HomeMy WebLinkAbout100190 PC Agenda6~00PM
CALL TO OR. DER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
.Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
Hoagland.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A !g~tal :pf: .!5::'rninute~ iS p~yiCl~d so m~mbers ~f ~he-p~blic .can.- address. the
commlSSio'ners on it~n~t,~.:_~e not liste~d ~n. ~/tie ';A~nda; ' Speakers are
'limited ~o three ( 3 ) rnl~h:~ :: If you d~s~ii*e~'t0. speak t(~..theCbmmlssi0ners
about an item not Iisted0~'tl~e"Agenda, a pink "ReqGeSt to Speak" form should
be filled out and ,filed .with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are cal~t:~l~ .speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other: agenda items a "R~est to :Speal<u form md~t be filed with the
Plannin9 Secretary b.efo, re:;CommiSsion gets to that item. There is a three (3)
minute timedlimit for i~dm~i~el:.speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes
1.1 Minutes of August 20; 1990.
1.2 Minutes of September 17, 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No,:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Ten~ive,Parcel Map No.' 25632
W~Qn' pl:operties
same!as above
Southwest side of Business Park Drive, north of RanCho
California Road.
SubdiVide u,.7 acres into 10 parcels in the M.S.C. zone.,
to construct an industrial park.
ApproVal
M~r;k R~oades
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Conditional Use Permit No. 4
Tomond Properties
Markham and Associates
Southeast corner of SR79 and Bedford Court.
To construct a 92z~ sq. ft. gasoline service station and
mini-market with beer and wine sales.
Approval
Steve Padovan
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
R epresentative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Variance No. 2
Bedford Properties
Same as above
The south westerly corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads
adjacent to 1-15.
The applicant requests a variance from the requirements
of Ordinance 348, Section 19.4 (a.4) in order to obtain
approval of a sign program including five free standing
signs for a b,4 acre shopping center.
Approval
Scott Wright
Plot Plan No. 11622
Spectrum Contracting, Inc./Andrew Kjellberg
Sepctrum Contracting
27800 Block of Diaz Road
To construct 5 indutrial buildings ( 12-16,000 square feet
each )
Approval
Deborah Parks
Plot Plan No. 11609
Jeff Hardy and Associates
Same as above
North side of Enterprise Circle, west of Jefferson Avenue.
To construct an 18,725 square foot retail showroom-
furniture store.
Continue to October 15, 1990
Deborah Parks
Plot Plan No. 11759
Jeff Hardy and Associates
Same as above
North side of Enterprise Circle, west of Jefferson Avenue.
To construct an 18,300 square foot industrial building.
Approval
Deborah Parks
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538
Robert Pine
Benesh Engineerin9 Corporation
Winchester Road and 30565 Estero Street.
To subdivide a 1 .~3 acre parcel into two parcels.
Approval
Deborah Parks
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
9. Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
10. Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
11. Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Substantial Conformance No. 2, SP 16~
Davldson Communties
RANPAC Engineering Corporation
Nicholas Rod, between Winchester and North General
Kearney Roads.
Deletion of the Class I bike trail which traverses the park
and open space area located adjacent to Residential
Planning Area No. u, of the Roripaugh Estates Specific
Plan.
Approval
Deborah Parks
Tentative Map No. 22761, Extension of Time
Coleman Homes
Robert Beln, William Frost and Associates
South of Rancho California Road, west of Ynez Road and
easterly of 1-15.
First extension of time.
Approval
Richard Ayala
Tentative Map No. 22762, Extension of Time
Coleman Homes
Robert Rein, William Frost and Associates
South of Rancho California Road, west of Ynez Road and
easterly of 1-15.
First extension of time.
Approval
Richard Ayala
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Recommendation:
12, Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: October 15, 1990, 6:00 PM, Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California.
Planning/ACN10/1
ITEM #1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMfSSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
HF. LD AUGfiST 20, ] 990
A renujar meetina'of the Temecula Piannin~ Commission was called to
order at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California at 6:].0 P.M. The meeting was called to order by
Chairperson Dennis Chiniaeff.
PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary
Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project
Manager and Gail Zialer, Minute Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ray McLauahlin, 30025 Front Street, Temecula, addressed the
commission with his concerns relating to Specific Plan 199,
Tract MaD 23371-10. Mr. McLaughlin advised the Commission
that there has been no final approval of this tract map
and he would like them to look at it closely before granting
final approval. He stated that the orgina{ conceptual plan
indicated alot of negatives about the project. He presented
the Commission copies of a recent appraisal done on property near
the site which has depreciated in value due to noise, traffic,
Pollution, etc.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
t. MINUTES
t.1 Commissioner Chiniaeff entertained a motion to approve the
minutes of August 6, 1990, with the following amendments:
Discussion Items, page 11, first paragraph, amended to
read "Commissioner Blair added that they would want to
know if there was a trailing case application at the time
of the zone change action by the Co~eission."
Commissioner Blair moved to approve the minutes as
amended, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland and carried
unanimously.
MIN.8/20/90 -1- 8/23/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
COMMiISSJONERS:
AIIGIiST ?0, ] 990
B]a]r, Fahev.
Ford, HoaQland,
C~jn3aef~
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PUHLTC HEARING ITE_m4S
2. Tentative Tract No. 23990
Prior to this item being heard, COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF
excused himse]f due to a conflict of interest and turned
the gavel over to Vice Chairman, COMMISSIONER FORD.
Sam Reed, Senior Planner, presented staff's report on
the subdivision of 5.76 acres into 30 residential R-2
lots and one common open space lot, located between
La Serena Way and Margarita Road; on the south side of
Via La Vida. He also provided a slide presentation of
the proposed s3te.
Dean A]strup, applicant, 43360 Circle D Court, Temecula,
provided sketches of architectural design of the planned
residential structures along with material samples and
a brief summary.
Vincent D~Donato, 29780 Avenida Cima Del Sol, Temecula,
expressed his concerns for grading that will have to be
done by the applicant as well as some existing trees which
he planted that would have to be removed by the applicant
and the type of fencing the applicant will be using to
separate the adjacent tracts from this development.
Robert Kemble, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula,
representing Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates,
indicated that the actual size of the site is 6.32 acres
with a proposed density of 4.75 units per acre. Me also
stated that the applicant and developer intend to work
with the adjacent property owners on the issues addressed
by Mr. DiDonato. Mr. Kemble requested the following
modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Condition
No. 13 (1) to reflect "at the Building Permit Stage";
Condition No. 13-(1)E, clarification of this condition
MIN.8/20/90 -2- 9/20/90
PI.ANNIN~';
COMM ] BS f ON M [ NTI'PE,~.
AUGUST 20, 1990
reqarr]]na exlstlnq wnod teDclnq and the wa[l requirements:
Conditi, qn No. LS-H, chanqe condLtion to read "Building
~eDaratioD betwePTi a~ ) bu]l{lzir)qs exc]udinq fireplaces
sha[l not be less than ten (),0) feet: and Condition No.
35, amend condition to read "At time of recordation of
finat maD".
Gary Thornh]]] added the Ouimby Act Fee, which
reau]res the applicant to pay the applicable fee prior
to bui].dinq permits, as a standard condition.
John Middleton stated that the Enqineerinq Department
would be adding ConditioD NO. 59, the Road Benefit
Condition, and stated that the applicant had been so
advised.
John Middleton a]so clarified the last sentence of
Condition No. 43 to state "all lots shall not be allowed
to dra]n onto adjacent tracts without a recorded grading
or drainage easement."
Robert Kemble stated that all conditions as amended by
staff were acceDtab]e.
Coramissioner Blair asked for staff's co~eents to the
amendment of the Conditions of Approval bV the applicant.
Sam Reed stated that staff would agree to the amendment
of Condit]on No. ]3 - (3), as long as appropriate bonds
are issued if the grading work is done prior to map
recordat~on: Condition No. 13 - (1)E, the easterly wall
requirement could be deleted; Condition No. 15 - H, he
would not oppose as long as it was within the ordinance
requirement.
John Gerritsen, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates,
requested a clarification of the fence requirements and
the existing wood fence at the bottom of the slope on the
west side of the property.
Sam Reed stated that staff is reguesting that a block wall
of some type be constructed at the top of the slope.
Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Commissioner Blair and carried unanimously.
MIN.8/20/90 -3- 9/20/90
.ANN I NG (JOHN l SS { ON M { MUTES
AllGUST ?0, { 990
Comm3ss3oner ~ord stated that
15 H f n rema3n as recommended DV staff. Commj ssi oner
BLair concurred.
Comm-ig~oner Ford aJso requested that the Conditions
reflect the modification of street and landscape
improvements for Lot 31 be completed prior to occupancy
of any lots.
Sam Reed stated that staff cou]d amend Condition No. 16 -
B to state "street improvements and landscape improvements
on Via La Vida will be completed prior to occupancy".
Commissioner HoaQ]and moved to approve staff's
recommendation and adopt the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract No. 23990, and approve Tentative Tract
No. 23990, subject to the fol]owinQ modifications to
Conditions of ApProval: Condition No. 13 - (1), change
to read "prior to the issuance of building permits"
as [onQ as appropriate bonds have been issued;
Cond:~t~on No. ]3 - (])E, delete the wail requirement
on the east side of the property; Condition No. 15 H,
to remain as recommended by staff; Condition No. 16 - E,
street and landscape improvements on Via La Vida
completed prior to occupancy permit; Condition No. 43,
amended to read "Lots shall not be allowed to drain
on adjacent tracts without a grading and/or drainage
permit"; Condition No. 59, added as requested by the
Traffic Department and Condition No. 60, added for the
payment of Ouimby Act Fees. Commissioner Blair seconded
the motion, which carried the following roll call vote:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1
COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
COMMISSIONER CMINIAEFF returned to the chair.
3. Tentative Parcel Map. No. 26036
3.1
Sam Reed presented the staff's report on the subdivision
of a 1.79 acre parcel with existlng buildings, located on
the west side of Enterprise Circle West, near the terminus
of Rider Way.
MIN.8/20/90 -4- 9/20/90
~I,ANNINC CDMMTS,SI(~N ~INU't'F<S
AUGUST 70, 1990
Dave James, Rappal' E~+q] neer I nG, 2744'/ Enterprise C] rc I e
West, Temecu I a, Gave a br]ef summary of the reGuest and
addressed the Commlssion's comments.
There be]no no furthPr public testimonY,
Fahev moved to cl. ose the public hearinG,
['-omm~ ~s3 oner HoaG] and,
Comm] ssj oner
seconded by
CommjssjoDer Blair moved to adopt the NeGative Declaration
for Parcel MaD No. 26036 and approve Parcel Map No. 26036,
based on the Conditions of Approval set forth by the
Planning DePartment. Commissioner Fahey seconded the
motion which carried the fo]low]nQ vote.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
4. & 5. Plot Plan No, 5 and No. 6
Sam Reed presented the staff report on Plot P]an
No. 5, the construction of a 11,050 sGuare foot light
manufacturing facility on ,57 acres and Plot Plan
No. 6, the construction of a 12,950 square foot light
manufacturing facility on .63 acres. Parcels are
located at the northeast corner of Avenida Alvarado
and A~ua Vista Way.
Joe Venttess, J.R. Miller & Associates, 2854 E. Imperial
BiQhwav, Brea, Gave a brief description of the project.
Mr. Yentress stated that the total square footage did
not include mezzanines in both buildings~ however, the
parking study incorporated this extra square footaQe.
Mr. Venttess ~ndicated an error in the staff report
on page 4, under Health Department, and advised the
Commission that the Health Department requirements for
both plot plans had been reviewed.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if the applicant would be
opposed to reconfiguring the location of the trash
enclosure and the truck loading doors so that they do
not face the street. Com~nissioner Chiniaeff also
MIN.8/20/90 -5- 9/20/90
~T,~NN~Nf~ Cf)MMISS[(~N MINU'~'ES AUGUST ?0, '1990
expressed concern for sut~]cjent landscaping and proper
screening of root e~ulDment,
Mr. Ventross state~ the project has satisfied the
I~ndscaDe re~u~remenfs and Drovlde~ for sufficient
screening of the roof equipment, but that they could
accommodate the Commission's requests. He also stated
that there would be no problem turning the door of the
trash enclosure away from the street; however, in
relocatinq the truck /oad~nq doors, the needs of the
tenant would have to be considered.
Commissioner Ford moved to close the public hearing
seconded by Commissioner Fahey and carried unanimously.
Commissioner HoaQland moved to reject staff's
recommendation and not adopt the Negative Declaration
tor el. or el, an Nos. 5 and 6 and deny Plot Plan Nos. 5
and 6. an~ direct staff to work with the aDDlicant
to provide a detailed landscape ~an, review the
sfructuraJ ~es~Qn to ensure adequate screening
o~ the roof eQuIpment, study the Darkinq and to
re-evaluate the ]ocation of the truck loadinQ
doors. Commissioner Hoagland amended his motion
by continujnQ the public hearing on Item 4 and Item 5
to the Planning Commission meeting of September 17,
]990.
Commissioner Fahey seconded the revised motion.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Recess
Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff declared a five minute recess at 7:50
P.M. to allow planning staff to set up more exhibits for agenda
items. The meeting was reconvened at 7:55 P.M.
MIN.8/20/90 -6- 9/20/90
PL~NNJNG COMNiSS|ON MINIJ'F'K~ ~UGUST 20. {990
~, 'Per~tat~ve Part~tel Hap 2~)~
of Parcel 22 of Parcel MaD ]8254 lnto four parcels,
located at Kathleen Way, South of Rancho California Road.
M~. Parks stated that when the parcel map was approved
by the County, they failed to show Pujo[ Street. County
Ordinance 460 reauired the dedication of Pujol Street:
at that time, however, is was over[oo~ed and the width
of Pujo,i Street remained at 40 feet. When Ohmdahl
Enterprises aPplied tO snb-divtde, they were told by
the County they would need the dedication of 20 feet
of Parcel 2 for dedication of Pujoi Street. Ohmdahl
Enterprises had reached an agreement with Eastern
Municipal Water District to provide an easement within
this 20 feet. To widen Pujol Street would be a great
expense and at this time staff is unclear as to who
wonld be responsible for the cost of these improvements.
John Middleton stated that the Engineering Department's
recommendation was to construct Pujol Street as per
county standards.
Anthony Polo, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, gave a brief description of the project.
William Hakey, 28426 Pujol Street, Temecula, an
adjacent property owner expressed his desire to have
the developer proceed with the road improvements to Pujol
Street as proposed by the County of Riverside.
Anthony Polo offered an alternative to the Commission
of leaving Pujol Street in its' present state and
provide the dedication and improvements to create a
cul-de-sac on the end of Sixth Street.
Doug Stewart, deputy traffic engineer, advised the
Commission that the easement was neither Mr. Ohmdahl's
property nor Mr. Haley's property. He stated that
County Ordinance No.460 and the recommendation by the
Riverside County Transportation Department requires
certain improvements be completed; however, there is
an exception clause within the ordinance that would
allow the Commission to deviate from these required
MIN.8/20/90 -7- 9/20/90
{?OMM l ,q.q I ON M I NU'I'T-.:,~
AUGre,]ST 70. { 990
than what Was recnmmen<jed bv the County.
(]omml. ssjoner FaheV Guest[oned the re~erence to special
carcumstances of the exception aDD,licable to the
DroDert].es size, shade Or toDaqraDhV, and did that
exception aPPlY to such conditions created by the
Droparty owner.
Doug Stewart stated that the ordinance requires that
the applicant PUt in a street: however, it would be at
a substantial cost to the applicant, and since applicant
has offered other alternatives that seem more appropriate,
the commission could consider one of these alternatives
and make that recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Chinlaeff asked if staff needed action by
the Commission to come back with a revised recommendation.
.John CavanauQh, Assistant City Attorney, advised the
Commission that if they were to approve this parcel map
and recommend there be a partial dedication or recommend
that part of the dedication be accomplished by another
Droparty Owner other than the applicant, the Co~eission
needs to be aware that if the other ProPerty owner does
not approve Of the recommendation, and if that approval
is not souc~t w~thjn ]20 days after the Commissjon's
recommendationl this condition will automatically
terminate.
Commissioner Ford asked if this was a condition for
offsite improvements, could the Commission request the
applicant to bond or guarantee the acquisition rights
of the property.
John Cavanaugh, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the
Commission could either recommend that the applicant
provide the dedication of his own property or recommend
partial dedication/vacation of the other property owner.
If the other property owner does not approve 120 days
after the Commission acts on it, this condition is
automatically terminated.
MIN.8/20/90 -8- 9/20/90
Pf. ANN l NG COMM { SS I ON N :1
AUGUST ?0, I 990
Commissioner Pabev moved to not adopt the Negative
Declaration for Parcel MaD No. 23969, and to continue
the ~tem to September 17, L990, with staff workin~ with
both Parties to come to an a~reement acceptable.
Comm},ssioner Ford seconded the morton.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahev,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
7. Plot Plan 11623
7. ]
Deborah Parks provided staff's report and an architectural
reDderjng Of the project. a ProPOSal to complete Phase 2
ot this project, Iotated north of Winchester Road, west of
Ynez Road.
Walt Mountford, 7330 Engineer Road, San Diego, gave a
brief summnary of the project and requested the following
modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Condition
No. ]3, as ]t re.lares to gradjn~ be deleted: Condition No.
28, establish a maximum fee exposure to the developer;
Condition No. 29, fees which were included in the street
and drainage bond posted with the county, to be deleted.
Deborah Parks stated that staff would not OPPOSe the
deletion of Condition No. 13.
,John Middleton advised that the fee schedule has not been
established at this time and that the $10,000 fee would be
a deposit for whatever that fee is, and therefore they
could not amend Condition No. 28.
After discussion of the Conditions of Approval
Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Commissioner Hoagland.
Commissioner Fahey moved to adopt the Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan 11621 and approve Plot Plan 11621 as
recommended with the following amendments: delete
Condition No. 13 and amend Condition No. 29 to state
MIN.8/20/90 -9- 9/20/90
PI.ANNI NG COMM [ SS1 ON MINUT}~:S
AUGUST ?0, 1990
and striDq. nc[, the cnuntv will
been Dale{ for s3Qnjno
be responsible for the
~[a:[r Sec'clnded the
AYRS: 5
COMN:ISS{ONERS:
Blajr, Fanev,
Ford, Hoaqland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
NON PI]BI.]C HEARING ITFJ4S
8. ADDeat NO. 6
ADPeaj Planning Department's denial of the Palm Plaza
Sian Criteria Proaram. Project located at the southwest
corner of Winchester Roa~s and Ynez Roads.
Gary Thornhi[[ advised the Commission that it was staff's
decision that the most appropriate way to handle this
item was throuQh a variance: however, a discussion with
the c~tv attorney ]nd3cates he may have a problem with
making the necessary ~indings for a variance.
I.arrv Markham, Markham and Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, TemecuJa, represent~n~ the applicant, stated that
the applicant would like to request continuing the appeal
until September ]0, 1990. to allow time for research of
the variance.
9. Plot Pjan 69
Prior to this item being heard, C(~4MISSIONER CHINIAEFF
execused himself due to a conflict of interest and turned
the ~avel over to VICE CMAIM, CfM4MISSIONER FORD.
9.1
Mark Rhoades, planning staff, provided staff report for
the proposal to construct a 120 foot antenna tower, off of
Front Street.
Elliot Urick, 28661 Calle Lago, Temecula, requested
Condition No. 3 be modified to read "The approved
MIN.8/20/90 -10- 9/20/90
~.ANN [ N(; ~X)MM { S.q I ON M [NIITES
AUGUST PO , 'i 990
temporary antenna structure sha)[ be removed no later
than 30 days after the final inspection of the
tower" ano (londit~nn No. 4 to read "construct]on of
the aDDroved ].20 foot h]ah Doje."
Ray M~hauah}jn, 300?5 Front Street, Temecula, spoke in
suDoort of statt's recommendation. Mr. McLauqhljn owns
the property the tower will be located on,
Gary Thorphil] stated that staff had no problems with
the modifications to Condition No. 3 and Condition No. 4.
Comm]sstoner Hoaqiand moved to approve Plot Plan No. 69
as presented with the modification of Condition No. 3
and Cond3tion No. 4 as requested bV the applicant,
forwarded to City Council as a receive and file item,
seconded bY Commissioner FaheV.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford
Hoaqland,
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: ,[
COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF returned to the chair.
10, Plot Plan No. b7/Rev~sed Permit
10.]
Mark Rhoades provided staff report for a revision to a
previously aDproved 126,000 square foot electronics
facility located at 43044 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Applicant is proposing to add 3,400 square feet of
conference and office space to the second floor as well
as a small expansion to the equipment area. Mr. Rhoades
amended Condition No. 2 to reflect 20 x 35 square foot
area.
Commissioner Fahey moved to approve Plot Plan 57,
subject to the Conditions of Approval by staff with
Item 57 revised to reflect 20 x 35 square foot area,
seconded by Commissioner Hoaqland and carried
unanimously.
MIN.8/20/90 -11- 9/20/90
PhANN l NCl, COMM ( S S { ON M { NII'PES
AUGliST ?0, } 990
AYES:;
C,(}MM I SS lONERS:
B;a~r, Fahey,
Ford, Hoaqland,
Ubiniae~f
NORS: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
II. Vestlno Tentative Tract MaD No. 23299
Richard Ava]a provided staff report for the extension of
time for Vested Tentative Tract Map No. 23299, a 232 unit
condominium project on approximately 14.3 acres. Project
js located south of Highway 79, west of Marqarita Road.
Raymond Casey, Prestey of San Diego, 15010 Avenue of
Science, San Diego, Gave a brief summary of the request
for extension of the project. Mr. Casey stated that the
project has been delayed due to the processing of another
Dub[lc agency's approval necessary for the recordation
of the map, regarding the flood control channel. He also
advised that the project is in compliance with the Quimby
Act and parks Within the project will be dedicated to the
CSD. Mr. Casey also stated that they are looking at
re-mapping the project; however, the extension of time
1. s necessary to complete this application.
Commissioner Hoagland expressed concern for the density of
the project, as it relates to the surrounding area.
Gary Thornhill stated that it was staff's opinion that the
aDDroved map does not fit in the Southwest Area Map Plan
as it stands now.
Commissioner Fahey auestioned what options the Conunission
had in granting or denying the extension.
John Cavanaugh, Assistant City Attorney, advised the
Commission that under the code the Commission has the
option of approving or denying the extension, but they are
limited due to the subject map being previously approved
by the County. He stated that the Code of Standards for
evaluating an extension reflected that an extension of
time shall not be granted unless the land division
conforms to the comprehensive general plan, is consistent
with existing zoning and does not affect the health,
MIN.8/20/90 -12- 9/20/90
P e,ANN ! NO;
AIJGUST ?0, ~ 990
safety nr wet]tare ot the DUOlie. WIth that, he advised
that the Cormnission cou)d not qo back and re-evaluate the
ent. lr~ Droiectr however they cou~!i conduct a further
review ot what the Droiect is, before making their
decision of aDDroving or denying the extension of t~me.
CommT. sstoner Chiniaeff was concerned that an extension
of the mad wou)d essentially be an approval and presently
the Commission does not have sufficient information about
the project.
John Cavanauqh. Assistant City Attorney, advised the
Commission that they cou]d direct staff to bring the item
back to the Commission with all the particulars of the
Droiect, SO that they could be better informed to make the
urnper recon~nendation.
Commissioner Ford moved to continue the request for
extension of time for VestinQ Tentative Tract No. 23299,
to the next available meeting, and directed staff to
]ook at all issues of this project including the
surrounding map, the fiscal impact report, park
study as it re+ares to Ou~mby Act, design of the
nroject, landscape plans and traffic circulation.
Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Alexander Urguhart, Crosby, Mead, Benton & Associates,
5650 El Caminn Real, Suite 200, Carlshad, project engineer
provided information on drainage and access.
]2. PInt Plan No. 86
Prior to this item being heard, COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF and
COMMISSIONER FORD indicated they had a conflict of interest
with the applicant and execused themselves. The gavel was
turned over to COMMISSIONER FA]{EY.
MIN.8/20/90 -13- 9/20/90
PI.ANNING COMMISSION M[NII')'ES
AUGUST ~0, i990
Steve Padovan ornv'lcied stair report tot the construction
of a 60 foot recelvina antenna tower with a ]0 foot
microwave dish, ~or Inland VaLley CabLevision, in order to
uDqrade the reception of several channeJs in the service
area.
Edward GaGen, 31000 Corte Arroyo Vista, Temecula, spoke jn
favor of the new antenna tower due to the poor reception
he receives.
Ken HeRd, 41486 BiG SaGe Court, Temecu]a, questioned the
PrOpoSed camaflougjnG of the tower and the color of the
microwave dish.
Jerry Sanders, Inland Val]ey Cablevision, provided a brief
su~nary for the Commission on toe purpose of upgrading the
existing tower. He stated that the location of the tower
js on a smaJl portion of a larger lot being developed as
a park for the community, which will be dedicated to the
city. He stated that the ultimate Goal is to have the
receiving tower located in an industrial area.
Commissioner Hoagland moved to adopt a NeGative
Dec]arataon and approve Plot Plan No. 86 and the attached
conditions of Approval, and recommend that the City
Council Grant an exemption from Ordinance No. 90-3 based
on findings contained in the Staff Report, and recommend
that staff work with the applicant on a suitable color
scheme for the tower and microwave dish. Seconded by
Commissioner Blair.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff
COMMISSIONER CHIMIAEFF and COMMISSIONER FORD returned to their
chairs.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissjoner Hoagland moved to cancel the regular meeting of the
City of Temecula Planning Commission scheduled for Monday,
September 3, 1990, seconded by Commissioner Ford and carried
unanimously.
MIN.8/20/90 -14- 9/20/90
AUGUS'V 20. ~ 990
(~i t v nt Temeau ~ a p ~ anni na t'Inmm~ ss] on tot Mnnday, September ] 0,
~990. 6:00 ~.M,
'l~erneeu/a, seon~dec~ bY Comm~ s~ oner ~o~cl and ~a~ ed unan~ mous ~ ~.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
Secretary
MIN.8/20/90 -15- 9/20/90
MINUTES OF A REGUI,AR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
HELD AUGUST 20, |990
A requ{ar meeting of the TemecuLa Planning Commission was called to
order at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California at 6:10 P.M. The meeting was called to order by
Chairperson Dennis Chiniaeft.
PRESENT: 5 COFd4ISSIONERS: Biair, Fahey, Ford
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary
Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project
Manager and Gall ZiGler, Minute Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ray McLauahlin, 30025 Front Street, Temecula, addressed
commission with his concerns relating to Specific Plan 199,
Tract Map 23371-10. Mr. McLaughlin advised the Commission
that there has been no final approval of this tract map
and he would like them to look at it closely before granting
final approval. He stated that the orgina] conceptual plan
indicated alot of negatives about the project. He presented
the Commission copies of a recent appraisal
the site which has depreciated in value due
pollution, etc.
the
done on property near
to noise, traffic,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. MINUTES
1.1 Commissioner Chiniaeff entertained a motion to approve the
minutes of August 6, 1990, with the following amendments:
Discussion Items, page 11, first paragraph, amended to
read "Commissioner Blair added that they would want to
know if there was a trailing case application at the time
of the zone change action by the Con~nission."
Commissioner Blair moved to approve the minutes as
amended, seconded by Commissioner Boagland and carried
unanimously.
MIN.8/20/90 -1- 8/23/90
PLANNING COMN:{SSION M1NU'PES
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
AUGt]ST ?0, ] 990
Blair, Fahev.
