HomeMy WebLinkAbout010598 PC AgendaIn compliance w~th the Americana with Dkabitie~ Act, if you need epedal assietance to participate in thie
mating, please contact the office of the Community Development Department at IgOSl 694-6400.
Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangementl to ensurs
accsssibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
CALL TO ORDER:
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
January 5, 1998, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecule, CA 92390
Chairman Fahey
Reso Next In Order 98-001
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Guerriero, Miller, Slaven and Soltysiak
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 filed with the Planning Secretary
before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
Minutes from the December 1, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes from the December 15, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting
3. Director's Hearing Update
4. Twenty-five foot proposed pole sign (Lou Kashmere)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change)
City-Initiated
South of State Highway 79 South, east of Pala Road
Proposal: Cleanup General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change changing the designations from Office to Service
Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial, and from
Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial.
Negative Declaration
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Approval
R:\~VIlv{BERVG\PLANCOSGENDAS\I-5-98.V, rPD 12/30/97 vgw 1
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0438 (Amendment No.4 to
Specific Plan No. 199)
City of Temecula
North of Rancho California Road, south of La Serena Way,
east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway, within
the Temeku Hills Specific Plan (formerly Margarita Village)
To correct the Residential Development Standards Matrix
by removing the lot coverage standard unintentionally
included during the processing of Amendment No. 3 to
Specific Plan No. 199
Determination of Consistency with a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified
Carole Donahoe, Project Planner
Approval
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting:
January 26, 1998
Commission meeting
Regular Planning
ADJOURNMENT
R:\WIMBERVG\Pr-~M~COMMV~GENDAS\l-5-98.WPD 12/30/9'7 v~v 2
ITEM #2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FOR
DECEMBER 1, 1997
INDEX
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 1, 1997
SUBJECT
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. PA NO. 97-0349 - Recreational Vehicle Storage
5. PA NO. 97-0348 - Granny flats/guest houses
6. PA NO. 96-0345 - Wall sign for KFC
7. PA NO. 97-0305 & PA NO. 97-0368 - Winchester Meadows
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
PAGE
1
1
1
2
2
2-4
5-6
7-10
11
11
11
11
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 1, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:01 P.M., on
Monday, December 1, 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and Chairwoman Fahey.
Absent:
Commissioner Guerriero.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Principal Engineer Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Hogan.
Associate Planner Fagan, and
Minute Clerk Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairwoman Fahey advised that although the Planning Commission will be considering the
continuation of Agenda Item No, 4 (Recreational Vehicle Storage), public input would be
welcomed,
For Ms. Betty Condren, 40741 Calle Katerine, it was clarified by Chairwoman Fahey that the
City Council had requested that the matter be addressed by staff and the Planning
Commission; that a staff recommendation be made to the Planning Commission for review and
public input; and that the Planning Commission would then be making a recommendation to
the City Council for review and public input.
Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the City Council has requested that the City's Code
Enforcement Officers not pursue any action at this time with regard to recreational vehicles
stored on private property. She noted that any recreation vehicles, boats, etc. stored on
streets will fall under the 72-hour parking law, which will continue to be handled by the Police
Department, and that this portion of the Code will not be amended.
Planning Commission
December 1, 1997
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the December 1, 1997, agenda with
the continuation of Agenda Item No. 4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak
and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Guerriero
absent).
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 20. 1997
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the October 20, 1997, minutes as
written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote of those
present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Guerriero absent).
3. DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE
None given.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0349
Planning Commission consideration to repeal Section 17o24(D)(1 )(f) of the
City's Development Code pertaining to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage in
residential areas.
This Agenda Item has been continued (see motion above).
5. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0348
Planning Commission consideration to amendment the City's Development
Code pertaining to permitted uses for granny flats and guest houses, parking
standards for multi-family units, second units, granny flats, and guest houses
in residential areas and adding a definition of guest house.
RECOMMENDATION
To recommend approval based on the analysis contained in the staff report.
Associate Planner Fagan provided the staff report (as per written material of record),
highlighting the recommended amendments, which included "Schedule of Permitted Uses" and
"Parking Spaces Required." In response to the Commissioners, Mr. Fagan advised that a
covered parking space would be considered a carport, not an enclosed garage; that an
uncovered parking space would be considered a driveway; that a phone survey, conducted by
staff, reflected that multi-family housing does not have a vacancy problem throughout the
Planning Commission
December 1, 1997
City; that existing multi-family housing projects indicated no problem with regard to insufficient
parking spaces; that granny flats and guest houses will only be permitted for single-family
residences; that in order to construct a granny flat and/or guest house, specific design criteria
must be met; that it would be staff's intent to require one separate, uncovered parking space,
not including the driveway, for the granny flat; and that there are specific Code requirements
with regard to parking spaces and the construction of them.
Commissioner Miller suggested that staff's intent to require one separate, uncovered parking
space for the granny flat should be clearly reflected in the Ordinance. Mr. Miller expressed
concern with the enforceability of the Community Development Director's ability to waive the
requirement of one uncovered parking space for the granny flat in the event the current
resident of the fiat were not a licensed driver.
Attorney Curley clarified that the verbiage for "Schedule of Permitted Uses" is existing in the
Code, noting that staff is proposing the addition of the Table (as per staff report). With regard
to the application for a granny flat/guest house, Mr. Curley advised that the applicant must be
able to meet all building requirements, noting that such developments would primarily be
restricted to single-family units. Mr. Curley advised that State law clearly distinguishes
between a guest house and a granny flat, noting that more restrictions are imposed on the
granny fiat.
With regard to how these Code amendments impacted a previously approved, multi-family
project, Commissioner Slaven expressed concern with the reduction of covered parking spaces
by 190 and with an overall parking space reduction of 78 spaces. Although not applicable to
this request, Commissioner Slaven questioned how these parking space reductions impacted
the design of this previously approved, multi-family project.
In response to Commissioner Slaven, Project Planner Donahoe advised that the Spanos
Apartment Project added additional handicapped parking spaces in order to meet the ADA
requirements but noted that the design of the previously approved project did not change in
terms of buildings, parcels, and square footage. She further clarified that the reduction in
parking spaces (190) was disbursed throughout the site and not all in one area; and that some
ADA parking spaces are covered as required and some are uncovered.
In light of the attorney's input and because of the potential conflict with a client's property,
Commissioner Miller noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue.
At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. No comments were received.
Commissioner Slaven noted that, in her opinion, the reduction of internal parking spaces for
multi-family projects would not be in the best interest of the City. With regard to the granny
flats, she, echoed by Chairwoman Fahey, expressed concern as to the enforceability of the
Community Development Director's ability to waive the requirement for one uncovered parking
space in the event the resident did not possess a driver's license. Therefore, Commissioner
Slaven stated that an applicant should be required to provide the necessary parking
requirements independent of the resident's driving status.
Planning Commission
3 December 1, 1997
Because a granny flat would be a permanent structure and because such a structure could be
converted to a student flat, Commissioner Slaven reiterated her desire to require the applicant
of such a request to provide the required amount of parking independent of driving status.
Following Commission discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to strike, because
of lack of enforceability, the provision allowing the Community Development Director to waive
the requirement of one uncovered parking space for a granny flat, dependent on the resident's
driving status.
Planning Manager Ubnoske suggested that additional clarification be provided, by way of
verbiage in the Code, relative to granny fiat parking requirements, ensuring that the required
parking spaces are in addition to the parking spaces required for the single-family residence.
MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved to close the public hearing and to adopt the Negative
Declaration for PA 97-0348 and to adopt Resolution No. 97-037. The motion was seconded
by Chairwoman Fahey and voice vote of those present reflected approval as follows:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97 -037
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TABLE 17.06.030, TABLE 17.24.040
AND SECTION 17.34.010 OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE
PERTAINING TO PERMITTED USES FOR GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES, PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, SECOND UNITS,
GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, DRIVEWAY
WIDTHS CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.24.050(b) AND ADDING A DEFINITION
OF GUEST HOUSE
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey and Soltysiak.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Slaven.
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Guerriero.
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: Miller.
Clarifying her no vote, Commissioner Slaven reiterated that because these amendments
decrease the required number of parking spaces, she voted in opposition.
Planning Commission
4 December 1, 1997
6. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 96-0345 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - REVISION)
Planning Commission consideration to erect a 55.3 square foot face graphic
wall sign on the Kentucky Fried Chicken/Shell Station building fronting
Margarita Road.
RECOMMENDATION
To provide direction to staff whether to revise previously approved plans.
Project Planner Donahoe reviewed the staff report (of record), noting that 17 signs have been
previously approved for the subject site and that staff had received two phone calls in
opposition to the request (Mr. Rob Van Kirk, Vice President of The Villages Homeowners'
Association, and Ms. Ruby Dirkson, 30551 Holly Berry Lane).
At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing.
Apologizing for some of the confusion this project has encountered, Mr. Lee Richardson,
30044 La Primavera, representing the applicant, advised that it was always the applicant's
intent to provide the requested sign on the original application but because of the relocation
of the car wash and, therefore, the relocation of signage, this particular sign was inadvertently
eliminated from the original request. Mr. Richardson briefly reviewed existing signage at the
location; noted that the proposed sign would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood;
and advised that the major tenants of this Center (Long's and Lucky's) as well as the owner
of the shopping center have given their approval to this request.
Reiterating the Association's initial objection to the approval of this entire development,
Mr. Jim Contopulos, 42075 Humber Drive, Treasurer of the Villages Homeowners'
Association, commented that the applicant has not complied with conditions of approval
originally imposed on the project. Although he would still not be in favor of the requested
sign, Mr. Contopulos requested that if this sign were approved by the Commission, the
applicant should be required to comply with the previously imposed conditions, such as the
following:
extensive landscaping along Margarita Road
berm (bordering Yukon Road not 36" high as initially required only 21" high
existing wall supposed to be 8' tall but is 7' tall
lights are not recessed
existing gate, along back side, should be removed for safety purposes
no light at Yukon Road and Margarita Road
Because previously imposed conditions of approval have not been adequately met, Mr. David
Micheal, 30300 Churchill Court, relayed his objection to this request and encouraged the
Commission to deny the request. In lieu of the proposed sign, he noted that he would not
oppose the installation of a KFC sign, similar to the one facing Rancho California Road.
Planning Commission
5 December 1, 1997
Mr. Richardson apprised the Commissioners of compromises the applicant initially made in
order to get the existing facility approved and in order to be a good neighbor and advised that
he would apprise the applicant of the residents' concerns with regard to the conditions of
approval.
In response to Chairwoman Fahey's suggestion, Mr. Richardson stated that because of
identity problems with the site of discussion, he relayed his opposition to the installation of
a KFC sign, similar to the one on Rancho California Road, in lieu of the requested sign.
Recalling several other large signs throughout the City such as the one being proposed,
Commissioner Miller expressed a concern with the proliferation of such large signs and his
opposition to them.
Commenting on the efforts undertaken by the Commission with regard to ensuring
compatibility of the existing site with the neighboring businesses and neighborhoods,
Commissioner Slaven commented the noncompliance issue with regard to the initially imposed
conditions of approval; noted that, in her opinion, the visibility of the proposed sign would be
somewhat obscured by the gas station canopy; and relayed her support for a KFC sign, similar
to the one facing Rancho California Road, in lieu of the requested sign,
During Commission discussion, it was determined that the proposed sign would not be
compatible with the existing development as well as with the construction of the surrounding
neighborhood because of scale and consistency with the design guidelines and, therefore, the
following motion was offered:
MOTION; Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing; to deny Planning Application
No. PA96-0345; and to revise the Resolution accurately reflecting the reason for the denial.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote of those present reflect
unanimous approval {Commissioner Guerriero absent).
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-038
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0345 -- DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REVISION TO ERECT A 55.3 SQUARE FOOT FACE GRAPHIC WALL SIGN ON
THE KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN/SHELL STATION BUILDING FRONTING
MARGARITA ROAD ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 0.794 ACRES LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND YUKON ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-700-017
Planning Commission
December 1, 1997
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
WINCHESTER MEADOWS AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0368
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28697) WINCHESTER MEADOWS\
Planning Commission consideration to design, construct, and operate a
144,000 square foot, 14-building, commercial retail center in three (3)
phases on 15.3 acres and to subdivide 15.3 acres into three parcels zoned
Community Commercial.
RECOMMENDATION
To adopt the Negative Declaration for PA97-0305 and PA97-0368; to adopt
the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA97-0305 and PA97-0368; to adopt
Resolution No. 97-039 and to adopt Resolution No. 97-040.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-039
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0305 TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 144,000 SQUARE FOOT, 14-BUILDING, COMMERCIAL RETAIL
CENTER IN THREE PHASES ON PARCELS CONTAINING 15.3 NET ACRES
LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER ROAD
(STATE HIGHWAY 79 NORTH) AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 911-170-091, -094, AND -087
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0368 TO SUBDIVIDE A 15.3
ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF THE
INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY 79 NORTH) AND
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 911-170-
091, -094, AND -087
Project Planner Donahoe reviewed the staff report, as per written material, noting the
following:
that the applicant has proposed a color change from primary colors to teal;
that a pedestrian plaza is being proposed near the main Center entrance off
Winchester Road;
that for pedestrian safety, bollards are being provided;
that two other pedestrian plazas are being proposed -- one at each end of the
project;
that because Caltrans has not permitted landscaping along the median on
Winchester Road, staff is recommending to delete this condition;
Planning Commission
7 December 1, 1997
that Caltrans has not agreed to permit a break in the median in order to make
a left-hand turn into the project off Winchester Road;
that the applicant revised the site plan to eliminate the break and that if Caltrans
were to approve this in the future, staff would support such a break;
that enhancements to the water well site are being proposed;
that the Rancho California Water District will enter the well site from an interior
aisle way versus the existing driveway;
that no sign program has been submitted for the subject site;
that Phase II will include Shop 1 and Retail A and Phase 111 will include Shops
3 and 4 and Retail B and C;
that a separate Development Plan will be required for Phase III.
