HomeMy WebLinkAbout072092 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 20, 1992 6:00 PM
VAIL ELE1VIF_ANTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mirn Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CAIJ, TO ORDER:
Chairman Hoagland
ROLL CALL:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three
(3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed
on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the
Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fled with the Planning
Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Minutes
2.2 Approval of Minutes of July 6, 1992 Plsnning Commir, sion Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 2, Revised No. 2, Amendment No. 3
Bedford Development Company
Palm pJaTa at the southeast comer of Ynez and Winchester Roads
A request for approval of a revision to Plot Plan No. 2, Revised
No. 1, Amended No.1 to allow for a 15,000 square foot expansion
of K-mart and a change of use for Pad No. 6 from financial to a
restaurant to allow the construction of a Cooo's Restaurant.
Saled Naa~h
Approval
Wn~B~RVOXPt. ANCOMM~AO~r?-20
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. Case No.:
Location:
Temecuh Valley Unified School District
North of Winchester Ro~dl between Margarita Road and Nicolas
Road.
New High School and Maintenance/Transportation Facility
Lettie Boggs
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Planner:
Old Town Update
City of Temecula
Old Town, Temecula
Dave Hogan
Case No:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Location:
Recommendation:
Amarillo Wind Machine Company
Utilize an existing 4800 square foot building for spare parts
storage to support field service and installation of agricultural frost
machines, inside parking of sea'vice trucks, and some assembly of
service pans.
Along Pala Road, south of Highway 79 on the east side of
Interstate 15 (Murdy Ranch Specific Plan site)
Debbie Ubnoske
Provide input relative to type of application required
7. Status of Current Planning Activity
Next meeting: August 3, 1992, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula, California.
Planning Director Report
Planning Commission Discussion
Other Business
ADJOURNlvn~/T
vgw
ITEM # 2
NINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEHECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 6, 1992
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was
called to order Monday, July 6, 1992, 6:00 P.M., 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order'by
Chairman John E. Hoagland.
PRESENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Planning
Director Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske and Minute
Clerk Gail Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Blair,
Fahey to approve the agenda as presented.
seconded by Commissioner
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford
MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 1992
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner
Blair to approve the minutes of June 1, 1992 as mailed.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford
PCMINT/06/92 -I- 7/15/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1992
PUBLIC HEled~ING
3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27545
A DroDosal to subdivide 3.0 Gross acres into three
parcels, abutting the west side of Ynez Road and the east
side of Interstate 15, approximately 200 feet north of
the intersection of Ynez Road and Solana Way.
Matthew Fagan summarized the staff report. Mr. Fagan
advised due to staff's concerns with the parcel line that
splits Building "B" between Parcels No. 2 and No. 3,
staff recommends that the following condition be added to
read, "Any future buildings between Parcels No. 2 and No.
3 will be separated". The applicant concurs with this
added condition.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:10 P.M.
Larry Gabelle, 10706 Birch Bluff Drive, San Diego,
applicant, gave a brief summary of the project.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by
Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 6:15
P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-{next) approving
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27545 based on the analysis and
findings contained in the staff report and subject to the
Conditions of Approval as amended.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford
4. TEMPORARY SIGN ORDINANCE
4.1 Proposal to establish standards to allow Temporary SiGns.
David Hogan summarized the staff report. Mr. Hogan
presented the Commission with a copy of a letter of
opposition to the ordinance received by Mr. Greg
Treadwell, owner of Granny's Bakery and a list of "Sample
Time Periods For Temporary Signs" from other local
governments. Mr. Hogan advised of the following
typographical error, Page 19, Temporary Signs - Old Town,
there should be an (A-2), identical to Page 15, 19.9 (A-
2).
PCMIN7/06192 -2- 7115/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1992
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M.
Cathy Zeitz, Chairman of the Civic and Developmental
Affairs Committee for the Chamber of Commerce, expressed
the Committee's support of the Temporary Sign Ordinance.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by
Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 6:40
P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-{next] approving the
Ordinance Regulating to Temporary Signs.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP ON RORIPAUGH HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
Proposal to develop 800 acres at an overall density of 3
dwelling units/acre, approximateiv 30% open space,
neighborhood commercial and two elementarv schools.
Located east of Butterfield StaGe and Nichlos Roads.
Jim Fergus, 27720 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula,
representing Rancon Financial Corporation, and James
O'Neal, 4521 Campus Drive, #134, Irvine, of Landplan
Associates, presented the project and provided a slide
presentation.
The following thoughts and concerns were expressed by the
Commission:
Commissioner Fahey indicated that she was concerned with
the following aspects of the project:
Preparation of a traffic study based on the
proposed land use (densities)
* Grading and erosion control
, Landscaped hillsides
* Fire hazard in relation to densities.
PCMIN7/O6192 -3- 7115192
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6,1992
Commissioner Blair discussed the following aspects of the
project supporting approval:
* Natural contouring
, Walking accesses
, Regional park
* Cul-de-sacs
, Trail systems, country road idea
, Utilization of the Eucalyptus trees as an entry
statement
*Small neighborhood parks
Concerns expressed by Commissioner Blair were:
* Grading and erosion control
Chairman Hoagland concurred with Commissioner Blair's
comments and added he is concerned with access and
grading.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
Gary
,
,
Thornhill reported the following:
Mr. Gabele's request to utilize landscaping as opposed to a
wall for screening his project was considered by the City
Council who sent it back to staff for work and reconsideration
by the Planning Commission.
July 20, 1992 - An Old Town Specific Plan Update is scheduled.
July 29, 1992 - A Joint Planning Commission and Traffic and
Transportation Commission Meeting at City Hall, 7:00 P.M. is
scheduled.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Fahey questioned the outcome of the land use meeting.
Gary Thornhill stated that most of the concerns have been resolved,
with substantial changes along Highway 79 South. He added that the
next public hearing on the Land Use Plan was scheduled for the
beginning of November.
FCMIN7/06192 -4- 7/15/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair
to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 P.M. The next regular meeting is
scheduled for Monday, August 3, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary
School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula.
JULY 6,1992
Chairman John E. Hoagland
Secretary
PCMIN7/06/92 -5- 7/15/92
ITEM #3
STAFF RI~,PORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEM]iCULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 20, 1992
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 2, Revised Permit No. 1, Amendment No. 3
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
ADOPT Resolution No. 92-_ appmving Plot Plan No. 2,
Revised Permit No. 2, Amendment No. 3 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
REAFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan No. 2, Revised Penit No. 1, Amendment
No. 1.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bedford Development Company
Bedford Development Company
PROPOSAL:
A request for approval of a revision to Plot Plan No. 2, Revised
Permit No.l, Amendment No. 1 m allow for a 15,400 square foot
expansion of K-mart and a change of use for Pad No. 6 from
financial to a restaurant to allow the construction of a Coco's
Restaurant and a request for special review of parking.
LOCATION:
Palm Plaza, southwest comer of Winchester Road and Ynez Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S)
SURROUNDING
ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S)
Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S)
Heavy Agriculture-Minimum 20 acre lots (A-2-20)
Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S)
PROPOSED ZONING: N/A
EXISTING LAND USE:
Pad No. 6
Proposed K-mart Expansion:
Vacant
31 Parking spaces
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS
Palm Plaza
Site Area:
Building Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Standard:
Compact:
Handicap:
Parking Shortage:
Coco's Restaurant
Building Area:
Building Height:
Seating Capacity:
Required Parking:
K-mart Expansion
Existing Area:
Proposed Addition:
Building Height:.
Required Parking:
Retail:
Storage:
Addition:
North: Commercial
South: Commercial
East: Vacant
West: Commercial
1,785,068 square feet
448,456 squaxe feet
2,656 spaces
2,399 spaces
1,885 spaces
468 spaces
46 spaces
257 spaces
6,134 square feet
25 feet
184 persons
88 spaces
86,479 square feet
15,400 square feet
30 feet
412 spaces
324 spaces
11 spaces
17 spaces
BACKGROUND
On November 6, 1989, Riverside County approved Palm Plaza as a 413,228 square foot
commercial shopping center. On July 16, 1990, the City Planning Commission approved Plot
Plan No. 2, Revised Permit No. 1, Amendment No. 1 a request for a revision to the site plan
which increased the square footage to 429,175 square feet and a request for a special review of
parking. A parking analysis was performed for this request and it concluded that the available
parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate the parking demand.
Plot Plan No. 2, Revised Permit No. 2, Amendment No. 2 was submitted to the Planning
Department on March 27, 1992 to further revise the Plot Plan to allow the construction of a
Cooo's restaurant and the expansion of K-mart. Staff requested changes to Amendment No. 2
which has resulted in Amendment No. 3.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a revision to the approved site plan for Palm Plaza. This revision
will allow the construction of a 6,135 square foot Coco's Restaurant on Pad No. 6 which was
originally approved as a 4,450 square foot financial institution. The restaurant will have a
maximum seating capacity of 184 persons and will require eighty eight (88) parking spaces as
specified in Ordinance No. 348. Additionally, this revision will add seven parking spaces as a
result of reconfiguration of the pad area. The architecture of the building will be consistent with
all other buildings within Palm Plaza.
Furthermore, this revision will flow a 15,400 square foot expansion of K-mart which was
approved as a 86,479 square foot building. This addition will result in a net loss of twenty one
(21) parking spaces. The architecture of the proposed addition will be consistent with the
existing building.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project will add to the demand on the exisfmg parking spaces in Palm Plaza. The
main focus of this section is to analyze the required parking spaces for the proposed project and
the whole center and demonstrate that the number of parking spaces available will be sufficient
to accommodate the proposed uses.