Ford, Hoaotand,
Ch]n]aeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PUHI, IC HEARING ITEMS
2. Tentative Tract No. 23990
Prior to this item being heard, COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF
excused himself due to a conflict of interest and turned
the gavel over to Vice Chairman, COMMISSIONER FORD.
Sam Reed, Sen~or Planner, presented staff's report on
the subdivision of 5.76 acres into 30 residential R-2
~ots and one common open space lot, located between
La Serena Way add MarQarita Road: on the south side of
Via La Vida. He also provided a slide presentation of
the proposed site.
Dean A]struP, applicant, 43360 Circle D Court, Temecu]a,
provided sketches of architectural design of the planned
residential structures along with material samples and
a brief summary.
Vincent DiDonato, 29780 Avenida Cima Del Sol, Temecu]a,
expressed his concerns for grading that will have to be
done by the applicant as well as some existing trees which
he planted that would have to be removed by the applicant
and the type of fencing the applicant will be using to
separate the adjacent tracts from this development.
Robert Kemble, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula,
representing Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates,
indicated that the actual size of the site is 6.32 acres
with a proposed density of 4.75 units per acre. He also
stated that the applicant and developer intend to work
with the adjacent property owners on the issues addressed
by Mr. DiDonato. Mr. Kemble reguested the following
modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Condition
No. 13 - (1) to reflect "at the Building Permit Stage":
Condition No. 13-(1)E, clarification of th~s condition
MIN.8/20/90 -2- 9/20/90
PI.ANN ! NG
C()MMI SSTON MINTI'I'FS
AUGUST 20, ] 990
reqar~3nq ex~s(lnq wood ter)c]no and the wail requirements;
Condi, ti, on No. lS-H, change condttion to read "Building
SPDaratlnn betwePt1 a){ bl]3{djnGs exc,{udinq f~reD]aces
shall not be less than ten (],0) feet; and Condition No.
35, amen0 condition to read "At time of recordation of
final maD".
Gary Thornhj]] added the Oujmbv Act Fee, which
reou]res the applicant to DaY the applicable fee prior
to building permits, as a standard condition.
John Middleton stated that the Eno~neerinq Department
would be adding Condition No. 59, the Road Benefit
Condition, and stated that the applicant had been so
advised.
John Middleton a]so clarified the last sentence of
Condition No. 43 to state "all lots shall not be allowed
to drain onto adjacent tracts without a recorded grading
or drainage easement."
Robert Kemb]e stated that all conditions as amended by
staff were acceptable.
Co~eissioner Blair asked for staff's co~eents to the
amendment of the Conditions of Approval by the applicant.
Sam Reed stated that staff would agree to the amendment
of Condition No. ]3 - (]), as long as appropriate bonds
are issued if the grading work is done prior to map
recordat~on: Condition No. ]3 - (1)E, the easterly wall
requirement could be deleted~ Condition No. 15 - H, he
would not oppose as long as it was within the ordinance
requirement.
John Gerritsen, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates,
reouested a clarification of the fence requirements and
the existing wood fence at the bottom of the slope on the
west side of the property.
Sam Reed stated that staff is requesting that a block wall
of some type be constructed at the top of the slope.
Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Commissioner Blair and carried unanimously.
SIN.8/20/90 -3- 9/20/90
PT.ANN {NG (?OMM ISSION MINU'P~rS
AUGUST 20. :{ 990
Comm~ss3oner Ford stated that: he wouid ]3ke Cond3tlon No.
15 H to rema]n as recommended bY staff. Cornmiss] oner
Blair concurred.
enmm'iss~oner Ford also requested that the Conditions
reflect the modification of street and landscape
imorovements for Lot 31 be completed prior to occupancy
of any lots.
Sam Reed stated that staff could amend Condition No. 16 -
B to state "street improvements and landscape improvements
on Via La Vida will be completed prior to occupancy".
Commissioner Hoaqland moved to approve staff's
recommendation and adopt the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract No. 23990, and approve Tentative Tract
No, 23990, subject to the fol]owina modifications to
Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 13 - (1), change
to read "prior to the issuance of building permits"
as tong as appropriate bonds have been issued;
Condition No. 13 (1)E, delete the wall requirement
on the east side of the property: Condition No. 15 - H,
to remain as recommended bY staff; Condition No. 16 - E,
street and landscape improvements on Via La Vida
completed prior to occupancy permit; Condition No. 43,
amended to read "Lots shall not be allowed to drain
on adjacent tracts without a grading and/or drainage
permit": Condition No. 59, added as requested by the
Traffic Department and Condition No. 60, added for the
paFment of Ouimby Act Fees. Commissioner Blair seconded
the motion, which carried the following roll call vote:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1
COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
COMMISSIONER CRINI&EFF returned to the chair.
3. Tentative Parcel Map. No. 26036
3.1
Sam Reed presented the staff's report on the subdivision
of a 1.79 acre parcel with existina buildings, located on
the west side of Enterprise Circle West, near the terminus
Of Rider Way.
MIN.8/20/90 -4- 9/20/90
4. & 5.
COMM [ S~ ! ()N M L! NU'r'F'iS
AUGUST 20. 1990
Dave James, RaDDa(' ~'.T~,'1~ neerl nG, 2'/44'/ EnterPrise C] re] e
West , Temecu ~ a, gave a brjef summary of the request and
~ddressed the Cn~lsston ' s co~ents,
There being no further Public testimonY, Comm3ssioner
Fahev moved to close the public hearing, seconded by
CommlssFloDer Hoa~.land.
Commissioner R.lajr moved to adopt the Negative Declaration
for Parce] MaD No. ~6036 and approve Parcel Map No. 26036,
based on the Conditions of Approval set forth by the
P]annjno Department. Commissioner Fahey seconded the
motion which carrjeQ the fo]]ow3nq vote.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Plot Plan No. 5 and No. 6
Sam Reed Presented the staff report on Plot Plan
No. 5, the construction of a 11,050 s~uare foot light
manufacturing facility on .57 acres and Plot Plan
No. 6, the coDstruction Of a 12,950 square foot light
manufacturing facility on .63 acres. Parcels are
located at the northeast corner of Avenida Alvarado
and A~ua Vista Way.
Joe Ventress, J.R. Miller & Associates, 2854 E. Imperial
HjahwaY, Brea, ~ave a brief description of the project.
Mr. Vantress stated that the total square footage did
not include mezzanines in both buildings; however, the
parking study incorporated this extra square footage.
Mr. Venttess indicated an error in the staff report
on page 4, under Health Department, and advised the
Commission that the Health Department requirements for
both plot plans had been reviewed.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if the applicant would be
opposed to reconfiguring the location of the trash
enclosure and the truck loading doors so that they do
not face the street. Commissioner Chiniaeff also
MIN.8/20/90 -5- 9/20/90
P',.ANN]N(.I (IOMM[SS[ON M[N'[JS,'}q.:S A,UGUST ?0.19gO
exDresseQ concern tot sllft]c~ent ]andscaD]nil and DroDer
screening of root eG~3lnme~t,
Mr. Venttess stated the project has satisfied the
Landscape reaujrements ann Drov]de~ for sufficient
screening of the roof equipment, but that they could
accommodate the Commission's requests. He also stated
that there would be no problem turning the door of the
tras~ enc]osure away from the street; however, in
relocating the truck ].oadinq doors, the needs of the
tenant wou.id have to be considered.
Commissioner Ford moved to close the public hearing
seconded by Commissioner Fahey and carried unanimously.
Comm~ssi oner Hoa~]and moved to reject staff's
recommendation and not adopt the Negative Declaration
for Pint PLan Nos. 5 and 6 and deny Plot Plan Nos. 5
and 6, and direct staff to work with the applicant
to provide a detailed landscape plan, review the
structura.t ~esjqn to ensure adeauate screening
of the root equipment, study the parking and to
re-evaluate the Incafinn of the truck loading
doors. Cor~nissioner Hoaqiand amended his motion
by continuing fhe pubJic hearing on Item 4 and Item 5
to the Planning Cor~nission meeting of September 17,
]990.
Commissioner Fahey seconded the revised motion.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Recess
Chairman Dennis Chin[self declared a five minute recess at 7:50
P.M. to allow planning staff to set up more exhibits for agenda
items. The meeting was reconvened at 7:55 P.M.
MIN.8/20/90 -6- 9/20/90
Pf,ANN1NG C. OMM{SS{ON MINUTES AUGUST P0. t990
.f-,. }
D~borab Parks presented Statf's report on the SUD~ulH~OD
of Parcel 22 ot Parcel MaD ]8254 3nto four parcels,
~ocated at Kath~een Way, South ot Rancho California Road.
M~, Parks stated that when the parcel mad was approved
DV the County, they failed to show Pujo[ Street. County
Ordinance 460 required the dedication of Pu~ol Street;
at that time, however, is was overlooked and the width
o~ Pu~nJ Street remained at 40 feet. When Ohmdahl
Enterprises aoDI. ied to sub-divide, theV were told by
the County they woujd need the dedication of 20 feet
of Parcel 2 for dedication of Pujol Street. Ohmdahl
EnterPrises bad reached an agreement with Eastern
Municipa[ Water District to provide an easement within
this 20 feet. To widen Pujol Street would be a great
expense and at this time staff is unclear as to who
wonld be responsible for the cost of these improvements.
John Middleton stated that the Engineering Department's
recommendation was to construct Pujol Street as per
county standards.
Anthony Polo, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, oave a brief description of the project.
William Ha[ey, 28426 Pujol Street, Temecula, an
adjacent propertv owner expressed his desire to have
the developer proceed with the road improvements to Pujol
Street as proposed by the Countv of Riverside.
AnthonV Polo offered an alternative to the Comission
of leaving Pujol Street in its' present state and
provide the dedication and improvements to create a
cul-de-sac on the end of Sixth Street.
Doug Stewart, deputy traffic engineer, advised the
Commission that the easement was neither Mr. Ohmdahl's
property nor Mr. Haley's property. He stated that
County Ordinance No.460 and the recommendation by the
Riverside County Transportation DePartment requires
certain improvements be completed; however, there is
an exception clause within the ordinance that would
allow the Commission to deviate from these required
MIN.8/20/90 -7- 9/20/90
,~;tre~ improvements, Put only under that exception
clause could the Comm].ssion consider anything other
than What was r~commended bv t.be CouI)tv.
(]omm~,ssioner Fahey auestioned t~e reference to special
circumstances of the exception applicable to the
p~opertles ~L~e, shape or topagraphy, and did that
exception apply to such conditions created by the
property owner.
Doua Stewart stated that the ordinance requires that
the applicant put jn a street: however, it would be at
a substantial cost to the applicant, and since applicant
has offered other alternatives that seem more appropriate,
the commission could consider one of these alternatives
and make that recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if staff needed action by
the Commission to come back with a revised recommendation.
John Cavanau~, Assistant City Attorney, advised the
Commission thst ~f they were to approve this parcel map
and recommend there be a partial dedication or recommend
that part of the dedication be accomplished by another
property owner other than the applicant, the Commission
needs to be aware that jf the other ProPertY owner does
not approve of the recommendation, and if that approval
]s not sought within ]20 days after the Commiss~on's
recommendation, this condition will automatically
terminate.
Commissioner Ford asked if this was a condition for
offsite improvements, could the Commission request the
applicant to bond or guarantee the acquisition rights
of the property.
John Cavanaugh, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the
Commission could either recommend that the applicant
provide the dedication of his own property or recommend
partial dedication/vacation of the other property owner.
If the other property owner does not approve 120 days
after the Commission acts on it, this condition is
automatically terminated.
MIN.8/20/90 -8- 9/20/90
PI.ANN l NO COMM I SS ] ON M ] NIJT~.]S
AUGUS'P P0, ] 990
Comm3ss]oner Fabev move~ tn Dot adopt the NeQative
Dec]afar,ion for Parcel MaD No. ?3969, and to continue
the item to September 17, 1990, with staff workinQ with
both parties to come to an aareemenf acceptable.
Commissioner Ford seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
7. Plot Plan 3]623
7.]
Deborah Parks provided staff's report and an architectural
render~nQ of the project. a DroDosa] to complete Phase 2
of this Droiect, located north of Winchester Road, west of
Yne~ Road.
Wait Mountford, 7330 Enoineer Road, San Diego, ~ave a
brief summary of the project and requested the following
modifications to the Conditions of ApProval: Condition
No. ]3, as ]t relates to oradin~ be deleted; Condition No.
28, establish a maximum fee exposure to the developer;
Condition No. 29, fees which were included in the street
and drainaoe bond posted with the county, to be deleted.
Deborah Parks stated that staff would not oppose the
deletion of Condition No. 13.
John Middleton advised that the fee schedule has not been
established at this time and that the S10,000 fee would be
a deposit for whatever that fee is, and therefore they
could not amend Condition No. 28.
After discussion of the Conditions of Approval
Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Co~nissioner Hoagland.
Commissioner Fahey moved to adopt the Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan 11621 and approve Plot Plan 11621 as
recommended with the following amendments: delete
Condition No. 13 and amend Condition No. 29 to state
MIN.8/20/90 -9- 9/20/90
PLANNING COME I SS]ON MINUT};:S
AUGUST ?0, { 9g0
and strl. Dino, the county will be responsible for the
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahev,
Ford, HoaGland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
NON PUPJ. IC HEARING ITF. MS
8. Appeal No. 6
H. j{
ApPeal Planning Department's denial of the Palm Plaza
SiGn Criteria ProGram. Project located at the southwest
corner ot W~nchester Roads and Ynez Roads.
Gary Thornhitl advised the Commission that it was staff's
declsion that the most appropriate way to handle this
item was throuah a variance; however, a discussion with
the c~tv attornev indicates he may have a problem with
making the necessary findings for a variance.
I,arrv Markham, Markham and Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that
the applicant would like to request continuinq the appeal
until September ]0, 1990, to allow time for research of
the variance.
9. Plot Pjan 69
Prior to this item being heard, COMMISSIONER CRINIAEFF
execused himself due to a conflict of interest and turned
the oavel over to VICE CHAIM, COMIMISSIONER FORD.
9.1
Mark Rhoades, planning staff, provided staff report for
the proposal to construct a 120 foot antenna tower, off of
Front Street.
Elliot Urick, 28661 Calle Lago, Temecula, requested
Condition No. 3 be modified to read "The approved
MIN.8/20/90 -10- 9/20/90
PI,ANN I NG
10.
(;OMM { SS I ON M INU'PES
AUGUST 20, '1990
than 30 ,days afte~ the final inspection of the
tower" aD~ Condition No. 4 to read "construct]on
the aPProved L20 foot hjqh Dote."
Ray Mct.auontjn, 30075 Front Street. Temecula, spoke in
SUpPOrt Of staff's recommendation. Mr. McLauqhlin owns
the proPertY the tower will be [ocated on.
Gary Thornhill stated that staff had no problems with
the modifications to Condition No. 3 and Condition No. 4.
Commissioner Hoaqiand moved to approve Plot Plan No. 69
as presented with the modification of Condition No. 3
and Condition No. 4 as reauested bY the applicant,
forwarded to City Council as a receive and file item,
seconded bY Commissioner Fahey.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 CO}/uMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: .I COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF returned to the
Plot Plan No, bY/Revised Permit
/0.] Mark Rhoades provided staff report
Blair, FaheV,
Hoaqland,
None
Chiniaeff
chair.
Ford
for a revision to a
previously approved 126,000 square foot electronics
facility located at 43044 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Applicant ~s proposing to add 3,400 square feet of
conference and office space to the second floor as well
as a small expansion to the equipment area. Mr. Rhoades
amended Condition No. 2 to reflect 20 x 35 square foot
area.
Con~nissioner Fahey moved to approve Plot Plan 57,
subject to the Conditions of Approval by staff with
Item 57 revised to reflect 20 x 35 square foot area,
seconded by Co~eiss~oner Hoaqland and carried
unanimously.
MIN.8/20/90 -11- 9/20/90
AUGUST )0, I 990
AY ~:~: %
C(~MM i ,.~S lONERS:
Blalr, Fahey,
Ford, HoaQland,
CD3niaeft
NO ~:S: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Tentative Tract MaD No. 23299
:1 ]. 3
Richard Ava]a provided staff report for the extension of
time for Vested Tentative Tract MaD No. 23299, a 232 unit
condominium project On approximately 14.3 acres. Project
]s located south of Highway 79, west of MarQarita Road.
Raymond Casey, Prestey of San Diego, 15010 Avenue of
Science, San Diego, aave a brief snmmary of the request
for extension of the project. Mr. Casey stated that the
project has been delayed due to the processin~ of another
public aQency's approval necessary for the recordation
of the maD, regardina the f]ood control channel. He also
advised that the project is in compliance with the Quimby
Act and parks w~thin the project will be dedicated to the
CSD, Mr, Casey also stated that they are iooking at
re-mapping the project: however, the extension of time
is necessary to complete this application.
Commissioner Hoagland expressed concern for the density of
the project, as it relates to the surrounding area.
Gary Thornhill stated that it was staff's opinion that the
aDDroved map does not fit in the Southwest Area Map Plan
as it stands now.
Commissioner Fahey cuestioned what options the Commission
had in Qrantin~ or denying the extension.
John Cavanaugh, Assistant City Attorney, advised the
Commission that under the code the Commission has the
option of approving or denying the extension, but they are
limited due to the subject map being previously approved
by the County. He stated that the Code of Standards for
evaluating an extension reflected that an extension of
time shall not be granted unless the land division
conforms to the comprehensive general plan, is consistent
with existing zoning and does not affect the health,
MIN.8/20/90 -12- 9/20/90
P',ANN1N~
(?oMr~ I SSI{'}N
safety or weJ]tare ot the Duo{It. WIth that, be a~v'lsed
that the_Commission cou}d not qo Pack and re-evatuate the
ent]rp Project: however they cou;,t conduct a forther
review of what the project ~s, before making their
decision of aDDrou]nu or denyjn~ the extension of time.
Commissioner Chiniaeff was concerned that an extension
of the mad would essent~aJ]y De an approval and presently
the Commission does not have sufficient information about
the project.
John Cavanau~h. Assistant City Attorney, advised the
Commission that they could direct staff to brina the item
back to the Commission with all the particulars of the
project, so that they could be better informed to make the
proper recommendation.
Commissioner Ford moved to continue the request
extension of time for Vest]na Tentative Tract No.
to the next available meeting, and directed staff
look at all issues of this project including the
surrounding map, the fiscal impact report, park
study as it relates to Ou~mby Act, design of the
project, landscape plans and traffic circulation,
Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion.
for
23299,
to
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Ch~njaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Alexander Urguhart, Crosby, Mead, Benton & Associates,
5650 El Camino Real, Suite 200, Carlsbad, project engineer
provided information on drainage and access.
32. Plot Plan No. 86
Prior to this item bein~ heard, COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF and
COMMISSIONER FORD indicated they had a conflict of interest
with the applicant and execused themselves. The gavel was
turned over to COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
MIN.8/20/90 -13- 9/20/90
.ANN] NG
AUGUST 20, 1990
Steve PaQovan Drou'l~e~ slatt report tot the construction
of a 60 font rece'{v~no antenna tower with a 10 foot
microwave dish, fn~ Inland Va[{ev Cablevision, in order to
uDQrade toe receDtson of severa) cbanne]s ~n the service
area .
F:~ward GaGco. 3;{000 Corte Arroyo Vista, Temecula, spoke in
favor of the new antenna tower due to t~e poor reception
he receives.
Ken Heid, 4]486 BiG SaQe Court, Temecu]a, ~uestioned the
proposed camaf.[ouginG of the tower and the color of the
m~crowave dish.
Jerry Sanders, Inland Ual)ev Cablevision, provided a brief
summary for the Commission on the purpose of upgrading the
existinQ tower. He stated that the location of the tower
is on a small portion of a larger lot being developed as
a Dark for the community, which will be dedicated to the
city. He stated that the ultimate goal is to have the
receiving tower located in an industrial area.
Commissioner Hoaqland moved to adopt a NeGative
DecJarat]on and approve Plot Plan No. 86 and the attached
Conditions of Approval, and recommend that the City
Council orant an exemption from Ordinance No. 90-3 based
on findinqs contained in the Staff Report, and recommend
that staff work w~th the applicant on a suitable color
scheme for the tower and microwave dish, Seconded by
Commissioner Blair.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF and COMMISSIONER FORD returned to their
chairs.
ADJOURNMENT
Commjssj oner Hoagland moved to cancel the regular meeting of the
City of Temecula Planning Commission scheduled for Monday,
September 3, 1990, seconded by Commissioner Ford and carried
unanimously.
MIN.8/20/90 -14- 9/20/90
~U~tlS'P 20, 1990
6:00 P.M. at Vaij Elementary Schooj., 799L5 Mira Loma Drive,
'remecu~a, seconded by Commissioner Ford and carried unanimously.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
Secretary
MIN.8/20/90 -15- 9/20/90
A requiar meetlnq of the Temecula P[anninq Comml. sslon was called to
order at Val] Elementary Scboo], P9935 Mira l,oma Drive, Temecu]a,
Ca)iforni, a at 6:10 P.M. The meeting was called to order by
C~a]YDeFSOD Dennis Chjnjaeif.
PRESENT: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford. HoaQ]and.
Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Atso present were Lois Boback, representative from the CitV
Attornev's office for John Cavanaugh, Gary Thornhill, Acting
P]annjn~ Director, John Middleton. Senior Project Manager and Gall
Ziglet, Minute Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
I. MINUTES
1.1 Continued m]nutes of AuGust 20, 1990.
1.2 APPrOVe the minutes of September 10, 1990.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue the minutes of August 20.
1990 to October 1, 1990 and approve the minutes of September
10. 1990. seconded bV COMMISSIONER BLAIR and carried
unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoaqland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that agenda items
No. 9 and No. 13 were to be continued to another date.
CHAIRMAN DENNIS CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing for
these items and entertained a motion to continue to
another date.
MIN. 9/17/90 -1- 9/21/90
P {.ANN [ N(; C. OMM | S,~ [ ON M I NU'PES
990
AYES: b
COMMISSIONERS:
Bjalr, Fahev,
Ford, HoaqLand,
Chjnjaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to continue Public Hearlng Item
No. 13 to the regular meetinQ of the PLanning Cor~nission on
October ]5, ]9g0, seconded bv COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
CONDITIONAl. USE PERMIT NO, 2
2.]¸
Proposal to construct a multi-tenant automotive center
w~th ]0,024 square feet of retail area and 21,801 square
feet of service area, north of the intersection of Ynez
Road and Solana Way and request for SPecial Review of
ParkinQ.
SCOTT WRIGBT presented the staff report on this item.
He advised the Commission that the applicant has indicated
that the services provided will be quick turn around such
as lube, tune, tires, etc. and therefore, have requested
a special review of the parking requirements. Staff has
aqreed to allow 50% of the service bays to be counted
toward the parking requirement.
Mr. Wright brought special attention to the requirements
of Condition No. 24 pertaining to block wall and landscape
requirements on the easterly and southerly side of the
property.
IDA Si%~CHEZ, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, representing the applicant, requested that
MIN.9/17/90 -2- 9/21/90
CONM ! S,q TON M [N1]TF':S
SF.P'rE~f~h?-' ;'1 , I
Condl tl. on No, iIf) ~ l]lnc,]~l pd to r~ad "Prior to ocnllDarl~':vI'
She a~s{] ~t~t~ that ~oar'd Resolution No. HB~I, had been
adopted by the county o~ H]vers3de and states that
St~uctura I Enqfneers are no Ionget required in certain
area~ con~ldered to be ~n Subsidence Zones and that th3s
project was l,n one of those areBs. She provided staff
w~th copje~ of the Re~olu~on and suaqested that Condition
No. 29 no Ionget pertafned to thi~ project. She
provided copje~ of Ordinance 348 which allowed for special
revfew of parking reductions.
PETER DOLE, Architect, CoJbourn, Curr~er & Knoll, 10675
King Street, San Diego, questioned the requirement for the
block walls. He stated that the original intent of the
wall was to screen the service bays from Ynez Road and he
auest~oned the block wall requ3rement for the south side
of the property.
LARRY GARE).E, applicant, ]0706 Birch Bluff, San Diego,
stated that he has met with Bedford and that the
project meets with building standards for other buildings
in the area of the project. He added that they had
decided to use a landscape burm with retainer walls.
LOIS BOBACK advised the Commission that Condition No. 5
should be amended to read "this approval shall become null
and void".
IDA SAMCHEZ reauested that Condition No. 3 be amended to
read "two (2) years of approval date".
GARY THORNHILL stated that he thought that the one year
expiration was an ordinance; however, he stated that they
would verify and amend the Condition accordingly.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by COMMISSIONER FAREY and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
MIll. 9117190 -3- 9/21/90
L'OMM [ S~ i ON M [ N(
C~ARY 'T'HORNH[LL t~I~emt'pd ~{arlt{.-'at]nn ot the revlstons t:o
i',~ndltl~n Nn. 24, (~()~MISS[ONER
r~p construct:e~ at the time of ~ssue of f~ertjficafe
OCCUDa~CV Unless the adjacent D~oDe~ty has aDDroved plans
fnr t~e bu~a~na from the City
SCOTT WRIGHT adv].sed the Commission that Condition No. 5
was correct and wou ~ d remajn as stated.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to adopt the NeQatlve Declaration;
adopt Reso}ut]on g0- aDDroY]no Conditional Use Permit
No. 2; and, approve Conditional. Use Permit No. 2, based on
the analysis and f~ndinGs contained in the staff report
and subject to the Conditions of Approval with the
foi{ow~n~ modifications to the Conditions of Approval;
Condition No. 5 amended to read "shall become null and
vojd": Condition No. 20 amended to read "prior to
occupancy"; Condition No. 24 amended to read "If the
adjacent Droparty Owner, south of the subject property,
will submit the discretionary application 2 years from
this aDDj]cat~on, sbow~nfl a building Iotated on the
south Droparty line, then the applicant shall not be
regujred to construct the wall on the south side of the
project," and Condition No. 29 deleted. Seconded by
COMMISSIONER FAHEY and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
PLOT
3.1
PLAN NOS'. 5 AND 6
Proposal to construct two industrial buildings side by
side for a total of 23,700 souare feet on two existinq
parcels which together comprise 1.19 acres. Parcels are
located at the northeast corner of Avenida Alvarado and
Aqua Vista Way.
GaRY THORNHILL provided the staff report on this item.
He stated that the applicant had submitted a earlier
proposal: however, staff expressed concerns in the
MIM.9/l?/90 -4- 9/21/90
PI.ANNTNG
C, OMM{ ,q~ l ()N M I
SKP'FFJ4BE){ ~ '/. 1990
t o tnP cr, ncernS exPreSsed DV .qtait,
JOHN MFOOT,KTON stated that Cnnditton No. 44, relating to
the fees for road improvements and DUb]]C facilities,
would be added to the Conditions of Approval, and that
the aDD~]cant 0ad been advised.
ANTHONY POLO, Markham & Associates, 41750 W~nchester Road,
Temecu[a, reDresentat3ve for the applicant, stated their
concurrence with the staff report.
COMMISSIONER FORD sl]qqested that a Condition be set forth
to restrict the mezzanine area to be used a storage only,
as DrnDosed bv the aDp]jcant. ANTHONY POLO stated that
the aDD{.~cant would have no Drobiem with this.