Mr. Tom Bergerson, Nadel Architects of Costa Mesa, representing the applicant, clarified the
location of fencing for Area 2, noting that the proposed 6' fence, utilized to screen Phase II,
was proposed by staff and clarifying that the applicant would prefer landscaping only.
Because Area 3 is approximately 8 acres in size, Mr. Bergerson advised that no fencing has
been recommended for this area, only landscaping will be provided. In response to
Commissioner Miller, Mr. Bergerson advised that no shade covers are being built but advised
that the proposed palm trees will provide shade as will the structural canopy and the mobile
umbrellas of the patio furniture. It was noted by Mr. Bergerson that the locations of the
rending machines have been designated as requested by staff.
In response to the location of the vending machines, Commissioner Miller requested that a
condition be imposed reflecting the exact location of them.
Although commending the applicant on the proposed color change, Commissioner Slaven
relayed her concern with regard to the close proximity of the pedestrian plaza to the main
entrance of the Center.
Commenting on the lack of synergy among the buildings of the entire Center, Commissioner
Slaven expressed concern with pedestrian movement throughout the parking lot for the entire
Center to which Mr. Bergerson briefly reviewed the travel path, noting that the meandering
public sidewalk will be incorporated in the travel path. She also expressed a concern with the
phasing of the Center and commended the applicant on the water well site enhancements.
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed her support of utilizing landscaping versus the installation
of a 6' high chain-link fence. Because the construction of this Center will depend on market
conditions, Ms. Ubnoske encouraged the Commissioners not to view phasing as a problem.
In detail, by way of Exhibits, Ms. Dolores Marquez, landscape architect, representing the
applicant, reviewed the materials which comprise the solid buffer on both sides of the
driveway entrance; advised that the interim Phase I landscaping will include landscaping for
the well site; and noted that the proposed permanent landscaping along Winchester Road will
be consistent with existing landscaping on Winchester Road. Commissioner Miller requested
that the proposed condition of approval accurately reflect the noted landscaping plans.
Planning Commission
8 December 1, 1997
With regard to phasing, Mr. Cary Nobel, SPT Holdings, owners of Area 2 and 3, assured the
Commissioners of the owners' intent to proceed as quickly as possible with their project.
It was the consensus of the Commission to eliminate the installation of the 6' high chain-link
fence.
Chairwoman Fahey expressed concern with regard to the circulation of this project and with
the close proximity of the bike path to the truck driveway entrance. In response to
Chairwoman Fahey, Principal Engineer Parks advised that a separate bike path would be
designated along Margarita Road.
With regard to Ralph's grocery store potentially selling liquor, Planning Manager Ubnoske
advised that this issue will be considered at the December 15, 1997, Planning Commission
meeting, noting that the high school is farther than 600' from the grocery store.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative
Declaration for PA97-035 and PA97-0368; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
PA97-0305 and PA97o0368; to adopt Resolution No. 97-039; to adopt Resolution No. 97-040;
and to add and delete the following conditions of approval:
that no vending machines will be permitted outside of the designated areas as
per the submitted map;
that the 6' high chain-link fence be deleted and that hedging be provided;
that perimeter landscaping be completed along Winchester and Margarita Roads.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak. Prior to the voice vote, additional
Commission discussion ensued. (Voice vote of the motion reflected a split decision; see
below.)
Project Planner Donahoe requested Commission clarification as it relates to the location of the
landscaping along Winchester and Margarita Roads to which Commissioner Slaven noted that
the landscaping should be placed up to the hedge versus the outside of the meandering
walkway.
Commissioner Slaven reiterated her concern with regard to the close proximity of the
pedestrian plaza to the main Center entrance as well as the lack of synergy between the
buildings and suggested that the project be redesigned to address these concerns, making the
project more pedestrian friendly.
Concurring with Commissioner Slaven's comments, Chairwoman Fahey commented on the
unclarity of pedestrian movement through the Center and suggested the addition of another
pedestrian plaza, possibly between the market and shop 2.
Planning Commission
9 December 1, 1997
AT this time voice vote on the earlier motion reflected a split decision; therefore, the motion
did not carry.
With regard to circulation, Principal Engineer Parks noted that staff would envision vehicular
traffic to enter the Center by way of Margarita Road and exit by way of Winchester Road. He
further elaborated on pedestrian/vehicular circulation throughout the Center, noting that no
substantial amount of foot traffic would anticipated to Ralph's market.
Chairwoman Fahey advised that she could support the project, if the applicant were willing to
add an additional pedestrian plaza between the market and shop 2.
In response to Chairwoman Fahey, Mr. Bergerson expressed concern with the construction
of an additional pedestrian plaza because of the parking spaces that would be eliminated for
Ralph's. With regard to the location of a second plaza, Mr. Bergerson suggested that, if
requested, it be located farther north of shop 2. Mr. Bergerson commented on the spacing of
the proposed buildings to ensure clear visibility of Ralph's from the street.
Being unable to approve this project this evening, Chairwoman Fahey suggested that this
matter be continued to the December 15, 1997, Planning Commission meeting at which time
Commissioner Guerriero will be in attendance and noted that she would not be attending that
meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to continue this matter to the December 15, 1997,
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Chairwoman Fahey. (The voice
vote reflected a split decision; therefore, the motion did not carry; see below.)
With regard to the construction of a second pedestrian plaza, Planning Manager Ubnoske
suggested that the square footage of shop 2 be decreased, which would eliminate the need
to decrease the parking spaces for Ralph's.
Having listened to the Commission's comments, Mr. Bob Cahan, developer of the project,
advised that the location of the buildings for this Center are based on Ralph's approval. With
regard to the reduction in square footage for shop 2, Mr. Cahan stated that such action would
be financially infeasible. He suggested decreasing the pedestrian plaza at the south end and
constructing a smaller plaza at the north end and expressed a willingness to further pursue this
possibility.
At this time, a voice vote on the previously made motion reflected a split decision; therefore,
the motion did not carry.
In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Bergerson expressed the applicant's desire to
continue this matter to the December 15, 1997, Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to continue this matter to the December 15, 1997,
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Chairwoman Fahey and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
Planning Commission
|0 December 1, 1997
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that staff will be meeting in order to
discuss the submittal of agenda packets to the Commissioners and that Commission input
would welcomed.
In order to provide more time to staff as well as more time to the Commissioners to obtain
information from staff, Commissioner Slaven suggested moving the Commission meeting date
to another night of the week. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that she would review the
availability of the Conference Room.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In response to Commissioner Slaven's concern that specific conditions of approval have not
been adhered to with regard to the Shell station/KFC at the Palomar Village Shopping Center,
Project Planner Donahoe noted that staff would follow up on the matter.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:48 P.M., the Planning Commission meeting was formally adjourned to Monday, December
15, 1997, at 6:00 P.M., to City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive.
Linda Fahey, Chairwoman
Planning Manager Ubnoske
Planning Commission
December 1, 1997
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FOR
DECEMBER 15, 1997
INDEX
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. PA NO. 97-0158 - Specific Plan Amendment
5. PA NO. 97-0305 & PA NO. 97-0368 - Winchester Meadows
6. PA NO. 97-0237 - General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
7. PA NO. 97-0392 - Conditional Use Permit - Entertainment Center
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
PAGE
1
1
1
2,5
2,5-6
2-4
7-8
8-11
11 - 12
12
12
12
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:03 P.M., on
Monday, December 15, 1997, in the City Council chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Vice Chairwoman Slaven presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak.
Absent:
Chairwoman Fahey.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Principal Engineer Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Hogan
Associate Planner Fagan, and
Minute Clerk Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved for the approval of the Agenda as amended,
changing the order of Agenda Items discussed as follows: No. 7, No. 4, No. 3, No. 5, and
No. 6. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote of those present
reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey absent).
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 3. 1997
MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved for the approval of the November 3, 1997, Planning
Commission minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice
vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey absent).
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
]
COMMISSION BUSINESS
FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR RALPH'S GROCERY
COMPANY. LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY 79 NORTHi
Discussion postponed; see page 5.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0158 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT)
Planning Commission consideration to amend #6 to the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION
It was recommended by staff that the Planning Commission approve the request.
Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (as per written material of record). Because
the appiicant's representative had not yet arrived to the meeting, it was the consensus of the
Commissioners to continue the Item to later in the evening (see pages 5-6).
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0368 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28697)
WINCHESTER MEADOWS
Planning Commission consideration to design, construct, and operate a 144,000
square foot, 14-building, commercial retail center in three (3) phases on 15.3 acres.
RECOMMENDATION
It was recommended by staff that the Planning Commission approve the request.
Principal Engineer Parks referenced amendments made in an effort to address circulation,
noting that a dedicated exit only, out of the northerly driveway, will be constructed and that
the applicant will encumber half of the cost associated with this signalized exit.
In response to the Commissioners' concerns noted at the December 1, 1997, Planning
Commission meeting, Mr. Tom Bergerson, representing the applicant, informed, by way of
exhibits, the Commissioners of enhancements made to the pedestrian plaza area, noting the
following:
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
2
that a zero-face curb is being proposed around the turns with the use of
bollards;
that the originally proposed bollards along the driveways were eliminated but
they were retained on the corner of each driveway;
that the eliminated bollards, along the driveways, were replaced with 5' planters;
that shrubbery along with palm trees would be provided to further define this
area and to provide additional shading;
that a well-defined, 5' wide crosswalk will be provided at the main driveway
entrance.
In closing, Mr. Bergerson reviewed the natural pedestrian circulation path of the Center.
Having been absent from the December 1, 1997, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner
Guerriero advised that he has listened to the audio tapes with regard to this request and that
he has a clear understanding of this project.
With regard to the location of the recycling center (in the parking lot), Commissioner Miller
requested that for aesthetic purposes, an alternate location be considered such as the back
corners of the project.
Although relocating the recycling bins to behind the buildings would be more aesthetically
pleasing, Principal Engineer Parks noted that by doing so, the use of these bins may decrease
because of low visibility.
To ensure clarification, Commissioner Soltysiak requested that proposed Condition No. 6b
{with regard to permanent perimeter landscaping) be amended as follows:
Permanent street scape shall be installed at a width of 25' on Winchester
Road and 20' on Margarita Road.
In response to Vice Chairwoman Slaven, Mr. Bergerson noted that to ensure clear visibility of
the major anchor store (Ralph's), no relocations of buildings are being proposed and stated that
a defined 5' pedestrian travel path will link the Center's buildings.
Because excess parking is being provided, Vice Chairwoman Sleven continued to relay her
desire to relocate some of the buildings in order to create more cohesiveness among the
buildings. With regard to the amendments made relative to the pedestrian plaza, Vice
Chairwoman Slaven expressed her support.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative
Declaration for PA97-0305 and PA97-0368; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
PA97-3005 and PA97-0368; to adopt Resolution No, 97-039 approving PA97-0305; and to
adopt Resolution No. 97-040 approving PA97-0368 with the following amended and added
conditions:
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
3
AMEND
O
that permanent street scape shall be installed at a width of 25' on Winchester
Road and 20' on Margarita Road (Condition No. 6b);
ADD
o
0
0
that the applicant shall work with staff as to the relocation of the recycle center;
that prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a traffic signal at the intersection of
Margarita Road and the northerly entrance to Price Costco be designed; that the
developer shall receive credits for its Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
for 50%;
of the cost for the design of the traffic signal;
that a traffic signal shall be installed and operational to the satisfaction of
the Department of Public Works.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-039
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-O305 TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 144,000 SQUARE FOOT, 14-BUILDING, COMMERCIAL RETAIL
CENTER IN THREE PHASES ON PARCELS CONTAINING 15.3 NET ACRES
LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER ROAD
(STATE HIGHWAY 79 NORTH) AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 911-170-091, -094, AND -087
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0368 TO SUBDIVIDE A 15.3
ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF THE
INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY 79 NORTH) AND
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 911-170-
091, -094, AND -087
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present
reflected approval with the exceDtion of Vice Chairwoman Slaven who voted no (Chairwoman
Fahey absent).
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
4
At this time, Commission Business (Agenda Item No. 3) was discussed.
FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR RALPH'S GROCERY
COMPANY. LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND WINCHESTER ORAD (STATE HIGHWAY 79 NORTH)
Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record), briefly clarifying the questionnaire
and advising that the Temecula Unified School District has expressed no objection to the
request.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller to moved to approve the making of a finding of public
convenience. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote of those
present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey absent).