Pad No. 6 was originally approved for a 4,450 square foot financial use which required twenty-
two (22) parking spaces. The conversion of this pad to a 6,134 square foot restaurant increases
the parking demand to eighty-eight (88) spaces. Therefore, the net increase in the number of
parking spaces for this pad is 66. Additionally, the K-mart expansion will require seventeen
(17) parking spaces, bringing the total number of parking spaces required by this revision to
eighty three (83). The actual site design will eliminate a total of fourteen (14) parking spaces
which will result in a net increase of 97 parking spaces as a result of this project.
S\5TAFFRFr~PP.PC 3
The total number of parking spaces required for Palm Plaza by Ordinance No. 348, including
the proposed uses is 2,656 spaces. A parking study was prepared by Linscott, Law and
Greenspan Engineers on March 19, 1992. This study utilizes a shared use parking demand
analysis performed by the time-of-day for weekdays and Saturdays. The shared parking concept
emphasizes that not all land uses experience their peak purlring demand at the same time of the
day.
For example, retail uses usually have daytime parIcing peaks, while theater and restaurant uses
typically peak during the evening hours. The typical parking code uses the peak number of
parking spaces for each use irrespective of the time of the day that the parking spaces are
needed. The shared use parking demand analysis takes into account the time of the day that each
use needs the parking spaces. It calculates the number of spaces required for each use in an
hourly basis for a shopping center based on parking demand rates from the Urban Land Institute
CtYl-/) and adds the parking demand for each hour for the whole center. The highest number
of parking spaces during a certain hour of day would be the required parking spaces that the
center would need in order to provide the maximum parking spaces generated by all the uses.
According to the parking study, the highest demand for parking for Palm Plaza is 2,265 spaces
and it occurs at 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The existing number of parking spaces is 2,399 spaces;
therefore, the supply wffi typically exceed the anticipated worse case by over 130 spaces.
Staff has reviewed the parking analysis and agrees with the methodology and the conclusion.
The shared use analysis seems to be a logical method to calculate the number of required parking
spaces for a large center like Palm Plaza.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING, AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
This project will likely be consistent with the future General Plan since it is located within an
existing commercial shopping center and the General Plan will most likely designate the site as
commercial. The first draft of the preferred Land Use Map shows the project site as
commercial.
This project is consistent with the Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zone since it meets all
the requirements for this zone.
This project is consistent with the SouthWest Area Plan (SWAP) since it is designated as
commercial in the plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Negative Declaration was prepared for Plot Plan No. 2, Revised Permit No. 1. Since no
significant impacts are anticipated from the Revised Permit No. 2, the Staff recommends
reaffirmation of this Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project as proposed meets all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. The architecture of
the proposed buildings is consistent with existing center. The parking analysis prepared for this
project demonstrated to Staff that the available parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate
the parking demand for the whole center.
This project will likely be consistent with the future General Plan since it is located
within an existing commercial shopping center and the General Plan will most likely
designate the site as commercial. The first draft of the preferred Land Use Map shows
the project site as commercial.
This project is consistent with the SouthWest Area Plan (SWAP) since it is designated
as commercial in the plan.
This project is consistent with the Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zone since it
meets all the requirements for this zone.
This project will not have a significant impact on the environment since all the impacts
have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The proposed project is suitable for the site since it accommodates all the structures, the
necessary parking, landscaping and circulation for the site.
The proposed project will not cause a parking shortage since the parking analysis
performed used a shared use parking demand analysis and demonstrated that the available
number of parking spaces are adequate to serve the project.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
ADOPT Resolution No. 92--- approving Plot Plan No. 2,
Revised Permit No. 2, Amendment No. 3 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Condition of Approval.
REAFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan No. 2, Revised Permit No. 1, Amendment
No. 1.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5,
Resolution - blue page 6
Conditions of Approval - blue page 11
Exhibits - blue page 20
Parking Study - blue page 27
Initial Study - blue page 28
S~TAFFRIvI~2PP-~C 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
ATIIACI-I1VIENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 9~-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMEC~A APPROVING OF PLOT PLAN
NO. 2, REVISED PERMIT NO. 2, AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
CONSTRUCT A COCO'S RESTAURANT AND A 15,400
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO K-MART ON A PARCEL
LOCATED ON ~ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
WINC~FFASTER ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD IN ~ PALM
PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-130-030.
WtrEREAS, Bedford Development Company filed Plot Plan No. 2, Revised Permit No.
2, Amendment No.3 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
Wltl~REAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WItF. REAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plan on July 20, 1992, at which time interested persons had oppormdity to testify either in
support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan.
NOW, T~!F-REFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. Findin~,s. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state hw that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
general plan.
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
SXFORMS\REIPpp. PC 7
a. Them is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
2. The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each
of the following:
a. There is reasonable probability.that Plot Plan No. 2, Revised
Permit No. 2, Amendment No. 3 proposed will be consistent with the general plan pwposal
being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time since the project
is consistent with the existing SWAP and zoning designation.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan since the project is compatible with surrounding development.
c. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances since it complies with Ordinance No. 348.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
E. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan,
makes the foliowing fmdings, to wit:
1. This project will likely be consistent with the future General Plan since it
is located within an existing commercial shopping center and the proposed future General Plan
will most likely designate the site as commercial. The furst draft of the preferred Land Use Map
shows the project site as commercial.
2. This project is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) since it
is designated as commercial in the plan.
3. This project is consistent with the Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S)
zone since it meets all the requirements for this zone.
4. This project will not have a significant impact on the environment since
all the impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
5. The proposed project is suitable for the site since it accommodates all the
structures, the necessary parking, landscaping and circulation for the site.
6. The proposed project will not cause a parking shortage since the parking
analysis performed used a shared use parking demand analysis and demonstrated that the
available number of parking spaces are adequate to serve the project.
F. As condifioned pursuant to SECTION 135, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the
logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
Section 1I. Environmental Compliance. Reaff'trmation of the Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan No. 2, Revised No 1, Amendment No. 1 is recommended.
Section 11I. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Plot Plan No. 2, Revised Permit No. 2, Amendment No. 3 to construct a Coco's
restaurant and a 15,400 square foot expansion of K-mart located at the southwest comer of
Winchester Road and Ynez Road in Palm Plaza and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-130-
030 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
Section IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 20th day of July, 1992.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
I I~.REBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temeeula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of July,
1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
S~FOP, MSXmaS-Pp.~C l 0
ATTACItMI~-NT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
s~FoP,~ls~ss-PP.~c 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No:
Proj~t D~scripfion:
Plot Plan No. 2, Revised No.
2, Amendment No. 3
A request to construct and
operate a Cooo's restaurant
and a 15,400 square foot
expansion of K-mart.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130-030
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a Coco' s restaurant and a 15,400 square
foot addition to K-man.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecuh, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an
approval of the City of Temecuh, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Plot Plan No. 2, Revised Permit No. 2, Amendment No. 3. The City
of Temecula will promp~y notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) ye&rs of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utiliTation contemplated
by this approval. This approval shall expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot
Plan No. 2, Revised Permit No. 2, Amendment No. 3 marked Exhibit "A", or as
amended by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
s~Fo~sxa.ss-PP.~c 12
10.
11.
12.
13.
The applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department' s Conditions of Approval
which are included here're.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions
set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated April 7, 1992,
a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance
No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated July 8, 1992 a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
transmittal dated April 6, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking,
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and
shall be accompanied by the appropriate ~ing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy penits. An automatic sprinkler
system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth
condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be
permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
A minimum of 2,399 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 2,399 parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on the Approved Exhibit(s) "A". The parking area shall be su~aced with asphattie
concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class 1I base.
A minimum of 46 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign construcmd of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at
a minimum height ff 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished
grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space furlshed
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each
entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly
and conspicuously stating the foliowing:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
S~FOR~iS~ES-PP.PC 13
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or
permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Riverside County Flood Control
Environmental Health
Rancho Water District
Public Works Department
F. astem Municipal Water District
Fire Department
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program for each use shall be submitted and approved
by the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibits El,
E2, and E3.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance
with that shown on Exhibit "G" (Color Elevations) and Exhibit "H" (Materials Board).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be architecturally shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a
steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and
within the parking areas.
Four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as appmved by
the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project axea.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be
determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of
plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the appmved plan, and adequate
maintenance of the planting for one year, shall be fried with the Department of Building
and Safety.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
sxvom~sxar~.s-~,.~ 14
Public Works Department
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff personnel of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
25.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must comply with the requirements of
the National Pollutant Discharge F-limination System (NPDES) permit from the State
Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES
clearance is granted or the project is shown to be exempt.
26.
As directed and deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works; and
Riverside County Health Department;
27.
The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive onsite improvement and
grading plan to the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the
Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, the Improvement Standards of the City of Temecula
and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall
be drawn on 24"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
28.
The developer shall submit two (2) copies of an updated soils report to the Department
of Public Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions
of the site.
29.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained mad right-of-way.
30.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete,
appropriate clearance letters and approval by the Department of Public Works.
S\FOP, MS\RE$-PP.E 15
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
41.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion
control runoff mitigation plans will be required. All plans shall be submitted with
appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
All site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and other
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and
existing improvements.
Improvement plans shall include the limits of all paving removals, paving replacement
and drainage modifications to be performed on the site.
Landscaping shall be limited in all comer cut-off areas at intersections and adjacent to
driveways to provide for adequate sight distance and visibility.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
Existing private streets and drive aisles requiring construction shall remain open to traffic
at all times with adequate detours during construction unless otherwise approved by the
Department of Public Works. Traffic control shall be provided.
The developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of any public improvements in conformante with applicable
City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Landscaping (street parkway).
C. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works
and any recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control District is required for work within
their right-of-way.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid for the affected parcels. The charge shall equal
the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development.