COMM{SSIONER FORD also suggested that "No Parking" signs
be erected at the hack of the building. ANTHONY POLO
stated that the fire ~eDartmeDt had already reGu]red red
striDDin~ along the back of the building.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearinQ,
seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahev,
Ford, Hoaqland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to recommend adoption of the
Neqative Declaration for Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6 and
approve Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6; based on the analysis
and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval with the following
modifications: Condition No. 44 as submitted by the
Engineering Department and Condition No. 45, restricting
the use of the mezzanine area for storage only. Seconded
HIM.g/iV/90 -5- 9/21/90
i-,v ('X)MMISSION~:~ ~'AHEY ,and ,-~3+'l't ~rl. !lnanimousi v.
ford, Noaqland,
Chlnlaeff
NOES: 0
COMM [ SS ION ERS: None
4. PAR(:h:L MAP ?3ghg
Proposal to subdivide Parcel 72 of Parce] MaD ]8254,
Incated at Ridge Park Drive, South of Rancho California
Rnad, ~nto four parceJs. The Commission continued this
item from the meetin~ of August 20, 1990, and directed
staff to wnrk wjtb the applicant and the adjacent property
owner on a solution to the access problem.
DEBORAH PARKS provided the staff report on this ]tem. She
stated that staff arranged a meeting however, Mr. Haley
did not attend that meetjno but was advised of t~e
results.
JO~N MIDDLETON stated that ~n speaking with the
Riverside County Fire Department regarding the proposed
~mprovements of Pujo] Street. They conf~rmed that the
applicant could build Pujo[ Street according to 32'/50'
standards and that a turn-around at the end of the cu]-de-
sac would not be necessary at this time since the street
only provides access to one dwe]l~no unit. He stated that
the Engineering Department recommendation would be to
construct an offset cu]-de-sac when Mr. Haley develops
his property.
ANTHONY POLO, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, asked for clarification of Condition
No. 29, requesting puDlic facility financing. GARY
THORNMILL stated that Condition No. 29 did not pertain
to this item and should be deleted.
WILLIAM HALEY,
property owner,
recommendation
28426 Pujol Street, Temecula, adjacent
expressed his opposition to the
by the Engineering Department.
MIM.9/17/90 -6- 9/21/90
COMMISSION
SEP'PEMHER t 7 , ~ qqO
Roact 0eDartment did not condition him to build the
cu~ ~e-sac, add t~at the cu~-de-sac would be of no Oenefjt
to ~ls ProPertY; however, he has offered to put in the
curb and qutter and 32' of street ~mprovements to expedite
the aDnrova [ .
COMMISSIONER FORD c[arjfaed that Mr. Omdahl was provjdinQ
approximately 80% of the street improvements and these
improvements wou]o De of no benefit to his ProPerty. He
sua~ested that Mr. Ha[ey might want to vacate the property
in the future.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
BJajr, Fahey,
Ford, Hoaqland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONER FAHEY movea to adopt the NeQative Declaration
for Parcel MaD No. 23969 and approve Parcel MaD No. 23969,
based on the ana]Vsis and f~ndings in the Staff Report and
subject to the Conditions of Approval modified by the
de]etion of Condition No. 29, seconded by COMMISSIONER
HOAGLAND and carried by the fol[owinQ vote.
AYES: 4
COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Ford,
Hoaqland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 1
COMMISSIONERS: Blair
5. TENTATIVE PARCEL M~P 25633
PLOT PLAN NO. 11669
5.1
Proposal to subdivide 7.2 acres into four parcels and
construct an industrial park on the west side of Business
Park Drive, north of Rancho California Road.
MIN.9/17/90 -7- 9/21/90
nnO~r r~n~a~ve ~arceL maB '25633. The aoD[~can~ has
rPeu~sten that thP ~jnt ~lan an~ the tentative ~arcel
mad remain seoar-ate t.o expedite construction of the
project .
Oilvet Mufi~ca stated that Condition No. 22, Daae 3,
o~ the Conditions o~ APProval ~or Tentative Parcel
HaD No. 25633, did not DartaiD to tb~s Droiect and
therefore should be deleted.
COMMISSIONER HOAGI.AND duestOoped the oarkinq reauirements
tot each individual bui[dinq. He stated that the staff
report ~nd~cates that some buildings have more Darkin~
than others. OLIVKR MUJICA stated that the pro~ect would
utilize snared oarkin~, and there would be no desiqnated
parkind spaces for each building. GARY THORNHILL
suqqested that the CC&R's should incorporate the shared
nark],n~ requirement.
WARREN JAMES, Wescon Properties, provided the Commission
with information re~ardinq the Dro~ect. Mr. James
requested the fotlowin~ Conditions Of ApProval be amended:
Plot Plan No. L1669, Condition No. 7 amended to read "A
m]n-lmum ot 39? parkin(l spaces"; Condition No. 22 amended
to read "County GeoLoqist's Report dated July 3, 1989 as
amended."; Condition No. 24 amended to read "~uarantee the
installation oi walls and fences"; Condition No. 27
amended to read "I~ ~ees have not been paid, ~rior to
issuance"; Condition No. ~8 amended to read "County
Geolo~ist's RePort dated July 3, 1989 as amended.";
Condition No. 42, Mr. James asked if the iee was set;
Condition No. 43, Mr. James requested that this Condition
be deleted irom the Plot Plan however, to remain in the
Conditions Of APproval for the Tentative Parcel MaD;
Condition No. 44, CATV deleted; Condition No. 47,
Mr. James Ouestionea the amount of the fee; and Condition
NO. 49, Mr. James requested that this item be deleted;
Tentative Tract Map No. 25633, Condition No. 41 amended
to read "In the event that bonds and aqreements do not
exist, the subdivider"; Condition No. 42 be amended to
MIN.9/17/90 -8- 9/21/90
agreements do not
the nroper'ty fa~s
JOHN MIDDLE]ON aOv3sed Mr. James that the fee referenced
in CondiLl. on No. 42 of the PLot PLan would be $2,500 vet
acre, that Cond3t3on No. 49 of the Pint Plan was a
~tandard condition. Mr. MiddLeton advised Mr. .]ames that
the pro-leer was 3n Eiood Zone B and fall within the ]00
year flood plane therefore, Condition No. 57 of the
Tentative Parcel MaD Would remain as stated.
COMMISSIONER CHIN[AEFF ouestioned the City Attorney if the
reoujrement for CC&R's under the Pint Plan would provide
the reoulrement for reciprocal parking. Assistant City
Attorney, LOIS BOHACK ~tated that the agreement for
reciprocal oarking would be under the CC&R's, and the
CC&R'~ for the Plot Plan and the Tentative Parcel Map
were the ~ame.
COHMISSTONER CH]NIAEFF also expresseO concern for the
~creeninq of the truck Loading ramps from the adjacent
propertje~. MR. JAMES suggested that the screening of
these ramps be anDroved by the PLanning Director.
CO~MTSSIONER HOAGLAND advised
staff of discrepancies in the
Environmental Check'list.
toe P]ann~n~ Director and
Section 3 of the
COM]4ISSIONER FORD suggested that Condition No. 23 and
Condition No. 48 of the Pint Plan should be coincidinQ.
GARY THORNHILL suggested that Condition No. 23 be
modified to indicate a striding Plan for the interior
parking and entrance improvements along with street
improvement plan.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
MIN. 911V/90 -9- 9/21/90
~-'LANN [NG COMMI..qi;ION MINII'PES
SEPTF, MBFJ~ ~ 7 o ] 990
I'OMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to ac{oDt t he N~qata ve 0ec ~arat 1 on
approve Plot PlaD No, 1t669, based nn the ana.lysjs and
t].ndinQs contained in the start report and subject to
Conditions of ApProval as modj~'ied: Plot Plan No. ~1669,
Conditions o~ ADDUOVat NO, '1 to remain as is; No. 22
to read "Report dated Ju]v 3, 1989 as amended": No. 23 to
read "on-site s[gninQ and striDinQ"; No. 24 to remain as
written: No, 27 to read "~f the fee has not been paid";
No. 28 read "RePort dated July 3, [989 as amended"; No.
43 deleted; No. 49 to remain as written: Tentative Parcel
MaD No. ~5633, Conditions of ADDrOVa[ No. 22 deleted: No.
3[ tn remain as written with the addition of a CC&R
agreement for additional space: No. 4~ to read "In the
event bond Ones not exist": No. 42 to read "In the
event bond does not exist": and No. 47 to remain as
written. COMMISSIONER BLAIR seconded the motion.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND requested that Condition No. 43
of the Plot Plan remain as written, and COMMISSIONER
CHINIAEFF stated he to would like to see the CC&R's
remain on the Plot Plan. COMMISSIONER FAHEY amended
her motion to reflect Condition No. 43 of the Plot
Plan to remain as written, seconded by COMMISSIONER
BLAIR and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
RECESS
CHAIRMAN DENNIS CHINIAEFF declared a recess a 8:15 P.M. The
meeting reconvened at 8:25 P.M.
6. PLOT PLAN NO. 11620
6.].
Proposal to construct a two story office building
with 23,450 square feet of floor area, 17,675 leaseable
on the northerly side of Enterprise Circle north abutting
Santa Gertrudis Creek. SCOTT WRIGHT presented the staff
report on this item.
MIN.9/17/90 -10- 9/21/90
RUl ]dlna and Safety Department aDorova] :"; Condition
No. 24 amended to read "a CaLifornia Licensed Soil
Engineer or Geo.~oqjst": addition of Condition No.
46 to read "The apDj. icant shal,[ fill out an
aODjlcatiOD for find.) inspection. AI Low two weeks
processing time to obtain aLL reguired clearances
IDA SANCHEZ, Markham & Associates, representing the
aDDFicaDt, stated their concurrence with staff's
recommendation.
COMMTSSIONF, N FAHEY moved to cjose tee public hearing
and adopt the Negative Oec]aratlon tot PLot PLan No.
]]620: adopt Reso;ut]on No. 90- approvin~ Plot
P~an No. 1L620; and approve PLot PLan No. 1],620 based
on the analvs~ and findings contained in the staff
report and subject to Conditions of Approval amended
as follows: add Condition No. .18A requesting a
separate permit from the PLanning 0epartment and a
separate permit from the Buijd]ng and Safety Department
for si~nage; Condition No. 24 amended to read "a
California ldcensed Soil Engineer or Geologist"; and
a~d Condition No. 46 to read "The applicant shall fill
out an app.l]catjon for final inspection. Allow two weeks
processin~ time to obtain all required clearances prior
to final inspection". COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND seconded
the motion and followed by a unanimous vote.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hodgland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
MIM.9/17/90 -11- 9/21/90
7. i
H.i
~ots.
C~anae zone from R-R] 2 to R-1 jn coniunctinn with
Vest~na 'Centative Tract No.
Pronetry ~s Iotated at t~e ~ntersect~on of Nicholas and
Joseoh ~oads.
OI,TVRR MUJIC~ orescored the staff reoort on this item.
Mr. Mu~ica stated that Con~.t~on No. 22 should be modified
to re~ as follows: "Prior to ~ssuance of any ~rad~n~
Derm~t, t~e applicant must submit either a letter from
~h~ Department of F~sn and Wj[dt~fe which states that the
lGentjfjed bah]tat area wilt not be affected by the
ornDose~ devejooment or shall obta3n a :IOA Derm]t,
subject to the approval of the PLanning Director.
C(~M[SSi[ONRN ~OAGI.AND auestioned the findings of the
environmental impact of this project. OLIVER MUJICA
stated it was a Negative Declaration. COMMISSIONER
HOAGT.AND stated that the Resolution indicates that
nn environmental impact w~ll occur, when in fact an
environmental impact will occur however, it will be
m~t~ate~. Commissioner Hoa~land felt that the
Negative Declaration and the Resolution should be
consistent and suggested that the Resolution state
that an environmental impact will occur however,
~t wit[ be mjtjaated to the extent that a Negative
Oecl. aration can be filed. Staff stated that they
would modify the Resolution to be consistent with
the Negative Declaration.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND asked if Condition No. 60 a.
would include signals at Nicolas Road or any type
of traffic control.
TOM SORENTINO, Traffic Enaineer, stated that they
did require this projecf to install a traffic
signal as a result of the traffic study.
MIN.9/17/90 -12- 9/21/90
PT,ANN
COMM l ,q;S 1 ON M :[ NKITES
SEPTFJ,4BER '1 '/, I 990
GARY KOON'I'%, CM Ena3neer]nQ Assocqates, 4]593 W3ncnester
Road. '~lem~c{tla, stated that Fish and WildLife has
r~auest~ that the applicant not d~sturb th3s area
anc[ that they fence it off. He stated that the applicant
qs will]ha to add a condition that lots ]38 and ]39
he tented ~n the north and south boundaries as aDDroved
by SCF. add MWD, an we.tt as the landscaDjn~ o~ lots 140
and L4L, He stated that the applicant concurs with the
Condjt~nns of ADDroYal set forth bY staff.
COMMISSIONER FORD asked if Lot 137 would also be included
jn the condition to fence off the easements. GARY KOONTZ
stated that they would a~ree to include Lot 137.
COMMISSIONER FORD suo~este~ that the applicant might
submit a request to SCE and MWD for the open areas to
be used as Darts.
GARY DIX, aDDJicant, 25]42 B]rch Drive, Dana Point,
stated that as owner they would be very happy to deed over
the ]and fn tDe c~ty to be used for a Dark.
BILL ANDREWS. 395].5 f, iefer Road, Temecula, stated that
he owned property a~onG the east side of these easements
and preferred that they not be improved.
DIANA WALTER, 42681 l.oma Portold, Temecula, stated
she also owned property along these easements and
preferred to see them flared at both ends.
that
GARY THORNHILL indicated that due to the small amount of
]and that would ultimately be dedicated, it mioht be in
the city's best interest to accept the fees in lieu of
the land.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested conditioning the map
to get an irrevocable offer of dedication and the city
could determine if they wanted to use the land for park
space. GARY THORNHILL stated if the city accepted the
land, then the applicant could be reimbursed for the
MIN.9/17/90 -13- 9/21/90
SF.P'PMMBEI~' I 7, I gqO
COMMISSIONER HOAGI, AND Ouestjone~ the Oesjqn ou3~e3jnes
enc&osed j.n their DacRaQes as they relate to the project.
'P~e Commission ~ndicated there were inconsistencies jn
what they received and what was presented.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to not close the Dub]it hear]no
and continue Vestino Tentative Tract No. 25004 and Zone
ChaD~e of b6~] to the PlannjnQ Commission meet]nQ of
October fS, 1,99(]. GARY KOONTZ asked what issues staff
wou.td be addressing. GARY THORNRILL stated that they
would be [ookino at the following issues: use of the
easements, the ou~dej]ne standards which re]ate to the
maD, the dedication of easements, look at Lot 137 as park
space, as wel~ as Lot ]38, cnec~ the consistency of the
ver~aQe tot the Landscape for the front yards and the
maintenance with what Is ProPosed in the Cond]taons of
APProval, the wail ProPosed between Lot 149 and Lot 150
add obta]nln~ a section ~rade for the Commission to
review. COMMISSIONER FORD seconded the motion which
carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoaqland,
Chjn]aeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
9, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 25632
9.1.
Proposal to subdivide 4.7 acres into 10 parcels in the
M.S.C. zone, to construct an industrial park on the
southwest side of Business Park Drive, North of Rancho
California Road, Temecula.
This item continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of October 1, ]990.
MIM.9/I7/90 -14- 9/21/90
] 0 'h,OT F~I',AN NC) . 4 3
', ~nr to try'is item r',e'lna n~,~rl-=, (;OMI~[S,,SIONh:~
the qaveq over to VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER FORD.
Prooosa~ to convert an exjst]nq 7~ ,200 square foot office
to restaurant with outdoor di, nino area, I. ocated at 28636
Front St feet , Terrlecu] a.
GARY THORNHILL provided the staff report on this item.
Be stated that a]tbouoh parRing js an issue jn the
Town area, it was not an issue for other restaurant
permits ]gsued Dy tDe County, therefore staff recommends
anDroyaL of this project.
COMMISSIONER HOAGI,AND stated that Condition No. 37
should inciude Rancho California Water District and
Ramtern MuniCIpal Water D]str~ct.
MIKE THESING, applicant and owner of the building,
50]6 Halofax Road, Arcadia, addressed the issue of
parking. He stated that he felt that his project will
not ~mpact DarKjno due to the fact that a majority of the
merchants wi[.l be employees in the Old Town area. Mr.
Tbesin~ ~uest~oned if the reference to developer in
Condition No. 27 would be himself. GARY THORNHILL stated
tDat Mr. Thesjno would be considered the developer and
that this was a standard condition.
WILLIAM PERRY, 286]5 Front Street, Temecula, expressed
his approval of the project.
MICHELE PERRY, 28636 Front Street, Temecula, expressed
her approval of the project.
LLOYD SEVERS, 30~05 Cabrillo Avenue, Temecula, expressed
his approval of the project. He stated that he owned the
Sears store and two lots adjacent to the project and that
he would allow off-site Darkinn on his property for the
restaurant.
MIM.9/17/90 -15- 9/21/90
COMMISSIONER FORD ~uestioned if the parking tot was
re~trncte~ at t~3s tome to owners and occupants. The
applicant, MIKE THESING, stated that they would accept
unrestricted Darkina durino non-business hours.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing
and approve Variance No, ] based on findinas contained
in the Staff Report and adopt Resolution No. and
approve PLot Plan No. 4~[ subject to the Conditions of
APprovaL as submitted and to include unrestricted parking
dl]rin(~ non-~ns~ness hours. COMMISSIONER FORD seconded
the motion, with Condition No. 17 amended to include
RancOo CaLifornia Water District and Eastern MunicDal
Water District, COMMISSIONER FAHEY accepted the
amendment to the mot]on.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: BLair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoaq]and
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: ;I COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF returned to the chair.
CHANGE OF ZONE 57]4
]] .l
Proposal to chan~e zone from M-SC to C]/CP. Property
Located at the northwest corner of Winchester Road and
Jefferson.
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that this item
should not be on the aqenda. He indicated the item
was received late and should be submitted to the City
Council.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3046
12,L Proposal to extend an existing canopy. Property located
at ~he northwest corner of Winchester Road and Jefferson.
MIN.9/17/90 -16- 9/21/90
~ .ANNT NG COMM! SS ION M[NU'~'E5
SEP'TF.~HER I 7, ] 990
GARY TH()RN~{TL1, ,~dvls~c~ toe {~nuunls~-~lnn treat this Item
3, V[-:S'~'[NG 'FP:NTA'PTV~ taRACT NO. 23299, EXTENSION OF TIME
~roDosa[ for ~irst extension of time for VestinQ
Tentative Tract No. 23~99, a ~32 unit con~omin]um
oroject, located on approximately ~4.3 acres south of
H~Qhwav '/g, we~t nt Mar~ar]ta Way.
Thl. s item continued to the P[anni. n~ Commission
meeting ot October ]5, 1990.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1.9877
AMEND,.:)) NO. 2, PHASE 3 ANY) 4, ~ REVISED PERJ,4IT
Prtor to item bei. nq heard, COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF execused
himself due to a conflict of interest with representative
Robert 8e~n, WilLiam Frost and Associates and turned the gavel
over tO VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER FORD.
Proposal to revise architectural floor plans, elevations
and p]Ott~nQ Of housine on project located south of Paid
Road, west of Via Giiberto. GARY THORNMILL provided the
staff report and stated that it was a change to the
aDDroved Tentative Tract Map.
COMMISSIONER MOAGLAND stated that he would like a
condition added to update the fire flow requirement
from what the standards were at the time the of the
oriQinal approval.
ROBERT KEMBLE, RBF and Associates, 28765 Sinole Oak
Drive, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated
that all phases have been recorded and that all water
and sewer plans have been submitted to the proper
a~encies.
COMMISSIONER FORD ouestioned the dedication of a park
site and whether or not Quimby Fees have been paid.
MIN. 9/17/90 -17- 9/21/90
gu,ANNrNC ,c:o,',4~{,'~,'.'.%[ON
SEP'PEMR.~:N i '/. ~ 990
GARY THORNH:II,L advised the Commission that the issues
do not relate to the Tentatzve MaD, that they rej. ate
to chanoes to the Tentative MaD and that they really
don't have the ability to condition the Tentative MaD,
add that they are Jimlied to ioekina at the des]an
issues, He stated the the Commission's only alternative
Wou~d be to recommend that the applicant redesian the
project.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to deny Tentative Tract Map
No. 19872, Amended No. 2, Phase 3 and 4, seconded by
COMMISS]IONER BLAIR, w~tb the following vote.
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: B.la]r, Hoagland
ABSTAIN: ]. COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
The motion faiJed to carry, as stated by Assistant City
Attorney, Lois Boback.
GARY THORNHILL stated that jf the ~tem was continued,
the issues they would be limited to addressing would De
those relating to the architectural desian.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to recommend that staff approve
Tentative Tract Map No. 19872, Amended No. 2, Phase 3 and
4, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
ROBERT KEMBLE, added that the applicant was discussing
a park with the city within the project on land that is
not buildable; however, a conclusion has not been reached
at this time.
M]N.9/17/90 -18- 9/21/90
.ANN
l COMM [ SS lONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Assistant City Attorney, LOIS BOBACK,
17, 1990
B[al.r
Hoaqjand,
Chiniaeff
advised the
Comm~ss:xoD that the absta]njna vote odes jn favor
the motl. on and therefore the motion carries as
~tated,
CHAIRMAN DENNIS CHJN[AEFF returned to the chair.
15. S[JRSTANTIA[. CONFORMANCE NO. 9
PrnooSal to relocate a driveway on the southwest
corner ot the project ~ocated at the southern
corner of BuekiDq Drive and Madison Avenue.
GARY THORNHELL provided the staff report. He
~tated that the reason for the re]ocation of the
driveway was due to an uncooperative adjacent
property owner.
DAVID LESEKE, representative, expressed their
concurrence with staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to approve Substantial
Conformance No. 9 based on the analysis and
findings in this report and subject to the
Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER
HOAGLAND.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford,Hoagland,
Ch~n~aeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
MIN.9/17/90 -19- 9/21/90
~:q~ hPeB c'narlqr~d to t)c'tnbet ~t), i~O. He asked the CO~LSSIF}n ~K
Dre~ent Wa~ acceptable. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that o~ the
more important ]~l]e~, ~omeo~e ~at ~ {~nw~e~aDle o~ the projPct
~hou[d n~ project.
{:(~MISS[ONER HOA(~T,AN)) reouested that the P.lannjnq ))epartment look
over the aqenda packages cLoseLy to ensure they are presented
accurately. ~e a)sn requested that they provide an update on the
status nf the General. PLan by October ]5, 1990.
COMMISS][ONE~ FORD requested that we require landscape plans from
the applicants, and CO)(MISSIONER CHTNIAEFF added that they request
top aops~ant~ to sllbmjt a reduced transparency of the plot plan.
COM)4ISSfONER FORD also suggested the apDiicant discuss the agenda
package ot their project prior to the meeijnq to save on time at
the meeting.
COMMISSIONER F)HEY moven to adjourn the meeting the meeting at
10:40 P.M., seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD and carried unanimously.
'J'~e next scheduled requjar meet~nc{ to be he]d Monday, October ],
igg[), at Vai. L ELementary SchooL, 2991.5 Mira Loma Drive, Temecu[a.
Chairman, Dennis Chiniaeff
)4IN.9/17/90 -20- 9/21/90
iTEM #2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11688 and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25632
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Wescon Properties
J. F. Davidson Associates
Subdivide 4.7 acres into 10 parcels, and construct
a 9 unit planned industrial complex.
Southwest side of Business Park Drive, north of
Rancho California Road.
M-SC (Manufacturing
North: M-SC Manufacturing
Commercial )
South: M-SC (Manufacturing
Commercial )
East: M-SC ( Manufacturing
Commercial )
West: M-SC {Manufacturing
Commercial )
- Service Commercial )
- Service
- Service
- Service
- Service
Not requested.
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Industrial/Office
No. of Acres: ~,.7
No. of Buildings: 9
BACKGROUND:
The original application for this proposal was filed
to the County of Riverside on December 18, 1989
and consisted of a plot plan and a tentative parcel
map application. The case flies were transferred to
the City of Temecula in May, 1990. The County
STAFFRPT\PP11688 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
STAFF~R_P_'I'~PP11688
combined the applications under Tentative Parcel
Map No. 25632. However, the applicant has
expressed his desire to keep the two applications
separate. In the event of approval, construction
could begin on the plot plan without waitin9 for the
flnalization of the parcel map. Conditions of
Approval have been separated to facilitate this
process.
Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25632 is a proposal to
subdivide 4.7 acres into 10 parcels. The existing
parcel is Lot 11 off Parcel Map No. 19580, which
created the Rancho California Business Park.
Under this proposal, Parcels 1 through 9 (Tentative
Parcel Map 25632) range in size from 5,520 to 6,380
square feet. Parcel No. 10 is designated for all the
parking and access areas which will be governed by
CC&R's prior to the Final Approval of the Parcel
Map. The zoning ordinance requires a 10,000
square foot minimum lot size within the M-SC zone;
however, the reduced lot sizes in this zone are
allowed if a Planned Industrial Project (P.I.D) is
approved. This proposal is a P.I.D. as described
below.
Sufficient infrastructure exists in the immediate
area to facilitate the demand of the proposed
development.
Access for all parcels will be created by a reciprocal
agreement. CCF, R's for the proposed development
will require approval from the City Attorney.
Access to the general site will be taken via Business
Park Drive.
Plot Plan
Plot Plan No. 11688 is a proposal to construct nine
19) industrial office buildings on 4.7 acres.
Adequate landscaping is provided on site, including
the 25 foot wide landscape easement required for the
Rancho California Business Park.
The building sizes, required parking, and provided
parking are provided in the following matrix:
Building No. 1:
Building No. 2:
Building No. 3:
Building No. 4:
Building No. 5:
Building No. 6:
Building No. 7:
Building No. 8:
5,160 sq.ft.
5,160 sq.ft.
5,160 sq.ft.
6,408 sq. ft.
6,408 sq. ft.
6,u,08 sq.ft.
5,160 sq.ft.
6,408 sq.ft.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
Building No, 9:
Total Area
6,408 sq. ft.
52,680 sq.ft.
Required Parking ISection 18.12,
0rd.348, 1/200 sq.ft.): 264 spaces
Provided Parking 265 spaces
None of the buildings require loading space because
the project is proposed as an all office use. The
provided parking exceeds the requirements of the
Ordinance 3L~8, Section 18.12.
All nine 19) buildings are to reflect similar
contemporary architecture. The exterior wails will
be off white color stucco. The exterior elevations
will also contain a substantial amount of black tinted
and reflective glass inserts. The buildings will
utilize trim colors that will include aquamarine,
blue, or maroon.
The tentative landscape plans suggest a park-like
setting. Several different types of trees are
proposed. Buildings are clumped together in three
areas in order to increase landscape areas between
and around them. This method also reduces the
amount of pavement that would be necessary if the
buildings were separated. The proposed project
site contains over 30% of landscaped area, which
exceeds the required 10% under Section 11. LL e.
No signage is proposed by this application.
However a sign program for the project site will be
required and will be approved by separate
application.
Zoninfi
The proposed Plot Plan and Tentative Parcel Map
are a planned industrial development under Section
21.591c) of Ordinance 348. Lot area, width, and
depth may be reduced if the project provides
common parking and access. This project provides
such, and prior to the recordation of the final map,
CCF, R's will be recorded which will insure future
compliance with this standard.