At this time, the Commission returned to discuss Agenda Item No. 4; see page 2.
4. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0158 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT)
Planning Commission consideration to amend #6 to the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION
It was recommended by staff that the Planning Commission approve the request.
Apologizing for not being present earlier, Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, advised
that he was present to answer any questions and/or concerns.
Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that she had met with a gentleman who had expressed
concern with the fact that no clarification had been provided as to what type of minor
deviations to the Specific Plan the Community Development Director may approve. Following
some discussion, it was determined to clarify this issue by requesting the applicant to work
with staff to formulate some language clarifying those changes which the Director may not
approve such as increasing units, acreage, land use, etc. Mr. Burnell expressed no concern.
For Ms. Juliet Anne Boysen, 44060 Margarita Road, staff provided clarification with regard
to density, noting that 590 dwelling units are being proposed for 36.3 acres not 590 units per
acre. In response to Ms. Boysen's concern that the submitted map does not accurately reflect
the acreage of her property (2.65), it was noted that the specified number (2.5 acres) is merely
an approximated number not the actual.
To ensure Ms. Boysen's questions are appropriately answered, Vice Chairwoman Slaven
suggested that any questions not specific to the proposed request but relative to the entire
Specific Plan could be addressed by the Planning Department staff after the meeting.
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
5
Echoing similar concerns raised by Ms. Boysen with regard to the Specific Plan, Ms. Iris
Abernathy, 43980 Margarita Road, noted that she would also meet with the Planning
Department staff.
Mr. Steve Corona, representing his family's property -- 165 acres directly east of the subject
site, requested a continuance in order to secure more information with regard to the proposed
amendments and in order to determine how these amendments will impact his property.
In response to Mr. Corona, Principal Engineer Parks advised that Mr. Corona's concerns with
regard to drainage are being addressed by Assessment District 159, noting that an interceptor
drainage system will be installed to carry the water from above his property to Temecula
Creek; noted that this drainage issue must be resolved prior to the development of the lower
portion of the project; and clarified that staff of Assessment District 159 are working on the
issue, not City staff members. Mr. Corona noted that he has seen no progress with regard to
this issue.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing; to make a determination of
consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified;
and to adopt Resolution No. 97-042 with the clarification that the applicant be required to
provide language clarifying what type of minor deviations to the Specific Plan could not be
approved by the Community Development Director. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval
(Chairwoman Fahey absent).
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-042
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0158 (ZONING AMENDMENT #6 OF THE
PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN SP NO. 219)," WHICH IS GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF SR79 SOUTH, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, SOUTH OF
PAUBA ROAD AND WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 950-020-001 THROUGH 950-020-004, 950-
020-009 THROUGH 950-020-025, 950-020-027, 950-020-029, 955-030-002
THROUGH 955-030-004 AND 955-030-006 THROUGH 955-030-011
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE
Planning Commission consideration to cleanup General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change, changing the designations from Office to Service Commercial and
Neighborhood Commercial, and from Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial.
RECOMMENDATION
It was recommended by staff that the Planning Commission approve the request.
Because of the close proximity of his residence to the subject site (Agenda Item No. 6) and
because he is a consultant for the City with regard to the Western Bypass Corridor (Agenda
Item No. 7), Commissioner Soltysiak advised that he would be abstaining with regard to
Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7. He wished everyone a Happy Holiday Season and departed the
meeting at this time.
Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material), advising that the
storage facility has been eliminated and that if this request were approved, the existing towing
yard would be considered a legal non-conforming use.
Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the City does not have any time constraints with
regard to non-conforming uses, noting that the only mechanism to conform a non-conforming
use would be if the applicant of such a use would be desirous of making a change to the
property; thereby, the property would have to adhere to the existing standards of the
Development Code.
Mrs. Sharon Miller, 44618 Pala Road, owner of the existing mini-storage facility since June
1983, informed the Commissioners that she and her husband had received a life-time
Conditional Use Permit from the County; that a permit was obtained in 1986 with regard to
the rental trucks; that a portion of Parcel 2 was leased, with the permission of the County,
to accommodate the truck rental business; and that no homes had been constructed in this
area in 1983 when the business was started. Because of the impact this rezoning would have
on her property, Mrs. Miller spoke in opposition to this zone change and requested that her
property be zoned to accurately reflect the current use -- Service Commercial.
Because of the accumulation of dirt and because of the negative aesthetic appearance,
Ms. Stacy Ketter, 45352 Tournament Lane, expressed concern and questioned the legality of
the parked moving trucks on Parcel No. 1. With regard to Parcel No. 1, it was noted by staff
that this parcel is zoned Office Professional and, therefore, the parking of moving trucks on
this lot would be illegal.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the owner of Parcel No. 4 (currently zoned neighborhood
commercial), relayed the owner's support of this zone change and suggested that Mrs. Miller's
property be rezoned, making it consistent with the existing use.
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
?
Commenting on concerns expressed by neighboring residents with regard to traffic on Pala
Road, staff elaborated on the proposal to redesignate the front portion of three of the four
parcels as Neighborhood Commercial (noting that the fourth parcel is already zoned
Neighborhood Commercial) and to redesignate the rear portion of all four parcels as Service
Commercial.
For aesthetic purposes, Vice Chairwoman Slaven relayed her support with the above-
mentioned proposal.
Expressing a concern with regard to the level of traffic on Pala Road, Commissioner Guerriero
requested that this matter be continued to a future meeting so that the Commission may
obtain additional information with regard to future traffic impacts.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Senior Planner Hogan commented on the Pala Road extension and
its impact on Parcel No, 1.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to continue Planning Application No. PA97-0237 to the
January 5, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Guerriero and voice vote of those present (Chairwoman Fahey absent and Commissioner
Soltysiak abstained),
At 7:44 P.M., a short recess was taken with the Commission reconvening at 7:54 P.M.
7. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
Planning Commission consideration to design, construct, and operate a total of
203,300 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters, and shops and associated
improvements (hardscape, parking, and landscaping) on 16.5 acres.
RECOMMENDATION
It was recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request.
By way of a color rendering, Associate Planner Fagan reviewed, in detail, the site plan,
landscape plan, elevation, architecture, environmental issues, and traffic and parking analyses
for the proposed project, advising that the project encompasses three components -- a parking
area located to the north, a parking area located to the south, and the core area. He advised
that the proposed billboards will be utilized as architectural features and will only be for
internal use of the project. Because the applicant must comply with the recommendations of
the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, he suggested the
imposition of a condition to ensure compliance.
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
8
For Commissioner Guerriero, Principal Engineer Parks advised that the City's Traffic Engineer
has reviewed the traffic analysis completed by Wilbur Smith and Associates and concurred
with the conclusion that once the proposed improvements are completed, lower SR 79 will
remain at service level "D."
Mr. Zev Buffman, applicant, 41893 Main Street, announced that the anticipated opening date
will be early summer of 1999, giving the Entertainment Center and the Old Town merchants
ample time to plan for the year 2000 celebrations. Mr. Buffman extended appreciation and
commendation to staff and the Planning Commissioners for their efforts associated with this
project.
Relaying his parents' greetings and Happy Holiday wishes, Mr. Roy Rogers, Jr., Victorville,
informed the Commissioners and the audience members that RogersDale USA is a family-
operated business, not a corporation; commented on the attributes of the City which attracted
his family to the City of Temecula; advised that the architecture of this project will depict 100
years of California architectural history; noted that the Center will provide entertainment along
with educational opportunities; and stated that this Center will not be a gated-iron park.
Mr. Rogers clarified that each billboard would be themed after the building with which it is
associated and that each building will architecturally reflect a specific period in time.
Mr, Richard Busenkell, 31556 Loma Linda Road, Vice President of Board of Directors of the
Temecula Valley Museum, advised that he was not speaking on behalf of the Board of
Directors of the Museum and proceeded with an informative historical overview as to why the
City of Temecula would be the appropriate location for a Western Entertainment Complex and
encouraged the Planning Commissioners to approve the request,
Speaking in opposition to the project, Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, referenced his letter
of December 15, 1997 (copies were provided to the Planning Commissioners as well as for
the record).
With regard to the finances of this project, Ms. Pat Keller, 39201 Salinas Drive, Murrieta,
expressed concern with how this project may impact the resident of the City of Temecula if
it were to not succeed and requested that the City reveal safeguards that have been
undertaken to ensure financial protection to the residents of the City in the event of a failure.
Speaking in support of this project, Ms. Joan Sparkman, 30554 San Pasqual Road, encouraged
the Commissioners to approve the development.
Mr. Ed Dool, 41920 Sixth Street, representing the Temecula Stage Stop and approximately
100 other local Old Town merchants and property owners, relayed his dismay with the fact
that Mr. Pratt, considering his opposition to the project, would depart the meeting early and
not stay to listen to other residents' comments as well as additional staff/Commission
clarification. Mr. Dool expressed his support of the project and encouraged the Commission
to approve it.
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
Because, in his opinion, the proposed project would meet the needs of balanced economic
growth in the City of Temecula as well as the Temecula Valley, Mr. Dennis Frank, 27475 Ynez
Road, noted that the proposed development will be consistent with the General and Specific
Plans; will be beneficial to the needs of Old Town, the merchants of Old Town, the merchants
of Temecula, as well as Southwest Riverside County; advised that it will exceed the minimum
requirements of the Specific Plan; and stated that it will promote family values. Being of the
opinion that no subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report would be necessary,
Mr. Frank encouraged the Commission to approve the project.
Readdressing the Planning Commissioners, Mr. Roy Rogers, Jr. reiterated that RogersDale USA
is a family-operated business; that the family intends to expand on the City's history
throughout the Center; that the proposed stores of the Center will not be in competition with
existing stores of the City; and that each store operator will be handpicked and will not be a
corporate business.
With regard to Condition No. 28f. (pertaining to landscaping), Principal Engineer Parks, for
Commissioner Guerriero, stated that the condition will be clarified to ensure optimal visibility
and site distance.
Although walking paths to the Center from Old Town will not be feasible because of the
steepness of the hill, Commissioner Guerriero requested that adequate public transportation
be provided from the project to Old Town and/or Old Town to the project. Mr. Guerriero
commended those individuals that have worked on this project and relayed his support of the
request.
With regard to the color samples of the proposed stucco colors, Commissioner Guerriero
requested that actual stucco colors be provided versus color photographs.
Relative to the parking area, core area, landscaping, site plan, and signage, no Commission
objections were noted.
Relative to elevations, architectural exceptions, and height of proposed buildings, no
Commission objections were noted.
By way of a model, Mr. Randy Fleming, 43500 Ridge Park Drive, briefly elaborated on the
architectural features of building "D."
Having addressed his traffic concerns with Principal Engineer Parks and thereby obtaining a
better understanding, Commissioner Miller noted that avenue of this caliber will create some
traffic for the City but that the benefits derived from such avenue will greatly outweigh its
associated traffic challenges.
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
]0
Having previously served on the Transportation and Public Safety Commission, Commissioner
Guerriero expressed dismay with the issue that not more individuals artended those
Commission meetings in order to express their traffic concerns at an early planning stage but
opt to express traffic issues/concerns at the very last minute. He noted that numerous traffic
studies have been completed by legitimate traffic engineering companies; that extensive
efforts have been undertaken to ensure that those traffic conditions/concerns, as inherited
from the County, have been mitigated. In closing, Mr. Guerriero echoed the comments made
by Commissioner Miller, noting that in comparison to other cities, the City of Temecula does
not have traffic problems.
Commenting on the tremendous amount of hours staff has expended on this project and the
amount of extensive review, Vice Chairwoman Slaven advised that financial issues with regard
to this project or any other project do not fall under the purview of the Planning Commission,
She reiterated that specific traffic concerns will be addressed by the construction of the
Western Bypass; viewed this project as superior to the one presented in 1995; and relayed her
support of it.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing; to make a determination of
consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified;
and to adopt Resolution No. 97-041. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero
and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey absent and
Commissioner Soltysiak abstained)).
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-041
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
TOTAL OF 203,300 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, RESTAURANT, ARCADES,
THEATERS AND SHOPS AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS |HARDSCAPE,
PARKING AND LANDSCAPING) ON 16.5 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF OLD
TOWN TEMECULA (100 FEET WEST OF PUJOL STREET|, 700 FEET SOUTH OF
RIDGE PARK DRIVE/VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE AND EAST OF THE CITY'S
WESTERN BORDER, WITHIN THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 940-310-013, 940-310-044, 940-310-045, 940-
310-047, 940-310-048, 940-320-001,940-320-002, 940-320-003
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Because the Commission's January 19, 1998, meeting will fall on a holiday (Martin
Luther King, Jr. Day), it was the consensus of the Commission that if a second meeting in
January were necessary, it be scheduled on Monday, January 26, 1998.
B. In response to Planning Manager Ubnoske, Commissioner Guerriero offered to serve on
the Committee discussing the Adult Business Ordinance.
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
],1
C. Considering the absence of two Commissioners, Vice Chairwoman Slaven suggested
that the developer's request to relocate parking associated with the power center be discussed
at the next Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
A. In response to Commissioner Miller, Principal Engineer Parks advised that he will obtain
a report from Chief Building Official EImo with regard to the Shell Station/KFC site (Palomar
Village) in order to determine actual compliance with previously imposed conditions of
approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:18 P.M., Vice Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to Monday,
January 5, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula.