The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the
full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
pwperty, no new charge needs to be paid.
The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite work performed
on adjacent properties as directed by the Depa,huent of Public Works.
swo~.us~s-PP.~c 16
42.
The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from Riverside County Flood Control
District to outlet storm flows directly into their flood control facilities.
43.
A drainage plan shall be included with the grading plan and submitted to and approved
by the Department of Public Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required
by the Department of Public Works.
Minimum flowline grade shall be 0.50 percent unless otherwise approved by the
Department of Public Works.
45.
A copy of the underlying improvement plans for the existing improvements, grading
plans and the underlying recorded final map, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calcuhtions and other pertinent documentation shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for reference.
46.
Drainage and flood protection facilities will be required to protect all structures by
diverting sheet runoff to streets, or to a storm drain, as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
47.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
48.
The developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps rehted to the subject
property.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
49.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering
Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. ff
the full fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new
charge needs to be paid.
50.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
51.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the lqlR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall
be in the mount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. ff an interim or final public
facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which
developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer
shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been
p~rovided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall
post a bend to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The mount of the bond shall
be $2.00 per square fool, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said
Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming
swo~u~s~nl~s-PP.~c 17
benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement,
developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this
Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or
collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that
developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee,
and the amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIlh'ICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
52.
Construct all improvements including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement,
P.C.C. sidewalk, signing and striping, landscaping and irrigation and onsite lighting.
53.
All required fees must be paid and agency clearances obtained as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
Transportation Engineering
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
54.
A Bus Bay shall be provided on Ynez Road as determined by the Depaxtment of Public
Works and RTA. Prior to designing any improvement plans, contact Transportation
Engineering for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMF_Nr PERMITS:
55.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any public street detour or other disruption to
traffic circulation during construction as required by the Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
56.
All improvements shall be completed and installed in place per the approved
improvement plans.
Building and Safety Department
57.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code.
58.
Submit at the time of Plan Review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance
with Ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
59.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
60. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
S~FORMS\RE$-PP.PC 18
61. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
62.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
S\FORMS~II~.~-PP.PC 19
FROM:
RE:
BECEIV LJ , u 1e92
Cou LF of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEATH
CITY OF TENECULA
ATTN: S~ied Naaseh DATE:
nmental Health Specialist IV
04-07-92
PLOT PLAN NO. 2, REVISED NO.2, AMENDED NO. I
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Plot Plan
No. 2, Revlsed No. 2, Amended No. 1, and has no obaectlons.
Sanitary sewer end water services should be available in
this area. Prior to any building plan revlew for health
clearance, the following items are required:
1. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate
water end sewering egencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted, including e
fixture schedule, a finish schedule, end a
plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance
with the California Uniform Retell Food
Facilities Law. For specific reference,
please contact Food Facility Plan examiners
at (714) 358-5172.
SM:dr
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered,
be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final
Department of Environmental Health clearance.
DOH~2
RrVE ns E C O Y
DEP T NT
210 WEST S~ JACI~ AVENUE * P~S, ~ORN~ 92~
(714) 657-3183
GLEN ,L NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
TO;
ATTN:
RE;
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLOT PLAN # 2 REVISION #
2 AMENDMENT
JULY 8 1992
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above refer-
enced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following
fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside
County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The Pire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for
the remodel or construction of all commercial*buildings using the
procedure established in Ordinance 546.
BUILDING PAD NO. 2
1. The existing water system installed per plot plan 11222
will provide sufficient fire protection for the expansion of the
building on pad # 2
2. The fire protection measures in the existing building
such as automatic sprinkler system, portable fire extinguishers,
fire alarm system and panic exiting requirements will have to be
extended into the expansion area.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or
money order in the amount of $558.00 to the Riverside County
Fire Department for plan check fees. Please reference Plan Check
Number with remittance.
FI INDIO OI~IC~
79-733 Coontr~ Club D~v~ Sok F. ~ CA 92201
(619) 342~88~ · FAX (619) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
r-t RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th ~ Ri,,eslde, CA ~2~01
(714) 275-4777 · FAX (714) 369-7451
FI TEMECULA OFFICE
41002 Co~nt~ Center Drive, Suitt 225, Teme~, CA 92390
(714) 694-5070 · FAX (714) 694-5076
~ ~rinted on recycled ~aper
Plot Plan #2 rev. ~2 Amd. ~Z Cont. July 8~ 1992
4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer
ehall deposit, with the City of Temecula, a check or money order
equaling the sum of $.25 per sOuare foot as mitigation for fire
protection impacts. This amount must be submitted seoarately from
the plan check fees.
BUILDING PAD ND.6
1. The existing water system per plot plan 11222 will pro-
vide sufficient fire flow from existing fire hydrants.
2,Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings.
The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be
located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum
of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s)
will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the
title page of the building plans.
5.A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans.
4.Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm
system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for ap-
proval prior to installation~ as per UBC.
5. Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a
certified fire protection company for proper placement. The fire
extinguishing system shall be monitored by the fire alarm panel
with plans approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
8.Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating
of 2AIOBC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper
placement of equipment.
7.Prior to the issuance of building permits. the
applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or
money order in the amount of $558.00 to the Riverside County
Fire Department for plan check fees. Please reference Plan Check
Number with remittance.
F'lot Plan ~2 Rev. ~2 Amd. ~5 Cont. JULY 8, 1992
8.Prior to the issuance of building permits~ the developer
shall deposit~ with the City of Temecula~ a check or money order
equaling the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire
protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from
the plan check fees.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are
viewed in the building and Safety Office,
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be
ferred to the Planning and Engineering Staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Fire Captain Specialist
Water
April 6, 1992
Mr. Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Water Availability, Plot Plan No. 2, Revised No. 2,
Amended No. 1:15,000 Square Foot Expansion of K-Mart
and Pad No. 6 Change of Use to Coco's Restaurant
Dear Mr. Nasseh:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management fights, if any, to
RCWDo
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Engineering
S8:aj132
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
ATTACHMENT NO.
EXHIBITS
s~o~,su~s-n.~c 19
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 2, REVISED PERMIT NO. 2, AMENDMENT NO. 3
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: JULY 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
S!
SWAP - EXHIBIT B
Designation: Commercial (C)
·
SITE
C-p.S
ZONING - EXHIBIT C Designation: Scenic Highway Commercial (G-P-S)
Case No.: PLOT PLAN NO. 2, REVISED PERM1T NO. 2, AMENDMENT NO. 3
P.C. Date: JULY 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
SITE
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 2, REVISED PERMIT NO. 2, AMENDMENT NO. 3
EXHIBIT: D SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: JULY 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIRIT: E1
P.C. DATE: JULY 20, 1992
TT T"7.. T'T... .,.-.,-i ,., r T
_~- 7 !:":.:-~ '7"' '7' 7:__~'7 ~"'[""'i'~ ~.,.,.,.....
'7_3' ~'. v ' ' ..~ ..'_i .........'7:'- ......~- ......._': ~
; - -d--. '...·.~f
· _..,: .L.__. :
PLOT PLAN NO, 2~ REVISED PERIMIT NO, 2~ AMENDMENT NO, 3
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 2, REVISED PERMIT NO. 2, AMENDMENT NO. 3
EXI-HBIT: E2 ELEVATIONS
P.C. DATE: JULY 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 2, REVISED PERMIT NO. 2, AMENDMENT NO. 3
EXHIBIT: F LANDSCAPE PLAN
P.C. DATE: JULY 20, 1992
$WOPJ~PP.PC
ATTACHMENT NO.
PARKING STUDY
S\FORMS\RES-PP.I~C 27
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING" TRAFFIC ENGINEERING · PARKING
8989 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE, SUITE 135, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92108
TELEPHONE: (619) 299-3090 · FAX: (619) 299-7041
March 19, 1992
PHILIP M LINSCOTF, P.E.
JACK M. GREENSPAN, P.E.
WILLIAM A. LAW, P.E.
PAUL W. WILKINSON, P.E.
LEON D WARD, PE
DONALD W. BARKER, P.E.
Ms. Darice Roesner
Project Coordinator
Bedford Properties, Inc.
28765 Single Oak Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Palm Plaza Shared Parking Assessment, Temecula, California
Dear Ms. Roesner:
Per your request, Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) has prepared the following assessment
of the shared parking needs of your approximate 438,000 square foot Palm Plaza project in
Temecula. The project site is located in the southeast quadrant of 1-15/Winchester Road.
To date, all but two of the site's 27 pads are built-out and the parking supply has not been
observed to be deficient.
This parking assessment provides an update to a previous assessment for the site prepared
by LLG in April of 1990. This assessment identifies the parking demand based on the
square footages and land uses that are currently existing and/or proposed on the January,
1992 site plan prepared by J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
The primary differences to the superseded site plan (1990) include a proposed 15,400 square
foot expansion to the Kmart-(Pad 2) and the development of Pad 6 as a 6,134 square foot
restaurant instead of a 4,450 square foot financial pad, as previously proposed. In addition,
the updated calculations include some slight refinements in square footages of the built-out
Pads 1 through 27 as they appear on the current site plan.
SHARED PARKING CONCEPT
A shared use parking demand analysis was performed by time-of-day for weekdays and
Saturday. The shared parking concept considers the fact that in a multiple-use environment,
not all of the land uses experience their peak parking characteristics at the same time. For
example, planned retail uses traditionally have daytime parking peaks, while theater and
restaurant uses generally peak during the evening hours. The typical code parking
computation adds the peak parking for each land use irrespective of the time of need during
the day. Shared parking accounts for the varying demand and estimates the probable
number of parking spaces needed to support the planned mix of uses throughout the day.