The Southwest Area Plan designation for the
proposed site is LI, Light Industrial. The proposed
use is in conformance with this designation. Proper
access, infrastructure, and public facilities
improvements exist to support the proposed use.
There is a reasonable probability that the project
will be consistent with the City's General Plan once
adopted.
STAFFRPT\PP11688 3
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
An Initial Study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
FINDINGS:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25632
The proposed division is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code in that
the project is a Planned industrial
Development.
The lot design is logical and meets the
approval of the City's Planning and
Engineering Departments.
The legal owner of record has offered to make
all dedications required.
The project may have a significant adverse
affect on the environment. However, a
Negative Declaration is recommended and all
impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels
through recommended conditions of approval.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once adopted, based on analysis
contained in the Staff Report.
The division of land is consistent with the
provision of Title 18 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
Rot Plan No. 11688
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 11688 will be consistent with the
City~s future adopted General Plan, which
will be completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State p)anning and zoning laws.
The project may have a significant adverse
affect on the environment. However, a
Negati~/e Oeclaration is recommended and all
impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels
10.
11.
through recommended conditions of approval.
The project aS designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties, through appropriate
building mass reduction techniques and
landscape installation, and distance from
planned adjacent structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
The project as designed and conditloned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
The design of the project, the type of
improvements, and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25632, and
Plot Plan No. 11588;
APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map No.
25532; and,
3, APPROVE Plot Plan No. 11688.
based on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
STAFFRPT\PP11688 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Wescon Properties
18102 Sky Park South
Irvine, CA 92714
5.
6.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
8-23-90
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Parcel Map 25632 and
Plot Plan No. 11688
Southwest side of Business Park Drive,
north of Rancho California Road
II
Environmental Impacts
I Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached
sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\PP11688 1
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11688 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aqulfer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water re)ated hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants l including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
Iblrds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
×
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11688 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances {including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
TransportatlonJCirculation. Will the
proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
STAFFRPT\PP11688
15.
16.
Yes Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ ..X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ ~
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFRPT\PP11688 5
17.
18.
19.
2O.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard ( excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cu)tural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11688 6
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
ST A FF R PT\PP 11688 7
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1, a,
No. Although the proposed project will result in cut and fill
slopes there will not be changes in the base geologic
substructures. The slopes shall be manufactured and compacted
per the engineer's requirements and as a result, should not
result in unstable earth conditions.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree
and results in soil displacement, compaction and over-covering.
Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are
required.
No. Development of the proposed project will not require
substantial grading and as a result will not alter the existing
topography.
No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the
site.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and
significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading,
retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of
watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after
grading.
No. There is no body of water near the project site which could
be affected by the proposed project.
Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction and fault
hazard zone area according to the Riverside County General Plan
Geologic Hazard Map. A geologic report for the project should
address these potential issues.
Air
a.
Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the
project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particulate emissions
will occur. This impact is not considered significant since the air
emissions from this project is only an incremental impact to the
area's air quality.
b-c.
No. The proposed project should nat create any objectionable
odors or alter the area's climate.
Water
3. a,d-e.
No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The
closest body of water to the site is Murrieta Creek which is
approximately one-half mile away.
STAFFRPT\PP11688 8
b-c,g.
No. The proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of
water absorption. However, the introduction of irrigation to the
site will be off-set the water absorption rate. Drainage patterns
will continue to flow to the streets and channels.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply
o system.
Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area.
To help mitigate the projectts impact, a flood mitigation charge
shall be paid.
No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the
plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or
endangered species should be affected. New species of plants
will be introduced to the site as par of the landscape
requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is
not considered a negative impact. It is not clear by the plot plan
if the existing Eucalyptus trees on the site will remain. Due to
their maturity, as many should be retained as possible.
The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Animal Life
5. a-c.
No. The proposed project is in an area that has been
experiencing urbanization for a number of years. It is
anticipated that the only animal life on or in the vicinity of the
site includes squirrels, rabbits, lizards, and other animals
common to the area. It is highly unlikely that an endangered
specie habitates the site.
Noise
6. 9.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during
construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to
increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be
significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise
sensitive.
No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project.
Liqht and Glare
Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the
use of low pressure sodium vapor ILPSV) lights to help avoid
interference with the Mr. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow".
The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced
by the proposed project. I
STAFFR PT\PP 11688 9
Land Use
No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for
General Li9ht industrial. The surroundin9 land uses are also
office and light manufacturin9.
Natural Resources
9. a-b.
No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of
any natural or non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Upset
10. a.
Maybe. If the manufacturing tenant uses any hazardous
materials in their operation, a llst of hazardous substances and
disposal plan shall be submitted to the City.
No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any
streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street
or land closure is necessary, it shah be coordinated with the City
and Police Department.
Population
11.
No. The proposed office/industrial building will generate some
jobs but not a significant amount to alter the area's population.
Housln,q
12.
No. The proposed office/industrial building will not generate a
significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional
housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13. a,c.
Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to
and from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this
increase will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the
project may add an incremental impact to the Rancho California
Road/1-15 interchange which is currently operating at capacity
during peak hours. This potential impact may be mitigated by a
transportation improvement mitigation fee.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the
use. The project will need 265 parking spaces. The proposed
plan illustrates spaces.
Maybe. The proposed project will improve a portion of Business
Park Drive which will ultimately loop around and connect to
Rancho California Road. Completion of Business Park Drive will
divert some traffic from the northern intersection of Business
Park Drive and Rancho California Road.
STAFFRPT\PP11688 10
No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne. rail or air
traffic.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards
to motor vehicles. bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Public Services
14. a,b,e.
Yes. The proposed industrial/office use will require public
services in the areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and
public facilities. This impact is not considered significant. The
incremental impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees
assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and
continuing need for services over the long term.
c,d.f.
No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these
public services.
Energy
15.
a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use
or increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16. a-f.
No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will
not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems.
Human Health
17 a-b.
Maybe. if hazardous substances are stored in the warehouse,
then that may create a potential health hazard. If hazardous
materials will be warehoused at the site, a plan for their use and
disposal should be submitted to the City.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open
to the public. The elevations of the proposed project are
consistent in architectural materials as the surrounding
buildings.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d.
No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is
unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is
discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on
site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is
significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of
historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or
STAFFRPT\PP11688 11
restrict sacred uses.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21. a-c.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural
environment, have long term environmental impacts or have
considerable cumulative impacts.
Maybe. If the proposed use warehouses hazardous materials, the
project may cause a health hazard to human beings and wildlife.
If hazardous materials are to be warehoused at the project, a
plan for their use and disposal should be developed and approved
by the City. The project may also have a substantial impact on
the existing transportation system. To mitigate the potential
impact at the Rancho California Road/1-15 Interchange, a traffic
mitigation fee should be paid.
STAFFRPT\PP11688 12
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\PP11688 13
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 11688
TO PERMIT OPERATION OF AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
AT BUSINESS PARK DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Wescon Properties filed Plot Plan No. 11688 in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on
October 1. 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are mat:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
12 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
STAFFRPT\PP11688 1
Ic)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state ~aw and
~oca~ ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, thereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
{1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
12 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 11688 proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
( 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law
and City ordinances.
12) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
STAFFRPT\PP11688 2
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3. the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
project could have a significant impact on the environment. There will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on attached
sheets and in the Condltons of Approval have been added to the project. A Negative
Declaration.
SECTION 3,_~,. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 11688 for the operation and construction of an industrial park located at the
southwest side of Business Park Drive subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the day of , 1990 by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP11688 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Ran No. 11688.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP11688 z.I.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 11688
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
This approval shall be used within two {2) years of the City Council approval
date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By
this approval within the two {2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the begi nning of substantial uti Ii zation contemplated
by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 11688, or as amended by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one 11 )
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed on-site so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property or public rights-d-way, and shall comply
with Ordinance No. 655.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten { 10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven 17 ) copies of parking, landscaping, shading and irrigation plot
plan to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set
forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 348.
A minimum of 265 parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three ~3)
inches on four 14) inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 12 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or
equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not
be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior
end of the parking space at a minimum of height of 80 inches from the bottom
of the sign to the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign
shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not
less than one ~ 1 ) inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the
following:
STAFFRPT\PP11688
10,
11.
12,
13.
14.
15.
16.
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephoning
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue
paint of at least three ~3) square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of
the Department of Building and Safety.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the streets, and within the parking areas.
This project site is within a significant groundshaking zone. Mitigation shall
be the application of the proper Uniform Building Code standards in the
developmentof this project. Mitigations outlined in the approved Gootechnical
Report shall be adhered to. Evidence of compliance with those conditions shall
be presented to the Building and Safety Department prior to the issuance of
building permits.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of
any building permit by the Temecula Department of Building and Safety, a
California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended
structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification
shall be based upon, but not limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and
geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development
is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated May 2LL 1990, a
copy of which is atteched.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in
the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated April 24, 1990, a
copy of which is attached. If the project lles within an adopted flood control
drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division
Ordl nance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage fecilities
shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department's letter dated September kt, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
17.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittal dated May 1, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
18.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Gradin9 Section's transmittal dated May 16, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
19.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lightin9 Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan,
20.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated May 9, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
21.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Southern
California Edison Company transmittal dated April 11, 1990, a copy of which
is attached.
22.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geologist's Report dated July 3, 1989.
23.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, a signing and striping plan along with
a street improvement plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
24.
Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with
the Director of Building and Safety.
25.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and
irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
26.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
27.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance no. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new
building and parking structure.
28.
No building or portion thereof shall be permitted within the fault hazard zone
identified in the County Geologist's letter dated July 3, 1990.
29. All signage shall be by separate permit.
30. Landscape plans shall require separate permit.
STAFF R PT\ PP 11688
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
31.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
The developer shall submit four (u,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
The developer shall submit four (L~) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~,"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
The site is in an area identified on the flood hazards maps as Flood Zone
subject to flooding depth of 12" during a 100 year storm event. All building
needs to be protected from this hazard.
36.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
A detailed drainage study will be required to be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. This study shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer and shall include existing, interim, and proposed
conditions, including hydrology and hydraulic calculations.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site.
~AEF R PT\ PP 11688
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
u,3. All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside Standard
No. 207.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF CCaR's:
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCE, R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R~s shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCSR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CC~,R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC~,R~s shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC~,R~s and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCF, R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of 811 common areas and
facilities.
The CC~,R's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CC~,R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCSR's or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a llen in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
The applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following
agencies:
Rancho California Water District
City Engineer
Environmental Health
Fire Department
Planning Department
Riverside County Flood Control
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside Transit Agency
CATV Franchise
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
Business Park Drive shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located
28 feet from centerllne and asphalt concrete paving, within a 39 foot half-
width dedicated right-d-way in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 111, (56/78).
In the event that full half street improvements plus a lane are not constructed
for Business Park Drive prior to issuance of Certification of Occupancy by the
developer of Parcel Map No. 19580, the applicant shall construct those
required improvements. Adjacent to the project and to the intersection of
Single Oak Drive.
50.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for tr-~F[ic and public
facility mitigation as required under the E)R/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
51.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed
per requirements of the Traffic Engineer.
52.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
53.
The entrance at main driveway shall be constructed at 24' curb-to-curb width.
Exit shall be constructed at 20' curb-to-curb.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 25632 TO SUBDIVIDE A q.. 7 ACRE PARCEL INTO
10 PARCELS AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY SIDE OF
BUSINESS PARK DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Wescon Properties filed Parcel Map No. 25632 in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances.
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on
October 1, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approval of said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty 130) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
~2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
STAFFRPT\PP11688 1
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceedin9 in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
12 ) The Plannin9 Commission finds, in approving projects
and takin9 other actions, including the issuance of
building permits. pursuant to this title, each of the
followin9:
{a)
There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 25632 proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicabl.e requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Parcel Map may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any Parcel Map approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
STAFFRPT\PP11688 2
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
project could have a significant impact on the environment. There will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on attached
sheets and in the Conditons of Approval have been added to the project. A Negative
Declaration.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 25632 for the subdivision of a 4.7 acre parcel into 10 parcels located at the
southwesterly side of Business Park Drive subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the day of , 1990 by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFF R PT\ PP 11688 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
) have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Parcel Map No. 25632.
DATED: By
Name
Title
ST A FF R PT\PP 11688 q
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25632
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The subdivlder shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or lagislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 25632, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 661~99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 460.
Schedule E, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the City Council approval date
unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision
Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance 1160.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on theflnal map if within the land division boundary. All
offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility
access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~,60 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building
Code shall be submitted to the City Department of Building and Safety.
STAFFRPT\PP11688
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health DepartmentIs transmittal dated May 2u,, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Flood Control District~s letter dated April 2u,, 1990,
a copy of which is attached. If the land division lles within an adopted flood
control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land
Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the City prior to recordation of the final map or
waiver of parcel map.
The subdlvider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated September u~, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Section~s transmittal dated May 1, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section~s transmittal dated May 16, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated May 9, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Southern California Edison Company transmittal dated April 11, 1990, a copy
of which is attached.
Subdlvlder shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geologist~s Report dated July 3, 1989.
Prior to recordation of this map, a reciprocal access agreement covering Parcel
10 shall be recorded for Parcels 1, 2, 3, u,, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Prior to occupancy, developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements
and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for
traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative
Declaration for the project, in the amount in e~fect at the time of payment of
the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not
been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building
permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the
Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been
provided to developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may
require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming
benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its
right to protest such increase.
S_TA~F~R_PT\_pp11_68__8 2
GRADING:
20.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance N0. 663 by pay/n9 the fee required by that ordinance. Should
Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation
Plan prior to the payment of the fees required under the Habitat Conservation
Plan as implemented by City Ordinance or resolution.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
21.
No buildin9 permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer's
successors-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facillty
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ~$100) per lot/unit
shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Building and Safety as mitigation
for public library development.
22.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the appllcant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Road Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Planning Department.
23.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the M-SC zone for a Planned Industrial Development.
When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have a
net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility
easement.
PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
25.
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following conditionIs) shall be
complied with:
A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet IECS) shall be
transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CONDITIONS:
26.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet I ECS) shall be prepared with the final
map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the City. Prior to the recordat/on of the final map, a copy of the
ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to
the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The
following notel s) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet.
"This property is located within thirty 130) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the
Observatory. Outdoor lighting shall befrom low pressure sodium lamps
that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the
horizontal plane passing through the luminare."
STAFFRPT\PP11688
indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject
property as of the date of recordation of the final map.
The following note shall be placed on the final map: "Constraints
affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental
Constraints Sheet. the original of which is on file at the office of the
Riverside County Surveyor.
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any
building in Parcel Map No. 25632 until the developer or the developer's
successors-in-interest or assignees, provides evidence of compliance
with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities.
"This property is affected by earthquake faulting and ground fissures.
Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in the Fault and
Ground Fissure Hazard Area."
"County Geologic Report No. 601 was prepared for this property on
September 2, 1988 by Schaefer Dixon Associates, and is on file at the
Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern are
as follows: earthquake faulting, fissuring and ground subsidence,
seismic design of structures, liquefaction, and uncompacted trench
backfill."
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing ---ements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmltted for further consideration.
27.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
28.
Parcel No. 10 shall be jointly owned by all parcels within Parcel Map No. 25632
and shall be subject to all conditions contained within the recorded covenants,
conditions, and restrictions { CCSR~s).
29.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions I CC~,R~s) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCSR's shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCF, R~s shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCF, R~s shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCF, R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC~,R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
STAFEJLPT'LPP~,] 688
30.
31.
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Plannin9 and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC~,R~s shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CCSR's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
g. in addition to the above, the CC&R's shall include the following:
Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements
ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads,
drives or parking areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds
and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the
issuance of building permit where no map is involved.
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineor, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained
by a property owners association or other means acceptable to the City. Such
proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering
Department.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit, if required, shall be installed to CATV
Standards at time of street improvements.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
~,2.
u,3.
Dedication shall be made of the following right-of-way on the following
streets:
DEDICATE Business Park Drive TO 39 FEET FROM STREET CENTERLINE
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approvect by the
City Engineer.
The subdivider shall construct or post security 9uaranteein9 the construction
of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City
standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping {street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
The subdivider shall provide bonds and agreement clearances from all
applicable agencies and pay all fees prior to the approval of the map.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~,61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum established per lot as mitigation for a
traffic signal impact.
Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring
said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
No grading shall take place prior to the recording of the final map.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geelogical
conditions of the site.
tt is understood that the Tentative Map correctly shows all existing
easements, traveled ways and drainage courses, and that their omission may
require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office, in
addition to any other permits required.
S~AEFRPT~PP11688
AH driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
47.
The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone,
therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a
Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
48. A minimum centerline grade shall be 0.50 percent.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
50. ' The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
51.
The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating the
area within the 100-year floodplain.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
52.
Business Park Drive shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located
28 feet from centerllne and asphalt concrete paving, within a 39 foot half-
width dedicated right-d-way in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 111,156/78).
53.
In the event that full half street improvements plus a lane are not constructed
for Business Park Drive prior to issuance of Certification of Occupancy by the
developer of Parcel Map No. 19580, the applicant shall construct those
required improvements adjacent to the project and to the intersection of Single
Oak Drive.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Nagative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated lassuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
55.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed
per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer.
56.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
-c, TAFFR PT\PP11688 Z
NIURRIETA, CALIF',
1953
pHOTOREVISED 1973
May 9, 1990
County of Riverside
Department of Health
P. O. Box 1370
Riverside, CA 92502
Attention: Karen Leininger, REHS III
Subject: Tract 25632 - Supplemental SAN 53 Information
Dear Ms. Leininger:
In response to your December 14, 1989 request that was transmitted to us by
Wescon Properties on March 7, 1990, we are happy to provide the following
information describing EMWD's service responsibility to the subject project.
Sanitary Sewer
1. The estimated average daily wastewater flows from the subject project
have been estimated as follows:
ADF = (4.72 ACRES) (3000 GPD/ACRE)
ADF = 0,014 MGD ·
PDF = (2.5) (ADF) ':~
PDF = 0.035 MGD
The project is located within the service area of the District's Rancho
California Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RCRWRF), located in
Temecula.
The RCRWRF presently has a treatment capacity of 4.2 MGD and an average
daily flow of 3.8 MGD. The RCRWRF is being expanded to 6.25 MGD.
Availability of treatment capacity is dependent on the construction timing
of the subject project.
The nearest existing sewer to the subject project is a lO-inch diameter
sewer located along Business Park Drive, frontin9 the eastern side of
the subject project.
No offsite improvements are necessary for the provision of service to
the proposed development.
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 · Fax (714) 92%0257
Main Office: 2045 5. SanJacinto Street, SanJacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 EL Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA
l,~s. Leininger -2- I4ay 10, 1990
Construction of an approved plan of sanitary sewer service will allow
for the subject project to be connected to the existing sewage collection,
treatment and disposal system. This is comprised of a combination of
gravity flow and pressurized sewer pipelines and treatment and disposal
facilities. The disposal of treated wastewater will be accomplished by
a combination of State approved "beneficial use" and percolation practices.
A sewer does presently front the subject project. The developer is expected
to propose an onsite sewer plan that incorporates an entirely gravity
flow system of sewers located within road rights-of-way. Onsite sewers
must be located in public right-of-way or in the center of easements that
are a minimum of width of 20 feet, or twice the sewer depth, whichever
is greater. The developer's proposed' plan must be approved by the
District's Planning Department.
Reclai~d Water
EMWD recommends the use of reclaimed water for irrigation of landscaped
and open space areas in accordance with the District's Ordinance No. 68.
The nearest reclaimed water facility is preliminarily master-planned to
be located along Diaz Road, approximately one quarter (1/4) mile to the
east of the subject project. The degree of water treatment in the source
facility is planned to be tertiary effluent by late 1991.
Landscaping associated with the subject project may represent a demand
for reclaimed water. The developer is expected to submit a proposed plan
of service that may incorporate the beneficial use of reclaimed water
for the irrigation of landscaped areas and other uses as described by
the District's Ordinance No. 68. A determination of the use of reclaimed
water by the subject project will be made by the District after having
reviewed additional information describing the subject project's service
needs.
Should you desire supplementary information, a further description of EMWD's
Water Reclamation Program can be found in the District's Ordinance No. 68.
Should you have any questions
Newsham or Dave Crosley of the
at (714) 766-1880.
regarding these comments, please contact Ruth
DiStrict's Department of Planning and Research
Sincerely,
H. A1 Spencer
Director of Planning and Research
HAS:RN:lP~-c2~(~_~
cc: Wescon Properties~
W.O. #90-415
31/B
:IiVE:I iDE COURt.u
PLAnRinG DEPA:I ITIEri
July 3, 1989
Schaefer Dixon Associates
22 Mauchly
Irvine, CA 9271B
Attention:
Mr. Nicholas Selmeczy
Mr. Paul Davis
Mr. Dean M. White
SUBJECT:
Seismic/Geologic Hazard
ProJect 80-182
APN: 921-020-037
Parcel Map 19580
Buildtrig & Safety Log #232505
County Geologic Report No, 601
Rancho California Area
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed your report entitled "Geotechntcal Investigation, A Portion of
Business Park III, Phase 2, Parcels 1, 7, 8, g, 10 and 11, Rancho California
CA" dated Sept~ber 2, 1988, and your response to County review, dated June
,
12, lg89.
Your report datemined that:
The surface trace of a ground fissure extends northwest-southeast
across the eastern part ~f Parcel 11, to the Parcel 10 property llne.
The trace can be followed in the shallow subsurface from the west side
of Parcel B across Parcels 9 and 10, The fissure location is shown on
Plate 1, GaDtechnical Map of you report.
A zone of previously unmapped faults is associated with the above
mentioned ground fissures. These pre-extsttng faults offset strata
that a~e between approximately 3000 and 9100 years old. These faults
are considered active HolDcane faults based on State of California
criteria.
3. There is a potential for future movements tO continue along the active,
i
Holocene faults. It is not expected that future displacement w ll
occur away from the pre-extsttng, HolDcane faults.
4080 LEMON STREEI, 9'" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
Schaefer Dixon Associates
- 2 - July 3, 1989
The Whi ttier-Elsi nora (Wildomar) fault is capable of generating very
strong ground shaking at the subject site. Seismic data from events on
this fault are as follows:
Maximum Credible Earthquake
Magnitude - 7.1
Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration - 0.70g
lO0-Year Probable Earthquake
Magnitude - 6,0 to 6.5
Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration - 0,359 to O,41g
Liquefaction of soils at the site is expected to be minimal. There is
little or no potential for lateral spreading or ground lurching at the
site. Potentially liquefiable soils 20 feet below proposed finish
grades are not anticipated to produce sand boils that could reach the
ground surface.
Your report recommended that:
No habitable structures shall be placed across the ground-surface
fissures and active faults or in areas with potential for ground
fissuring or faulting.
2, A Restricted Use Zone shall be established as shown on Plate 2,
Recommended Restricted Use Zone.
Proposed structures should be designed to accommodate settlements which
may be induced by soil liquefaction. These settlements are expected to
be less than 1/3 inch over a distance of 20 feet and will be in
addition to settlements induced by foundation and surcharge loads.
An additional, detailed subsurface investigation and geotechnical
engineering analysis shall be required for the foundation design of
each proposed building when building and grading plans become
available.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and
satisfies the additional information requested under the California
Environmental quality Act review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan. Final approval of the report is hereby given.
We recommend that the following conditions be satisfied before recordatlon of
any subdivision maps and/or issuance If any County permits associated with this
project:
Schaefer Dixon Associates
- 3 - July 3, 1989
The Recommended Restricted Use ZOne shown on the Recona~ended Restricted
Use Zone Hap, Plate 2 dated September 2, 1988 in the report shall be
delineated on the project maps end/or Environmental Constraints Sheet
IE.C,S.). The areas within the Recommended Restricted Use Zone shall
e labeled 'FAULT AND GROUND FISSURE HAZARD AREA."
The following notes shall be placed on the E.C.S. and/or subdivision
maps=
(a)
· This property is affected by earthquake faulting and ground
fissures. Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in
the Fault and Ground Fissure Hazard Area."
(b)
"County Geologic Report No, 601 was prepared for this property on
September 2, 1988 by Schaefer Dixon Associates, and is on file at
the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of
concern are as follows: earthquake faulting, fissurlng and
ground subsidence, seismic design of structures, liquefaction,
and uncompacted trench backfill."
3. The E.C.S. and/or project maps shall be submitted to the Planning
Department Engineering Geologist for review and approval.
4. The exploratory trench backfill shall be addressed by the project
geotechnical engineer prior to issuance of grading permits.
The recommendations made in your report for mitigation of seismic/geologic
hazards shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project.
SAK:al
Very truly yours,
Bedford Properties - Steven Silla
CDI4G - Earl Hart
Building & Safety (2) - Norm Lostbom
Building & Safety -Tony RamsamooJ
Parcel Map 19580 - Central Files
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
GRADING SECTION
TO: PLANNING / JEFF y/~S
FROM: SAM D. GONZALEZ
DATE: May 16, 1990
RE: pm 25632 AMENDMENT #
APN: 921-020-068
2 EXHIBIT D
The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site.
The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section!' recommends
approval of this project if the following conditions are included.
Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from
the Building and Safety Department.
All grading shall conform to the Uniform Building Code and Ordinance
457.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall
obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and
Safety Department.
Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' in vertical
height with grass or ground cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical
height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance
457, see form 284-47.
Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security
to be posted with the Building and Safety department.
In instances where a grading plan involves import or export, prior to
obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall have obtained approval
for the import/export location from the Building and Safety Department -
this may require a written clearance from the Planning Department.
All drainage facilities shall be ~esigned to ~ccommodate 100 year storm
flow~.
Observe slope setbacks per Section 2907, Figure 29-1, Section 7011 and
Figure 70-1 of the Uniform Building Code.
NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information
form Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86,
and 284-46. These forms are available at all Building and Safety Offices.
Thank you.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH___
R [ VZ:,2:f. i UZ COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
4080 Lemon St, Feet
R~verszde. CA 92502
RE:: Paracel Map 25632: Bexn,n a subdivision of Parcel No.
,,t' PAF,Zel Hair, lUZt~0 as shown in Book 154 of Parcel Mans,
k'aL]es kid-g0, Fee'orals ot RIverside County. California.
~9 lots)
ll
'fhe Department of Public Health has I-eviewed Parcel MaD_
A water svstpm shall be installed according to
plans and specification as approved by the water
C,DYT~D,]IIV add the Hea ~ th Debar tment . Permanent
h~rlnts of the plans of the water system shall
be submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale
not less than one inch e~uals 200 feet . alon9 w~th
~ original drawinG to the County SUFvOVOF
'ihe prints shall show the Internal pipe dlametc. r.
IGC.ltlOn Of valves and fire hydrant5: D1pe and
3olRt 5oeclflcatlon~ . and the ~lze of the main
at the ]Hnct]on D.f the ~e~ ~vsto~ to the
respects w~th D~v. 5. Part 1. Chapter 7 of Ehe
California Health and Safety Code, California
Administrative Co,le. TItle 22. Chapter IC. ar,,} ,~pI~D.rnl
Orcier No. 103 ,DE the Fubllc Utilities L'c.frlmls51Gil Of the-
State of California. when applicable. The plans shall
with the followlncf c~rt~f/catlon: "I certify tha+. the
deqlrfn ef the watr, r qv5 em ~n Patrol MaD 25U3,: 1~ ~f~
accordance with the water system expansion plan5 of the
R-xncho Calzfornla~ Water D~strxct and that the water
A'LTrI: h,~ t A, lam5
Debt.
that it Ulll SUPPLY water to such parcel map at any
protection or any other purpose" . This certification
shall be slened bv a responsible official of the water
Company. [he ~,ians must .be submitted to the County
StlfveyeF~S Q/f.i~e to. reXlow a~.~leas.t twq weeks DF1OF
tO the ~equest for the Fecorda. tlon of. the_fiDal maP..