Linda Fahey, Chairwoman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
Planning Commission
December 15, 1997
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
January 5, 1998
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for December, 1997.
Date CaseNo.
December 4 PA97--0383
December 30 PA97-0382
Production review for an UDC Homes, Inc. Approved
additional floor plan (Plan
5) of the Ironwood
subdivision
Development Plan for a Brian Smut Approved
5,630 sf mortuary building Dean Davidson, Architect
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
ATTACHMi~.NT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGENDA
TEMF_A2ULA DIRECTOR'S ItEARING
REGULAR W;~ETING
DECEMBER 4, 1997 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fled with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0383 (Product Review) -
Ironwood Plan 5
UDC Homes, Inc.
Tract 23371-3 and 23371-,1 at Temeku Hills
Product review for an additional floor plan (Plan 5) of the Ironwood
subdivision
Categorical Exemption - Class 5 Minor Alteration in Land Use
Limitations
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Larry Cooley
Approval
APPROVED
ACTION AGENDA
TElVlECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MIgraTING
DECEMBER 30, 1997 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Bus'mess Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers am limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state. your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute lime limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Propose:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0382 (Development Plan)
Brian Stout / Dean Davidson, Architect
The north west side of the intersection of McCabe Court and
Madison Ave., known as Assessor's Parcel Number 910-262-006.
The project con{ms oflhe design and construction of a 5,630 square foot
mormmy building, with associated parking, landscaping, road and
drainage improvements on 1.82 acres.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
Approval
APPROVi~
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
DATE:
January 5, 1998
SUBJECT:
Planning Application No. PA97-0335 - Sign Application for new wall signage
and a 25 foot pole sign with a sign area of approximately 150 square feet on the
property located at 29105 Front Street, at the intersection of Front Street and
the proposed Western Bypass Corridor.
The applicant, Lou Kashmem, is requesting approval of a 25 foot pole sign with a total sign area
of approximately 150 square feet. The proposed sign is located on a separate, legal parcel which
has Der Wienerschnitzel, Baskin Robbins and Hungry Howie's restaurants. The subject parcel
does not have any existing free standing signs, but does have a 100 foot pole with an American
flag. The new wall signs associated with the new businesses have been approved as part of this
sign application.
The 25 foot pole sign is proposed at the south end of the parcel that will be adjacent to the future
Western Bypass Corridor right-of-way. Pursuant to Ordinance 348, Section 19.4 (On-Site
Advertising Structures and Signs), the subject parcel is entitled to one (1) flee-standing sign
because it is located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right-of-way. Pursuant to
Ordinance 348, such free-standing signs are permitted to be a maximum of 45 feet in height with
a maximum surface area of 150 square feet. The applicant originally proposed a 45 foot pole sign
with an electronic message board. At the request of city staff, the applicant reduced the height
of the sign to 25 feet and removed the electronic message board.
Typically, freeway oriented signs are required to conduct flag tests to determine the visibility from
the fleeway. The applicant was unwilling to conduct a flag test and requested to go before the
Planning Commission without a flag test. Staff believes that the proposed sign will not be visible
from the freeway given its location and the lower site elevation.
Attached is a colored elevation of the proposed pole sign and staff has provided pictures of the
existing development for your review. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to provide
direction as to the appropriateness of the proposed freeway oriented pole sign.
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 5, 1998
Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe and David Hogan
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA97-0237;
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of
PA97-0237 based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report; and
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City Initiated
PROPOSALS:
To amend the General Plan designation for the site from Office
and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, in
accordance with Exhibit A; and
To change the Zoning Map for the site from Professional Office
and Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Development Overlay
(PDO-1).
LOCATION:
East of Pala Road, south of State Highway 79 South
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Conservation (Open Space)
Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6 du/ac)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant and commercial (Hazit Market and Out-A-Space Mini & RV
Storage)
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Temecula Creek
Rainbow Canyon subdivision
Flood Control facilities and the Riverwalk subdivision
Homes by the Green subdivision
PROJECT STATISTICS
Parcels: 4
Total Area: 12.16 acres
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the December 15, 1997 meeting. At that meeting, the
Commission and some property owners expressed a concern about the split zoning concept that
had been proposed. In addition, one Commissioner also expressed a concern about the
potential for additional traffic generation that might occur from this proposed general plan and
zoning map amendments. As a result, staff has revisited the various available options and is
bringing forward an alternative approach for the Commission's consideration.
Staff's recommended alternative is to create a single Planned Development Overlay (PDO)
District for all four parcels. Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code states that the purpose
of this overlay is to permit creative mixtures of uses in smaller areas where a specific plan or
village center overlay is not appropriate. It allows for flexibility in the regulations and design
standards, and also could allow a mixture of uses not normally permitted by conventional City
zoning. This proposal would be to create Planned Development Overlay District No. 1 (PDO-1).
ANALYSIS
Based upon input received from the Commission and community, staff has developed a Planned
Development Overlay for the four properties that is substantially based on the current
neighborhood commercial zoning designation. However, staff has tried to tailor this list of
permitted and conditionally permitted uses to not only provide adequate economic opportunities
for property owners, but also to minimize noise and traffic impacts on the surrounding
community.
The basic land use regulations take 62 of 68 permitted and conditionally permitted uses from
the Neighborhood Commercial zone and combines it with a 15 to 20 other land uses, primarily
from the Service Commercial zone, that contain or rely on outdoor storage as part of their
business. In addition, staff is also recommending several rural supporting commercial uses that
are compatible with this location. A comparison of the various permitted uses for the
Neighborhood Commercial, Service Commercial, and Pala Road PDO is contained in Attachment
No. 3.
Development Standards
Additionally, the proposed PDO-1 also contains supplemental development standards that would
require screening and landscaping along Pala Road and next to Temecula Creek and adjacent
residences. These supplemental requirements would augment the basic provisions of the
Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. All requirements not specifically addressed in the
planned development overlay, would automatically revert to the Development Code and/or
citywide Design Guidelines. A copy of the proposed overlay zoning is contained in Attachment
No. 2.
In an effort to provide the Commission with a estimate of the possible future traffic impacts
from this proposal, staff has undertaken an preliminary analysis of the traffic generated by
these general plan land uses. The analysis uses the traffic generation rates and standard lot
coverages that were used in the original traffic analysis for the General Plan and indicated that
this proposal would not result in a significant increase in the number of vehicle trips in to and
out of this area. The list of assumptions for this evaluation is contained in Attachment No. 5.
The City Traffic Engineer has evaluated this methodology and is satisfied that, for a General
Plan level analysis, it is reasonable and technically defensible.
LAND USES
DAILY TRIP
GENERATION
1. Current General Plan Designations 6,770
(9.8 Ac @ Professional Office and 2.4 Ac. @ Neighborhood
Commercial)
2. Neighborhood Commercial Proposal 8,510
(12.2 Ac @ Neighborhood Commercial)
3. Modified Analysis to reflect unbuildable easement areas 6,810
(9.6 Ac @ Neighborhood Commercial and 2.6 Ac @ Service
Commercial)
As indicated, there should be very little difference between the current General Plan land use
designation and the proposed Planned Development Overlay district being proposed for this
area. Given the current site constraints and probably development pattern, the actual number
of trips should be less than these preliminary estimates indicate. In addition, Pala Road, which
is identified as an Urban Arterial in the General Plan, should have adequate capacity to handle
future traffic volumes.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial environmental study was performed for this project which determined that the
proposal could potentially affect geology, water, transportation/circulation, aesthetic and
cultural resources. The study was prepared for a non-detailed general plan amendment and
zone change because no detailed development proposals have been submitted to the City.
Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the specificity and detail of environmental
analysis should be similar to the detail and specificity of the project. Since the project is a
general plan amendment/zone change within commercial land use designations of the general
plan, only a general plan level of evaluation is possible. In addition, the impacts of the
proposed amendments are accurately described and discussed within the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the General Plan and that the FEIR accurately reflects the impacts of
the amended General Plan on City of Temecule and its surrounding areas. However, in an effort
to provide as much information as possible, some additional evaluation has been provided. Any
mitigation measures identified in this document will be implemented when detailed development
proposals are available. A copy of the initial Environmental Study is contained in Attachment
No. 4
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff has evaluated a number of options and variations to try to address the many site
constraints and, based upon the Commission's previous comments, feels that the proposed
Planned Development Overlay will provide the appropriate flexibility and design standards
necessary to allow reasonable development in a manner compatible with the surrounding area.
FINDINGS
Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Ran Amendment and Change of Zone) as
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The project is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The site is already zoned
for commercial uses and is already being partially used for commercial purposes.
The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it
remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Attachments:
3.
4.
5.
6.
PC Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 8
Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 98- - Blue Page 11
Proposed Planned Development Overlay District No I - Blue Page 15
Comparison of Permitted Uses - Blue Page 28
Initial Study - Blue Page 39
Preliminary Traffic Study work sheets - Blue Page 40
Exhibits - Blue Page 43
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
R:\STAPIq~Yl'L~37PA~7.PC2 12/30/97 klb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
ATTACIINFENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98.-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A R~-gOLUTION ENTITLED 'A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITf COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE
INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD (PLANNING
APPLICATION PA97-0237)" AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
ENTITLED 'AN ORDINANCE OF T~E CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD
SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110.-018
& 019 & 020 & 032 AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.'~2,100 THROUGH
17.22,108 TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237)'
WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, roles and regulations by cities to implement such
general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance
shall be consistent with the adopted general plan of the city; and
WHEREAS, That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinances; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, public hearing was conducted on December 15, 1997, and January 5, 1998,
at which time interested persons had an opportu~ty to testify either in support or opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE A
RFF. OLUTION ENTITLED 'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AlVIRNDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ON TFIE EAST
SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON
ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237)" AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
ENTITLI~D "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING TIlE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ON THE EAST SIDE
OF pP, I.A~ ROAD SOUTH OF ~ INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 9~0-110-018 & 019 & 020 & 032 AND
ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.100 THROUGH 17.22.108 TO TFIF. DEVlr~IX3PMI~-NT CODE
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA974}237)' SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORMS THAT
ARE ATrACI:H~ TO TIHS RESOLUTION AS ~ITS A AND B, RF-qPECTIVELY.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTI~X} this 5th day of Ianuary, 1998.
Linda Fahey, Chah'man
I HEREBY CERTWY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a reglflar meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of January,
1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:XSTAFFRIq'a37PA97.pC2 12/30~7k~ 7
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMi~NDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE MAP ON ~ EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF
THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD
(PLANNING APPLICATION PA97-0257)
WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgement of the city, bears a relationship to its planning; and
WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted
the General Plan.
WItEREAS, Sections 65350 of the Government Code permits a city to amend the General
Plan; and
WItEREAS, there is a need to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to accurately reflect
private property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on December
15, 1997, and January 5, 1998, recommended that the City Council approve the attached
amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on
1998 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amendments to the General Plan I and Use Map The City Council hereby
amends the General Plan Land Use Designations for the parcels identified as APN 950-110-018,
019, and 032 from Office (O) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC).
Section 2. F. nvironmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information
contained in the Initial Environmental Study, finds that the impacts of the proposed amendments
are accurately described and discussed within the Final Environmental Impact Report (FFJI~) for
the General Plan and that the FEIR accurately reflects the impacts of the amended General Plan
on City of Temecula and its surrounding areas.
R:\STAFFRPT~37PA97.PC2 12/30/97klb 9
Section 3. Severahility. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or seelion of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall c. extify the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 5. PASSED, AlPROVED AND ADOFlED this __th day of
,1998.
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
ATrEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
,1998 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:~TA~7PA97.PC2 12/30/97klb
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 98-
R:~TA~TPA97.1~C2 12~30/97 klb ~ ~
EXltIBrr B
ORDINANCE NO. 98-
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMF~NDING TIIF~ ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF TEMECUIA ON T~E EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD
SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW
CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NOS. 950-110-018 & 019 & 020 & 032 AND ADDING
SECTIONS 17.22.100 THROUGH 17.22.108 TO TWIF~
DEVELOPlV!~NT CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Cede provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, roles and regulations by cities to implement such
general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Cede requires that a zoning ordinance
shajl be consistent with the adopted General Plan of the city; and
WltEREAS, there is a need to amend the Zoning Map to accurately reflect private
property and to be consistent with the adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on December
15, 1997, and January 5, 1998, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached
amendments to the City Zoning Map; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinances; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on
1998 to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. AMF, NDMF, NTS TO THF. CITY ZONING MAP The City Council hereby
amends the Zoning Map for the City of Temecula for as specified below:
A. For the parcels identified as APN 950-110-018, 019, and 032: change the
Zoning designation from Professional Office (PO) to Planned Development Overlay No. 1 (PDO-
R:~STAFFRlrEx237PA97.PC2 12/30/97klb 12
1).
B. For the parcel identified as APN 950-110-020, change the Zoning
Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Planned Development Overlay No. 1 (PDO-
1).
Section 2. pI,ANNFX) DF. VF.I,OPIVff:.NT OVF, RI,AY NO. 1 The City Council hereby
adopts the supplemental standards and requirements for PDO-1, Planned Development Overlay
District No. 1 as contained in Exhibit A of this ordinance.
