was continued to May 27, 2008. Council Member Comerchero seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Washington who abstained on Item No. 2.1. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION 11 RECOMMENDATION: 11. 1 That the City Council approve a contract with Inland Planning & Design, Inc., for Planning services in the amount of $45,000. Assistant City Manager Johnson provided a staff report (of record). A. Relaying his full support, Mr. Kassen Klein, commended staff and the City Council for the proposed Design Guidelines for the Old Town Specific Plan. R:\Minutes105130a MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to approve Item No. 11. Council Member Roberts seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous aooroval. At 8:37 p.m., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the Redevelopment Agency, and the Temecula Public Financing Authority. At 8:42 p.m., the City Council resumed with regular business. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 21 Request for Direction from Citv Council reaardina Zonino for Public Charter Schools as requested by Julian Charter School RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Provide direction to staff whether or not to proceed as recommended by the Planning Commission as follows: That an amendment to the Development Code be considered to provide that all schools be processed and reviewed in the same manner (except Temecula Valley Unified School District is exempt). That all schools require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and not be outright permitted, so that the placement of schools and their relationship to surrounding uses, as well as CEQA impacts, can be analyzed on a case by case basis with each Conditional Use Permit application. By way of staff report, Junior Planner Lowrey addressed the Current Commercial Zoning requirements and as well commented on the Planning Commission's proposed recommendation In response to the City Council's queries, Ms. Lowrey noted the following: • That by law, Charter Schools have been identified as public schools • That Julian Charter Schools would receive its funding from the Temecula Valley Unified School District A. Ms. Jennifer Cauzza, representing Julian Charter School, made the following comments: • That Julian Charter School has been established for nine years and is sponsored by Julian Elementary School District in San Diego County • That Julian Charter School has 1,900 students all within the San Diego County, Orange. County, and Riverside County • That there are five Julian Charter School facilities in operation • That the proposed Temecula facility would service students K-8 and would be considered anon-classroom based charter school • That Julian Charter School would comply with all required charter school laws and regulations • That funding received would be directly funded to Julian Charter School from the State • That the facility in question would currently have 117 students enrolled, noting that seven students would be from the City of Temecula • That students currently enrolled at the proposed facility currently serve students from Fallbrook, Escondido, Oceanside, Fallbrook, Sun City and the City of Temecula • That the applicant has completed all necessary requirements • That charter schools were opened to challenge traditional school methods R:\Minutes\051308 • That the primary goal of charter schools would be to personalize teaming per student needs • That at this point in time, the proposed Julian Charter School would lease its site • That Julian Charter School does not offer athletics • That no more than 160 students would be able to attend the school at any given time • That Julian Charter School would be considered a public school and would be mandated to offer special education classes for its special needs students • That Julian Charter School IUP students are not referred out, noting that the school would comply with all State laws and regulations B. Ms. Sue MillervHurst, Director of the Innovation Center, relayed that legislation created charter schools to create competition for school districts so that positive change could happen; to create innovation and choices for parents; and that the public law for education would be a constitutional law for students. C. Dave Gallaher, representing the Temecula Valley School District, relayed that the school district would be in support staffs recommendation, as written; but would request that the CUP process require that future charter schools attempt to communicate with the district to better serve the students in the community. D. Mr. Larry Markham, representing Julian Charter School, noted his support with staff recommendation, as written and voiced no objection of notifying the Temecula Valley School District's notification process of any potential charter schools. E. Mr. Brian Frunk, representing M.S.S. Properties, relayed his support of the proposed facility. Noting his support of the proposed Julian Charter School, Council Member Washington suggested the formation of an ad hoc subcommittee comprised of himself and Mayor Pro Tem Edwards to meet with the City Attorney and staff to work on provisions of a Development Code Amendment regarding public charter schools. For the record, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that the Temecula Valley School District would be exempt from the provision; and requested that after provisions have been recommended by the City Attorney, staff, and subcommittee, the recommendation would require review by the Planning Commission prior to forwarding it to the City Council. MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to approve staff recommendation and authorize the formation of the ad hoc subcommittee to work with the City Attorney and staff and return to the City Council for a recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Edwards seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER REPORT No reports at this time. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT With respect to closed session, City Attorney Thorson advised that with respect to the three real property matters, the City Council considered the price and terms and authorized staff to make R:Uvtinutes\051308 specific offers with respect to acquiring those properties; that with respect to the second item, Roripaugh Ranch, the City Council authorized the filing of a foreclosure action against Ashby, U.S.A. for the non-payment of special taxes. A. Mr. AI Rattan, Temecula, referenced a letter from the City Attorney to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) dated in March 2008; and requested that any Ordinance with respect to the Campaign Disclosure requirements include a section with regard to Rancon. Referencing the letter to the FPPC, as mentioned by Mr. Rattan, Council Member Washington relayed his resentment to Mr. Rattan's comments and clarified the letter in whole. The City Council relayed their resentment towards Mr. Rattan's false comments and noted that if he continues to make such, that he do his research the accuracy of them prior to presenting them to the Council. ADJOURNMENT At 9:31 p.m. the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, May 27, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\Minutes\051308 10 Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: Long Range Planning Project Number LR08-0039 Applicant: City of Temecula Location: Citywide Proposal: Proposed Development Code amendments to portions of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code to amend zoning standards applicable to educational institutions and schools Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be issued in compliance with CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) Case Planner: Betsy Lowrey Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Date of Hearing: September 17, 2008 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or priorto, the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.