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California
satlsfa. ctorv lirianclal afranuement5 are completed with the
to be made or~oF to the Feco[datlon of the final maD.
Thls subdivision 1s within the Eastern Municipal Water
13istr~ct and shall be connected to the se~{ers of the
District. The se~er system shall be installed accordln~ to
plans ~[-lf~ ~l)eciflc~tlnn~ as aDDloved bV the District.
County S~rveVor and the Health Department. Permanent prints
of the Oians of the sewer system shall be submitted in
triplicate. alon~ w~th the or~Q~nal drawing, to the County
Z~,TJFVOyOr. The prints shall show the internal Plp~
diameter. locatlon Of manholes. complete profiles, pipe
and ]olllt specifications and the s1ze of the sewers at
the junction of the new system to the ~,D{lqtlno
water lines Shall be a portion of the sewage plans and
profiles . The plans shall be sioned bv a reqlstered
engineer and the gewer district with the followlnQ
certification: "[ certify that the desi,]n o~ the sewer
system in Parcel M~D 25032 1s in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
parcel map ."
A'("fr{: MIf
_t4 3, v 2 4, 1 !:! U LI
'The plans must be submitted to ~he County Survevor's
Office to review at, leas~ t~qw_eeks,p,rl.or to tile
[eqUest fog Jh~ recQ[datlon.,o/_._.~be fln.al_map_
It will be necessary
commi~telV finalized
maD.
Drior to recordatlon of the final
:~zn,zer~lv,
Env~ronraental H~alth Services
SM:dr
co: City of Temecula
KENNETH L EDWARDS
1995 MARKET STREET
P,O BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015
FAX NO. (714) 788'9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502
Riverside County
PI anning Department
County Admi ni strati ve Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
P1 anner ,.,1~'~tF
Area:
We have reviewed this case and have the followi'ng comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rules and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated
is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of P/~/~~(C) The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
enior Civil Engineer
)ATE:
Administretive Office · 1777 Atlente Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
May 1, 1990
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Jeff Adams
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Parcel Map 25632, Amended Map No. 2
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and
has the following comments and conditions:
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval
all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of
the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
Sincerely,
Vaughcn~Sa'~kisian
Land Use Technician
Safety
for
VS:sml
(714) 682-8840 · (714) 275-1820 · Fax (714) 3694084
Southern Ca~forn/a Edison Company
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801
Riverside County
Road Department
P.O. Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
Attention: Subdivision Section
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25632
April 11, lg90
Please be advised that the division of the property shown on
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25632 will not tinreasonably interfere
with the free and complete exercise of any easement(s) held by
Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said
tentative parcel map.
This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the
Company's rights, title and interest in and to said easement(s),
nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the
provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of costs for
relocation of any affected facilities.
In the event that the development requires relocation of facil-
ities, on the subject property, which facilities exist by right
of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested
to bear the cos~ of such relocation and provide Edison with
suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights
are required pcfor to the performance of the relocation.
If additional information ].s
the above mentioned sub]ect,
(213) 491-2644.
required in connection with
please call Dennis Bazant at
Sincerely,
386(ll)WPC/jc
cc: Continental Lawyers Title Company
J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
March 2(4, 1990
Riverside County DMsion of
Environmental l-teahh
Land Use Section
Post Office Box 1370
Riverside, California 92502
SUBJECT: Water Availability
Rcfercncc: Parcel Map 25632
Gclltlclncn:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial arrangements (including all
in-tract facilities) between RCWD and the pioperty owner.
Water availability would be contingem upon the, property owner signing an
Agency Agreement %vhich assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
In response to your request, RCWD has provided the attached information.
If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714) 676-4101.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Engineering Manager
F012B/jkm94f
Attachment
cc: Senga Doherty
k,
Rancho California Water District
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GI,EN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
Sept. 4, 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TI[ STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 275-/4777
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PARCEL MAP 25632
The Riverside County Fire Department will address all fire protection requirements
at the plot plan stage.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
ml
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46,209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
Sept. 4, 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 275-4777
TO:
CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PLOT PLAN 11688
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure
established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure which must
be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped
system (6"x4"x2ix2i), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than
165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved
vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from
any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation
or built-in fire protection measures.
Applicant/devsloper shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to
the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant
types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil
engineer and the local water company with the following certification:
"I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a
fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of
a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement
that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be
included on the title page of the building plans.
RE: PP 11688 Page 2
Install a supervised water flow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per
Uniform Building Code.
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated
into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per
Section 505 (e) of the Uniform Building Code.
9. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered
must appear on the title page of the building plans.
10. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
Building and Safety.
11. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
12. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
13.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $413.00 to
the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
14.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit
with the Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling
the sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
ml
iTEM 13
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. ~,
Prepared By: Steve Padovan
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTAT)VE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Tomond Properties
Markham and Associates
To construct a 92u, square foot gasoline service station
and mini-market with beer and wine sales.
Southeast corner of State Highway 79 and Bedford
Court.
C-P-S I Scenic Highway Commercial )
North: R-A-2.5
South: R-2-4000
East: R-2-4000
West: C-P-S
I Residential Agricultural)
{ Multiple Family Dwellings)
{ Multiple Family Dwellings)
{Scenic Highway Commercial )
Not requested.
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Residential Condominiums
East: Residential Condominiums/Vacant
West: Strip Commercial Center/Fast Food Restaurant
No. of Acres: .9u,
No. of Buildings: One 92u, sq.ft. building proposed.
Proposed Use: Gasoline self service station and
mini-market.
Parking Provided: 9 spaces
STAFFRPT\CUPu, 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit No. ~, was originally submitted to
the Riverside County Planning Department on March
1990, as Plot Plan No. 11884. The site is located in the
C-P-S zone, Scenic Highway Commercial.
Gasoline service stations with the concurrent sale of beer
and wine are permitted in the C-P-S zone subject to the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition,
convenience stores which sell motor vehicle fuel are
permitted subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The
original application for a gasoline service station and
mini-market without the sale of beer and wine was
submitted to the County under a plot plan application.
However, Staff felt that this use was similar to a
convenience store with motor vehicle fuel sales;
therefore, the application was changed to Conditional
Use Permit No. 4. The sale of beer and wine was later
added to the proposal by the applicant.
The project site is designated as Lot I of Parcel Map No.
21592. Under this map, the site was graded and road
improvements to Bedford Court were completed. An
existing strip commercial/retail center is to the west of
the project site across the street.
The application was taken to a Pre-Development Review
Committee on August 30, 1990. Several revisions were
made and a traffic study submitted. The project was
taken to a Formal Development Review Committee on
September 20, 1990.
The applicant is requesting to construct a 924 square
foot self service gas station and mini-market with the
concurrent sale of beer and wine. Nine parking spacas,
including one handicap, have been provided on-site.
Six pumps will be located under a canopy in front of the
mini-market.
The proposed application has been designed to meet the
standards of Ordinance No. 348. Nine parking spaces
including a handicap space are provided which meets the
required parking standards. A 10 foot landscape buffer
has been provided along the property line adjacent to the
residential units and minimum, landscape requirements
have been met.
To minimize the impacts to the surrounding co,,,,,,unity.
The proposed project has included several additional
design features:
STAFFRPT\CUP4 2
Transportation
Ingress and egress to the site has been limited to a
single driveway on Bedford Court. This prevents
vehicles from directly accessing SR79 from the site,
thereby eliminating a potential traffic hazard, The
Engineering Department has included several additional
conditions to mitigate transportation impacts including
bonds to improve State Highway 79 and drainage
improvements.
Geoloqic Hazards
The County Geologist has included several additions from
a Ceologic Report by Ceo Soils dated July 28, 1989 that
will minimize the danger to surrounding properties.
These measures include removing fill and recompactln9
soils where sensitive improvements such as fuel tanks
will be located.
Site Desiqn
The pump islands and mini-market have been located at
the farthest point possible on the site from the
residential units. In addition, the market has been
designed with the main entry area facing Bedford Court
and SR79. The narrow strip of property along the State
Highway will not be developed with any improvements
and will be landscaped according to a landscape plan to
be approved by the Planning Department prior to
occupancy permits. Landscaping along the residential
units will be dense and evergreen to provide a sufficient
buffer between the uses. In addition, a new decorative
block wall will be constructed along the property line
adjacent to the residential units. This wall will be 6 foot
high as measured from the ground level of the residential
property. To further reduce the impact to the
residential properties, a Condition has been placed on
the hours of operation for the site. The hours of
operation will be limited to between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.
The sale of beer and wine is incidental to the sale of
motor vehicle fuel on the site. These sales will be for
off-site consumption and with the limitation on hours of
operation will not be considered detrimental to any
surrounding properties. An existing liquor store is
located directly across Bedford Court and this business
is open until 2 a.m.
STAFFRPT\CUPq 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
ZONING CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
A Conditional Use Permit may be granted if the applicant
can demonstrate that the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community, The proposed service station and mini-
market will meet these criteria as designed and with the
Conditions of Approval attached.
The proposed land use is commercially oriented and the
property is zoned for commercial uses. A Conditional
Use Permit is required for the mini-market and alcohol
sales. The design of the project with the incorporation
of the attached Conditions will not be detrimental to
surrounding properties. Furthermore, there is a
probability that the project will conform to the City of
Temecula future adopted General Plan.
An Initial Study was prepared for Conditional Use Permit
No. 4 and is attached to this Staff Report. {See
attachment A, Initial Environmental Study.) Staff
recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration for
Conditional Use Permit No. u,.
Site Approval
1. The site of the proposed use is suitable in size to
accommodate the proposed intensity of development.
The building is of an appropriate scale relative to the
lot size and configuration as conditioned to be
compatible with adjacent project.
The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse
effect on abutting property or the permitted use
thereof. The use as conditioned will not generate
excessive noise, vibration, traffic or other
disturbances.
The site for the proposed use has adequate access.
The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict
future ability to use active or passive solar energy
systems.
6. The project will not have a significant adverse effect
on the environment.
STAFFRPT\CUP~ 4
10.
11.
There is a reasonable probability that the project will
be consistent with the General Plan once it is
adopted, based on analysis in the staff report.
There is a probability that the project will not deter,
or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if
the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
new General Plan.
These findings are supported by Staff analysis,
minutes, maps and exhibits, associated with this
application and herein incorporated by raference.
The lawful conditions stated in the approval are
deemed necessary to protect the public health,
safety and general welfare.
There is not a probability of detriment to, and
interference with the future adopted General Plan
Land Use if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the new General Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDAT|ON:
Staff recommends that the P)annin9 Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration; and,
ADOPT Resolution 90-
Permit No. ~l, based
contained hereln.
approvin9 Conditional Use
on the analysis and findings
SP:ks
Attachments:
Exhibits:
A. Initial Environmental Study
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Request for Special Review
of Parking with supporting letters.
1. Co)or Board
2. Elevations
3. Site Plan
u,. Vicinity Map
STAFFRPT\CUPq 5
CITY Of TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
~,mber of Proponent:
Tomond Properties
H.U. ~0X ZIb~
Escortdido, California 92025
II
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
30 June 1990
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
C.U.P. #4
S.E. Corner of Hwy 79 and Bedford Court
922-210-041
Environmental Impacts
{Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers a. re prov. ided on
attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substr6ctures?
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?.
Substantial change in topogr'aph~
or ground surface relief features?
d e
The destruction, covering or' modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or"
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -1-
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
×
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -2-
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants {including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
{birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -3-
Yes Maybe No
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
11.
12.
13.
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances {including,
but not limited to, oil, pest{cities,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation pian?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
×C
X
X
X
X
B LA N K I ES/FOR MS
b. Effects on existing parkin9 facili-
ties. or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, blcyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes
Maybe
X
NO
×
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -5-
Yes No
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard lexcluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation, Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
X
Maybe
X
X
×
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -6-
Yes Maybe
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? {A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? {A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -7-
Ill
Earth
1 .a,c,
d,f.
1.e.
1.9.
Air
2.a.
2.b.
2,c.
Water
3.a-i.
C.U.P. NO. 4
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
No. The proposed project will not create any significant impacts
regardin9 geologic features or conditions. No evidence of faultin9 was
found and indications of mass movement or major landsliding have not
been observed or reported on the site.
The proposal will result in a minor increase in wind or water erosion on
site due to construction. However, this condition will be temporary and
once the project is completed and improvements are in, no further
erosion will occur.
Maybe. The site has been previously graded and does have a potential
for liquefaction. This can be mitigated by removing the existing fill
and topsoil over the entire site within areas of settlement sensitive
improvements. The average depth of removal is estimated at 3 to b~ feet,
however, localized deeper removals may be necessary.
Maybe. The project will result in an increase in air emissions in the
direct vicinity. However, the amount of additional emissions will not
have a significant impact on the ambient air quality due to the small
amount of emissions and the continuous movement of air in the region.
Maybe. The proposed project will involve the storage and dispensing
of gasoline which may create objectionable odors. However, the small
scale of the project and the small amount of fuel dispensed will not
create a substantial increase of objectionable odors within the
surrounding area.
No. The proposed project will not result in any substantial chan9es in
air quality or movement.
No. The proposed project will not have a substantial impact on any
water courses or supplies and the project lles outside of all 100 year
flood zones. Furthermore, the project will be free of ordinary storm
flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in accordance
with the approved plans.
STAFFRPT\CUP~
8
Plant Life
No. The site had been previously graded and all native plant species
removed prior to this project.
Animal Life
No. The site is currently graded and the native animal species have
been displaced.
Noise
6.a.
Maybe. The proposed service station and mini-market will increase the
existing noise levels in the area. It may be necessary that the hours of
the station be restricted so that residents in the surrounding area are
not disturbed during the late evening and early morning hours.
6.b.
No. The proposed project will not result in exposure of people to
Severe noise levels.
Light and Glare
No. The proposed project will not produce a substantial amount of new
light or glare. However, the project is within the Palomar lighting area
and any proposed lighting must meet the standards set forth in those
guidelines.
Land Use
No, The proposed project will not result in a substantial alteration of
the present or planned land use of the area.
Natural Resources
No. The proposed service station will not increase the consumption rate
of any natural or non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Upset
10.a.
Yes. The proposed project is a gasoline service station which could
pose a risk of an explosion in the event of an accident. To minimize this
possibility, all Federal safety and State standards and regulations for
gasoline service stations will be implemented.
10.b.
No. The proposed project will not create an interference with any
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Population
11.
No. The proposal will not alter the location, distribution, density or
growth rate of the human population in the area.
9
Housing
12.
No. The proposal will not affect existing housin9 or create additional
demand.
Transportation]Circulation
13.a,c-e.
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial impact on
vehicular movement, parking, or existing transportation systems.
13.b.
Maybe. The proposed use will require new parking facilities which will
be provided on-site.
13.f.
Maybe. Increased traffic hazards may result due to the proposed
development. Mitigation measures will be utilized to reduce this
hazard.
Public Services
14.a,b.
Maybe. This use will involve flammable substances which may require
emergency equipment and personnel. To minimize this hazard, all
regulations and procedures involving gasoline service stations will be
followed.
14.c-f.
No. The proposed project will not have a substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services.
Energy
15.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy or increase demand of existin9 sources of energy.
Utilities
16.a,c-f.
Maybe. The proposed project will require additional utility services.
However, the additional amount is not significant and can be
accommodated within existing services.
16.b.
No. The proposed project will not result in a need for new
communications systems or alterations to existing ones.
Human Health
17.a,b.
Maybe. The project involves the use and storage of gasoline which is
a cancer causin9 agent. All safety procedures will be implemented to
minimize this risk.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic view
open to the public. However, the project is located along the City's )-
15 corridor, a scenic highway as designated by the Southwest Area
10
Plan. Emphasis should be placed on the buildings relationship to the
surrounding area.
R ecreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
20.a.
Yes. The parcel is located on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation.
Construction excavation will impact non-renewable paleontologic
resources. The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate
paleontologist to develop a site-specific program to mitigate impacts to
paleontologic resources. This program should include: 11 ) monitorin9
of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of
recovered specimens, including sediment processing for small
vertebrate fossils; ~3) curation of specimens into an established
repository; and (4) a report of findings with complete specimen
inventory.
20.b-d.
No. The proposal will not result in adverse effects to historic
structures, cultural values, or restrict religious or sacred uses in the
area,
Mandatory Findings of Significance
21 .a.
No. This project will not substantially degrade the quality of the
environment or reduce the habitat for a plant or animal species due to
the fact that the project is in an existing urbanized area. However, if
a project is located within an area designated by the Riverside County
as habitat for the endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will
be subject to mitigation fees for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan.
21 .b.
No. The proposed gasoline service station and mini-mart will not have
the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals.
21 .c.
21 .d.
No. The project does have individually limited impacts, however, if
these impacts are cumulatively considered, they do not have a
significant impact on the overall environment.
No. This project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings either directly or indirectly. All regulations and standards will
be imposed and maintained on the project so that adverse effects are
minimized or eliminated.
11
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
ate 30 ~]Hne 1990 For CITY~OF TEMC~ULA
××
BLANKIES/FORMS
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. z~ TO
PERMIT OPERATION OF A 92~. SQUARE FOOT SELF-SERVE
GASOLINE STATION AND MINI-MARKET WITH THE CONCURRENT
SALE OF BEER AND WINE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
BEDFORD COURT AND SR79.
WHEREAS, Tomond Properties filed CUP No. Ll in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which
the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said CUP on October 1, 1990,
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or
opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said CUP;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated
city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following
incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject
to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of
state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are mat:
( 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation
of the general plan.
~2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking
other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of
the following:
~a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be studied within
a reasonable time.
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to
or interference with the future adopted general plan if the
FORMS\RES-CUP 1
proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(c) The proposed use or action complied with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest
Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the
incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of
Riverside County, includin9 the area now within the boundaries of the City.
At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its Genera) Plan guidelines while
the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed CUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
( 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of
the general plan.
(2) The P)annin9 Commission finds, in approvin9 projects and
takin9 other actions, including the issuance of building permits,
pursuant to this title, each of the following:
{a)
There is reasonable probability that CUP No. 4 proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to
or interference with the future adopted general plan if the
proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no CUP may be approved unless the
applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health
safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any CUP approved
shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the
health, safety and general welfare of the community.
E. As conditloned pursuant to SECTION 3, the CUP proposed is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project
will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Ne,j,~ive Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
FORMS\RES-CUP 2
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves CUP No. ~
for the operation and construction of a 924 square foot self-service gasoline station
and mini-market with the concurrent sale of beer and wine at the southeast corner
of Bedford Court and SR79 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 1990.
DENNISCHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on
the 1st day of October, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FORMS\RES-CUP 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein
above in this Resolution of approval for CUP No. 4.
DATED: By
Name
Title
FORMS\RES-CUP ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No, 4
Formerly Plot Plan No. 11884
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this Conditional Use Permit is for a 92u, square
foot self service gasoline station with a mini-market and beer and wine sales.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents dficers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City or its agents, dficers, or employees to attack,
set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory
agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Conditional Use
Permit No. u,. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee d any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City d Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the ddense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully
in the defense, the permlttee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within one ( 1 ) year of approval dste; otherwise,
it shall become null and void and d no effect whatsoever. By use is meant
the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval
within the one (1) year period which is thereefter diligently pursued to
completion, or the beginning d substantial utilizstion contemplsted by this
approval.
The development d the premises shall conform substantially with thst as
shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one
{ 1 ) year or more, this approval may become null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-d-way. All outdoor lighting
standards shall not exceed 7 feet in height adjacent to the residential
properties to the south and east.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Conditions d the City Division of Transportation Engineering
contained herein.
STAFFRPT\CUP~ 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval of the City
Engineering Department contained herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with
the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
transmittal dated August 10, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District~s transmittal dated May 2, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
Fire protection sha)) be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden~s transmlttal dated August
10, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Riverside County Geologist's transmittal dated May 29, 1990, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Transportation transmittais dated April 3, 1990, April 6,
1990, and August 20, 1990, copies of which are attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the San
Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated March 28, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
University of California, Riverside Archaeological Research Unit transmittat
dated March 28, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved
landscape, irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped
areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten
~10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher
than thirty (30) inches.
The 10 foot setback adjacent to the residential units shall be landscaped with
dense vegetation, opaque to a minimum height of 6 feet at maturity.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, four (~,) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus,
species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all
requirements of Ordinance No. 3u,8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied
by a filing fee as set forth in Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by a
filing fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 3~,8.
STAFFRPT\CUP4 2
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
A minimum of nine (9) parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with
Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Nine 19) parking
spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking
area shall be surfaced with ( aspbaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of
3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. ) [decomposed granite compacted to a
minimum thickness of three (3) inches treated with not less than 1/2 gallon
per square yard of penetration coat oil, followed within six months by an
application of 1/4 gallon per square yard of seal coat oil. )
A minimum of one ( 1 ) handicapped parking space shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed raflectorized sign constructed of
porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol
of Accessibility, The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area
and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished
grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, 9round, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not
less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the
following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephoning
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place
shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility
in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits. the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
City Engineering
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of complianca shall be presented to the Land Use Division
of the Department of Building and Safaty.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional and/or
revised plans shall be submitted for Planning Departm~,t approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans
Parking and Circulation Plans
Building elevations shall be in substantial corrformance with that shown on
Exhibit B.
STAFFRPT\CUP~ 3
2~.
25.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit C (Color Board).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from 9round view. Screenin9
material shall be subject to Plannin9 Department approval,
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Buildin9 and Safety
Department, a 6 foot high decorative wall, measured from the ground level
of the residential property to the south and east, shall be constructed along
the entire easterly property line adjacent to the residential units, The block
wall along State Highway 79 shall remain as it exists. The required wall shall
be subject to the approval of the Director af the Department of Building and
Safety and the Planning Director.
The trash enclosures which are adequate to enclose a total of one ~1 ) bin
shall be centrally located within the project, and shall be constructed prior
to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in
height and shall be screened from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
This project may be located within a subsidence or liquafaction zone prior to
issuance of any building permit by the City of Temecula, a California
licensed Soils Engineer or Geologlet shall submit a report to the Building and
Safety Department identifying the potential for subsidence or liquefaction.
Where hazard of subsidences or liquafaction is determined to exist,
appropriate mitigstion measures must be demonstreted.
Signs shall require separste permits from the Planin9 Department (approval
of a plot plan application ) and the Building and Safety Department (issuance
of a building permit).
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning Director demonstrating compliance
with those conditions of approval and mitigetion m~ures of this permit and
its Initial Study which must be sstiafied prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning Director of the City of Temecula
demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation
measures of this permit and its Initial Study which must be satisfied prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
STAFFRPT\CUP4 ~
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning Director of the City of Temecula
demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures of the permit and its Initial Study.
One (1) Class Ill bicycle rack shall be provided in convenient locations to
facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to
the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigetlon system shall be properly
constructed and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines feted 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
Engine repair, maintenance, or body work services shall be prohibited.
The hours of operetion for the service station and mini-market shall be
restricted to between 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM. All fuel and goods deliveries
shall occur during these business hours.
The customer service area (air and weter pumps) shall be relocated to
minimize the impact on residential units.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
~,3. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
STAFFRPT\CUP4 5
q.q..
q-5.
q-6.
q.7.
q.8.
50.
51.
52.
53.
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Department;
Plannir~g Department;
Engineerin9 Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
CalTrans
Dedication shall be made or shown to exist on State Highway Route 79 to
provide for a 71 foot half-width right-d-way ( 1~12 foot right-of-way).
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
The developer shall provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay
all fees prior to the approval of plans.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk
drains shall be installed to City Standards.
A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following
right-of-way.
State Hiqhway 79
The developer shall submit four {u,) copies of a soils report to the
Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and
geological conditions of the site.
The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~"x36" mylar by a
Reglstered Civil Engineer.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the
prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new
development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to
issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge
has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior
to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-
d-way.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being
substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the
City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\CUPu, 6
PRIOR
55.
56.
PRIOR
57.
58.
59.
60.
62.
63.
Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and the City Attorney, cjuaranteeing completion of the public
and]or private street improvements.
TO BUILDING PERMIT
All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment
permit.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
TO iSSUANCE OF CERTIFiCATiON OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct or bond for half street improvements on State Highway 79,
including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk,
drive approaches, parkway trees, and street lights, as determined by
CalTrans and the City Engineer.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public
facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for trd[[)c and
public facility mitigation as required under the E)RJNegative Declaration for
the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an
interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated lassuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to
protest such increase.
In the event that State Highway Route 79 is not constructed by Assessment
District No. 159 prior to building permit, the developer shall construct or
bond for the improvements to provide for all half street improvements to
CalTrans standards.
Pavement striping, marking, treffic and streat name signing shall be
installed per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer and CalTrans.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be
coordinated with Assessment District No. 159.
STAFFRPT\CUP4 7
City of Temecula
Steve Padovan
Planning Department
43180 Business Park
Temecula CA 92390
Drive
Chrls L. Willjams
44689 La Paz RoaO
Temecula, CA
92390-2504
RE:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Conditional Use Permit #4
Tombrid Properties
Southeast corner of SR79 and Bedford Court
For the construction of a 924 sq.ft. gasoline service
station and mini-market with beer and wine sales.
September 10, 1990
Dear Mr. Steve Padovan,
I'm very pleasured you to return my called just before the Planning
Commission hearing last night for which is myself and the member of Rancho
Meadows Homeowners Association biggest concerning. As you are now aware
that we did artended the Planning Commission hearing with Riverside County
just last year and its was disapproval the simulator above project and
another business approval projects promised us to Keep the area clean and
they will put the traffic signal on SR79 and La Paz intersection in the
near future. I'm aware as you known the differ between the City and County
on Planning Commission, but we are the same Homeowners opposition the gas
service or any other business that open 24 hours next to our community area
, no alley or parking lots and complies with AIR, NOISE, SOIL environmental
and SOLAR right laws.
Our State had study environmental problems for past 25 years and most of
their staffs became unaware of another problems that they simple don't
living in the area and in long term study (24 HRS. and 365 days), so they
taken the survey from people who living near the freeway, airport, harbor,
business and etc. Also my experimented living in many cities of Los Angeles
County for past 55 years. Survey on residence near freeway came to their
surprise on priority noise problems for those who living between 2 and 10
doors from freeway was the following in sequence:
Vehicle's doors closing sound
Dogs barking or yelps sound
State of art stereo sound from next door(s)
Vehicle~s state of art stored speakers
People yelling each other from next door
Vehicle's horn sound from street only
Vehicle's starter sound for long period of
Vehicle's engine and/or buffer modifies
(38% from both sides)
time (trying to get it run)
(hot rod sound type)
Living between 1 and 2 doors from freeway (average 40 ft.) was a major
problem, but the first house were like a shield (sound proof) for 2nd house
and on. Property value were poor than the house to next block.