OTHER OFFICES: COSTA MESA TELEPHONE: (714) 641-1587 * FAX: (714) 641-0139
PASADENA TELEPHONE: (213) 681-2626 · FAX: (818) 792-0941
AN LG2WB COMPANY
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Bedford Properties
March 19, 1992
page2
The Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking* hourly demand factors represent a
methodology for determining parking need which takes into account differing demand
patterns as they occur in real operations. The extent of shared parking depends on the type,
size and character of the land uses involved, as well as other factors such as location,
surrounding land uses, social/economic environment, and availability of alternative modes
of. transportation.
The shared use concept was incorporated into this analysis. Only the theater parking
accumulation percentages have been modified to reflect the results of similar parking studies
undertaken by LLG. ULI shows that the theaters are at 70% of the maximum parking
demand between 1:00 PM and 6:00 PM, every day of the week. This does not seem
reasonable and is not supported by local studies.
MIXED-USE CONCEPT
The mixed use parking concept considers the fact that when two or more complimentary
land uses are located close to one another (i.e. within walking distance) they tend to support
one another. Persons patronizing one land use may also patronize a second out of
convenience without generating any additional parking demand. Consider the example of
a hotel located adjacent to a retailRestaurant development. ULI studies of this situation
show that greater than 75 percent of the hotel guests are likely to patronize the adjacent
retail/restaurant uses tinting their hotel stay with out creating any additional parking demand.
The mixed-use parking effects for the Palm Plaza project are considered to be potentially
significant between the theater or restaurant and the smaller retail shops. However, the
exact magnitude of these effects is hard to determine without very specific and detailed
research. The effects of mixed-use parking demands have not been included in this analysis
with the intention of generating a conservative estimate of the peak parking demand.
SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
The shared parking demand analysis is based on the following assumptions:
1) The land uses consist of the uses outlined on the Site Plan prepared by J.F. Davidson
Associates, Inc., dated January, 1992.
*Shared Parking; the Urban Land Institute; Washington, D.C., 1983; pg. 47.
Bedford Properties
March 19, 1992
page3
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
2) Parking demand was derived using a "shared use" analysis.
3) The parking demand rates are from ULI and ITE, without adjustment.
4)
The accumulation curves are based on data derived by the ULI, however, the theater
accumulation percentages have been modified to better reflect LLG's experience on
similar projects and the specific uses of this project.
5)
The project will experience a "mixed-use" parking demand to some degree. However,
mixed-use characteristics were not accounted for in this analysis in order to obtain
a conservative parking demand estimate.
The enclosed Tables 1 and 2 show the gross and net (with and without shared parking)
parking demand for each individual planned land use for a weekday or Saturday,
respectively. The number of spaces shown in the right-hand column reflects the cumulative
parking demand by time-of-day for both weekdays and Saturdays. Table 3 contains the
hourly accumulation percentages used to calculate peak demand. The following paragraphs
summarize the parking demand characteristics for each of the proposed land uses on a
Saturday, which is the worst case.
Financial Parking Demand
Maximum parking accumulation for this use is estimated to be 22 spaces from 11:00 AM
to 1:00 PM The parking generation rate is 2.1 spaces/KSF. Banks and Savings and Loans
are busiest on weekdays, especially Friday. Saturdays traditionally have had a very low
parking demand, but this has been changing recently. Parking accumulation rates are
assumed to be the same as for office uses, since ULI does not specifically identify financial
uses.
Retail Parking Demand
Maximum parking accumulation for the combined retail uses is estimated to be 1,848 spaces
from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM. In the evening, the demand for the retail uses is expected to
drop significantly. The Saturday demand rate of 5 spacesflKSF is conservative and ULI
indicates the 4.2 space/KSF would be appropriate. The higher rate used in this analysis
allows for better customer service during the holiday season.
Bedford Properties
March 19, 1992
page4
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Restaurant Parking Demand
Maximum parking accumulation is projected to be 569 spaces from 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM.
Friday and Saturday nights are typically the busiest. Parking accumulation rates were taken
directly from ULI and have not been modified.
Movie Theater Parking Demand
Maximum parking accumulation for this use is estimated to be 564 spaces from 9:00 PM to
10:00 PM. The parking generation rate of 0.30 space/seat is from ULI for both Friday and
Saturday. The other days of the week are typically much lower. This rate is higher than the
rate derived from parking surveys conducted by LLG over the past ten years. Our studies
show that the "newer generation" of multi-p!ex theaters have about 60% occupancy due to
the staggering of movie start times and that all of the theaters in the complex are not full
simultaneously or all showing block buster movies. To be conservative, our lower rates are
not incorporated into this analysis.
COMBINED PARKING ACCUMULATION
The total parking accumulation has been calculated by hour of day for Saturday. It is
anticipated that a maximum combined demand of 2,265 spaces will occur at 3:00 PM. The
parking lots will provide 2,399 spaces. The supply will typically exceed the anticipated worst
case demand by over 130 spaces.
We would be pleased to provide you with supporting documentation as necessary and call
us if you have any questions.~
Sincerely,
LINSCOTF, LAW & GREENSPAN
Senior Transportation Engineer
JPK/EAD/pbs
3-900392
W E E K D A Y P A R K I N
PROJECT: PALM PLAZA
USE FINANCIAL
SIZE 10.24 KSF
PARKING RATE 4.2/KSF
GROSS SPACES 43 SPACES
TABLE 1
G A C r, U M ~" ' a T I "' N B 'f' H "'
PARKING ACCUMULATION, LLG MODIFIED 3/'13/92. 3
RrTAtI RESTAURANT CINEMA
369.6 KSF oo 43 KSF 1880 SEATS
3.8/KSF 20 /KSF 0.3/SEAT
1404 SPACES 569 SPACES 564 SPACES
HOUR OF DAY NET SPACES NET SPACES NET SPACES NET SPACES
6:00 AM 1
7:00 AM 9
8:00 AM 27
9:00 AM 40
t0:00 AM 43
11:00 AM 43
12:00 Nn 39
1:00 PM 39
2:00 PM 42
3:00 PM 40
4;00 PM 33
5:00 PM 20
6;00 PM 10
7:00 PM 3
8:00 PM 3
9:00 PM 1
10:00 PM 1
11:00 PM 0
12:00 Md 0
T2, TAL
qpA,-.:'::
0 0 0
112 11 0 :
253 ~o 0 ; 3n8
890 87 0 ; ES7
955 11~
,on, 171 17
1362 285 ~ : ITM
1404 398 23 :
1362 341 39 : 1TM
1334 341 on [ :TEE.
1221 oo= 39
1109 398 73
1151 512 203 : 1876
1250 569 299 : 2~20
1~1 569 412
856 869 808 ; 1934
449 512 564 : 1527
183 398 344 ; 925
0 285 308 : 589
PARKING NEED WITH SHARED USE:
PARKING NEED WITHOUT SHARED USE: 2580
PROJECT:
'FABLE 2
D A R l( I N G A C C U M U * A T i R N B Y H 0 " F
PALM PLAZA PARKING ACCUMULATION, LLG MODIFIED 3/13/9"
USE FINANCIAL RETAIL
SIZE 10.24 KSF 369.6 KSF
PARFLING RATE 2.1/KSF 8/KSF
GROSS SPACES 22 SPACES 1848 SPACES
HOUR OF DAY NET SPACES
6:00 AM 0
7:00 AM 4
8:00 AM 13
9:00 AM 18
ir~-,-,r, AM 18
11:00 AM
12:00 Nn
1:00 PM 18
2:00 PM 13
3:00 PM 9
4:00 PM 9
5:00 PM 4
6:00 PM 4
7:00 PM 4
8:00 PM 4
9:00 PM
10:00 PM 0
11:00 PM 0
12:00 Md 0
RESTAURANT CINEMA
28.43 KSF !880 SEATS
20/KSF 0.9/SEAT
569 SPACES 564 SPACES
NET SPACES NET SPACES NET SPACES
TOTAL
NET
SPACES
0 0 0 ~ 0
55 11 0 : 70
185 17 0 ~ ~15
854 34 0 : 606
832 46 0 ~ 896
1349 57 17 : 1445
157I ~ 85 ~ 1849
1756 256 107 ~ 2137
1848 256 135 : 2252
1848 256 152 : 2265
1663 256 169 : 2097
1386 341 243 : 1974
on~ 51° 316 : 2038
1109 541 344 ~ 1998
1016 569 406 : 1995
739 569 564 ~ 1872
702 541 519 ~ 1762-
240 484 254
0 398 203 : ~01
PARKING NEED WITH SHARED USE: 2265
PARKING NEED WITHOUT SHARED USE: 3003
TABLE 3
SOURCE:
MODIFIED?
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 Nn
I PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
12 Md
*** P E R C E N T A G E S ***
FINANC[AL RETAI
ULI ULI
NO NO NO
WKDY SAT WKDY
3% 0% 0%
20% 20%
63% 60% 18%
93% 80% 42%
100% 80%
100% 100% 87%
90% 100% 97%
90% 80% 100%
97% 60% 97%
93% 40% 95%
77% 40% 87%
47% 20%
23% 20%
7% 20% 89%
7% 20% 87%
3% 0%
3% 0% 32%
0% 0% 13%
0% 0% 0%
L RESTAURANT
ULI ULI ULI
NO NO NO
SAT WKDY SAT
0% 0% 0%
3 % o y ,-, ./
30% 10% 6%
45% 20% 8%
73% 30% 10%
85% 50% 30%
9BY, 70% 45%
100% 60% 45%
100% 60%
90% 50% 45%
75% 70;{ 60%
65% 90% 90%
60% 100% 95%
55% 100% 100%
40% 100% 100%
38% 90% 95%
13% 70% 85%
0% 50% 70%
C
LLG
YES
WKDY
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
3%
4%
7%
7%
7%
13%
36%
53%
73%
90%
100%
~1%
54%
INEMA
LLG
YES
SAT
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
15%
19%
24%
27%
30%
43%
56%
61%
72%
100%
92%
45%
36%
*** F
ATlrACHMENT NO. 5
INITIAL 15'I'LIDY
su~om~su,.ss-m,.~ 28
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Aadress an~ ~hone
~mher of Proponent:
4.