Section 3. F. NVIRONMF. NTAI, I~F, VIF, W. The City Council, based upon the
information contained in the Initial Environmental Study, finds that the impacts of the proposed
amendments are accurately described and discussed within the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for the General Plan and that the FEIR accurately reflects the impacts of the amended
General Plan on City of Temecula and its surrounding areas.
Section 4. SEV~.RAI~rI JTY. The City Council hereby dec, lares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 5. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shah
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shah
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this
Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance,
and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:~TAFFRFI'~237PA97.PC2 12/30/97k~ 13
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of ,1998.
Ron Robens, Mayor
ATFEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HERFRY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 1998 by the following vote of the Council:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:~TAFFRPT~TPA97.PC212FJO~J7klb 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PROPOSED STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. I
R:',STAFFRFI"~237PA97.PC2 12/30/9'7k~ ].5
17.22.100 Title
Sections 17.22.100 through 17.22.108 shall be known as "PDO-I" (Pala Road Planned Development
Ove~ay District).
17.22.102 Purpose and intent
The Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-1) is intended to provide
regulations for the safe and efficient operation, and creative design of a unique commercial area
within the city. The area is sigr~~can~y constrained with easements, flood plains, potential fault
zones, and adjacent residential development. This special overlay zoning district regulation is
intended to permit a range of neighborhood convenience uses, with selected outdoor storage and
other appropriate rural serving commercial uses. Supplemental performance standards have also been
provided to ensure compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods and to protect adjoining uses from
excessive noise, odor, smoke, toxic materials, and other potentially objectionable impacts. It is the
intent of the City to use these special regulations to supplement the regulations of land uses and
development already existing within the adopted Development Code.
17.22.104 Relationship with the Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines
A. The list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses for the Pala Road
Planned Development Overlay District is contained in Table 17.22.106.
B. Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.108, the following rules and
regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area.
1. The development standards in the Development Code that apply to any
development within a Neighborhood Commercial zoning district that are in effect at the time an
application is deemed complete.
deemed complete.
The citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is
3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in
effect at the time an application is deemed complete.
4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time an
application is deemed complete.
17.22.106 Use Regulations
The list of permitted land uses for the Paia Road Planned D~velopment Overlay district is
contained in Table 17.22.106. Where indicated with a letter "P" the use shall be a permitted use.
A letter "C" indicates the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a conditional
use permit. Where indicated with a "-", the use is prohibited within the zone.
R:~TAFFP-JrI~TPA97.PC2 12/30/9"/k~ 16
Table 17.22.106
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use
A
Adult business~subject to Chapter 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code
Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (less than 5,000 sq. ~.)
Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (greater than 5,000 sq.
Airports
Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities
Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient)
Alcoholic beverage sales
Ambulance services
Animal hospital/shelter
Antique restoration
Antique sales
Apparel and accessory shops
Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances)
Arcades (pinball and video games)
Art supply stores
Auction houses
Auditoriums and conference facilities
Automobile dealers (new and used)
Automobile sales Corokerage)-showroom only (new and used)-no outdoor display
Automobile Oil Change/Lube Services with no major repairs
Automobile painting and body shop
Automobile repair services
Automobile rental
Automobile salvage yards/impound yards
PDO-1 ]
P
C1
P
P
P
P
R:~STA~TPA97.PC2 12/30/97klb 17
Table 17.22.106
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use
Automobile service stations with or without an automated car wash
Automotive pans--sales
Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine with or without an automated
car wash
B
Bakery goods distribution
Bakery retail
Bakery wholesale
Banks and financial institutions
Barber and beauty shops
Bed and breakfast
Bicycle (sales, rentals, services)
Billiard parlor/pool hall
Binding of books and similar publications
Blood bank
Blueprint and duplicating and copy services
Bookstores
Bowling alley
Building material sales
Butcher shop
C
Cabinet shop
Camera shop (sales/minor repairs)
Candy/confectionery sales
Car wash, full service
PDO-1
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
R:~TAFFRFFO37PA97.PC2 12/30/9'7
Table 17.22.106
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use
Carpet and rug cleaning
Catering services
Clothing sales
Coins, purchase and sales
Cold storage facilities
Communications and microwave installations2
Communications equipment sales
Community care facilities
Computer sales and service
Congregate care housing for the elderly
Construction equipment sales, service or rental
Contractor's equipment, sales, service or rental
Convenience market
Costume rentals
Crematoriums
Cutlery
D
Data processing equipment and systems
Day care centers
Delicatessen
Discount/department store
Distribution facility
Drug store/pharmacy
Dry cleaners
Dry cleaning plant
PDO-I
P
P
P
P
P
P
C~
C~
C
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
R:~STAFFRPT~37PA97.PC2 12/30/97 klb 19
Table 17.22.106
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Pala Road Planned Devdopment Overlay District
Description of Use
E
Emergency shelters
Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor storage)
Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage)
F
Feed and grain sales
Financial, insurance, real estate offices
Fire and police stations
Floor covering sales
Florist shop
Food processing
Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity
Freight terminals
Fuel storage and distribution
Funeral parlors, mortuary
Furniture sales
Furniture transfer and storage
G
Garden supplies and equipment sales and service
Gas distribution, meter and control station
General merchandise/retail store less than 10,000 sq. i~.
Glass and mirrors, retail sales
Governmental offices less than 5,000 sq. ~.
Groce~ store, retail
Grocery store, wholesale
PDO-I I
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R:~TA~TPA97.1~'2 12~JO/97klb 20
Table 17.22.106
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use
Guns and firearm sales
H
Hardware stores
Health and exercise clubs (less than 5,000 sq. ft.)
Health and exercise clubs (greater than 5,000 sq. ~.)
Health food store
Health care facility
Heliports
Hobby supply shop
Home and business maintenance service
Hospitals
Hotels/motels
I
Ice cream parlor
Impound yard
Interior decorating service
J
lunk or salvage yard
K
Kennel
L
Laboratories, film, medical, research or testing centers
Laundromat
Laundry service (commercial)
Libraries, museums and galleries (private)
PDO-I
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R:\STAFFRFIV~TPA97.PC2 12/30/97 klb 21
Table 17.22.106
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use,
Liquefied petroleum, sales and distribution
Liquor stores
Lithographic service
Locksmith
M
Machine shop
Machinery storage yard
Mall order businesses
Manufacmting of products similar to, but not limited to, the
following:
Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, and fabrication of
goods within enclosed building (no outside storage), such as jewelry,
furniture, art objects, clothing, labor intensive manufacturing, assembling, and
repair processes which do not involve frequent truck trafi~e.
Compounding of materials, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment or
fabrication of materials and products which require frequent truck activity or
the transfer of heavy or bulky items. Wholesaling, storage, and warehous'mg
within enclosed building, freight handling, shipping, truck services and
terminals, storage and wholessling from the premises ofunre~ned, raw or
semirefined products requiting further processing or manufacturing, and
outside storage. Uses under 20,000 sq. ft. with no outside storage
Massage
Medical equipment sales/rental
Membership clubs, organizations, lodges
Mini-storage or mini-warehouse'
Mobile home sales and service
Motion picture studio
Motorcycle sales and service
I PDO--1
P
P
P
P
C
C~
R:~TAFFRFr~237PA~7.PC2 12/30/97 ldb :2:2
Table 17.22.106
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use
Movie theaters
Musical and recording studio
N
Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club
Nurseries (re~ail)
Nursing homes/convalescent homes
O
Office equipment/supplies, sales/services
Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq.
Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 sq. i~., including, but not limited
to, business law, medical, dental, veterinarian (except animal hospitals), chiropractic,
architectural, engineerinl~ real estate, insurance
P
Paint and wallpaper stores
Parcel delivery services
Parking lots and parking structures
Pawnshop
Personal service shops
Pest control services
Pet grooming/pet shop
Photographic studio
Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenclosed)
Postal distribution
Postal services
Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.)
Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities Commission)
R:~STAFFRFI'x23TPA97.PC~ 12/30/97 klb 23
{ PDO-I
C
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Table 17.22.106
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use
Q
Reserved
R
Radio and broadcasfmg studios, offices
Radio/television transmitter
Recreational vehicle parks
Recreational vehicle sales
Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage wig an enclosed building
Recreational vehicle, trailer and boat storage-exterior yard
Recycling collection facilities
Recycling processing facilities
Religious institution, without a day care or private school
Religious institution, with a private school
Religious institution, with a day care
Residential (one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use
for use of the proprietor of the business)
Residemial, multiple-family housing
Restaurant, drive-in/fast food
Restaurants and other eating establishments
Restaurants with lounge or live enterraiment
Retail support use (15 percent of total development square footage in BP and LI)
Rooming and boarding houses
S
Scale, public
Schools, business and professional
PDO-1
P
C
C
C
C
C
P
R:XSTA~TPA97.PC2 12/30/97 ~ 24
Table 17.22.106
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use
Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12)
Scientific research and development offices and laboratories
Senior citizen housing (see also congregate care)
Solid waste disposal facility
Sports and recreational facilities
Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building~
Swap Meet, outdoor
Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales
T
Tailor shop
Taxi or limousine service
Tile sales
Tobacco shop
Tool and die casting
Transfer, moving and storage
Transportation terminals and stations
Truck rentals (no sales or/service)
TV/VCR repair
U
Upholstery shop
V
Vending machine sales and sen, ice
W
Warehousing/distribution
Watch repair
PDO-1
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R:~STAFFRP'I'~37PA97.1~'2 12/30/97 klb 25
Table 17.22.106
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District
Description of Use
Wedding chapels
Welding shop
Welding supply and service (enclosed)
Y
Reserved
PDO-I
Z
Reserved
I. The CLIP will be subject to Section 17.08.050(G) of the Development Code.
2. Subject to the standards outlined in appendix.
3. See Chapter 5.22 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
4. See Section 17.080.050(P,), spec'hal use regulations and standards for self-storage or mini-
warehouse facilities.
5. Subject to the special setback provisions contained in these regulations.
17.22.108 Supplemental Design and Setback Standards
A. In addition to the standard setback and landscape requirements of the Neighborhood
Commercial Zone contained in Chapter 17.08, the following spedal setback provisions shall be required
for all uses identified with a '5' in the Permitted Use Matrix and for all other similar outdoor use and
storage activities.
1. Outdoor use and storage activities shall be located on the rear portions of each
site and shall be fully screened from public view and from adjacent residences.
2. When it is not possible (due to site or use constraints) to locate outdoor use
and/or storage activities in the rear portions of the property, a landscaped buffer area, not less than
twenty feet in width and backed with an architecturally integrated screening wall shall be installed. No
parking or loading areas are allowed in this visual buffer area. The height of the wall shall be six feet.
The height of the wall may be increased to eight feet if deemed necessary and appropriate by the
Community Development Director.
B. All development within PDO-1 shall also comply with the following supplemental
buffering requirements:
R:~TAFFRFI'x237pA97.1~'2 12/30/97 klb 2~i
1. When adjacent to residential uses: a transitional landscaped area, not less than
five feet in width shall be installed. The landscaping shall include (at a minimum) trees, shrubs, and
appropriate ground cover and should be located outside of the walls used to screen these commercial
uses.
2. When adjacent to Temecula Creek: a additional transitional landscaped area,
outside of any fences or walls, not less than five feet shall be installed and shall be planted with
appropriate native tree and shrub plant species commonly found within Southern California riparian
areas. Temporary irrigation may be required to ensure plant establishment.
R:k~TAFFRFrX~7PA97.PC2 12t30/97klb 27
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
COMPARISON OF PERMITTED USES
R:'~FAPFRFI~37PA97.1~'2 12/30/97 k~ 28
COMPARISON LIST OF PERMITTED USES
A
Adult business--subject to Chapter 5.08 of the Temecula
Municipal Code
Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (less
than 5,000 sq.
Aerobics/dance/gyrtmastics/ja~ercise/marfial arts studios (greater
than 5,000 sq.