Survey on residence living near the gas station service is simulative to
freeway~s listed noise problems plus a air pumping and truck-tanker came
almost every night at late, those who living between i and 7 doors from
service was the following in sequence:
AIR problems:
Smog
Oil burning (not same
Odor from Oil (unburn)
Odor from Urine
as smog)
SOIL problems:
Urine (Most gas station have no
Beer and Wine bottles, cans, oil
litter on streets and over their
Dumped oil everywhere
lavatory)
cans and paper
yards.
The residence would like the following: (from the survey's report)
A law on lavatory for every service (passed last year only on new building)
A law to ban market sales for gas station failed to comply the litter
problems, include the can of oil if sell by self service.
Wanting the tanker to refilling the service's tanks during the day time and
to closing the service from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M., the residence with children
wanting from 8 P.M., because their children having difficult to sleep for
next two hours from fume and noising. Many complaining about their high
bills for electricity and nature gas with unfair baseline, because they
keep their windows and doors closing from all of above problems. The
property valve was the worst on first four (two on each side of street)
houses from service station than those houses near the freeway. The
property tax with roll-over was complete unfair to new owner that wasn't
real is'nt face the true value.
Mr Paddyart, Our best interest is to have all business section on the other
(west) side of 1-15 freeway and if you can find someone in your city's
Dept. for traffic speed (55 MPH) problem on SR79 between 1-15 and Jededah
Smith Road need the speed reducing (about 55 MPH?), because of danger
incoming speeding vehicle from below east to west hill will giving us a
hiding view before start to turning or crossing from both North and South
La Paz Road and its may not stopping in time to brake.
I wanting to thank you again to taken your little time over the phone.
Sincerely,
Steve Padovan
City of Temecula
J.B.HAVERLY
44517 La Paz Road
Temecula CA 92390
676-4760
RECE VE AUC ?
8/18/90
Planning Dep't.
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 4
PROPOSAL: For construction of gasoline
service station and mini-market
with beer and wine sales.
At the public hearing September 10th I would appreciate
this thought being presented to the Planning Dep't. for their
consideration.
I am a property owner and resident of a condominium in
Rancho Meadows. My unit is on the other side of the wall from
the proposed construction site.
1. I have no objection to a gasoline station considering
the convenience it will afford to the numerous homes being
built out HY 79 south. Most other gas stations are between
Rancho California Rd. and Winchester Rd. 1 to 2 miles away.
2. I vigorously object to the sale of wine and beer at
this location. Considering the appalling statistics of
deaths resulting from DUA (driving under the influence)
it doesn't make sense to make alcholic beverages available
to drivers who may consume the alchohol while driving.
3. The City council would do well to consider an ordinance
prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages at ANY location
within the city where gasoline is sold. We have a war on
drugs ..... why not a war on drunk driving?
Res~e~ctful ly,
(
RiVERSiDE COUrt;,u
PL,Annin( DEP,, R mEn
May 29, 1987
Compaction Labs, Inc.
P. O. Box 271338
Escondido, CA 92017
Attention: Mr. Alan Sargent
Subject:
Liquefaction Hazard
Project No. CL-1468
Parcel Map 21592
County Geologic Report No. 378
Rancho California Area
Dear Mr. Sargent:
We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of the following reports:
1. Preliminar~ Soils Investigation for 5 Acre Commercial Site, Southeast
Corner of Highway 79 and 1-15, Rancho California, by Compaction Labs,
dated February 12, 1986.
Inc.,
Limited Soils Investigation, Liquefaction Potential, Intersection Highway 79
and 1-15, by Construction Engineering, dated August 21, 1986; revision
dated April 30, 1987.
Seismic Information, Wildomar Faul t, Temecula, CA, by Dennis Middleton,
dated August 18, 1986; and revised Seismic Investigation, dated April 16,
1987.
These reports determined that liquefaction is not likely to occur at this
site. It was concluded that the proposed development is feasible and that
no extraordinary mitigation measures be undertaken with respect to liquefaction.
It is our opinion that the report was performed in a manner consistent with
the "state-of-the-art" and satisfies the additional information requested
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
Compaction Labs, Inc. - 2 - May 29, 1987
under the California Environmental Quality Act review and Seismic Safety
Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNT PLANNI G DEPARTMENT
Roge~S,S~ree er - P1 ning Director
Steven A.' n
SAK:rd
c.c. Terraton Corp.-Applicant
Larry Markham & Associates
Norm Lostbom-~ldg. & Safety (2)
Planning Team I
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CIHEF
August 10, 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 92~oI
(714) 275-4777
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: CUP ~4
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot
plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures
be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized
fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel
or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established
in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
The required fire flow shall be available from a super fire hydrant
(6"x4"x2½x2~), located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from
any portion of the building as measured along vehicular travelways.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification
from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and
that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2000 GPM fire flow
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. If a water
system currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible
to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made
to provide them.
5. Height of canopy must have a minimum 13'6" vertical clearance,
6. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
7. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
RE: CUP #4 Page 2
8. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground tank
permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall
be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00
to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
10.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit
with the Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling
the sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
11. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 23t
SAN B[RNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (714) 383-4609
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APR 10 1990
RIVERSIDE C.DUNI"~
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
Development Review
08-Riv-79-19.7±
Your Reference:
PP 11884
Planning Department
Attention Mr. John Ristow
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Mr. Ristow:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan
No. 11884 located at the southeast corner of Bedford Court and
State Route 79 in Rancho California.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have
been indicated by the items checked and/or used by those items
noted under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way,
the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional information is desired, please call our Development
Review Section at (714) 383-4384.
Very truly yours,
H. N. LEWANDOWSKI
District Permits Engineer
Att.
cc: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department
RNIA- ~I)51NE.S-% TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
!N'I _,.F TRANSPORTATION
8OX 231
APR 10 1990
RNERSID E COUNTY
~';'L,~.~ ~'~'-' r,~EPARTMENT
Development Review
08-Riv-79-19.7±
Your Reference:
PP 11884
.anning Department
:tention Mr. John Ristow
]unty of Riverside
D80 Lemon Street
iverside, CA 92501
ear Mr. Ristow:
'hank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan
Io. 11884 located at the southeast corner of Bedford Court and
~tate Route 79 in Rancho California.
Ple~_e refer to the attached material on which our comments have
Oeen indicated by the items checked and/or used by those items
noted under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way,
the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional information is desired, please call our Development
Review Section at (714) 383-4384.
Very truly yours,
H. N. LEWANDOWSKI
District Permits Engineer
Att.
cc: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department
our
ght
not
~s.
:he
[er
Date: April 3~ 1990
Rmv-79-19.7 +
(Co-Rte-PM)
PP 11884
(Your Reference)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
State Route 79 shall be imprcved to its ultimate width for the
entire length of the property. If channe!ization is required from
three lanes to a lesser width, it shall be done with striping to
State standards.
The street improvements shall be dimensioned from the
"planned centerline", not the existing centerline as shown.
3. A landscaping plan must be submitted.
County Planning Department:
Our records indicate two potential Right-of-Way (R/W) half-widths
at this location. They are as follows:
a) Urban Arterial Highway (134 ft. R/W)
b) Ranpac's preliminary drawings for AD 159 (142 ft R/W)
Please provide this office wlth a set of the latest
drawings/information (including a Typical Section) regarding
matter in order that we might better coordinate our agencies'
efforts for proposals along the lower portion of Route 79.
this
The latest Ranpac drawings in our records show a typical cross-
section for Route 79 which calls for a street improvement half-
width of 48 ft. and does not include curb and gutter.
The lack of curb and gutter is unacceptable on an Urban Arterial.
It has been our understanding for some time that the State
highway was to have a half-width of 55 ft. with A2-8 curb and
gutter along all portions of lower Route 79 from east of
Butterfield Stage Road to its intersection with Route 1-15.
Please include your latest information on this matter with your
transmittal of the drawings requested above.
( Your Reference )
Plan checker
CAL7RAN5 DEVELOPMEN7 REVIEW FORM
(Co Rte PM)
~;E ~;OULD LIKE TO NOTE:
¢/C~r, ix~/I]~litiGn wit_bin present or pro~ S~te n~t of ~y ~d ~ mv~tl~t~ for
~t~t~ ~r~ ~ce (~t~, ~ca]~, etc,) ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ of
r~to~ ~i~.
When plans are sutmitted, please conform to the requirerents of the attached '~kndout". This
expedite the review prccess and t~re required for Plan Check.
AltJ~ough the traffic and draJJage generated by this proposal do not appesr to have a significant effect
on the state highway system, consideration must be g~van to the ctrulative effect of continued devetcrent
in this ares. Any ~easures recessmy to mitigate the cum,]~tive un~ct of traffic and drainage shall be
provided prior to or wi~h development of r~e aree chat r~c~.~itates them.
It appears that r2~ traffic and drainage generated by this proposal could have a sign=ficant effect on
the state high~ey system of the arm. Any measures mec_~.~y to mitigate the traffic and dra:mage
unpects shell be included with t/~ develo~rent.
Ibis portion of state highway is included in r~e Ca] ~ forrua Ysster Flat of State Highways Eligible
for Official Scenic Hign~ey Designat_ion, and in the futtTe your agency my wish to tmve tJ~s route
offjria]]y designated as a state ecenlc hi~j~ey.
Ibis portion of state highway has been office=]IF designated as a state static highway, and deveto~,t
in this corridor should be compatible with rb~ scemzc highway concept.
It is recogmzad rJmt there is considerable public concern a~iut noise levels adjacent to hesvily
traveled highways. Land develoWent, in order to be ccgetibie with this cotira'n, my require sp.'ia]
no~se atranuation measures. Develo~:~c of property should include any nec~ry noise atraluatiun.
WE REQUEST THAT THE ITDiS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN tHE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
THIS PROJECT:
· aJa( tfo.a C rnrrt t- .t
t,,/ Normal right of ~ay dedication to provide .,~half-width on the state highway.
t/" Normal street improvements to provide ~t half-width on the state highway.
V'/Curb and gutter, State StandardAZ°~along che state highway.
V'/Parking shall be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red
and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs.
L/~6% radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway,
A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns.
A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage shall be provided to
limit physical access to the state highway.
Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway.
Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by existing public road
connections.
Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by standard
driveways.
Vehic,,l~r a,'r~-~ ~ not be provided wirJDj. n of ~he ~n~ersec[ion a~
Veh]~-uja~ ~ ~ rj-s state hi-~hway ~mll be provided by a rcod-t~qDe confection.
veio,m~- ~x~mm c~ectio~s shall ~ Mv~ at
for ~ ~ong t~ s~te ~y.
A' left-t~ ~, ~clEs ~y ~u~ ~d~, ~]] ~ ~ ~ ~ s~te ~y
at
/~i~ ~ ~ ~vm ~o U~ pro~, or furze proem, of
/P!s~se refer to azLac, leo adol~ional ccc~'ants.
REQUEST:
/ A copy of any omd.iciorm of approval or revised approval
copy of my documents pro~dinG additional state hi,~j~ay ri~nc of ~ey up~ recorda~ion of the rap.
WE REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS:
,Any propo~al~ to further d~velop ~ proxy-
copy of ~ tr~f~c or ~o~
~ p~ of ~ P~c~ or T~ ,,~p.
~ p~t of ~ P~ for ~y L~rove~ ~n ~ s~e ~y ~ Of ~y.
d~ p~t of ~ Gra~ ~ ~ge P~ for ~ pretty ~ a~d~Dle.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (714) 383-4609
August 20, 1990
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
Development Review
08-Riv-79-19.7
Your Reference:
CUP 4
City of Temecula
Attention Steve Padovan
Development Review Committee
43180 Business Park Drive,
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Padovan:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed gasoline
service station located at the southeast corner of Bedford Court
and State Route 79 in the City of Temecula.
This proposal was reviewed earlier by this office in April, 1990
for the County of Riverside. All comments made in our letter
dated April 3, 1990 are still valid.
Please find enclosed a copy of this letter.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Mike Sim
of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384.
Very truly yours,
District Development
Review Engineer
Att .
~EpARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
April 3, 1990
GEORGE DEUKMEjIAN, Governor
Development Review
08-Riv-79-19.7±
Your Reference:
PP 11884
Planning Department
Attention Mr. John Ristow
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Mr. Ristow:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan
No. 11884 located at the southeast corner of Bedford Court and
State Route 79 in Rancho California.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have
been indicated by the items checked and/or used by those items
noted under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way,
the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional information is desired, please call our Development
Review Section at (714) 383-4384.
Very truly yours,
H. N. LEWANDOWSKI
District Permits Engineer
Att.
cc: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department
(your Reference)
Flat checker
WOULD LIKE TO NOTE:
C.ALTRANS DELELOPMENT REVIEW
/ Date
Co Rte
G:mctruzr_ic~tD~olitic~. ~iS-Ln present or propos~ State .-ighE of ~:,' rozid ~e mvesti_~ted for
[~Dte~rj~ b~rd~ '.este ka~tc~, [~/Cc'~q~c~l~, etc.) ~d ~z ~ ~ r~ of
r~to~ ~i~.
~" When plzns are subnitz_~d. pie conform to ~ requirements of the attaC-ed 'Yahdour". 17Pa.s wELl
' ' expedite the re~iew pr~f=~ ~ t~Fe reqtLtred for Plan
Although the traffic _=rid dz==u~age generated by tn/s proposal do not appear to have a significant effect
on the s~ate hi~y ~;s~. consideration must he ~ven to the cmt~ar/ve effect of ccntimL~ develcm~nt
in this are. Any ~__s_-es necessary to mztig~te the ctr~lative unpezt of traffic and dreinage shall he
provid~ prior to or ~z~. development of dne are that ne~itatas them.
It appears that ~ :r=_ff:c and draazmge ge~_rated by this proposal could have a significant effect on
the sna~e high~ey .~a,n of d-e area. Any ,,-eesures recessely to minig~r~ the traffic and draLnage
~mpecns shall he included ~dn the developrent.
Ibis portion of state mi_~y is ixr_lud~d in t~ CAliForma Msster Plan of State [iigi~ys mi~hl~
for ~fi~ ~c F~y ~, ~ m ~ f~e ~ ~y my ~ to 1~ ~ ~
offidaq]y ~t~ ~ a ~ate ~c ~y.
__ Ibis portion of state kk~'-ney has been officially designated as a stat~ somic highway, and
in this corridor should ~e com~tible with the acan~c high~ey concept.
It is recs'~ ~d that C~ere is considerable public concern aL~zu~ noise levels adjacent to heavily
traveled hi~ys. I,~ da~!opment, in order to he colpetibie with rjtis co~r. arn, my reqtn_re
noise attanuatica .~mes. Eevelo~,~lt of property should include any na-~;~ry noise attanueri~.
WE REQUEST THAT THE liDiS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED tN/HE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
THIS PROJECT: 9ee .- titio.m Comme f .I
/ Normal right of way dedication to provide f_half-width on the state highway.
b,x Normal street improvements to provide ~) ha!f-width on the state highway.
~/Parking shall,be prohibized along :he s~ate highway by palntfn8 the curb red
and/or by the proper pl8cemen~ of "no parking" signs,
~ ~1 r~dius curb re:urns be provided at intersecnons ~i:h :he s:ate highway,
A s~andard wheelchsir ramp must be provided in the re:urns,
A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage shall be provided to
limit physical access to the state highway.
Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway.
Vehicular access =o the state highway shall be provided by existing public road
connections.
Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by __ standard __
driveways.
Vei~i~ca!ar ~ ~2ii :~x ~e pro~c~l w~r_hj_n __ of nhe intersection ae
Ve~tLcala~ ~ r~ '_-~ ~%a-_a h~g~r-ay sl'a12 ~e providai by a r~ma-tl,~e accretion.
Ac;~*~s points :: z2'~ state }_, gi~-ay ~,a!l ~ ~v~o~ ~ a ~ c-at '.,~ pron~ ~:it: .~
for __ ~, Lr4 re s~:e ~y.
A left-turn Lz.~. i~c!uiLng any r~c~ry widerung, s~all be pro~-idad on C-e state
Of the intersecnzf, of ~' j °' ' ' f' ' ' ' '
A traffic s[~y u-~iicazLng ~ af~ off-~ite flc~ ~ezr, erns a~d volur~s, probable ~unV~-~,s, and proposed
Adequate off-~_~-:-et .tarkipS, w~ich aces not reqLm_re ;~rking onto the st~te highly, s~a~ be provided.
Psrk~ lo~ s~ali De developed Ln a :enner chat will not cause any vehicular Imvere~
irf_lud~ng pamC_~ stall enn--~r_a and exit, wirJ~n of rJ~e e~u~za fr~n the s-~ar~ hiahmy.
Handicap p~F~_~n,_' ~'~1i noc be developed in the busy driveway encrancs
/Care s~l] be zi<~ ~iEn developing ~is proper~y to preserve =_~d ~erpetLmt~ rj~ e. x3~cin% draifege
~lBtter~ Of t~e --'~e ~l~y. P~-ticnl~r consideration ~'~Duld ~e give~ ~o c,,nd~r. ive LnC.-~ storm
runoff CO ~sure ~-ac a ~i~-~,.ay draj_~age problem is not cre~ted.
/
V/ Any n~ry ncL_~ atte~uatic~ ~ball be providad as pert of ='~ devalo~:~t of this propm-ty.
refer ::
i-E REQUEST:
b/'' A cop)' of any ca~itiors of approval or revised approval.
/A copy of any dcc3~nts prc~icLtng aa~ ~ic~al state ,high~ey right of ~ey upzn recordanion of the
REQUEST Till 3PPijiTUNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS:
~/Any pro[~,~d_s :c fzL^er develop ~ proxy.
~ p~t of i-~ P~ for ~y L~rove~ widen ~ ~ ~y ~t of ,~y.
d~ p~t cf =~ Gr~ ~d ~ge P~ for ~ pm~y ~ a~fiable.
Date: April
3, 1990
Riv-79-19.7 +
(Co-Rte-PM)
PP 11884
(Your Reference)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
State Rcute 79 shall be improved to its ultimate width for the
entire length of the property. If channelization is required from
three lanes to a lesser width, it shall be done with striping to
State standards.
The street improvements shall be dimensioned from the
"planned centerline", not the existing centerline as shown.
A landscaping plan must be submltted.
County Planning Department:
4. Our records indicate two potential Right-of-Way
at this location. They are as follows:
(R/w)
half-widths
a)
b)
Urban Arterial Highway (134 ft. R/W)
Ranpac's preliminary drawings for AD 159 (142 ft R/W)
Please provide this office with a set of the latest
drawings/information (~nc!uding a Typical Section) regarding this
matter ~n order that we might better coordinate our agencies'
efforts for proposals along the lower portion of Route 79.
The latest Ranpac drawings in our records show a typical cross-
section for Route 79 which calls for a street improvement half-
width of 48 ft. and does not include curb and gutter.
The lack of curb and gutter is unacceptable on an Urban Arterlai.
It has been our undersEanding for some time that the State
highway was to have a half-width of 55 ft. with A2-8 curb and
gutter along all porticns of lower Route 79 from east of
Butterfield Stage Road to its intersection with Route 1-15.
Please include your latesE Information on this matter with your
transml~tal of the drawings requested above.
ATE:
TO:
March 28, 1990
Assessor
Building and Safety - Land Use
Building and Safety - Grading
Surveyor - Ken Teich
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
County Superintendent of Schools
Eastern Municipal Water District
Rancho California Water District
California Edissm
Southern California Gas
General Telephone
Caltrans #8
Temecula Unified School District
:tiVE:INDE coun;v
PLAnninG DEP :I;ITIEn;
Commissioner Turner .
San Bernardino County Museum/
UCR - ARu
Community Plans
APR 19 1990
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLOT PLAN 11884 - (Tm 5} - E.A. 3494g -
Tomond Properties - Markham & Associates
Temecula Area - First Supervisorial
District - Corner of SH 79 and Bedford
Ct. - C-P-S Zone - .94 Acre - REQUEST:
Gas station and Mini Mart Mod 11g
A.P. 922-210-041
Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for April 30, lggO. If it
clears, it will then go to public hearing.
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to April 30, 1990, in order that we
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
John Ristow at 275-3298.
Planner
COMMENTS:
The parcel is located on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Construction excavation
will impact nonrenewable paleontologic resources.
The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific
program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. This program should include:
(1) monitoring of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of
recovered specimens, including sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; (3)
curation of specimens into an established repository; and (4) a report of findings with
complete specimen inv nt ry.
DATE: SIGNA~U~
4/lb/gu
PLEASE print name and title
PHONE: 798-8570
tm
Dr. ALlan L). Grlesemer~ Museums Director
4CSL, LE, MO!~ STREET, 9TM FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET. RC'C,M 304
Riv',;,F~cZ'.DE, CALIFORN A 92501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(714) 787-6181 (619) 342-8277
~T E:
TO:
March 28, 1990
Assessor
Building and Safety - Land Use
Building and Safety - Grading
Surveyor - Ken Teich
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
County Superintendent of Schools
Eastern Municipal Water District
Rancho California Water District
California Edisen
Southern California Gas
General Telephone
Caltrans #8
Temecula Unified School District
RiVERNDE councv
PLAnnln DEPARtmEnt
Commissioner Turner
Sen Bernardino County Museum
UCR - ARu W/
Community Plans
RECEIVED
ARU
APR 02 1990
PLOT PLAN 11884 - (Tm 5) - E.A. 34949 -
Tomond Properties - Markham & Associates
Temecula Area - First Supervisorial
District - Corner of SH 79 and Bedford
Ct. - C-P-S Zone - .94 Acre - REQUEST:
Gas station and Mini Mart Mod 119
A.P. 922-210-041
Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for A~ril 30, 1990. If it
clears, it will then go to public hearing.
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to April 30, 1990, in order that we
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
John Ristow at 275-3298.
Planner
COMMENTS:
DATE: 4/23/90 SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title
PHONE: 787-3885
)m
FAqTERN INFORMATION UI:NFER
ArchaeOlogical Research Unit
Universiity of C,~llfOrnia
RIverside CA 92521
4C,~ :~ LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
Fr, ERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS: STREET, RO< !,! 304
INDtO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
KENNETH L EDWARDS
1995 MARKET STREET
P O BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015
FAX NO. (714) 788-9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502
Riverside County
P1 ann i ng Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. ~__
P1 a.nerJo/,
Area:
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid
regulations.
Area
in accordance with the applicable rules and
The proposed zoning is consistent with
control facilities or floodproofing may
implied density.
existing flood hazards. Some flood
be required to fully develop to the
The District's report dated
is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of F>~ l (j 5~7--- The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~ave been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
HN H. ~ASHUBA
enior Civil Engineer
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: Steve Padovan
DATE:
HEALTH SPECIALIST iV
08-10-90
RE:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Condltxonal
Use Permit 4. and has no ob.nections. Sanitary sewer and
water services are available in thxs area. Prior to
bulldlnc Dlan submittal. the followinQ Items wxll be
requested:
"Will-serve" letters from the water and sewerinQ
Three comDlete sets of mlans for each food
establishment wlll be submitted. lncludlnQ a
fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a
plumb~nQ schedule ~n order to ensure comDlzance
with the California Unzform Retail Food Facilities
Law.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a
c!~.~[~c~e._...i~.~!.~C from the Environmental Health
Services Hazardous Materials Manauement Branch
(Jon Mohoroskl, 358-5055), w~ll be required
lndlcatinu that the pro.iect has been cleared for:
a. Underqround storaCe tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in
accordance w~th AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction management
SM:dr
cc: Jon Mohorosk1, Hazardous Materials Branch
ITEM ~,
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1,1990
Case No.: Variance No. 2
Prepared By: Scott Wright
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE;
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Bedford Properties
Bedford Properties
The applicant requests a variance from the
requirements of Ordinance 348 Section 19.4 l a.4) in
order to allow five free-standing signs at a Lu~ acre
shopping center.
The southwesterly corner of Winchester Road and
Ynez Road adjacent to 1-15.
C-P-S, Scenic Highway Commercial
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S - Scenic Highway Commercial
M-M - Manufacturing Medium
A-2-20 - Heavy Agriculture
1-15
Not requested.
Vacant, shopping center under construction.
North: Commercial
South: Manufacturing
East: Vacant
West: 1-15
Number of Acres:
Number of Businesses:
Number of Proposed
Free-standing Signs:
~4
27
5
STAFFRPT\VAR2 1
BACKGROUND:
Plot Plan No. 38, the proposed sign program for the
Palm Plaza shopping center at the southwesterly
corner of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, was
submitted on May 18, 1990. The Planning
Department notified the applicant in a letter dated
May 31, 1990 that the proposed sign program did not
compIy with the provisions of Ordinance 348
regarding the permitted number of free-standing
signs and the permitted face area of wall signs.
The applicant responded on June 8, 1990, that due
to the size of the site, Palm Plaza should be
considered as multiple shopping centers on eight
parcels. At this time the applicant deleted one of
the two freeway signs and two tenant pylon signs
which had been included in the original proposal.
The Planning Department did not concur with the
appllcant's interpretation regarding the number of
"shopping centers" in Palm Plaza, and Plot Plan No.
38 was denied on June 19, 1990.
The applicant filed an appeal to the Planning
Commission on June 29, 1990 within the 10 day
appeal period. The appeal included a revised sign
program which corrected the portion of the wall sign
criteria which did not comply with Ordinance No.
348. Appeal No. 6 was scheduled for the Planning
Commission meeting of August 6, 1990. Staff
recommended denial based on the number of free-
standing signs.
The applicant requested a continuance to August
20, 1990. On August 10, 1990 the applicant met
with the Director of Planning and the case planner.
At that meeting staff determined that a variance
would be the most appropriate vehicle for the
applicant to use in pursuit of the proposed sign
program. Variance No. 2 was submitted on August
15, 1990.
At the Planning Commission meeting of August 20,
1990, the City Attorney expressed concerns that
the required findings for a variance could not be
made. The applicant requested a continuance tothe
P I a n n i ng Commi ssio n meeting of September 10, 1990.
Subsequently the City Attorney determined that the
required variance findings may be made in this
case. A memo was distributed to the Planning
Commission stating that Variance No. 2 would be
scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of
October 1, 1990.
STAFFRPT\VAR2 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
The proposed sign program includes one free-
standing sign 36'7" in height adjacent to 1-15, one
Free-standing sign 12' in height adjacent to
Winchester Road. one free-standing sign 16'8" in
height at the main site entrance on Ynez Road, and
two free standing signs 12' in height at the other
two driveways on Ynez Road. {See Exhibit B,
proposed sign locations). The sign program also
contains criteria for wall mounted signs which
comply with the standards of Ordinance 348 and are
not at issue in this variance.
Maximum Number of Free-Standinq Siqns Allowed
Section 19.4 la.4) permits a shopping center with
more than one street frontage to have two free-
standing signs provided that they are not located on
the same street, are at least 100 feet apart, and the
second sign does not exceed 100 square feet in
surface area and 20 feet in height. Section 19.2{m)
of Ordinance 3~,8 defines a shopping center as a
parcel of land not less than three acres in size on
which there are four or more separate businesses
that have mutual parking facilities. The definition
does not include a maximum area or number of
separate businesses. Therefore, if the ordinance is
interpreted strictly, the proposed sign program is
not in compliance with Section 19.41a.4) in that it
includes a total of five free-standing signs.
Heiqht of Free-Standinq Siqns
Section 19.4 la.l,2) of Ordinance 348 stipulates a
maximum height of L~5 feet for signs within 660 feet
of the freeway right of way and 20 feet for other
locations. The proposed sign program complies with
the height restrictions. All proposed free-standing
signs are less than the maximum allowed height.