5.
6.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Environmental impacts
Bedfnrd Development
P.01 Box g016, Temecula, CA
(714) 676-5641
May 8, 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
Palm Plaza P.P. Revision
Southwest corner of Winchester
and Ynez
{Explanations of all "Vest' and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions. dlspiacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils. either on or
or off site?
92390
Yes Maybe N__o
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -1-
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any b~y, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yes Maybe N__9o
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -2-
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
u,. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants {including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
{birds, land animals including rep*
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
X
BLANK I ES/FORMS -3-
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
BLANK)ES/FORMS -~-
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, b/cyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the .proposal result in:
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -5-
17.
18o
19,
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard ( excluding
mental health )?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Y~.S
Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
Yes Maybe N._9o
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? i A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? {A project~s
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
BLANKIES/FORMS -7-
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
BLANKIES/FORMS -8-
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
6-11-90 ~
Date Samuel Reed
For CITY OF TEMECULA
BLANKIES/FORMS -9-
Earth
1 .a.-f.
1.g.
Air
2.a.-c.
Water
3.a.
3.b.-c.
3.d.-e.
3.f.
3.9.
3.h.
3.i.
No. the proposed addition of a 13,812 square foot building and 2,8z~8
square feet of additional floor space will not involve significant
additional amounts of grading to approved Plot Plan No. 11222.
No. The project site is identified on the Riverside County General Plan
Seismic Geological Map as being located within a fault zone, liquefaction
or subsidence area, and appropriate building design will be required
to mitigate potential impacts.
No. The additional square footage of commercial space adds
incrementally to the deterioration of air quality locally and regionally.
Temecula~s rate of growth regionally is significant. This individual
project~s impact is not significant.
No. There are no marine or fresh waters on the site.
No. Sheet flow will continue to be channeled into the streets and
drainage facilities. Development activities on open land generally
decreases water absorption by the installation of concrete structures.
Construction activities also compact soil which affects absorbability.
This impact is not deemed significant and will not be increased if the
revised permit application is approved.
The closest intermittent body of water to the site is Tucalota Creek.
The proposed project will not affect the amount of Tucalota Creek's
surface water or alter the surface water quality.
Yes. See Flood Control letter dated June 18, 1990. Conditions to avoid
significant impact have been attached.
No. The proposed project is an amendment to the approved Plot Plan
No. 11222 and would not additidnally affect the quality of flow of ground
waters.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply.
Yes. See Flood Control letter dated June 18, 1990. The project site is
located within a dam inundation area and is subject to 100 year storm
flow. Development on the site is subject to the land use standards for
floods implemented through the Riverside County Ordinance No. L~58 -
Flood Plan Management. See Flood Control letter dated June 18, 1990.
Mitigations will prevent significant impact.
-2-
Plant Life
q..a. -c.
No. The proposed project is to add additional square footage to an
already approved Plot Plan No. 11222. The proposed project will not
additionally affect the existing plant life.
No. There are no agricultural crops on the site to be affected.
Animal Life
No. Since the proposed project is an amendment to an approved Plot
Plan No. 11222, there will be not additional impacts to animal life.
Noise
6,a.
Maybe. the proposed additional commercial space may increase traffic
volumes to the site during certain times of the day resulting in possible
increased traffic noise. This potential impact is not considered
significant.
6.b.
No. The proposed project will not expose people to severe noise levels.
Light and Glare
No. The proposed project will not produce additional substantial light
glare as will already be produced by Plot Plan No. 11222. The project
site is located within the Mt. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting
Building Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium vapor
(LPSV) light to avoid interference with the Mt. Palomar Observatory
telescope.
Land Use
No. The southwest Area Plan designates the site as commercial. Plot
Plan No, 11222 has previously been approved for this site.
Natural Resources
No. The proposed 13,000 square foot commercial building will not
substantially increase the rate of use or depletion of any natural
resource.
Risk of Upset
10.a.
No. The proposed project will not require the closure of any hazardous
substances.
10.b. No. The proposal will not involve the closure of any streets.
-3-
Population
11.
No. The addition of 13,000 square feet will not allow the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of human population within the
area.
Housing
12.
No. The addition of 13,000 square feet of commercial space will not
create a significant number of jobs which would affect the area~s
housing demand.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a.,
c.,f.
Maybe. There may be an increase in traffic during peak hours. The
transportation related conditions of approval for Plot Plan No. 11222
shall apply.
13.b.
No. Approved Plot Plan No. 11222 provides 2,408 stalls. By allowing
a shared parking reduction, due to the nighttime use of the theater and
daytime use of the retail store, Palm Plaza will have adequate parking.
13.d.-e.
No. The proposed additional commercial space will not alter the present
patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. There are
not waterborne or rail facilities within the vicinity of the project.
Public Service
14.a.-f.
No. The proposed addition of 13,000 square feet of commercial space
will not generate a need for additional public services.
Enerc~y
15.a.-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase a demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a.-f. No. The proposed project will not generate a need for additional
utilities.
Human Health
17.a.-b. No. the proposed 13,000 square feet of commercial space will not create
a health hazard or increase human exposure to hazardous materials.
Aesthetics
18.
Recreation
19.
No. The proposed will not present an impact to any scenic vistas.
No. The proposed project will not affect the area's recreational
opportunities.
Cultural Resources
20.a.-d.
No. All cultural resource impacts will be addressed by Plot Plan No.
11222.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
21 .a.-c.
No. The proposed 13,000 square foot commercial building will not
impact the biological environment, achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long term environmental impacts, or have cumulative
impacts.
21 .d.
No. The traffic study for Plot Plan No. 11222 has been analyzed to
determine if the additional 16,668 square feet of commercial space will
have a significant impact on the transportation system in the immediate
area. No significant impacts are expected from the additional retail
area.
ITEM # 4
C U LAVA LL EY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Piltricia R. Novomey, Ed,D.
July 1 O, 1992
City of Temecula
Planning Commission
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: New High School and Maintenance/Transportation Complex
Please find attached copies of the site plan for the new High School and
Maintenance/Transportation complex. These plans include a schematic design
for the entire site as well as a detailed drawing and elevation for the
Maintenance/Transportation complex.
Specific information regarding each of these sites will be presented at the
Planning Commission meeting on July 20, 1992. We appreciate your time
concerning this matter, and look forward to your comments at the meeting.
Very truly yours,
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Lettie Boggs
Coordinator, Facilities Planning
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / (714) 676-2661
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 20, 1992
Case No.: Status Report on Old Town Specific Plan
Prepared By: David Hogan
RECOMM'ENDATION: Receive and File
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved the contract with Urban Design Studio CODS) to prepare a specific
plan for Old Town Temecula on April 28, 1992. The Specific Plan will address will address
the following issues:
· The preservation and reuse of historic structures
· The economic development, revitalization, and marketing
· Parking, circulation, and other infrastructure needs
· Design standards for buildings, landscaping, and streetscapes
DISCUSSION
Work on the Old Town Specific Plan began in May, 1992. The process of developing the
Specific Plan for Old Town will consist of three major work phases. The three basic work
phases include:
Inventory and Analysis of Old Town Temecula.
Development and Selection of Preferred Plan.
Preparation and Adoption of the Specific Plan.
The inventory and analysis activities have almost been completed. The Background Report,
which will contain the bulk of the inventory and opportunity and constraint information will be
submitted to Staff for our review this week. The draft Background Report and the preliminary
Goals, Policies, and Objectives for the Plan will be presented to the Old Town Steering
Committee at it's next meeting. The next meeting of the Committee has been tentatively
scheduled for the middle of August, 1992.
Attachments:
1. Information handout on Old Town Temecula Specific Plan
2. Summary of stakeholder interviews
S~TAFFRFI~OTSpINFO,PC
· .. ,!.,..,.,
City of Temecula
OLD
SPECIFIC
what is a Specific Plan?
A St~cific ply, is a deta~ed plan for the
development of a specified area ~vithin a City. A
Specific Plan allows a more "customized"
planning approach to a given area than the
.typical 'community-wide' approach of the
zoning ordinance.
Why prepare a Specific Plan -
what are the benefits?
While some of the desired results for Old Town
could be accomplished through a rezoning
effort. there are certain clear advantages to the
Specific Plan approach. ?hey include:
the ability to reinforce a unique communiD,
idenLtty;
the opportuni~ to plan for the optimal
balance of land uses and public facilities;
the opponumty to offer development
incentives (regulato~-/financialk
the provision of dest guidelines to assist
developers. Ciky st~:.~nand decision makers
to make informed decisions related to the
design of projects: and
reducing the mount of conditional use
permit requests and non-conforming
buildings, signs. and parking.
What are the objectives of a
Specific Plan for Old Town?
The purpose of the Old Town Temecula Specific
Plan will be to provide a '~n~ter development
plan" for the Old Town area. The overall goals of
the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan are to:
preserve the i-dstoric buildings and character
of the area:
address current and future parking,
c~-culation, and public improvement
problems in and around the Old Town area:
establish design standards to rn~intain the
Old Town character and economic vitality;,
and
enhance the economic vitality of Old Town.
What will the Specific Plan do
for Old Town?