Airports
Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities
Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient)
Alcoholic beverage sales
Ambulance services
Animal hospital/shelter
Antique restoration
Antique sales
Apparel and accessory shops
Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances)
Arcades (pinball and video games)
Art supply stores
Auction houses
Auditoriums and conference facilities
Automobile dealers (new and used)
Automobile Oil Change/Lube Services with no major repairs
Automobile sales Corokerage)--showroom only (new and
used) no outdoor display
Automobile repair services
Automobile rental
C P P
P
C
C
CI C. CI
p -
p -
C -
P P P
P P P
P P P
C
P P P
P
C
C -
P
P
P
P
R:~'TAPFRlq'X237PA97.1t~"2 12/~O/97klb 29
Description of Use
Automobile painting and body shop
Automotive pans--sales
Automobile salvage yards/impound yards
Automobile service stations with or without an automated car
wash
Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine with or
without an automated car wash
B
Bakery goods distribution
Bakery retail
Bakery wholesale
Banks and financial institutions
Barber and beauty shops
Bed and breakfast
Bicycle (sales, rentals, services)
Billlard parlor/poolhall
Binding &books and shnilar publications
Blood bank
Blueprint and duplicating and copy services
Bookstores
Bowling alley
Building material sales
Butcher shop
C
Cabinet shop
Camera shop (sales/minor repairs)
Candy/confectionery sales
NC
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
R:~STAFF~37pA~7.1~ 12/~k~ 30
Description of Use
Car wash, full service
Carpe~ and rug cleaning
Catering services
Clothing sales
Coins, purchase and sales
Cold storage facilities
Communications and microwave installations2
Communications equipment sales
Community care facilities
Computer sales and service
Congregate care housing for the elderly
Construction equipment sales, service or rental
Contractor's equipment, sales, service or rental
Convenience market
Costume rentals
Crematoriums
Cutlery
D
Data processing equipment and systems
Day care centers
Delicatessen
Discount/department store
Distribution facility
Drug store/pharmacy
Dry cleaners
Dry cleaning plant
NC SC PROPOSED
PDO- 1
C
P
P P P
P P P
P P P
C
P P P
P P P
P P P
C C'
C C'
C P C
P P
P P
C P P
C C C
C P P
P
C
P P P
P P P
C
R:\STAl~RIrlX237PA97.PC2 12f30/97klb 3]
Description of Use
E
Emergency shelters
Equipment sales and remals (no outdoor storage)
Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage)
F
Feed and grain sales
Financial, insurance, real estate offices
Fire and police stations
Floor covering sales
Florist shop
Food processing
Fortunetelling, spirimaiism, or similar activity
Freight terminals
Fuel storage and distribution
Funeral parlors, mortuary
Furniture sales
Furniture transfer and storage
G
Garden supplies and equipment sales and service
Gas distribution, meter and control station
General merchandise/retail store less than 10,000 sq.
Glass and mirrors, retail sales
Governmental offices less than 5,000 sq. i~.
Grocery store, retail
Grocery store, wholesale
Guns and firearm sales
INC
SC ]l PROPOSED
PDO-1
C C
- p P
- C C~
- P P
P P P
P P P
P P
P P P
P P P
P
P
C
P
P C~
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R:\STAFFRFr~37PA97.PC2 12/30/97
Description of Use
H
Hardware stores
Health and exercise clubs (less than 5,000 sq. it.)
Health and exercise clubs (greater than 5,000 sq. ~.)
Health food store
Health care facility
Heliports
Hobby supply shop
Home and bus'mess maintenance service
Hospitals
Hotels/motels
I
Ice cream parlor
Impound yard
Interior decorating service
J
Junk or salvage yard
K
Kennel
L
Laboratories, film, medical, research or testing centers
Laundromat
Laundry service (commercial)
Libraries, museums and galleries (private)
Liquefied petroleum, sales and distribution
Liquor stores
P P P
C P
P
P P P
P P
P P P
P P
C -
P
P
P P
I II
I cll
P
P
C P
C
R:~STAFF[tF~2~TPA97.[~2 12/30~f/klb 33
Description of Use
NC
Lithographic service
Locksmith P
M
Machine shop
Machinery storage yard
Mail order businesses P P
Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited to, the
following:
Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, -
and fabrication of goods within enclosed building (no
outside storage), such as jewelry, furniture, art objects,
clothing, labor intensive manufacturing, assembling, and
repair processes which do not involve frequent truck
traffic.
Compounding of materials, processing, assembling,
packaging, treatment or fabrication of materials and
products which require frequent truck activity or the
transfer of heavy or bulky items. Wholesaling, storage, and
warehousing within enclosed building, freight handling,
shipping, truck services and terminals, storage and
wholesaling from the premises of unrefined, raw or
semirefined products requiring further processing or
manufacturing, and outside storage.
Uses under 20,000 sq. ft. with no outside storage -
Massage P P
Medical equipment sales/rental P P
Membership clubs, organizations, lodges C C
Mini-storage or mini-warehouse' P
Mobilehome sales and service P
Motion picture studio P
Motorcycle sales and service P
Movie theaters
PKOPOSED
PDO-I
P
P
P
P
C
m
R:\STAPFRPT~237PA~7.PC'2 12/30/~7 klb 34
Description of Use
NC SC
C
Musical and record'rag studio
N
Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club C
Nurseries (retail) P
Nursing homes/convalescent homes C C
O
Office equipment/supplies, sales/services C P
Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than
50,000 sq. ft. C
Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 sq. ft.,
including, but not limited to, business law, medical, dental,
veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering real estate,
insurance P P
P
Paint and wallpaper stores P
Parcel delivery services P P
Parking lots and parking structures C
Pawnshop P
Personal service shops P P
Pest control services C
Pet grooming/pet shop P P
Photographic studio P P
Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenelosed) C
Postal distribution
Postal services P P
Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.) P
Private uf~ity facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities
Commission) P P
PROPOSED
PDO- I
C
C
P
P
(with a
modified
definition)
P
P
P
P
P
P
R:~TA~TPA97.PC2 12BO/~/lrJa 35
Description of Use
Q
Reserved
R
Radio and broadcasting studios, offices
Radio/television transmitter
Recreational vehicle parks
Recreational vehicle sales -
Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within an enclosed
building -
Recreational vehicle, trailer and boat storage-exterior yard -
Recycling collection fac'dities -
Recycling processing fac'dities -
Religious institution, without a daycare or private school C
Religious institution, with a private school C
Religious institution, with a daycare C
Residential (one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial
or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business) C
Residential, multiple-family housing
Restaurant, drive-in/fast food
Restaurants and other eating establishments C
Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment
Retail support use (15 percent of total development square
footage in BP and LI)
Rooming and boarding houses
S
Scale, public
Schools, business and professional
Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12) C
R:',STAFFRPTX237PA97.~'2 12/30/97klb 36
NC
P
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
PROPOSED
PDOo 1
P
C
C
C
C
C
P
Description of Use
Scientific research and development offices and laboratories
Senior citizen housing (see also congregate care)
Solid waste disposal facility
Sports and recreational facilities
Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building
Swap Meet, outside
Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales
T
Tailor shop
Taxi or limousine service
Tile sales
Tobacco shop
Tool and die casting
Transfer, moving and storage
Transportation terminals and stations
Truck rental (no sales or service)
TV/VCR repair
U
Upholstery shop
V
Vending machine sales and service
W
Warehousing/distribution
Watch repair
Wedding chapels
Welding shop
INC
P C
C C
P P
P P
- P P
- p P
C P P
C Cs
P P P
P
R:\STAFFRPT~a7PA97.PC2 12/30/97 Ir~ 37
Description of Use NC SC PROPOSED
PD0 - 1
Welding supply and service (enclosed)
P
Y
1. The CLIP will be subject to Section 17.08.050(G) of the Development Code.
2. Subject to the standards outline in appendix.
3. See Chapter 5.22 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
4. Subject to the provisions of Section 17.08.050(11.).
5. Subject to the special setback provisions contained in these regulations.
R:/STAFl~FrI~7PA97.PC2 12BO~Tklb 38
ATTACHMENT N0.4
INITIAL STUDY
R:\STA~TPA~'/.PC2 12t~O~Tkl~ B~
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name end Address:
Contact Person end Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plen Designation:
Proposed General Plen Designation:
Proposed Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Lend Uses end Setting:
Other public agencies whose approval
is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0237
(General Plan Amendment and Zone Change)
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
CA 92590
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
(909) 694-6400
South of State Highway 79 South, east of Pala Road
City-Initiated - City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Office and Neighborhood Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial end Service Commercial
Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial end Service Commercial
Cleanup General Plan Amendment changing the
designalien from Office and Neighborhood Commercial to
Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial; and
Zone Change changing the zoning liom Professional Office
and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood
Commercial and Service Commercial.
Vacant properties end flood control facilities to the north
end east; Riverwalk subdivision to the east; Pala Road,
Homes by the Green and Rainbow Canyon subdivision to
the south and west.
Fire Department, Health Department, Temecula Polic~
Department, Eas~rn Municipal Water District, Rancho
California Watgr District, Riverside County Flood Control,
Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas
Company, General Telephone
R:\CEQAX237PA97.1ES 12t10/97cd 1
12.
Speci~city of Environmental Review:
The project is a general plan amemtment and zone change
and no detailed development proposals have been submitted
W the City, no project-level evaluation of the potential
environmental mipacts is possible. Section 15146 of the
CEQA Guidelines states that the specificity and detail of
environmental analysis should be similar to the detail and
speci~city of the project Since the project is a general plan
amendment/zone change within commercial land use
designations of the general plan, only a general plan level of
evaluation is possible. However, in an effort to provide as
much information as possible, some additional evaluation
has been provided. Any mitigation measures identified in
this document will be implemented when detailed
development proposals are available.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AF/fECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ]
[ ] Population and Housing [ ]
[X] Geologic Problems [ ]
IX] Water [ ]
[ ] Air Quality [X]
[X] Transportation/Circulation IX]
[ ] Biological Resources [ ]
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ]
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[]
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[]
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[]
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation ~ based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
ISSLrES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
No
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project7
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disruptordividethephysicalarrangementofenestablished
commumty (including low-income or minority community)7
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a, Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23)
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)7
c. Displace exisfmghougmg, especially affordable hou~(mg7
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Faultrapture? (Source 1, Figure T-1,Page T-6, Source4)
b. Seisnuc ground shaking7
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction7
(Soume 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8)
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard7
e. Landslides or mudflows? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8)
f Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8)
h. Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologic or physical features7
[] [1 [~ []
[1 [1 [] [x]
[] [] [~ [1
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [1 [~ []
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [1 Ix]
[] Ixl [1 []
[] [x] [] []
[] Ix] [] []
[] [] [] [~
[1 [x] [1 []
[1 [xl [] [1
[] [x] [] []
[] [x] [] []
[1 [] [] [x]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
pot~lillly
NO
4. WATEIt Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patlerns, or the
rate and mount of surface Binoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related h~zards
such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10
and Figure 7-4, Page %12; Source 4)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or d~eetion of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
I. Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater
otherv,~se available for public water supplies7
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 1, Page 2-29)
b. Expose sensitive meeptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result In:
a. herease vehicle hips or t~a~c congestion?
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? ( )
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( )
[1 [1 lxl []
[l [xl [] [3
[1 [x] [] [1
[1 [] Ix] []
[l [1 [x] [1
[] [1 lxl []
[] [] [] Fx']
[1 [1 [x] []
[l [l Ix] []
[] [] [1 Ix]
[] [1 [] Ix]
[1 [1 [1 [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [1 [x]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Signi~nt
pout~i~ly
Unl~
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( )
e. Hazards or bamers for pedeslrians or bicyclists? ( )
f. Conflicts with adopted pohcies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus lurnouts, bicycle racks)? ( )
g. Rail, waterborne or air Irafire impacts? ( )
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened orrare species or their habitats (mcluding)
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? ( )
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage ~es)? ( )
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian andvcmal pool)? ( )
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration coredors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted ellorgy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasterid and inefficient manner?
c, Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
anbstanens (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c.The creation of my health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d.Exposure ofpcople to existing sources ofpotential health
hazards?
c.Inorcasc fn-c hazard in arcas with ~ammablc brush,
grass, or trees?
R:~CEQA~37PA97,1ES 12/10/97 cd 5
ix] 1] []
[] [] [x]
[] [] [x]
[] [] [x]
[] [] [x]
[] [] Ix]
[1 [] [x]
[l [1 [x]
[] [] [x]
[] [] [X]
[] [X] []
[1 [1 [x]
[] [] [x]
[] [1 Ix]
[] [] [x]
[] [1 [x]
[] [] Ix]
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? (Source 1, Page 8-9)
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the foBowing areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Mamtenanceofpubliefaeilities, mchidingroads?
e. Other governmental servmes?
12. v'rtu'rt~s AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following ut'dities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontologioal resources? (Source 2, Figure 55,
Page 280)
SignSSlant
[]
t]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
po~ufially
Unless
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[x]
Ix]
Pq
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
sis. last
No
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1, Figure 56,
Page 283; Source 5)
[]
ix] [] []
[1 [] [x]
[] [] [x]
Ix] [1 []
c. Affecthistodcalresourees? (Sourcel. Page 281; Source 6) [ ]
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change winch would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
[]
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? ( )
[]
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a, Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? ( )
[] [] [1 Ix]
[] [] [] [x]
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( )
16. 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-sttstaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
aremat community, reduce the number of restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or aremat or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California instory or preinstory?
[1 [1
[1
[1 [x]
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ]
[]
Does the project have impacts that area individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projacls).
[] [] [] [x]
Does the project have enviromental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
direc~y or indirec~y?
[] [] [] [x]
17, EARI,IR~R ANALYSTS, None.
SOURCES
l. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Tamecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management DisWict CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. Parcel Map No. 11984
5. Extended Phase I Survey of CA-RIV-4707/H for the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge, January 1997
6. Historic Property Survey Report for the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge, February 1997
R:',CEQAx,237PA97.ES 12/10197c~1 7
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and plannin$/
The project is a general plan amendment and zone change from existing commercial land use designations.