Size and Location of Site
Palm Plaza encompasses 4~ acres and abuts a
freeway, 1-15, and a highway, Winchester Road
IState Route 79). The site has 1,300 feet of
frontage on Ynez Road. To provide adequate site
access and to facilitate internal traffic circulation on
the 44 acre site, there will be three driveways on
Ynez Road.
STAFFRPT\VAR2 3
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Number of Free-Standinq Siqns at other Shoppinq
Center
/~ survey of other shopping centers in the City
shows that there are nine free-standing signs at
Rancho California Town Center, four center signs
and several other free-standing tenant signs at
Tower Plaza, five free-standing signs at Old Adobe
Plaza, six at Winchester Square, and five at Rancho
Temecula Center.
Visual Impact of Proposed Siqns
All five proposed signs are monolith shaped
monument signs with the name and logo of the center
at the top and articulated sections which will contain
the names of no more than four anchor or major
tenants. All five signs are shorter than the
maximum allowed height. Each sign will feature
substantial landscape planting around the base to
enhance the overall appearance of the sign {See
Exhibit 3, Typical Sign Elevation, and Exhibit 4,
Typical Landscape Planting Treatment).
Face Area of Free-Standinq Siqns
The program complies with the maximum face areas
of 150 square feet for freeway signs and 50 square
feet for other free-standing signs per Section
19.4{a.1.2).
1-15 is an eligible State Scenic Highway. General
Land Use Policy 8if) in the Southwest Area
Community Plan states that the size, height, and
type of on-site outdoor advertising displays within
scenic corridors shall be the minimum necessary for
identification. The Planning Commission may wish
to consider more specific size and design guidelines
for scenic highway corridor signage.
Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California
Environmental Act, the proposed signs are
categorically exempt from the requirement for
environmental review.
STAFFRPT\VAR2 4
FINDINGS:
There are exceptional circumstances
applicable to the subject property in that the
site encompasses 44 acres, abuts a freeway
and a state highway, and takes access
through three driveways on an urban arterial
roadway. A strict application of the code
requirements would not even permit center
identification signs at each of the site
entrances which are located on a street
frontage 1,300 feet in length.
The variance is necessary for preservation of
the applicant's ability to adequately identify
the subject's 44 acre shopping center, a right
which other shopping centers in the City
enjoy as shown by si9na9e survey,
The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to pub|ic welfare or to adjacent
properties in that the signs will not obstruct
the llne of sight of motorists exitin9 the
driveway and will have an attractive
appearance enhanced by substantial
landscape planting treatment,
The granting of the variance will not be
contrary to the Southwest Area Plan Scenic
Highway Policy in that the freeway oriented
sign is substantially shorter than the
maximum hei9ht permitted by the ordinance,
STAFF RECOMMENDAT)ON: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 90-
No. 2; and
approvin9 Variance
APPROVE Variance No. 2 based on the
analysis and findings contained herein and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
SW:ks
Exhibits:
Attachments:
2.
3.
A.
B.
C.
Vicinity Map
Proposed Sign Locations
Typical Sign Elevation
Typical Landscape Planting Treatment
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Letter from Applicant
STAFFRPT\VAR2 5
EXHIBIT NO.
;1984
FOXGlovE CIR. 63
I~DAM CIR. 64 VI,~ MONIARO
65 VIA MONSARAIE
66 IlM ~18EE ~
~ROL~)OD CI
WIIISPI RING WIN{)
I~ ~D SI'IIINGS RD
13 (UN(~JN DR
15 NUI IIN{~Ifil t lID
16 BflA[~)(IO CI
~CAtiE [SPANA
80 BUFFY WY
81CORIE FLAMENCO
6~ AlliEflA LN
13 MIMO~ DR
'~'" 'DR
of ",
Commerce
CtR
Cc
Counl
Admh
SiTE
Ctr
Wilqch, uare
SOL
&V[N ClMA
AUTO
CEHTEF
VICINITY M tP
brary
Clr. ~
Ument
'Jr
0 Mt
~,,
'~tV4tVDEI I
on
EXHIBIT NO. 3.
/
/
i!
EXHIBIT NO. 3
MERVYN'S
EXHIBIT
THERE WILL BE (4) SIGNS OF THIS TYPE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON
THE APPROVED PLOT PLAN. EACH SIGN MONOLITH WILL
IDENTIFY A MAXIMUM OF (4) TENANTS.
EXHIBIT NO. 4
fMOENIX DACTYLWlrRA
~iATE PALM
CHAMEROPS HUMLI
MEDITERRANEAN FAN PALM
ANNUAL COLOR
| QAL.
AQAPANTHU$ AFRtCANUS
LILY-OF,TNE,NIL~
PROJECT MONUMENT 81GN
PYLON IIGN
i
I OAL.
15 ~AL.
11
AGAPANTHU$ AFRICANUS
LILY,OF,THE-NI~.Ir
C.N.A.M.E..R.O. P8 HUMILlS_
MEDITERRANEAN FAN PALM
RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'SPRINGTNE'
ND~A H,~WTHORN
..,,/~/.TOiPOIIUM TOBmA ~/AREGATA'
~ GAL.tOCKORANGE
I, AW~MARATNON I
XYLOIMA CONGESTUM'COMpACTA°
S iN,. 'NCN
IAZANIA RIGENS LEUCOLANA
FLATI 'WHITE TRAILING GAZANIA
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2 TO
PERMIT FIVE FREESTANDING SIGNS AT THE PALM
PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER.
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Variance No. 2 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Variance application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Variance on
October 1, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Variance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
|2) The planning agency finds. in approving projects and
taking other actions. including the issuance of building
permits. each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\VAR~2 1
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, Ihereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Variance is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions. including the 'issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Variance
No. 2 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. PursuanttoSection18.26(e), no Variance may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any Variance approved shall be subject to such conditions
as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare
of the community.
STAFFRPT\VAR#2 2
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Variance
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act,
on-site advertisln9 signs are categorically exempt from environmental review.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Variance No. 2 for five free-standing signs located at Palm Plaza subject to the
conditions:
Attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this first day of October, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoin9 Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the day of , 1990 by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\VAR#2 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, 'understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Variance No. 2.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\VAR2 4
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE NO. 2
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
1. The applicant shall submit a Plot Plan application for approval of the sign
program.
2. Individual signs shall require approval of a plot Plan application and issuance
of a building permit.
3. The appearance and location of the free-standing signs shall conform
substantially with that shown in Exhibits 2, 3 and
This approval shall be used within one year of the approval date; otherwise
it shall become null and void, and a new application will be required.
1
AugUst 13, 1990
BEDFORD PROPERTIES scavso a
Mr. Scott Wright
CITY OF TEMECULA
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
SUBJECT: PALM PLAZA SIGNAGE VARIANCE
Dear Scott:
Bedford Properties is requesting a variance to the signage
ordinance. As we discussed, the following is the proposal:
o All signs to be of same design, material and color
o One freeway sign
o One sign on Winchester Road (12' height)
o One sign at each of the entrances on Ynez. The center
entrance sign 16'7", the others at 12'.
o All sign areas and height within ordinance requirements.
o We will also provide a landscape detail for the base of the
sign that enhances the appearance.
Bedford Properties also surveyed some of the shopping centers in
Temecula. We found that the Rancho California Town Center has nine
tenant signs on Rancho California and Ynez Roads. The Tower Plaza
has four on Ynez and two freeway signs. Old Adobe Plaza has two
tenant signs; Winchester Square has six; and Rancho Temecula Center
has five.
We base the variance on equity, fairness and a reasonable
consideration to the ordinance since it does not allow for
differences in the size of a center or length of its frontage on
adjoining streets.
Palm Plaza ~enants should be able to enjoy good roadside signage
identity as would a small shopping center. It is not equitable
under the ordinance that a 10,000 or 20,000 sq. ft. center may be
allowed two signs while a 430,000 sq. ft. center still is only
allowed two signs.
The signs are located on the two highways and at the entrances for
easy shopper identification.
Mr. Scott Wright
CITY OF TEMECULA
August 13, 1990
Page 2
Bedford Properties is requesting staff to recommend for approval
a total of 5 freestanding signs for Palm Plaza.
Sincerely,
Area Manager
GAE/dh
Attachment
cc: Gary Thornhill
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Case No,: Plot Plan No. 11622
Prepared By: Deborah Parks
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Spectrum Contracting, Inc.
Spectrum Contracting, Inc.
Construction of five industrial buildings totaling
76,028 square feet on a 5.13 acre project site.
27800 Block of Diaz Road
M-SC I Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
North: M-SC {Manufacturing, Service
Commercial )
South: M-SC {Manufacturing, Service
Commercial )
East: R-R ~ Rural Residential )
West: M-SC {Manufacturing, Service
Commercial )
Vacant
North: Industrial Park {Dos Picos Business
Center)
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
BACKGROUND:
The application for Plot Plan No. 11622 was
originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on November 22, 1989. The
proposal was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee on two separate oc~,~ions:
December 21, 1989 and March 13, 1990. At the
March 13, 1990 Land Division Committee meeting,
STAFFRPT\PP11622 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
minor revisions to Hot Plan 11622 were requested.
On May 10, 1990 the file was transferred to the City
of Temecula. The request was reviewed by the
City's Development Review Committee on August 16,
1990.
The proposed project consists of five industrial
buildings, totaling 76,028 square feet. The
buildings are proposed to be used for single or
double tenants. The smallest tenant would occupy
approximately 7,000 square feet. At this time, it is
not certain what type of tenants will occupy the
buildings.
Circulation/Traffic
The City's Engineering Department reviewed the
Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project by the applicant's Traffic Engineer. The
City's Engineering Department determined that the
proposed development will not generate an excessive
number of trips for the designated land use for the
parcel. Since the City is currently collecting a fee
for the Temecula City-wide Road Benefit Fund,
additional mitigation will not be necessary.
Parkinq/Internal Circulation
The proposed project requires 152 parking spaces
for unidentified industrial uses. The plot plan
proposes 191 spaces. Buildings B-E will be served
by 11/2 loading spaces, where Building A will have
one loading space.
Access to the site will be provided by two driveways
on Diaz Road. The internal site circulation plan
provides adequate space to comfortably drive
through the project and park.
Architectural Compatibility
The proposed exterior elevations of all five
buildings are consistent in materials and style with
surrounding industrial developments. Building B-E
are identical with 15,992 square feat each. Building
A is smaller with 12,060 square feet and has a
different exterior. Building A has a more
interesting exterior fronting onto Diaz Road. The
materials used will include a combination of sand
blasted colored concr,te and glass.
STAFFRPT\PP11622 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The project site is designated LI IGeneral Light
Industrial) by the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP).
The proposed project is consistent with the general
policies of SWAP. It is anticipated that the project
as conditioned, will be consistent with the City's
forthcoming General Plan.
An Initial Study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is reco,,,,,,ended for the
proposal.
FINDINGS:
Site Approval
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. The use will not
generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic
or other disturbances.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access,
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems.
The project will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the General
Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in
the staff report.
There is a probability that the project will not
deter, or interfere with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the new General Plan.
These findings are supported by staff
analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and
environmental documents associated with this
application and herein incorporated by
reference,
The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare.
STAFFRPT\PP11622 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 11622, and APPROVE Plot Plan No.
11621, Request for Site Approval, based on
the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
DP:ks
Attachments:
1. Exhibits
2. Conditions Of Approval
3. Initial Study
STAFFRPT\PP11622
i
Ir~,l!l!:lllll:l~,l,"'l]l[[I
- f
Z
z
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No, 11622
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
This approval shall be used within two 12) years of the Planning Commission
approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no affect
whatsoever. By this approval within the two (2) year period which is
thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following agencies shall provide
verification to the Building and Safety Department that all pertinent
Conditions of Approval and applicable have been met:
A. Planning Department
B. Temecula Union School District
C. Fire District
D. Engineering Department
E. Rancho California Water District
F. Department of Building and Safety
C. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services ~ DEHS )
H. CATV Franchise.
Architectural elevations of all proposed structures shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building
permits. The elevations shall substantially conform to those approved by the
Planning Commission.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven (7) copies of perking, lands~-,ning, shading and irrigation plot
plan to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set
forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 3~8.
All site amenities, including landscaping and irrigation, as shown on plans
approved by the Planning Department, shall be installed prior to issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping shall utilize drought tolerant
STAFFRPT\PP11622
11.
12.
13.
lq-.
15.
16.
landscaping wherever feasible. An automatic sprinkler system shai) be
installed and a)l landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth
condition, planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not
be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the streets and within the parking areas.
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense, any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance
of such approval, or, in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The
applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees for any
Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents officers or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The
City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his
obligations under this condition.
Applicant shall submit the site plan as approved by the Planning Department
to the Department of Building and Sefaty concurrent with application for
building permits. The development of the premises shall conform substantially
with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 11622 or as amended by these conditions.
All parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with
double or hairpin lines on the surface of the facility.
Any lights used to illuminate the site shall be designed so as to reflect away
from adjoining properties and public thoroughfares. All street lights and
other outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655 and the Southwest Area Plan.
Signs shall be reviewed under separate appli~ion.
All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Riverside County Department
of Health Services prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
I n the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ( 1 )
year, this approval shall become null and void.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but r~her to the new
STAFFRPT\PP11622 2.
17.
18.
19.
20.
buiiding and parking structure.
Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installatln of planrings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the plantin9 for one year shall be filed with
the Director of Buildin9 and Safety,
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and
irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
A minimum of 191 parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three {3)
inches on four I~) inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for he handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or
equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not
be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior
end of the parking space at a minimum of height of 80 inches from the bottom
of the sign to the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign
shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not
less than one ( 1 ) inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the
following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at ownerrs
expense.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue
paint of at least three {3) square feet in size.
Enqineerlnq Department
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT:
21. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall provide clearance
from all applicable agencies and pay all fees prior to the approval of plans.
22. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains
shall be installed to City Standards.
STAFFR PT\PP 11622 3
23.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit four ~)
copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall
address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
24. The developer shall submit four (u,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
25. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
26. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d-
way.
27. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
28. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
29. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
30.
31.
32.
33.
The developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities and
by securing a drainage easement.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
if the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation char~j~ has already credited to
this property, no new charge need to be paid.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
35.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
A detailed drainage study will be required to be submitted to the City
Englneer for review and approval. This study shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer and shall include existing, interim, and proposed
conditions, including hydrology and hydraulic calculations.
STAFFRPT\PP11622 4
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
36.
Prior to occupancy, construct full half street improvements including but not
limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches,
parkway trees and street lights on Business Park Drive and on Rancho Way.
37.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
38. All driveways shall be constructed perpendicular i90 degrees) to street.
39.
Dedication shall be made or shown to exist to provide the following right-d-
way on the following streets:
Dedicate Diaz Road to 50 feet from street centerline.
40.
All existing and new utilities, adjacent to and on site, shall be placed
underground in accordance with City Standards, prior to occupancy.
41.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the Negative Declaration for the project,
in the amount in affect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the
date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any
phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of
Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer.
Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees
in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the project in the
amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such
increase.
Prior to occupancy, a signing and striping plan shall be designed by a
registered traffic engineer. and approved by the City Traff',c Engineer and
the City Engineer, for all streets 66/4~, or wider and shall be included in the
street improvement plans. All signing and striping shall be installed per the
City standards and the approved signing and striping plan.
Fire District
The above referenced project is protected by the Riverside County Fire
District. Prior to construction occurring on any parcel, the owner shall
contact the Fire Department for verification of current fire protection
development requirements.
A minimum fire flow for all commercial buildings using the procedure
established in Ordinance 546 shall apply.
Provide a water system ~,nable of delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration
at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
STAFFRPT~PP11622 5
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
15" x u,,, x 2 1/2 x 2 112), will be located not less that 25 feet or more than 165
feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types,
location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process
to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in
fire protection measures.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 fee of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feet from the buildingl s) . A statement that the buildingl s) will
be automatically fire sprlnklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
50.
Install a supervised water-flow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
51.
)n lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated into
square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section
505(e) of the Uniform Building Code.
52.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
53. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
55.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
56.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum
of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately fr,..,, the plan check review fee.
57.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safaty Office.
STAFFRPT\PP11622 6
58.
A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must
appear on the tltle page of the building plans.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
59.
A flood millgallon charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
new development in this case includes a total of 5.13 acres. At the current fee
rate of $1,970.00 per acre, the mitigation charge equals $10,106.00. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If Area Drainage Plan fees or mitigation charges have already been paid on
this property in conjunction with an earlier land division or land use case, the
developer should contact the District to ascertain what charges are actually
due.
60,
A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting
hydrolagic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for
review and approval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
61. All new buildings should be floodproofed to at least elevation 1015.u,.
62.
Two-thirds of the site shall be graded to drain to Diaz Road and the remainder
graded to drain to the channel to the southwest.
Buildinq and Safety
63.
Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant
shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and
Safety Department.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a
grading permit and approval to construct tom the Building and Safety
Department.
65.
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two 12)
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final
inspection.
Temecula Union School District
66. This project is subject to State law requirements for school impact mitigation.
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services
67.
Water purveyor shall be the Rancho California Water District. Submit
evidence of service availability to the City Department of Building and Safety
concurrent with application for building permits,
68.
Sewage disposal shall be by Eastern Municipal Water District. Submit evidence
of service to the City Department of Building end Safety concurrent with
application for building permits.
STAFFRPT\PP11622 7
69.
A clearance letter from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials
Management Branch {Jon Mohoroski {714) 358-5055), will be required
indicating that the project has been cleared for:
a, Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c, Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185)
d. Waste reduction management.
70.
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted,
including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in
order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities
Law.
Eastern Municipal Water District
71.
Any and all necessary regionally sized on-site and off-site gravity sewers and
appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers,
treatment, and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes accept-h~e to
EMWD regulations will be allowed.
Rancho California Water District
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of Rancho California
Water District. Water service will be available to the site upon completion of
financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water
availability will be contingent upon the property owner signing and Agency
Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
STAFFRPT\PP11622 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
4.
5.
6.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Spectrum Contractinq, Inc.
46750 Rainbow Canyon Road
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 694-0057
Auqust 8, 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
Plot Plan No. 11622
27800 Block of Diaz Road
II
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached
sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFR PT\PP 11622 1
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or reglonally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11622 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants l including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
{birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11622 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
resuit in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Yes Maybe N,_,9o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
STAFFRPT\PP11622 4
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11622 5
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard ( excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11622 6
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? ~A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? { A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11622 7
111 Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Water
3.a,d-e.
No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The
closest body of water to the site is Murrieta Creek which is
approximately one-half mile away.
3.b-c,g.
No. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of water absorption.
However, the introduction of irrigation to the site will be off-set the
water absorption rate. Drainage patterns will continue to flow to the
streets and channels.
3.f.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters.
3.h.
3.i.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply o
system.
Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrieta Creek/Temecula
Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area. To help mitigate the
project's impact, a flood mitigation charge shall be paid.
No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the plant
species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or endangered
species should be affected. New species of plants will be introduced to
the site as par of the landscape requirements for the project. The
addition of the new species is not considered a negative impact. It is
not clear by the plot plan if the existing Eucalyptus trees on the site
will remain. Due to their maturity, as many should be retained as
possible.
The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Animal Life
No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing
urbanization for a number of years. It is anticipated that the only
animal life on or in the vicinity of the site includes squirrels, rabbits,
lizards, and other animals common to the area. It is highly unlikely
that an endangered specie habitates the site.
Maybe. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo
Habitat area. To mitigate the loss of habitat to this endangered
species, the applicant shall be required to pay a fee according to
Ordinance No. 663.
Noise
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during
construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to increased
traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be significant since
the surrounding land uses are not noise sensitive.
STAFFRPT\PP11622 8
6.b,
No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project.
Liqht and Glare
No. The proposed project is located within the Mr. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of
low pressure sodium vapor I LPSV) lights to help avoid interference
with the Mr. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow". The use of LPSV
lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project.
Land Use
No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for General
Light Industrial. The surrounding land uses are also office and light
manufacturing.
Natural Resources
9.a~b.
No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of any
natural or non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Upset
lO.a.
Maybe. If the manufacturing tenant uses any hazardous materials in
their operation, a llst of hazardous substances and disposal plan shall
be submitted to the City.
10.b.
No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any
streets which would inteRere with emergency vehicles. If street or
land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City and
Police Department.
Population
11.
No. Theproposedoffice/industrialbuildingwillgeneratesomejobsbut
not a significant amount to alter the area's population.
Housing
12.
No. The proposed office/industrial building will not generate a
significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,c.
Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and
from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this increase will be
significant. The traffic that is generated by the project may add an
incremental impact to the Rancho California Road/1-15 and Winchester
Road/I-15 Interchanges which are currently operating at capacity
during peak hours. This potential impact may be mitigated by a
transportation improvement mitigation fee.
13.b.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the use.
Based on a 76,028 square foot building, the project will need 152
parking spaces. The proposed plah illustrates 191 spaces.
STAFFRPT\PP11622 9
13,d.
No. The proposed project will not alter the present patterns of
circulation movements.
13.e.
No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air traffic.
13.f.
Maybe. Any increase in traffic may increase the potential hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Public Services
l~.a,b,e.
Yes. The proposed industrial/office use will require public services in
the areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and public facilities.
This impact is not considered significant. The incremental impact
should be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes
should mitigate the impact and continuing need for services over the
long term.
14.c,d,f.
No. The pr~ect should not have a substantial effect on these public
services.
Ener,qy
15.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the exiting systems.
Human Health
17a-b.
Maybe. If hazardous substances are stored in the warehouse, then that
may create a potential health hazard. If hazardous materials will be
warehoused at the site, a plan for their use and disposal should be
submitted to the City.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the
public. The elevations of the proposed project are consistent in
architectural materials as the surrounding buildings.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d.
No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is unlikely
that the project will result in the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site. If a site is discovered, an archaeologist or
paleontologist should be called on site to supervise the digging and
determine if the site is significant. The proposed project will not
impact any building of historic significance, affect unique ethnic
STAFFR PT\PP11622 10
cultura~ values or restrict sacred uses.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a-c.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural
environment, have long term environmental impacts or have
considerable cumulative impacts.
21 .d.
Maybe. If the proposed use warehouses hazardous materials, the
project may cause a health hazard to human beings and wildllfe. If
hazardous materials are to be warehoused at the project, a plan for
their use and disposal should be developed and approved by the City.
The project may also have a substantial impact on the existing
transportation system. To mitigate the potential impact at the Rancho
California Road/I-15 Interchange, a traffic mitigation fee should be
paid.
STAFFRPT\PP11622 11
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared,
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTA~~ ~~.
required.
Dat2/~ r_,)/(:~(:::) - '
For CITY O~TEMECUZ
X
STAFFRPT\PP11622 12
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO.11622
TO CONSTRUCT FIVE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED
ON THE 27800 BLOCK OF DIAZ ROAD.
WHEREAS, Sepctrum Contracting, Inc. filed Plot Plan No. 11622 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan applications were processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plans on October 1, 1990, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plans;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1__=. Findin,qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
~a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
STAFFRPT\PP11622 1
The proposed use or action complied with aH
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (herelnafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plans are consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Governmerrt
Code, to wit:
{1 ) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 11622 proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
11 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law
and City ordinances.
12) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Pians
proposed conform to the logical development of its proposed site, and
STAFFRPT\PP11622 2
are compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project
and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3.~. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 11622 to construct five industrial buildings located on the 27800 block of
Diaz Road subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION ~,. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 1st day of October, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFF R PT\ PP 11622 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
) have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 11622.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP11622 4
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11609
Prepared By: Deborah Parks
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Jeff Hardy Architecture
Jeff Hardy Architecture
To construct a 18,L~53 square foot retai) and
furniture showroom commercial center.
North side of Winchester Road, 700 feet southwest
of the centerline of Jefferson Avenue.
M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial)
North: M-SC
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: M-SC
(Manufacturing
Commercial )
(Manufacturing
Commercial )
(Manufacturing
Commercial )
(Manufacturing
Commercial )
Service
Service
Service
Service
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Commercial
East: Vacant
West: Office
STAFFRPT\PP11609 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
The application for Rot Plan No. 11609 was
originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on November 20, 1989. The
proposal was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee on three occasions,
December 1L~, 1989, February 22, 1990, and ApriI
30, 1990. The case was scheduled to be heard at
the June 25, 1990 Riverside County Planning
Director's hearin9, however, the file was
transferred to the City for further processing. The
development request was then reviewed by the
City's Development Review Committee on August 30,
1990.
Circulation/Traffic
The City's Engineering Department reviewed the
Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project by the applicant's Traffic Engineer. The
City's Engineering Department determined that this
project will contribute a very small amount of traffic
to the existing area traffic volumes.
Project traffic at the closest intersection,
Enterprise Circle North Jeast leg) and
Winchester Road, would only represent a 3.1%
increase in existing peak hour volumes.
Project traffic at the Jefferson Avenue and
Winchester Road intersection represents a
1.1% increase in existing peak hour volumes.
Project traffic at the southbound 1-15 ramp
and Winchester Road intersection represents
a 1.0% increase in existing peak hour
volumes.
Based on the criteria established by the Riverside
County Cuidellnes, none of the intersections
examined by the traffic study would experience an
increase of 5% or more in existing peak hour traffic
volumes as a result of the proposed project.
Therefore, none of the intersections will be
significantly impacted by this project.
STAFFRPT\PP11609 2
The traffic study indicates that future levels of
service with or without the project would be
virtually the same as is shown with the percentages
of increase in the existing peak hour traffic.
Since the City is collecting a fee for the Temecula
City-wide Road Benefit Fund, additional mitigation
will not be necessary.
As required by the Southwest Area Plan, the
applicant has designed the project to allow for the
future widening of an additional 25 feet on
Winchester Road.
Parkinq/I nternal Circulation
The proposed project requires ~7 parking spaces.
The plot plan proposes ~,7 spaces and 1 loading
space.
Access to the site will be provided off of Winchester
Road via a shared driveway. The alley is not a
public dedication and will be privately maintained.
The internal site circulation plan provides adequate
space to comfortably drive through the project and
park.
Loading and unloading is a concern of Staff due to
the location of the loading space. When the case
was transferred from the County, the site plan did
not provide any loading spaces. The County
determined that a loading space was not required
and was about to be approved at the County
Director~s hearing as such. However, City Staff
feels that a loading space is necessary and has
worked with the applicant to provide a loading
space. Since the project is not designed with rear
loading doors, the only place available for a loading
space is in the center of the parking lot. This
location may cause poor circulation during periods
of loading and unloading. Rear or side loading will
require a complete redesign of the project.
Architectural Compatibility/Landscapinq
Thecommercial/industrial park along theWinchester
corridor is a mixture of architectural styles ranging
from single story mediterranean to two story
concrete tilt-ups.
STAFF R PT\PP 11609 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The materials to be used in the proposed project
include stucco, glass, and concrete tile. The
primary color of the building will be a light pink.
The concrete tile roof will be "S" shaped.
A focal point to the project is proposed at the
location on the site plan where the fountain is
indicated. This focal point is intended to add
interest and variety to the project. The focal point
shall be either a fountain or public art. A Condition
of Approval has been added to require the design
and location of the focal point to be approved by
Staff prior to the issuance of building permits,
The project site is designated LI (General Light
Industrial) by the Southwest Area Plan ISWAP).