Based on the objectives outlined above, the Old
Town Specific Plan will be prepared to
specifically accomplish the following:
provide clear, "tailor made" land use and
development regulations specifically suited
to Old Town' s unique character.
provide incentives to encourage certain types
of development activity and businesses:
identify progmm-~ to help improve the
business climate:
identify needed public improvements such
as circulation, parking, streetscape, and
signs; and
provide architectural and site design
guidelines aimed at preserving Old Town's
historic character and improving Old Town's
pede~l~tan atmosphere.
What's next?
Urban Design Studio. the City's Old Town
Specific Plan consultant. will be working
intensively over the next three months to
develop a draft plan for public review. During
the course of the Specific Plan preparation,
workshops with the Old Town Steering
Cornrn{ttee will occur as well as personal
interviews, a public workshop. and a Joint
workshop with City Councfi and Plantring
Commmsion.
It is anticipated that the Specific Plan process
will include. at a mW~m,xm. the following
activities:
Assess Old Town's existing conditions
(including: land use, circulation, economic
viability. infrastructure. parkinS historic
structure inventox3r, etc.);
Identify and evaluate opportunities and
constraints (including: flooding, lack of
parking, inconsistent building design, buffer
and Wansit. ion axeas. etc.);
D Conduct public participation and work with
Old Town Steering Committee:
7) Formulate goals and policies to guide PhLn
development;
[] Prepare economic development strategy for
Old Town:
{2 Develop alternative lad use and ch'culatlon
{ZI Prepare architectural, site planning, signage,
and landscape design guidelines and
development standards:
[] Prepare a streetscape plan to reinforce the
Old Town tin:age; and
[] Develop a ren]t~ttc implementation program
to accomplish the goals of the Specific Plan.
Old Town
Temecula
Specific Plan
PERSONAL INTERVIEWS
A. Introduction
The effective implementation of any revitalization project begins with the development
of appropriate goals and objectives formulated with the assistance of those individuals
and groups who will ultimately be affected by the results of the proposed project. Lines
of communication must be developed and kept open throughout the process, especial-
ly in the early planning stages, which sometimes may require an educational orien-
tation to the proposed project or process.
The successful revitalization project is one that is well footed in a foundation of
communication, cooperation and knowledge. Without these essential ingredients, the
projectJprocess will lack direction, understanding and the necessary element of trust
which is built-up through the process of two-way communication.
The City of Temecula is contemplating the implementation of a revitalization project
within the City's Old Town area. The final outcome of this portion of the Specific Plan,
as described heroin, is a series of recommended actions designed to take advantage
of the available opportunities and to mitigate existing constraints to the revitalization
process. The conclusions are based on input from interviews focused on those
individuals who are potential participants or officials approving the program.
B. Backaround
In order to collect the input necessary to identify opportunities and constraints to the
revitalization of Old Town, a series of personal interviews, held over two days in
Temecula, were conducted.
Personal interviews' were conducted by Urban Design Studio staff with the following
individuals:
Peg Moore
Ron Parks
Steve Ford
Dennis Chiniaeff
Bob Lord
P.J. Patton
Tony Terrich
John Hoagiand
Walt Allen
Dick Birdsall
Karel Lindemans
Sal Munoz
Billie Blair
Bob Mords
Linda Fahey
Fifteen interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis. Each individual was asked a
series of twenty one questions which cover a variety of Old Town issues. Following
the questions, many individuals added their ideas and visions for the Old Town area.
C. Summary of Interview Responses
1. How long have you been a resident of Temecula?
Most interviewees have lived in Temecula between 11 and 20
years.
2. Do you own, operate, or have operated a business in Old Town?
Well over half of the interviewees had spouses or had at one time
conducted business in Old Town.
What do you think the top priority for your Specific Planning effort
should be?
· The top three responses were:
#1 - Economic Development
#2 - Traffic and Parking
#3 - Historic Preservation
4. What do you think is Old Town's most important asset?
The two most frequent responses were the historic buildings and
Old Town's architectural theme. Less important assets included
the current businesses and the creek.
5. What is the most negative aspect of Old Town?
There was less consensus on this item with the interview respon-
dents. The highest ranking negative aspect of Old Town was the
incompatible uses followed closely by "lack of parking" and traffic.
Vacant lots were not considered to be a negative aspect to most
of the interviewees.
6. How important is the Western Theme?
Every interviewee felt the Westem Theme was very important.
Do you think Old town should retain a mix of tourist uses and local
resident uses?
Nearly every interviewee felt that it was important to retain a
mixture of toudst and local uses. Only one person thought that the
local uses should be uses that toudsts might use. We felt this was
a valuable suggestions given that some uses like dry cleaners,
10.
retail eyeglass outlets, and floor and wall covering retail outlets
would likely only be used by locals. These uses could be restricted
from Old Town on a very selective case by case basis.
ff the CIty were to dedicate a significant amount of funds for
improvements in Old Town, what kind of improvement would you
support?
We asked each person to pdodtized the following list of activities.
We have listed them here from most supportable improvements to
least supportable:
Circulation/Traffic Improvements
Building Face Improvements
Street Lighting/Paving Improvements
Public Parking Lot Acquisitions
Landscaping/Street Trees
Creek Improvements
Bicycle Trails
Most respondents supported a one way traffic couplet concept on
a tdal basis!
What improvements would you like to see In Old Town to
strengthen and encourage business activity?
We asked each person to pdodtized the following list of
improvements. While we had a clear top choice and two bottom
choices, many improvements tied for secondary importance. We
have listed them here from most important to least important.
Increased parking
Storefront building maintenance (tie)
Amhitectural theme improvements (tie)
Street abandonments or new alignments (tie)
Promotion of tourism
Demolition of dilapidated structures
More development
Street lighting
Do you feel that the City has been aggressive, passive, or unable to
pursue significant activities in the Old Town area?
The majority of responses indicated that people thought the City
was passively pursuing improvement activities in Old Town. The
minodty opinion was that the City was aggressively pursuing
11.
12.
13.
improvement of Old Town over the last 6-12 months. Only one
individual thought the City was unable to effect any change in Old
Town.
What types of businesses or services would you like to see en-
couraOed in Old Town?
We read a list of uses off to each person and asked whether that
use should be encouraged in Old Town. In parenthesis next to
each use is the predominant feeling toward that use:
Retail shops (yes)
Bed and breakfast (yes)
Hotel and motel (yes)
Restaurants (yes)
Offices (yes, preferably on upper floors)
Gift shops (yes)
Shopping center (no)
Galleries (yes)
Antiques (yes)
Wine tasting (yes)
Theaters (yes, small, live praferrad)
What types of businesses and/or services do you want discourarled
in Old Town?
We read off a list of uses which we felt were undesirable uses for
Old Town. In parenthesis next to each use is the predominant
feeling toward discouragement.
Fast food drive thrus' (yes)
Bars (no, many felt they are appropriate within reason)
Junk shops (no, many felt that some should be allowed)
Automobile sales and repair (yes)
Mini marts (yes)
Service Stations(yes)
Large grocery/hardware store (yes)
Others mentioned included mobile homes, vehicle storage, walkup
pizza, mini storage, and "booze only" bars.
What do you think should be the maximum building height in Old
Town?
By a large majority, a three story height limit was favored. An
interesting minority opinion was that the architecture of this period
14.
15.
16.
that we am attempting to recreate had two story architecture. The
minority opinion suggested limiting height on Main and Front
Streets to two stories, with three stories being allowed in the
balance of Old Town.
Do you think that the automobile sales and repair uses currently
located in Old Town should be allowed to remain there indefinitely?
This was the only real tough question for most of the interviewees
to respond to. As the interviews progressed, however, an interes-
ting approach came forward. First, these uses should not be
allowed to remain indefinitely due to their nature of business.
Automotive uses are not considered conducive to Old Town. Each
owner would be allowed to remain for approximately ten years.
However, owners who voluntarily leave during the first ten years,
could receive City relocation assistance and rent subsidies. After
ten years, the only uses which could remain would be current
owners of these uses. In other words, if a current owner were to
sell his automotive use to another automotive user in year eight,
the new user would be required to vacate in two years. However,
if the original user wanted to remain forever and not grow larger,
he could.
Would you support a tourist attraction idea in Old Town such as a
turn of the century dirt street, hitching posts, boardwalk, gift shops,
closed to through traffic (If not located on Main or Front)?
Every interviewee thought this concept had real potential. Many
mentioned horses. May mentioned a surface material which drains
effectively and doesn't create a lot of dust. Many suggested as a
northern anchor project (perhaps Sixth).
Do you think a strong connection exists between the improvement
of the creek and the success of Old Town?
We suspect that the reason the responses to this question were
relatively split is that people had questions regarding the word
"improvement" in the question. In responding that the word
"improvement" meant flood protection only, a clear majority felt
that the creek improvement is imperative. Many respondents felt
that if the creek could be "enhanced", that would add to the overell
Old Town success, but enhancement is not cdtical ... but nice!
17.
18.
19.
20.
DO you think that the tourist and curio shops in Old Town should
be centralized or focused around Main Street or should they be
allowed to locate anywhere in Old Town?
All respondents but one felt that the Specific Plan should allow the
marketplace to dictate land use distribution. This is the only
response that Urban Design Studio feels should be discussed
further since we feel that too many local uses in and around Main
Street could dilute the nucleus of Old Town's market synergy.
Would you support a multi-family development on the west side of
Mercedes?
Nearly all interviewees did not support this concept. A minority
opinion would allow such use as a mixed use concept on upper
floors only.
Would you support allowing some very specific/desirable uses on
Main Street or Front Street without providing on-site perking?
All respondents felt that they could support this no parking con-
cept if the City provided public parking is available within walking
distance and that these uses would be required to contribute a
fixed amount of cash per required parking space to the City in
return for the public parking availability. There was no minority
opinion.