The environmental impact of the proposed general plan designation and proposed zoning is expected to be less
than significant because Neighborhood Commercial zoning already covers a portion of the site, and is
proposed to extend along Pala Road only, up to approximately 150 feet ~-om the south property Ime into the
site. Neighborhood Commemial uses already exist on two parcels, and ex~endlng such uses along Pala Road
to the other two parcels would have less than significant impacts. Service Commercial zoning is proposed for
the interior portions of the site, behind the Neighborhood Commercial zone. This area backs up to flood
control facilities on two sides, and will take access across the Neighborhood Commercial uses. The site is
crisscrossed with building restrictive easements, a fault line, water course and flood plain. While the Service
Commercial zone may allow more intense commemial uses relative to Neighborhood Commercial and
Professional Office zones, habitable buildings will be severely limited to ouly a few locations on the site.
There will be limited, ff any, environmental effects due to the limited ability to develop the site.
Farmland of Local Importance has been identified to the north end south, areas upon which flood control
facilities exist. Farming does not currently exist in the vicinity, which has been developed with single family
homes, golf course facilities and commercial uses. The areas designated as farmland are not within an existing
Williamson Act Contract, end it is unlikely that farming operations would commence in the future. The effect
of the proposed change in land use designation and zoning is less than significant upon agricultural resources
or operations.
Established communities exist to the east across flood conlrol facilities, and to the south across Pala Road.
However, neither of these communities were designed to expand across to the subject site. Commercial
designations already exist on the site. The proposed change in designation and zoning does not disrupt the
pattern or physical arrangement of communities.
Population and Housing
2a
There will be an increase in the intensity of commercial uses in those areas proposed for Service Commercial
zoning. However, the proposal will not add any more square footage of commercial uses than what was
anticipated under existing commercial land use designations. The impact to local population projections is
considered to be less than significant.
Geologic Problems
3a,b,e,e,
~g,h
Development of the site may have a significant impact on penpie involving seismic ground shaking seismic
ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes m topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill end expansive soils. The site is located in Southern California, an area which is
seismically active. The City's General Plan identifies two active faults in the vicinity, the Wildomar Fault and
the Wolf Valley Fault. Parcel Map No. 11984, subdividing the site into four parcels in 1979, identifies a fault
line on the site approximately 200 feet from Pala Road. However, according the Riverside County Geologist,
subsequent geologic studies should be reviewed to determine the validity of the Map findings.
Potential impacts will be mitigated by compliance with State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
development criteria and construction in accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report
shall be a requirement of development and shall contain recommendations for the compaction of the soft which
will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seiarmc ground shaking, seismic ground failure
(including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading
or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for
development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be
mitigatedthroughtheusooflendsoapingandproperenmpactionofthesoils. After mitigation mes~sures are
performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Water
4a
Development of the site may result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and mount of
surface nanoff should development occur as a result of the land use designation and zone change. However,
because of the reslrictive easements, fault line, water course and flood plain, development is anticipated to be
limited. The mapact as a result of the change in land use designations is considered less than si~owi~cant.
4b
The General Plan identifies a portion of the site as being within the 100 year flood boundary of Temecula
Creek Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 060742-0010-B identifies all but a small portion at the southern
end of the site as being within Zone AE, and a floodway on the northern one half. Parcel Map No. 11984
recorded in 1979 confirms the limit of the 100 year flood plain traversing the site approximately in half. The
Map also identifies a watercourse on the north portion of Parcel 4. Flood control easements already exist
along Temecula C~ek. As a condition of the underlying parcel map, the watercourse shall be kept flee of all
buildmgs and obstructions m order to convey fiood flows. The~oodplainshallbekeptffecofallnew
dwelling umts. Given these mitigation mere already in place at the site, the project is expected to have
less than significant impact exposing people or property to water related hazards.
4c
Development of the site may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and
alteration of surface water quality. Development will be required to comply with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. By this
compliance, any potential impacts of development can be mitigated to a level less than si~i~cant.
4d,e
The proposed change in land use designations will have a less than significant impact in changes to the amount
of surface water in any water body or impact currents, or impact the course or direction of water movements.
Because of the restrictive easements, fault line, water course and flood plain, development is anticipated to be
limited. The impact as a result of the change in land use designations is considered less then significant.
4f-h
The proposed change in land use designations will have a le"~ than significant change in the quantity and
quality ofground waters. Becanse ofthe restrictive easements, fault line, water course and flood plain,
development is anticipated to be limited. The impact as a t~lt of the change in land use designations is
considered less than significant.
4i
The proposed change in land use designations will have a less than significant impact in the reduction in the
amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies. Because of the restrictive easements,
fault line, water course and flood plain, development is anticipated to be limited. The impact as a result of the
change in land use designations is considered less than significant.
Air Oualitv
5a
The proposed change in land use designation will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
exisimg or projected alr quality violation. Because ofthe restrietive easements, fault lme, water course and
flood plain, development is anticipated to be limited and well below target floor area ratios of any commercial
zone. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5b,d
The project will not expose sensitive reenptors to pollutants. There are no sensitive recepturs in proximity to
the project. According to the City's Development Cede, standards with regards to the generation of
particulate matter, smoke, dust, ~ ash, edors, toxics and other noxious matter apply equally to all
commercial zones.
5c
The proposed change in land use designation will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate. No significent impacts are anticipated as a ~'ult of this project.
Tran~portatiotffCirculation
The proposal is located in an area where areawide traffic and circulation improvements have not yet been
completed and where occasional traffic congestion has been identified. Area traffic congestion is expected to
significantly improve when these scheduled improvements have been completed. This proposal would shift
the General Plan and Zoning designations from one commercial designation to another. However, it is
R:\CEQAX237PA~7.1ES 12/10~97 ed 9
anticipated that because of the limited nature of future development, most sites are si~ni~eanfly constrained
with utility easements and environmental site limitations, that a less than significant impact upon tntttc is
anticipated. The projeet will have a less than significant impset upon increased vehiele trips ur tralfc
congestion.
In addition, the Temeeula Creek (Pale Road) Bridge Improvement Project will widen Pala Road flora two to
four lanes, replace the existing bridge, and improve turning movements at the intersection of State Highway 79
South. This project is anticipated to improve traffic flew and safety in this area. Of the three alternative
alignments fur the Improvement Project, Alternative IA was chosen bt~d on engineering, safety
considerations, and environmental constraints. The Bridge Improvement Project is scheduled for construction
in early 1998. The project will have a less than sigtifieam impnet upon increased vehicle trips ur traftle
congestion.
6d.
Future development will be conditioned to provide sufficient parking capseity in seonrdanee with the City' s
Development Code. With propermitigetien measures, future development is not enticipated to eanse
signifieent impacts as a result of this project.
Biological Resources
7.all
The site is located adjacent to Temeeula Creek and includes four partially disturbed properties that range from
mostly developed to undeveloped. The two middle pareels have been mostly developed. The most southerly
parcel is vacant and covered by non-native grass and tree species. The most northarly parcel may contain
some wetland species. However, this site will also be substantively impacted by the reloeation avA
replacement ofthe PalaRoad Bfidge. Aeeordingto the Temeeula Creek(Pala Road) Bridge Improvement
Project Wetland Mitigation Plan, both temporary and permanent impacts of the Bridge Improvement Project
have been mitigated as part of that project. Any additional, and relatively minor, impacts will be addressed
whenspeeifiedevelopmentproposalssresobimtted. The future development proposals will reeeive
appropriately detailed environmental review. As a result, no additional impsets are anticipated at this time.
Energy and Mineral Resources
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopced energ~ conservation plans. The project will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws per~alnira~o to em~rgy conservation during the plan check
stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is foual to be consistent with these applicable laws. No
significant impacts are matieipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
The project will r~ult in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renowable mourcos in a wasteful
and inefficient manner. While there will be an inereaso in tl~ rate of use of any natural resource and in tl~
depl~tion of nonrenewable resouree(s) (eonstruefon materials, fuels for fig chily oponaion, asphalt, lumb~)
and fig subs~quont deplotion of thee non-renow~ble natural r~oure~. Due to th~ scale of tho proposed
d~velopmont, th~se impacts sr~ not s~on as signifie.~t.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resonree that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No si~oni~ca~ impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
H~ar~
The projeot will not result in a significant impact due to risk of explosion, or tl~ release of any h,,~,ntons
substanee, s in tho ovm of an ~eidm or ups~ ennditiom sineo nono ~ proposed in th~ requ~t. While
soma retail uses may have the potential to sell h,.-~,'dous substances, they are regulated by both the Fire
Department and the Department of Euvironmen~ Health. Future development must receive clearance from
the Department of Environmental Health prior to any plan check submittal. Future development rm,~t
receive clearance from the Fire Depertmeet prior to the issuance of a building pemit. This applies to
storege and use of hazanlous materials. No significlm~ iratracts itre anticipeted as a result of this project.
R:\CEQAX2371'~97.1ES 1~tl0/97~t 10
9.b.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The
subject site is not located in an area which could ~ an eanergency response plan. The project will take
access from ,r~intRim~d streets and will therefore not impede any emergency respome or emergency
evacuation plans. No significant impacts are antidtpated as a result of this project.
The projoct will not ranfit in the oruaion of any luu~th h,,,Rnl or Potential bealth ha,,mt. TI~ project will
be reviewt~l for eomplianco with all applicable hoalth laws dmilg tho plan cheek stage. No portoits will be
issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applieabla laws. Reference response 9.a. No
signi~cam impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hs,,~a,ds. No health lua:'~,rds are
k~own to be within proximity of the project. No significent impacts s.re anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will no~ result in an increase to fire hn,~ard in an area with ~ammable bnmh, grass, or trees.
The project is in an area of existing uses and proposed commercial uses. The project is not located within
or proximate to a fire hnT~ard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Noise
The proposal wffi result in a less thnn significsm increase to existing noise levels. The site is l~rtinlly
vacant and development of the land lo~ically will result in increases to noise levels during coustmetion
ph~es as well as hereases to noise in the area overthe long nan. However, the project site is edjaeent to
Pals Road, desi~omated as a six-lane mtnm arterial roadway. Ambient noise levels 100 feet from centerline
are 61.9 to 62.6 CNEL. According to the City's General Plan, it is appropriate to place insensitive lamt
uses such as commercial adjacent to noise generators such as highways. Long-term noise gonerated by this
project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in tile area. Noise impacts are anticipated to be less
than significant as a result of this project in either the short or long-~orm.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/coustruction phase (short am).
Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is
considered very annoying and can cause hearing cLamsage from steady 8-honr exposure. This source of noise
will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-tom
exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Public Services
11 .a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police
protection. The~r~jectwi~~inegmenta~~ymereasetheneedf~r~reandp~~icepr~tecti~n;h~wever~itwill
contribute its fair share to the cost of maintenance of service proxdf~on from these entities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a gsult of this project.
ll.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or testfit in a need for new or altered school fae'~ities.
The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and
therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
ll.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including maids.
Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of
Temecula from the State of Califorma. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result
~fdeve~~pment~fthesitewiHbeineremental~h~wever~theywi~~n~tbe~~nsideredsigni~eam. The Gasoline
Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
ll.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQAX237PA97.1ES 12/10/97 cd I I
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new sys~ns or supplies, or substantial alte~atinns to power or natural
gE. These ~ are Clal~tafly being dehvered m proximity to the site. No siSmi~cam impacts are
anticipated as a gsult of this projset.
12.b.
The project will not result in a need fur new systems ur supphes, ur substantial alturations to commumcatinn
systems (reference response No. 12.a. No sigdi~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in the need for new systems ur supplies, or substantial alturations to local ur regional
wa~r treatment ur distxibution facilities. No siEmi~eant impsets are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need fur new systems or supphes, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer
systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final
Environmental Impact Repot~ (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have
indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their Services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further
states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not si~i~eantly impact wastewater serwces (p.
40)." It is anticipated that the proposal m change the designation from Office to Commercial, and the limited
nature of future development under this designation, would not significantly increase the demand for systems
or supplies. No significant mapsets are anticipated as a ~lt of this project.
Future development may require additional storm water drainage fseihties on.site. However, bceause this
project is a change in General Plan and Zoning designations fi'om one commercial category to another, no
specific development proposals are being proposed at this time. Any specific development proposal would
receive an appropriately detailed environmental review. No significant impacts are anticipated at this time.
12.£
The proposal will not result in a need fur new systems ur substantial alterations to solid waste disposal
systems. Any potential impacts fi'om solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through
participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result fithis project.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional
water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The City does not have any designated scemc highways. However, future developments on the site will be
reviewed to ensure that project design provides appropriate aesthetic benefits in aceordanoe with the City's
Development Code and Design Guldelmes. Nosigul~cantimpaetsareantieipatedasaresultofthisprojcet
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project, as proposed, is intended to
encourage neighburhood commercial uses and appearance along Pals Road, and would locate more intense
service commercial uses on the interior portion of the site. It is anticipated that this layout will require a more
neighborhood character m terms of building scale and design and in terms of landsoapmg adjacent to Pala
Road to make future development more compatible with the surrounding area. As a result, no si~t, ni~cant
impacts are anticipated.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially sieni~eant impact from hght and glare. The pwject will prode end result
in light/glare, as all development of this nature gsults in new hght sources. All hght and glare has the
potential to impact the Mount Palemar Observatory. Future development will be eonditioned to be consistent
with 0rdmance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With mitigation measures no significant
impsets are anticipated as a result of this projoct.
Cultural Resources
14.b.