Do you think our Specific Plan should impose tighter restrictions on
temporary or banner signs?
Nearly every interviewee felt that tighter than current regulations
are needed to limit temporary and banner signs. Many Planning
Commissioners pointed out that the City staff is presently engaged
in preparing an amended statute on these signs and that these
should be used in Old Town.
Only one individual thought that the current situation on temporary
and banner sign should remain unchanged.
21.
Do you think our plan should seek to disperse through traffic from
Front Street to Mercedes Street.
Nearly every respondent felt that some dispersement to Mercedes
is critical. There was a majority opinion of these individuals who
believe a one way couplet could work. Many suggested the
couplet on a temporary basis to see how it works. Only one
respondent felt that Front Street should be widened to four traffic
lanes. A minority opinion was that a traffic problem really doesn't
exist except for the peak p.m. hour which is due to Rancho
California on/off ramps.
D. General Observations/Potential Solutions
The following observations were noted by Urban Design Studio following the final
interview:
Nobody talked about the Pujol area at all.
Everyone felt that the creek improvements need to protect Old Town. Beauty is
nice and certainly welcome.
On non-conforming uses, utilize a friendly helpful approach versus aggressive
approach.
Few people discussed the single family residential neighborhood east of
Mercedes, however, if any attempts are made for supportable commercial
intrusion, all residences should be purchased at the same time versus
piecemeal approach.
If a one way couplet is instituted, a large buffer is needed for singe family
residences east of Mercedes.
Leave the lumberyard.
Use indigenous, drought tolerant landscape.
Do not "over sanitize" the areas.
If one way couplet is instituted permanently, re-align Mercedes intersection at
First/Santigo and Moreno Road.
Design Guidelines should allow mixture of styles from early 1900's period.
Need a couple of small parking garages in the future.
Tie First Street into Weston Corridor.
Pedestrian bridge over freeway???!H
Need a centrally located grassy picnic area.
Restrict all truck traffic beyond Post Office.
Remove south bound stop sign at Front and FirsfJSantigo to alleviate Old Town
traffic stall at 5-6 p.m. or free right hand through traffic (south bound only).
ITEM
MEMORANDUlVl
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SURIECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
July 20, 1992
Amarillo Wind Machine Company
RECOMIVIENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Make a determination that the proposed use is compatible or
consistent with other uses in the A-1 zone district; and
Direct staff to approve the aforementioned use as an
Administrative Plot Plan.
BACKGROUND
In early June, the General Manager for Amarillo Wind Machine Company met with the Planning
Depaxtment relative to locating his use in the City of Temecula. Amarillo Wind Machine
Company manufactures, sells, services and repairs frost protection wind machines. Their
manufacturing plant is located in Exeter, California in the center of the San Joaquin Valley.
During the last two years, there has been a marked increase in business from Southern California
which has I~ad to the decision to open a facility in Southern California. A lease has been
negotiaU,'d with the owners of a building which would allow Amarillo Wind Machine Co. to
lease the building for a two year period with an option to extend the lease. The building is
located on the site of the Murdy Ranch Specific Plan. This site is currently zoned A-l-10 (Light
Agriculture, 10 acre minimum lot size). The applicant is proposing to use the existing building
on site for spare parts storage to support their field service operation, inside parking of three (3)
service lxucks, and some assembly of sexyice pans. The A-1 zone would not permit this type
of use.
However, there is language in the A-1 zone that states "any use that is not specifically listed in
subsections d and · (subsections of the A-1 zone), may be considered a permitted or
conditionally permitted use provided that the Planning Director finds that the proposed use is
substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the designated subsections.
Staff feels that this use is in keeping with other agricultural uses permitted in the A-1 zone and
would be a compatible use.
* ARTICLE XlII
A-1 ZONE (LIGHT ~RICULTURE)
SECTION 13.1. USES PERMITTED.
a. Any use permitted in the R-A zone, not including Section 6.50 (t), is
subject to the requirements set forth therein.
The following agricultural uses:
(1) Farms for rabbits, fish, frogs, chinchilla or other small
animal s.
{2) Water works facilities, both public and private, intended
primarily for the production end distribution of water for
trrigation purposes.
{3) Nurseries, greenhouses, orchards, aviaries, apiaries, field
crops, tree crops, ber~ and bush crops, vegetable, flower and
herb gardentrig. The drying, packing, canning, freezing and other
accepted methods of processing the produce resulting fron such
permitted uses, ~n~en such processing is primarily in conjunction
~th a farming operation and further provided that the permanent
buildings and structures used in conjunction with such processing
operations are not nearer than 20 feet frm the boundaries of the
prsmi ses.
{4} The grazing of cattle, horses, sheep, goats or other farm stock
or animals, not including hogs, including the supplanentary
feeding thereof, not to exceed 5 animals per acre of all the land
avai ! able; prove dad however, the systenatic rotate on of animal s
~th more than 5 animals per acre is permitted so long as the
total rimher of permitted animals is not exceeded. For the
grazing of sheep or goats, the permissible number of animals per
acre may he multiplied by 3, except that there shall he no limit
to the permissible number of sheep ~qich may be grazed per acre
when the grazing is for the purpose of cleaning up unharvested
crops, provided that such grazing is not conducted for more than
4 weeks in any 6 month period. The provisions of this paragraph
apply to mature breeding stock, maintenance stock and similar
farm stock, and shall not apply to the offspring thereof, if such
offspring are being kept, fed or maintained solely for sale,
marketing or slaughtering at the earliest practical age of
maturity. In all cases the permissible manbar of animals per
acre shall he cemputed upon the basis of the nearest equivalent
ratio.
(5) Farms or establtslment for the selective or experimental breeding
end raising of cattle, sheep, goats, and horses, subject to the
limitations set forth in subsection (b) (4) of this section.
(6) The nonc~,,,ercial raising of hogs, not to exceed S animals;
provided, however, that the total rimbar of animals permitted on
parcels of less than one acre shall not exceed 2 animals except
that no animals $hall he permitted on lots of less than 20,000
square feet, For the purposes of determining the rimbar of hogs
on a parcel, both weaned and unweaned hogs shall be counted,
(See Ordinance No, 431 regarding hog ranches),
118
(7) Future Farms, 4-H or stroller projects conducted by the occupants
of the premtses.
(8) A tmporar,v stand. for the crisplay and sale of the agriculture
produce of arLY permitted use that ts produced u n the premtses
Vnere such stand ts located or upon contiguous ~°ancls o~ned or
(g) e
A stgn, stngle or ~uble faced, not exceeding 12 square feet tn area
oar face, advertising onl,v the sale of the services or the products
produced on the premises. The stgn shell not he lSghted or have
flashtrig objects or banners.
The following uses are permitted sub;Ject to the approval of a plot plan
pursuant to hct~on Z8.30 of thts ordinance. The plot plan approva3
ma,v tnclude conditions requtr(ng fenctng and landscaping of the parcel
to assure that the use ts compatible w~th the surrounding area. (1) Grange halls.
(2) C~jrches, temples, or other structures used prtmartl,v for
re1 tgt ous worsh1 p.
(3) Prtvate schools.
hbl(c ut~11t,v facilities.
(6) A permanent stand for the a~splay and sale of the agrlcuJture
product of any permitted use that ts produced upon the print sea
where such stand ts located or upon contiguous lands owned or
leased b,v the o~ner or occupant of the premises.
(7) An add~ttonaq one famtl.v dvelHng (tnclucllng mobilehones),
excluding the pr~nclpa~ dwelling, shall he allowed for each l0
acres gross betng farmed. Sa~d additional dwelltng units she31
be located on a parcel betng farmed and occupted b,v the owner,
operator or ~plo,vee of the farming operation as a one fa~tl,v
rest dance pro v~ ded that:
a. The de~Hngs are not rented or held out for lease.
b. The dwellings ere located not hss than 50 feet frm an,v
propert,v 11ne.
c. The delltngs are screened from vteff from the front property
11ne b,v shrubs or trees.
d. The arrangement of the d~elltngs, santtary facilities and
utilities conforms ~tth a11 of the requirements of the Hea~th
Department, the Department of ilutlding and Safet,v and state
1 ew.
e. The nanher of dwellings for enplo,vees shall not exceed 4 per
es tab1 t s had fa rmt ng operett on.
ii!)Beau~ shops.
Real estate offices.
I~ner,v and eppurtenant and 1rid dental uses ~th established
on-stte fineyard.
The following uses are pormttted provtded a conditional use permtt ts
granted:
119
(De1 eted)
(3) An~ mining operation which ts exempt f,.o~ the prods~ons of ~e
California ~rface Htntng 8rid Recitation Act of Z975 and
Rtve~tde County Ordinance No. 555.
(7) Feed Stores.
(ZO 0tl production, not tncludin, Peflning or processing.
Fraternal lodge halls,
(Z3) (Deleted)
C~h~ercl al breeding operations.
(T6) Ridtrig ecadmles.
The fol l ovrlng uses are pemttted provtded that the operator thereof
holds a permit to conduct surface mtntng operations tssued pursuant to
Riverside County Ordinance No. 555, which has not been ,.evoked or
s~I'n~.';:.int.g oper.,ion th.t ,s s~.ct to t,. C.,,fo,..t. Surf.~.
Hintrig and Reclamation Act of 1975.
g. Kennels and carteties are permitted p,.ovtded they are approved pursuant
to the p,.ov~s~ons of Section 18.45 of this ordinance.
Any use that ts not specifically ltsted in subsections d. and e. may be
considered a permitted or conditionally pemttted use provided that the
Planning Dt,.ector finds that the proposed use is substantially the s~ne
in character and intensity as those listed in the designated
subsections. Such a use is subject to the permit p,.ocess which governs
the category in which it falls.