The General Plan identifies a sensitive archaeological area at the intersectiun of State Highway 79 South and
Pala Road, which may extend to the subject site. An Extended Phase I (Xph!) Investigation was performed
dated January 1997 for the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge confirming the location of two potential
R:\CEQAMBTP,~97.1ES 12/10/97 c,d 12
concentrations of artifacts in close proximity to State Highway 79. The also study indicated that, expect for
one partially disturbed site, the southerly properties did not have any identified significant cultural deposits.
The results ofthc investigation recommended further studies. A Phase lI Evaluation of Archaeological Site
CA-RIV-4707/H was prepared in January 1997 which concluded that both thc historic component sad
prehistoric components were not eligible for the National Register. Due to the potential for additional deposits
in the area, future development of the proposed site will be required to continue the investigation for artifacts
in site specific areas. The potential for future significant impacts will be deterrrnned and fully mitigated when
future development proposals are considered.
14.c.
The project will not have an impact on historical resources. As noted in the Historic Property Survey Report
completed for the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge in February 1997, properties in the area of the Pala
Road Bridge were determined ineligible for mclnsion in the National Register or the California Register of
Historic Resources, and no locally designated landmarks were identified. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d,
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values. Reference response 14 .b,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a x%~xlt of this project.
14.e. The project may ~a~ict existing religions or sacred uses within the potential impact area. See Response 14.b.
Recreation
15.a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact or merease in demand for neighborhood or regional perks
or other recreafional facilities. Theprojactwillnotcausesignificantnumbersofpcopletorelocatewithinorte
the City of Temecula. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or
opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQAX237PA97.1ES 12/10/97 cd 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
R:\STAFFRPT~37PA97.1C2 12/30/r/k, lb 40
PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The purpose of this pr'ehrninary analysis is to compare, on a General Plan level, the relative potential
traffic impacts of the proposed creation of planned Development Overlay District No. 1. The analysis
uses the standard trip generalion provisions from the General Plan Traffic Study and standard General
Plan lot coverage assumptions. This analysis is not intended to provide a site specific or land use
specific analysis of future traffic impacts. It is intended to provide a General Plan level of analysis
of the proposal. This analysis was prepared using the following standard assumptions.
1. The lot areas identified on the current Riverside County Assessor's Maps.
Lot area is convened to square footage of buildings based upon the following Floor Area
Ratio targets: 0.25 for Neighborhood Commercial, 0.5 for Professional Office, and 0. 1 for
the Service Commercial in the unbuildable easement area. (Using this lower FAR is intended
to simulate the relatively limited daily trip generation attributable to outdoor storage uses in
Situation No. 3.) The square footage estimates are rounded to the nearest one hundred
square feet.
Based upon information taken ~'om the traffic generation analysis used for the preparation
of the General Plan. The Professional Office rate is the average between Commercial Office
(14 trips per 1,000 square feet) and Medical Office (33.7 trips per 1,000 square feet).
Calculated by multiplying the square footage of the future buildings by the trip generation
rate. Final results are rounded to the nearest ten trips.
R:XSTAFFRPT~237PA97.PC2 12/30/97klb 41
SITUATION 1 - CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
AREA IN
ZONE ACRES
Neighborhood 2.41
Commercial
Professional 9.75
Office
T()'I .M 'cl'l I)~ ;2 16
ARI. '~
sQ. FT. OF
BUILDING
GENERATION RATE
(Per 1000 Sq Ft)
26,200 64.3
212,400 23.9
TOTAL TRIPS
PER DAY
1,690
5,080
SITUATION 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONE
Neighborhood
Commercial
TOTAL STUI)Y
ARFA
AREA IN SQ. FT. OF
ACRES BUILDING
GENERATION RATE
(Per 1000 Sq Ft)
TOTAL TRIPS
PER DAY
12.16 132,400 64.3 8,510
12.16
8,510
SITUATION 3 - ADJUSTED NEIGHBOKHOOD COMMERCIAL
AREA IN SQ. FT. OF GENERATION RATE
ZONE ACRES BUILDING (Per 1000 Sq Ft)
Neighborhood 9.58 104,300 64.3
Commercial
Easements Areas 2.58 "11,100" 9.2
TOTAL TKrPS
PER DAY
6,710
100
TOTAL STUDY 12.16
AKEA
6,810
R:XSTAFPRPT~7PA97.PC'2 12/30/~Tklb 42
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
EXHIBITS
R:\~TAFFRIt~Z~TPA97,It'2 12/~0/9~ k~b 43
CITY OF TEMECULA
' I
SITE
CASE NUMBER: PA97-0237
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 15, 1997
VICINITYMAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
'1 IT
SITE
5P
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
O,<
\LM HTC O \
~ .O.
· ,.,o
SITE /"~
OS . ~ ~' ~
LM /' L
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL |CC)
CASE NUMBER: PA97-0237
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 15, 1997
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 5, 1998
Planning Application No. PA97-0438 {Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 199)
Prepared By: Carole Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
MAKE a Determination of Consistency With a Project for Which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified and Findings
Made that a Subsequent EIR is not Required;
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending the City Council approve
Ranning Application No. PA97-0438 (Amendment No.4 to Specific Plan
No. 199) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
To correct the Residential Development Standards Matrix and text by
removing the lot coverage standard unintentionally included during the
processing of Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199
LOCATION:
South of La Serena Way, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows
Parkway, north of Rancho California Road, within the Margarita Village
Specific Plan.
BACKGROUND
Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199 was approved by the Temecula City Council on
October 7, 1997, eliminating the commercial acreage at the northwest corner of Rancho
California Road and Meadows Parkway, reducing the dwelling units to 3,922 units, adding a
12.5 acre public park, and revising roadway cross-sections, design guidelines and development
standards, all within Village 'A." During the processing of Amendment No. 3, staff had asked
that the applicant prepare a more readable document, using language from the City's
Development Code wherever feasible. In their efforts to comply with this request, the applicant
created the Residential Development Standards Matrix and accompanying text to serve as the
reference document to expedite the plotting of new homes within the various Planning Areas
of Specific Plan No. 199.
ANALYSIS
The applicant unintentionally included lot coverage maximums within the matrix and text.
Investigation of the original approval indicates that the Specific Plan No. 199 was designed and
partially constructed without a maximum lot coverage restriction. Staff concurs with the
applicant that this language should be removed from the documents because the specific plan
contains lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size required in the Development Code, and
the lot coverage percentages cannot be realistically applied to these smaller lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified
by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on August 26, 1986. Another Initial
Environmental Assessment was prepared on August 20, 1997 which determined that the
project is consistent with the information contained in the previously certified EIR. Due to the
limited scope of the proposed changes to the specific plan, there will be no effect beyond that
which was reviewed in the previous analyses.
Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required unless additional
impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts, may
result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
which would require a major revision in the EIR, or new information that could not have been
known at the time the EIR was prepared becomes available. None of these situations has
occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
FINDINGS
Planning Application No. PA97-0438 (Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 199) as
proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Planning Application No. PA97-0438 (Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 199) is
consistent with the goals and policies of the City's adopted General Plan.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes a reduction
in the density and intensity of land uses. Ultimate development will be residential
development in an area that is comprised of a variety of residential neighborhoods.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the site and is consistent
with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 199.
The amendment to Specific Ran No. 199 does not increase the impacts associated with
the development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in
Environmental impact Report No. 202.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Resolution for Planning Application PA97-0438 - Blue Page 4
A, Exhibit A - Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 7
B. Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 98- - Blue Page 11
C. Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 15
Exhibits - Blue Page 16
A. Residential Development Standards Matrix and text
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
R:%STAJq~RPT~$38PA97.1~:~ 12/30/~7 kn, 4
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THR PLANNING COMMISSION OF
TIlE Crr~ OF TEMECULA RECOMMRNDING THAT ~
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RP-qOLUTION ENTITLED *A
RF-qOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING SPEC~IC PLAN NO. 199,
CONTAINING 1,~26 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA97-0438 - AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPEC~IC PLAN
NO. 199)," AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199,
REMOVING LOT COVERAGE FROM ~ MATRIX AND
TEXT OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 ZONING STANDARDS,
CONTAINING 1,526 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA97-0438 - AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 199)'
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula filed Planning Application No. PA97-0438 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) proposes
to remove lot coverage requirements unintentionally included in the Residential Development
Standards Matrix and text;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0438 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0438
on January 5, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, ff any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0438;
R:\STAFFRFIM38PA97.PC 12/30/r~klb 5
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
I'EMECULA DOES HERRRy RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
A I~-c4)LUTION ENTITLEI} 'A RF-qOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ANfENDING SPECIHC PLAN NO. 199, CONTAINING 1,526 ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF RANCliO CAI.IFO RNIA ROAD
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-4M38 - AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 199)," AND ADOrr AN ORDINANCE ENTITI.I~ 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AM1;NDING SPECIHC PLAN NO. 199,
REMOVING LOT COVERAGE PROM THE MATRIX AND TEXT OF SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 199 ZONING STANDARDS, CONTAINING 1,53~ ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF MARGARffA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY, NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA97-4)438 - AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIHC PLAN NO. 1~))"
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of January, 1998.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I I-IEREBY CERTIYY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of January,
1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199,
CONTAINING 1,526 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATRr}
SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF
RANClIO CALIFORNIA ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA97-0438 - AME~NDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 199)
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula fried Planning Application No. PA97-0438 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 199 OVlargarita Village) proposes
to remove lot coverage requirements unintentionally included in the Residential Development
Standards Matrix and text;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0438 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0438
on January 5, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0438 and recommended that the City Council approve
Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 199;
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on ,
1998 to consider Planning Application No. PA97-0438, at which time interested persons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
~, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. PA97-0438;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 199 The City Council hereby
approves Amendment No 4 to Specific Plan No. 199, containing 1,526 acres generally located
south of La Serena Way, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway and north of Rancho
California Road.
Section 2. F, nvironmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information
contained in Environmental Impact Report No. 202, prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and
certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, and an Initial Environmental Assessment
prepared on August 20, 1997 which detexmined that the project is consistent with the information
contained in the previously certified ErR, finds that due to the limited scope of the proposed
changes to the specific plan, there will be no effect beyond that which was reviewed in the
previous analyses.
Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required
unless additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of
impacts, may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which would require a major revision in the ErR, or new information that could not
have been known at the time the EIR was prepared becomes available. None of these situations
has occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 3. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this _th day of ,1998.
ATI'EST:
Ron Robefro, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HER[RY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
,1998 by the following vote of the Council:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CITY COUNCILIVlEMBERS:
ABSENT:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:~STAFFRFlM38PA97.PC 12/30/97 lifo ~ 0
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 98-
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 98-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199,
REMOVING LOT COVERAGE FROM THE MATRIX AND
TEXT OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 ZONING STANDARDS,
CONTAINING 1,526 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, WEST OF Mi~ADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0438 - AMENDM'ENT NO. 4 TO
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199)
WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code pwvides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities W implement such
general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance
shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan of the city; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to amend Specific Plan No. 199 to accurately reflect private
property and to be consistent with the adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hdd a duly noticed public hearing on January 5,
1998, and recommended that the City Council approve Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No.
199; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinances; and,
~, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on
1998 to consider the proposed amendment to Specific Plan No. 199
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALrFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. AMF. NDM'F, NT TO SPECIFIC PI,AN NO. 199 The City Council hereby
amends Specific Plan No. 199 removing lot coverage from the matrix and text.
R:XSTAFFRFIM38pA97.PC 12/30/~7klb 12
Section 2. F. NVIRONIVF~.NTAI. REVIEV~. The City Council, based upon the information
contained in Environmental Impact Report No. 202, prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and
certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, and an Initial Environmental Assessment
pmpar~ on August 20, 1997 which determined that the project is consistent with the information
contained in the previously certified EIR, finds that due to the limited scope of the proposed
changes to the specific plan, there will be no effect beyond that which was reviewed in the
previous analyses.
Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EII~ is required
unless additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of
impacts, may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which would require a major revision in the EIR, or new information that could not
have been known at the time the EIR was prepared becomes available. None of these situations
has occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 3. SEVF. RARII.ITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shah hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining pans of this Ordinance.
Section 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this
Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance,
and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:\STAFFRPT~38PA97.FC 12/30/~71d~ '~ 3
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of , 1998.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATFEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HERFRY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 1998 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
CiTY COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:'STAFFRFIM38pA97.PC 12/30/97 klb '[ 4
EXHIBIT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFP, PT~I38PAr/.l'C 12/30/~7 klb 15
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0438 (Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 199)
Project Description:
To correct the Residential Development Standards Matrix
and text by removing the lot coverage standard within
Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall and hereby
agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection, the City. The City shall be deemed for the purposes of this condition,
to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed
officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from
any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City, to
attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including
actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA97-
0438 (Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 199). City shall promptly notify both the
applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is
applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City
reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of
the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Specific Plan
No. 199 and its amendments unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
The text of Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 199 Zone Standards shall conform
with Exhibit A, "Margarita Village Amendment #4 to Margarita Village SP Zone
Standards," dated December 1997, or as amended by these conditions.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant's Signature
R:\STAFFP, P~438PA97.COA 12/29/97cd ]
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:'~STAFFRFI'~38pA97.PC 12/30/97 klb 16
UNDER SEPARATE COVER