Amended Effect1 ve:
~---,~
5-z9-83 (O,.d. :
o.-.-,,~ o,-d.
o4.o,.87
07-20-89 : 348.3043)
120
SECT/ON 13.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Lot stze shall not be 1.ass than 20,000 square feet, with a minimum
average lot width of 100 feet and a mtntmom average lot depth of 150
feet, unless larger mtnlmum lot area and dimensions ire specified for a
particular area or use, except as follows:
The uses ltsted tn Section 13.1 (d) (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of
this ordinance shall not be required to have a lot area In excess
of 20,000 square feet or an average lot width tn excess of 100
feet, Irrespective of the minimum zone .requirements for a
parttcular area.
b. Hintmum yard requirements shall be 20 feet front yard, 5 feet side
yard, and 10 feet rear yard.
One-fmtly residences shall not exceed 40 feet in height. All other
uses shall not exceed 50 feet in height, unless a height up to 75 feet
for buildings or 105 feet for other structures is specifically
permitted under the promstons of Section 18.34 of this ordinance.
Animals on existing lots less than 100 feet in width. If the average
lot width of an existing lot is less than 100 feet, animals shall be
kept a minimum of 100 feet from the principal street frontage. If such
lot is a corner lot, animals shall also be kept not less than 20 feet
from the rear lot li he. For purposes of this section, the print, pal
street frontage is the street frontage with the shortest dimension.
e. Autemobtle storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12
of this ordinance.
knended Effective:
01-15~64 Drd.
06-16-65 Ord.
0g-15-65 Drd.
01-19-66 Drd.
07-27-66 Ord.
12-06-67 Drd.
07-16-69 Drd.
04-15-70 Drd.
09-16-70 Drd.
03-11-71 Drd.
OB-11-71 Drd.
10-19-72
348.391) 02-01-74
348.422) 05-30-74
348.459) 03-20-75
348.534) 12-10-75
348.638 09-08-77
11-29-79
348.859)
348.g05)
Ord. 348.1281)
I:i348,1327)
: 348,1429)
lord, 348.1481)
Ord.
Ord. 348.1729)-
operative 01-01-80)
05-19-83 : 348.2162)
121
;AMARILLO WIND MACHINE CO.
20513 Ave. 256 · Exeter, CA 93221
Telephone (209) 592-4256
DEBBIE UBNOSKI
c/o CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92590
(714) 694-6400
RE, BUSINESS PLAN FOR AMARILLO WIND MACHINE CO., RIVERSIDE COMPANY
JUNE 12, 1992
DEAR DEBBIE,
AMARILLO WIND MACHINE COMPANY WAS FORMED IN SEPTEMBER 1989 BY
ITS PARENT COMPANY AMARILLO GEAR COMPANY OUT OF AMARILLO, TX. WHOM
OF WHICH HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS SINCE THE 1920'S.
OUR BUSINESS IS TO MANUFACTURE, SALE, SERVICE AND REPAIR FROST
PROTECTION WIND MACHINES WHICH ARE USED WORLDWIDE FOR FROST
SENSITIVE CROPS. OUR MANUFACTURING PLANT IS LOCATED IN EXETER, CA.
IN THE CENTER OF THE SAN jUAQUIN VALLEY. WE EMPLOY 14 PEOPLE AT
THIS LOCATION ON A FULL TIME BASIS.
WE HAVE HAD A LARGE INCREASE OF BUSINESS FROM THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AREA DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS. THIS HAS LEAD US TO
MAKE THE DECISION TO OPEN A PLANT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
WE HAVE NEGOTIATED A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS OF A
BUILDING WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO LEASE THE BUILDING FOR A TWO YEAR
TRIAL PERIOD TO START WITH. WE ARE AWARE HOWEVER, THAT AT SOME
TIME IN THE FUTURE THE PROPERTY IS TO BE DEVELOPED. AT THAT TIME
WE WOULD BE PREPARED TO VACATE THE BUILDING IF AT THAT TIME WE ARE
STILL ITS OCCUPANTS.
OVERALL THIS WOULD GIVE USE THE TIME TO GET ESTABLISHED IN THE
AREA AND PREPARE US TO PURCHASE OR LEASE ANOTHER SITE FOR A LONG
TERM BASIS.
OUR COMPANY POLICY IS TO RUN A HONEST, CLEAN AND
ENVIRONMENTALLY CORRECT BUSINESS. THE BUILDING AND LOT AROUND IT
ARE CURRENTLY AN EYESORE WHICH IS BEING USED BY OUTSIDERS AS A
TRASH DUMPING SITE. WE HAVE AGREED WITH THE OWNERS AS TO CLEANING
UP THE BUILDING AND LOT. WE WILL ALSO MAINTAIN IT IN THAT FASHION.
ALSO I HAVE TALKED WITH SOME OF THE LOCAL NEIGHBORING PEOPLE WHOM
OF WHICH HAVE EXPRESSED A POSITIVE INTEREST IN HAVING US THERE AS
GOOD NEIGHBORS.
BUILDING - 60' X 80' METAL BUILDING WITH ENCLOSED BATHROOM AND
A SMALL CORNER OFFICE. 14' X 16' DOORS LOCATED ON LOMA LINDA DRIVE
ON THE WAY NORTH EAST OF THE PACIFIC SOD FARM. THE BUILDING WAS
BUILT FOR AND HAS BEEN USED FOR AN AG EQUIPMENT REPAIR SHOP.
24 Hour Service on All Makes and Models
"Professional Frost Protection" New and Used Machtnes
[PROPOSED BLDG USE CONT. )
PAGE 2
OUR PROPOSED USE FOR THE BUILDING WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS; SPARE
PARTS STORAGE TO SUPPORT OUR FIELD SERVICE AND INSTALLATION OF
AGRICULTURAL FROST PROTECTION WIND MACHINES, INSIDE PARKING OF OUR
SERVICE TRUCKS WHICH INCLUDE 1 TWO AXLE BOOM TRUCK AND TWO PICK-
UPS. ALSO SOME ASSEMBLY OF SERVICE PARTS WOULD TAKE PLACE INSIDE
THE BUILDING.
OUR FORECAST FOR NEEDED EMPLOYEES IS TWO NEW LOCAL PEOPLE THAT
WOULD BE ASSISTED, TRAINED AND SUPPORTED BY PART TIME HELP FROM THE
MAIN PLANT IN EXETER, CA.
OUR SALES FOR 1992-1993 ARE BUDGETED AT $750,000 WITH 98% OF
ALL SALES ARE MADE IN THE FIELD OR THROUGH THE HOME OFFICE IN
EXETER. THERE IS ONLY A VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT OF CUSTOMER TRAFFIC
THROUGH THE SHOP.
IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR IF I CAN BE OF ANY
FURTHER ASSISTANCE PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE
MENTIONED.
SINCEREL Y,
STEVE CLARK
GENERAL MANAGER
SCtbr
(TEMPROP)
~ 77
l
ITEM # 7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
July 20, 1992
Current Planning - Case Status
As per your request at the Planning Commission Hearing July 6, 1992, the following is an
accounting of the various cases that the Current Planning Division is processing. Approximately
42 cases will go to a public hearing. In addition, a number of administrative cases are also in
process (approximately 33 active cases). Where hearing dates have been set, this information
is provided. The remainder of the cases are in various stages of review.
CASES
HEARING DATES
Specific Plans
Temecula Regional Center
Campos Verdes
Winchester Hills
Murdy Ranch
Johnson Ranch
Roripaugh Hills
PC September
PC September
PC September
PC August 17
Public Use Permits
Lutheran Church
Ed Dufresne Ministries
PC September
DH July 30
Conditional Use Permits
Water Theme Park
Motorhome Sales of Temecula
Tentative Tracts
Tract 23143 (Crownhill)
Tract 25277 (Acacia)
Tract 27472 (Querry)
Tract 27314 (Linfield)
Tract 25338 ( )
Tract 26941 ( )
Tract 23990 ( )
Tract 26944 (Peruchetti)
Tentative Parcel Maps
Parcel Map
Parcel Map
Parcel Map
26563 (Potestas)
24691 (Parviz Azar)
27323 (Wal-Mart)
Change of Zones
Change of Zone 20 (Abemathy)
Change of Zone 23 (Sara)
Change of Zone 5570 (J & J)
Change of Zone (Linfield)
Change of Zone 1 03utterfield Station)
Plot Plans
Plot Plan 11817 (The Plaza)
Plot Plan 2, Revised (Coco's/K-Man)
Plot Plan 229 (Supermex)
Plot Plan 244 (Antenna)
Plot Plan 243 (Wal-Mart)
Tentative Tract Maps - Extensions of Time
Tract 23372 (Buie)
Tract 23373 (Buie)
Paloma del Sol maps
Tract 23513 ( )
Plot Plans - Extensions of Time
Plot Plan 11505 (Temecula Creek Inn)
Substantial Conformances
Substantial Conformance 29 (Arco)
DH July 16
PC August 3
PC August 3
PC August 17
August 3
PC July 20
S~A~RPT~CASESTAT.PC
Appeals
Appeal 24 (6th and Mercedes) CC July 14
Appeal 26 (Larry Gabele)
Staff anticipates the following cases will be heard at the following Commission hearings:
AUGUST 3
Tract 25277 (Acacia)
Tract 27314 (Lin~eld)
Change of Zone (Lin~eld)
AUGUST 17
Murdy Ranch
Tract 25338 ( )
SEPTEMBER
Temecula Regional Center
Campos Verdes
Winchester Hills
Lutheran Church
PC August 3
PC August 3
PC August 3
PC August 17
PC August 17
PC September
PC September
PC September
PC September
8~8TAIqqlPT%CASESTAT.PC