The proposed project is consistent with the general
policies of SWAP. It is anticipated that the project
as conditioned, will be consistent with the City's
forthcoming General Plan.
An initial Study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
FINDINGS:
Site Approval
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. The use will not
generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic
or other disturbances.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access.
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems.
The project will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the General
Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in
the staff report.
STA F F R PT\ PP 11609 ~
There is a probability that the project will not
deter. or interfere with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the new General Plan.
These findings are supported by staff
analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and
environmental documents associated with this
application and herein incorporated by
reference.
The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 11609, ADOPT Resolution 90- , and
APPROVE Plot Plan No. 11609, Request for
Site Approval, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
DP:ks
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Exhibits
3. Conditions Of Approval
u,. Initial Study
STA F F R PT\PP 11609 5
RESOLUTION NO, 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 11609
TO CONSTRUCT AN 18,453 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL AND
FURNITURE SHOWROOM COMMERCIAL CENTER.
WHEREAS, Jeff Hardy & Associates filed Plot Plan No. 11609 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan applications were processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plans on October 1, 1990, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Rot Plans;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findings. That the TemecuIa Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state )aw that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the followlng requirements are mat:
I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
{ 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
{ b) There is little or no probability of substantial
STA F F R PT\ PP 11609 1
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plans are consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 11609 proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30~c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
{ 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law
STAFFRPT\PP11609 2
and City ordinances.
{2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
i:onforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plans
proposed conform to the logical development of its proposed site, and
are compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project
and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 11609 to construct an 18,453 square foot retail and furniture showroom
commercial center subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION ~,. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 1st day of October, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONER5
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP11609 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 11609.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT~PP11609
{i
]OVid M91S]HONI~
CITY Of TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 11609
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
This approval shall be used within two {2) years of the Planning Commission
approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. By this approval within the two {2) year period which is
thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following agencies shall provide
verification to the Building and Safety Department that all pertinent
Conditions of Approval and applicable have been met:
A. Planning Department
B. Temecula Union School District
C. Fire District
D. Engineering Department
E. Rancho California Water District
F. Department of Building and Safety
G. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services ~ DEHS )
H. CATV Franchise.
Architectural elevations of all proposed structures shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building
permits. The elevations shall substantially conform to those approved by the
Planning Commission.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven 17 ) copies of perking, landscaping, shading and irrigation plot
plan to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set
forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 3~8.
STAFFRPT\PP11609 1
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
All site amenities, including landscaping and irrigation, as shown on plans
approved by the Planning Department. shall be installed prior to issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping shall utilize drought tolerant
landscaping wherever feasible. An automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth
condition, planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not
be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the streets and within the parking areas.
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense, any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance
of such approval, or, in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The
applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees for any
Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents officers or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The
City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his
obligations under this condition.
Applicant shall submit the site plan as approved by the Planning Department
to the Department of Building and Safety concurrent with application for
building permits. The development of the premises shal) conform substantially
with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 11759 or as amended by these conditions.
All parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with
double or hairpin lines on the surface of the facility.
Any lights used to illuminate the site shall be designed so as to reflect away
from adjoining properties and public thoroughfares. All street lights and
other outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655 and the Southwest Area Plan.
Signs shall be reviewed under separate application.
All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Riverside County Department
of Health Services prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one 11 )
year, this approval shall become null and void.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
STAFFR PT\PP 11609 2
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new
buildin9 and parking structure.
Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with
the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and
irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
A minimum of ~,7 parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3Lt8. The parking area shall be
surfaced with aspbaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three
inches on four I~) inches of Class I) base.
A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or
equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not
be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior
end of the parking space at a minimum of height of 80 inches from the bottom
of the sign to the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign
shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not
less than one 11 ) inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the
following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue
paint of at least three {3) square feet in size.
Commercial Units A and B shall be occupied by furniture, drapery, plumbing,
floor covering, and appliance stores only.
STAFFRPT\PP11609 3
Commercial Units C through F shall not be occupied by restaurant tentants
unless additional parking is provided.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
23. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Plannin9 Department;
Engineerin9 Department:
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
Concentrateddrainageflowsshallnotcrosssidewalks. Under sidewalk drains
shall be installed to City Standards.
25.
The developer shall submit four (L~) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
26.
The developer shall submit four ~4) prints of a comprehensive gradln9 plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Buildin9 Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u,"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
27.
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
28.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
STAFFRPT\PP11609 4
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
3O.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated ~assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
31.
The area shown as 30'x 50' ingress and egress easement shall be improved with
A.C. pavement.
Riverside County Department of Health
32. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies.
33.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the
Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch (Jon
Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been
cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Service.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure l in accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction management.
Fire Department
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in
Ordinance 5~,6.
35.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 GPM
for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
STAFFRPT\PP11609 5
36.
37.
38.
39.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants ~ 6"x4"x2 1 /2x2 1 ! 2 ),
will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of
the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required
fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrantis) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types,
location and spacing, and. the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process
to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in
fire protection measures.
install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building( s) . A statement that the building(s) will
be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system.
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
required by the Uniform Building Code.
Plans must be
installation, as
A statement that the building will be automatically fir sprlnklered must appear
on the title page of the building plans.
Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code,
Section 503.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install a dust collecting system as per the Uniform Building Code, Section 908.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $413.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
STA FFR PT\PP11609 6
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum
of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
Buildinq & Safety Department
50.
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two 12)
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to the final
i nspection.
Temecula Unified School District
51. This project is subject to State law requirements for School impact mitigation.
Eastern Municipal Water District
52. Any and all necessary regionally sized on-site and off-site gravity sewers and
appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private )and. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers,
treatment, and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to
EMWD regulations will be allowed.
Rancho California Water District
53.
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of Rancho California
Water District. Water service will be available to the site upon completion of
financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water
availability will be contingent upon the property owner signing and Agency
Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
STAFFRPT\PP11609 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Jeff Hardy & Associates
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
27620 Commerce Center Drive, ~103
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 676-1415
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Auqust 9, 1990
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No. 11609
Location of Proposal:
North side of Winchester Road,
700 feet southwest of the
centerline of Jefferson Avenue.
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached
sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STA FFR PT\PP11609 1
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidlty?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAF F R PT\ PP 11609 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants ( including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introductlon of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildllfe habitat?
Ves Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFF R PT\ PP 11609 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantla) increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances { including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
STAFFRPT\PP11609
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles. bicycllsts or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existin9 sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11609 5
17.
18.
19.
20.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11609 6
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief.
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? I A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
Yes Maybe No
X
STAFFRPT\PP11609 7
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1,
No. The proposed project will not result in cut and fill slopes.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree
and results in soil displacement, compaction and over-covering.
Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are
required.
No. Development of the proposed project will not require
substantial grading.
No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the
site.
Yes, Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and
significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading,
retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of
watering trucks and hydro-seedlng disturbed areas after
grading.
No. There is no body of water near the project site which could
be affected by the proposed project.
Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction and fault
hazard zone area according to the Riverside County General Plan
Geologic Hazard Map. A geologic report for the project should
address these potential issues.
Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the
project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particulate emissions
will occur. This impact is not considered significant since the air
emissions from this project is only an incremental impact to the
area's air quality.
No. The proposed project should nct create any objectionable
odors or alter the area's climate.
STAFFRPT\PP11609 8
Water
3.
b-c,g.
No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water.
No. The proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of
water absorption. However, the introduction of irrigation to the
site will be off-set the water absorption rate. Drainage patterns
will continue to flow to the streets and channels.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply
system.
Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrleta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area.
To help mitigate the project's impact, a flood mitigation charge
shall be paid.
No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the
plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or
endangered species should be affected. New species of plants
will be introduced to the site as part of the landscape
requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is
not considered a negative impact.
The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Animal Life
5. a-c.
No. The proposed project is in an area that has been
experiencing urbanization for a number of years. It is
anticipated that the only animal life on or in the vicinity of the
site includes squirrels, rabbits, lizards, and other animals
common to the area. It is highly unlikely that an endangered
species habitats the site. The project site is within the
Stepbends Kangaroo Habitat fee area and will be subject to habitat
imltlgation fees.
Noise
6.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during
construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to
increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be
significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise
sensitive.
No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project.
STAFFRPT\PP11609 9
Light and Glare
7.
Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mr. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the
use of low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid
interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow".
The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced
by the proposed project.
Land Use
No. The surrounding land uses are commercial, office, and light
man ufactu rl ng.
Natural Resources
9. a-b.
No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of
any natural or non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Upset
10. a.
Maybe. If the manufacturing tenant uses any hazardous
materials in their operation, a llst of hazardous substances and
disposal plan shall be submitted to the City.
No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any
streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street
or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City
and Police Department.
Population
11.
No. The proposed project will generate some jobs but not a
significant amount to alter the area's population.
Housinq
12.
No. The proposed project will not generate a significant number
of jobs to create a demand for additional housing.
STAFFRPT\PP11609 10
Transportation/Circulation
13. a,c.
Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to
and from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this
~ncrease will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the
project may add an incremental impact to the Winchester Road/
1-15 Interchange which is currently operatin9 at capacity durin9
peak hours. This potential impact may be mitigated by a
transportation improvement mitigation fee.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the
use. The project will need 47 parking spaces. The proposed
plan illustrates spaces.
No. The proposed project will not alter the present patterns of
circulation.
No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air
traffic.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Public Services
14. a,b,e.
cldlf.
Yes. The proposed project will require public services in the
areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and public facilities.
This impact is not considered significant. The incremental
impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed.
Property taxes should mitigate the impact and continuing need
for services over the long term.
No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these
public services.
Energy
15. a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use
or increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16. a-f.
No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will
not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems.
5TAFFRPT\PP11609 11
Human Health
17 a-b.
Maybe. If hazardous substances are stored in the warehouse,
then that may create a potential health hazard. If hazardous
materials will be warehoused at the site, a plan for their use and
disposal should be submitted to the City.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open
to the public. The elevations of the proposed project are
consistent in architectural materials as the surrounding
buildings.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d.
No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is
unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is
discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on
site to supervise the diggin9 and determine if the site is
significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of
historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or
restrict sacred uses.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21. a-c.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural
environment, have long term environmental impacts or have
considerable cumulative impacts.
Maybe. If the proposed use warehouses hazardous meterials, the
project may cause a health hazard to human beings and wildlife.
If hazardous materials are to be warehoused at the project, a
plan for their use and disposal should be developed and approved
by the City. The project may also have a substantial impact on
the existing transportation system. To mitigate the potential
impact at the Winchester Road/I-15 Interchange, a traffic
mitigation fee should be paid.
STAFFR PT\PP11609 12
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
For CiTY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\PP11509 13
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11759
Prepared By: Deborah Parks
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Jeff Hardy Architecture
Jeff Hardy Architecture
To construct a 18,300 square foot industrial
building.
North of Enterprise Circle South, south of
Winchester Road.
M-SC IManufacturin9 - Service Commercial)
North: M-SC ( Manufacturin9 Service
Commercial )
South: M-SC ( Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
East: M-SC ( Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
West: M-SC ( Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
STAFFRPT\PP11759 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
The application for Plot Plan No. 11759 was
originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on January 29, 1990. The
proposal was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee on February 22, 1990 with
additional information requested of the applicant.
In April 1990, the file was transferred to the City of
Temecula. The development request was reviewed
by the City's Development Review Committee on
August 30, 1990.
The proposed project consists of one industrial
building, The intended tenant of the 18,300 square
foot building is Ability Cabinet. The building is for
the manufacturing of cabinets and does not have
any office space. The applicant anticipates a
maximum of 50 employees on the largest shift.
CirculationJTraffic
The City's Engineering Department reviewed the
Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project by the applicant's Traffic Engineer. The
City's Engineering Department determined that the
proposed development will not generate an excessive
number of trips for the designated )and use for the
parcel. Since the City is collecting a fee for the
Temecula City-wide Road Benefit Fund, additional
mitigation will not be necessary.
ParkinqJ Internal Circulation
The proposed project requires 25 parking spaces,
based on the largest shift of employees to be 50.
The plot plan proposes 36 spaces and 2 loading
spaces.
Primary access to the site will be provided off of
Enterprise Circle South via one driveway. Access
can also be provided by the alley on the north side
of the property. The alley is being formed by the
projects along Enterprise Circle South and
Winchester Road in complying with the industrial
business park's CC&R's. The alley is not a public
dedication and will be privately maintained. A
Condition of Approval has been added, No. 36, to
require that the applicant construct A.C. pavement
improvements a minimum of 24 foot wide for
reciprocal access across the north property line to
join with existing asphalt paving to the west. This
STAFFR PT\PP 11759 2
Condition of Approval will extend the alley east from
its existing terminus. The internal site circulation
plan provides adequate space to comfortably drive
through the project, park, and load.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Architectural Compatibility/Landscapinq
The proposed exterior elevation is consistent in
materials and style with surrounding industrial
developments. The materials to be used include
concrete tilt-ups, glass, and concrete tile. The
primary color of the building will be ivory. The
glass, panels, and roof tile will accent the building
with shades of grey.
Approximately 1896 of the project site is covered with
landscaping. Along Enterprise Circle South, there
will be a 16 foot landscape setback between the
sidewalk and parking stalls which will be betreed.
The front of the building will also be heavily
landscaped which will help soften the industrial
nature of the building.
The project site is designated LI (General Light
Industrial) by the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP).
The proposed project is consistent with the general
policies of SWAP. It is anticipated that the project
as conditioned, will be consistent with the City's
forthcoming General Plan.
An Initial Study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
FINDINGS:
Site Approval
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. The use will not
generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic
or other disturbances.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 3
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems.
The project will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the General
Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in
the staff report.
There is a probability that the project will not
deter, or interfere with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the new General Plan.
These findings are supported by staff
analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and
environmental documents associated with this
application and herein incorporated by
reference.
The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Plannin9 Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 11759, ADOPT Resolution No. 90-
and APPROVE Plot Plan No. 11759, Reques~c
for Site Approval, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
DP:ks
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Exhibits
3. Conditions Of Approval
u,. Initial Study
STAFFRPT\PP11759 ~,
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
a RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY Of TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO.11759
TO CONSTRUCT AN 18,300 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING.
WHEREAS, Jeff Hardy & Associates filed Plot Plan No. 11759 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan applications were processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plans on October 1, 1990, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plans;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b) There is little or no probability of substantial
STAFFRPT\PP11759 1
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plans are consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
{1 ) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and takin9 other actions, inciudin9 the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 11759 proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which wi)) be studied within a
reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.301c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
11 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law
STAFFRPT\PP11759 2
and City ordinances.
(2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
Conforms to the logical development of the )and and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property,
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plans
proposed conform to the logical development of its proposed site, and
are compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there wiil not
be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project
and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 11759 to construct an 18,300 square foot industrial building subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION
Resolution.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 1st day of October, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP11759 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read,' understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 11759,
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP11759 4
Z
Z
0
Jeff Hardy & Assoc.
Architecture
NEW FACILITY FOR
ABILITY CABINETS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PlotPlan No. 11759
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planning Department
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the Planning Commission
approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. By this approval within the two (2) year period which is
thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following agencies shall provide
verification to the Building and Safety Department that all pertinent
Conditions of Approval and applicable have been met:
A. Planning Department
B. Temecula Union School District
C. Fire District
D. Engineerin9 Department
E. Rancho California Water District
F. Department of Building and Safety
G. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS)
H. CATV Franchise.
Architectural elevations of all proposed structures shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building
permits. The elevations shall substantially conform to those approved by the
Planning Commission.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven (7) copies of perking, landscaping, shading and irrigation plot
plan to the Plannin9 Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set
forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 3~,8.
All site amenities, including landscaping and irrigation, as shown on plans
approved by the Planning Department, shall be installed prior to issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping shall utilize drought tolerant
landscaping wherever feasible. An automatic sprinkler system shall be
STAFFRPT\PP11759 1
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth
condition, planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not
be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the streets and within the parking areas.
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense, any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance
of such approval, or, in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The
applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees for any
Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents officers or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The
City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his
obligations under this condition.
Applicant shall submit the site plan as approved by the Planning Department
to the Department of Building and Safety concurrent with application for
building permits. The development of the premises shall conform substantially
with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 11759 or as amended by these conditions.
All parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with
double or hairpin lines on the surface of the facility.
Any lights used to illuminate the site shall be designed so as to reflect away
from adjoining properties and public thoroughfares. All street lights and
other outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655 and the Southwest Area Plan.
Signs shall be reviewed under separate application.
All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Riverside County Department
of Health Services prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ( 1 )
year, this approval shall become null and void.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new
building and parking structure.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 2
17.
18.
19.
20.
Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with
the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and
irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
A minimum of 36 parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~,8. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three {3)
inches on four {~,) inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for he handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or
equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not
be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior
end of the parking space at a minimum of height of 80 inches from the bottom
of the sign to the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk, A sign
shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not
less than one { 1 ) inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the
following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue
paint of at least three {3) square feet in size.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 3
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
21. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Plannin9 Department;
Engineerin9 Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
22.
The developer shall provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay all
fees prior to the approval of plans.
23.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains
shall be installed to City Standards.
The developer shall submit four (L~) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
25.
The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineerln9 Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~,"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
26.
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
27.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
28.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the En9ineerin9 Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
29.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT
30. All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit.
31.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the grading plan.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
STAFFRPT\PP11759 4
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
33.
A 24 foot minimum reciprocal access easement shall be shown to exist or
recorded between the applicants and Lot 22 to the north of the applicant's
site.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIRJNegative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. if an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated lassuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
35.
Construct A.C. pavement improvements a minimum 2~, foot wide for reciprocal
access across the north property line to join with existing asphalt paving to
the west of applicant's property.
Riverside County Department of Health
36. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies.
37.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the
Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch {Jon
Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been
cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Service.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure l in accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction management.
Fire Department
38.
The fire Department is required to sat a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in
Ordinance 5L~6.
39.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 GPM
for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 5
40.
41.
42.
45.
46.
47.
48.
~,9.
50.
51.
52.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants ( 6"x4"x2 1/2x2 112 ),
will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of
the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required
fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant]developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types,
location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process
to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in
fire protection measures.
install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building( s ). A statement that the building(s) will
be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
A statement that the building will be automatically fir sprinklered must appear
on the title page of the building plans.
Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code,
Section 503.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install a dust collecting system as per the Uniform Building Code, Section 908.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $413.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum
of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 6
53. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
Buildinq & Safety Department
The applicant shall f/l) out an application for final snspection. A/low two (2)
weeks processin9 time to obtain all required clearances prior to the final
inspection,
Temecula Unified School District
55. This project is subject to State law requirements for School impact mitigation.
Eastern Municipal Water District
56.
Any and all necessary regionally sized on-site and off-site gravity sewers and
appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers,
treatment, and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to
EMWD regulations will be allowed.
Rancho California Water District
57.
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of Rancho California
Water District. Water service will be available to the site upon completion of
financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water
availability will be contingent upon the property owner signing and Agency
Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 7
53. Final conditions will be addressed when buildin9 plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
Buiidinq ~, Safety Department
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two (2)
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to the final
inspection.
Temecula Unified School District
55. This project is subject to State law requirements for School impact mitigation.
Eastern Municipal Water District
56.
Any and all necessary regionally sized on-site and off-site gravity sewers and
appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers,
treatment, and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to
EMWD regulations will be allowed.
Rancho California Water District
57.
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of Rancho California
Water District. Water service will be available to the site upon completion of
financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water
availability will be contingent upon the property owner signing and Agency
Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any. to RCWD.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11759
Prepared By: Deborah Parks
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Jeff Hardy Architecture
Jeff Hardy Architecture
To construct a 18,300 square foot industrial
building.
North of Enterprise Circle South, south of
Winchester Road.
M-SC { Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
North:
South:
East:
West:
M-SC I Manufacturing
Commercial )
M-SC lManufacturing
Commercial )
M-SC {Manufacturing
Commercial )
M-SC (Manufacturing
Commercial
Service
Service
- Service
- Service
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
STAFFRPT\PP11759 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
The application for Plot Plan No. 11759 was
originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on January 29, 1990. The
proposal was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee on February 22, 1990 with
additional information requested of the applicant.
in April 1990, the file was transferred to the City of
Temecula. The development request was reviewed
by the City's Development Review Committee on
August 30, 1990.
The proposed project consists of one industrial
building. The intended tenant of the 18,300 square
foot building is Ability Cabinet. The building is for
the manufacturing of cabinets and does not have
any office space. The applicant anticipates a
maximum of 50 employees on the largest shift.
C i rcu l ation / T raffic
The City~s Engineering Department reviewed the
Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project by the appIicant~s Traffic Engineer. The
City's Engineering Department determined that the
proposed development will not generate an excessive
number of trips for the designated land use for the
parcel. Since the City is collecting a fee for the
Temecula City-wide Road Benefit Fund, additional
mitigation will not be necessary.
Parkinq] Internal Circulation
The proposed project requires 25 parking spaces,
based on the largest shift of employees to be 50.
The plot plan proposes 36 spaces and 2 loading
spaces.
Primary access to the site will be provided off of
Enterprise Circle South via one driveway. Access
can also be provided by the alley on the north side
of the property. The alley is being formed by the
projects along Enterprise Circle South and
Winchester Road in complying with the industrial
business park's CCF, R~s. The alley is not a public
dedication and will be privately maintained. A
Condition of Approval has been added, No. 36, to
require that the applicant construct A.C. pavement
improvements a minimum of 2~ foot wide for
reciprocal access across the north property line to
join with existing asphalt paving to the west. This
STAFFRPT\PP11759 2
Condition of Approval will extend the alley east from
its existing terminus. The internal site circulation
plan provides adequate space to comfortably drive
through the project, park, and load.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Architectural CompatibilityJLandscapinq
The proposed exterior elevation is consistent in
materials and style with surrounding industrial
developments. The materials to be used include
concrete tilt-ups, 91ass, and concrete tile. The
primary color of the building will be ivory. The
91ass, panels, and roof tile will accent the building
with shades of grey.
Approximately 18% of the project site is covered with
landscaping. Along Enterprise Circle South, there
will be a 16 foot landscape setback between the
sidewalk and parking stalls which will be bermed.
The front of the building will also be heavily
landscaped which will help soften the industrial
nature of the building.
The project site is designated LI (General Light
Industrial) by the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP).
The proposed project is consistent with the general
policies of SWAP. It is anticipated that the project
as conditioned, will be consistent with the City's
forthcoming General Plan.
An Initial Study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
FINDINGS:
Site Approval
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. The use will not
generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic
or other disturbances.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
aCCeSS.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 3
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems.
The project will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the General
Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in
the staff report.
There is a probability that the project will not
deter, or interfere with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the new Genera) Plan.
These findings are supported by staff
analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and
environmental documents associated with this
application and herein incorporated by
reference.
The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 11759, and APPROVE Plot Plan No.
11759, Request for Site Approval, based on
the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
DP:ks
Attachments:
1. Exhibits
2. Conditions Of Approval
3. Initial Study
STAFFR PT\PP11759 ~
CITY OF TEIVIECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 11759 '
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the Planning Commission
approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. By this approval within the two (2) year period which is
thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following agencies shall provide
verification to the Building and Safety Department that all pertinent
Conditions of Approval and applicable have been met:
A. Planning Department
B. Temecula Union School District
C. Fire District
D. Engineering Department
E. Rancho California Water District
F. Department of Building and Safety
G. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services I DEHS)
H. CATV Franchise.
Architectural elevations of all proposed structures shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building
permits. The elevations shall substantially conform to those approved by the
Planning Commission.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven (7) copies of perking, landscaping, shading and irrigation plot
plan to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set
forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 348.
All site amenities, including landscaping and irrigation, as shown on plans
approved by the Planning Department, shall be installed prior to issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping shall utilize drought tolerant
landscaping wherever feasible. An automatic sprinkler system shall be
STAFFRPT\PP11759 1
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
installed and all )andscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth
condition, planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not
be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
Landscaping-plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the streets and within the parking areas.
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense, any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance
of such approval, or, in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The
applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees for any
Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents officers or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The
City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his
obligations under this condition.
Applicant shall submit the site plan as approved by the Planning Department
to the Department of Building and Safety concurrent with application for
building permits. The development af the premises shall conform substantially
with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 11759 or as amended by these conditions.
All parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with
double or hairpin lines on the surface of the facility.
Any lights used to illuminate the site shall be designed so as to reflect away
from adjoining properties and public thoroughfares. All street lights and
other outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655 and the Southwest Area Plan.
Signs shall be reviewed under separate application.
All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Riverside County Department
of Health Services prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one { 1 )
year, this approval shall become null and void.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new
building and parking structure.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 2
17.
18.
19.
2O.
Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with
the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and
irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
A minimum of 36 parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three (3)
inches on four (4) inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for he handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or
equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not
be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior
end of the parking space at a minimum of height of 80 inches from the bottom
of the sign to the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign
shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not
less than one 11 ) inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the
following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue
paint of at least three {3) square feet in size.
Engineerlnq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Covernment Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 3
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
21. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Plannin9 Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
22.
The developer shall provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay all
fees prior to the approval of plans.
23.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains
shall be installed to City Standards.
24.
The developer shall submit four lu,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
25.
The developer shall submit four I~) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
26.
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
27.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailin9
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
28.
29.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT
30. All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit.
31.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the grading plan.
32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
STAFFRPT\PP11759 4
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
33.
A 24 foot minimum reciprocal access easement shall be shown to exist or
recorded between the applicants and Lot 22 to the north of the applicant's
site.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
34.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, includin9 that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/NecJative Declaration for the
project. in the amount in affect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its buildin9 permits for
the project or any phase thered, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
35.
Construct A.C. pavement improvements a minimum 24 foot wide for reciprocal
access across the north property line to join with existing asphalt paving to
the west of applicant's property.
Riverside County Department of Health
36. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies.
37.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the
Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch (Jon
Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been
cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Service.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction management.
Fire Department
38.
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in
Ordinance 5q6.
39.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 GPM
for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
STA F F R PT\PP 11759 5
49.
50.
51.
52.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants ( 6"x4"x2 1/2x2 1/2 ),
will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of
the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required
fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types,
location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department,"
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process
to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in
fire protection measures.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1500 GPM or greater, The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building( s) . A statement that the building(s) will
be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title pa9e of the
buildin9 plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code,
A statement that the building will be automatically fir sprinklered must appear
on the title page of the building plans.
Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code,
Section 503.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install a dust collecting system as per the Uniform Building Code, Section 908.
install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicantJdeveloper shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $413.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum
of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
STAFFR PT\PP11759 6
53. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office,
Building F, Safety Department
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two (2)
weeks processin9 time to obtain all required clearances prior to the final
i n spection.
Temecula Unified School District
55. This project is subject to State law requirements for School impact mitigation.
Eastern Municipal Water District
56.
Any and all necessary regionally sized on-site and off-site gravity sewers and
appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers,
treatment, and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to
EMWD regulations will be allowed.
Rancho California Water District
57.
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of Rancho California
Water District. Water service will be available to the site upon completion of
financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water
availability will be contingent upon the property owner signing and Agency
Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
Jeff Hardy & Associates
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
27620 Commerce Center Drive, #103
Temecula, CA 92390
{714) 676-1~,15
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Auqust 9, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Ran No. 11759
6. Location of Proposal:
North of Enterprise Circle South,
south of Winchester Road.
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached
sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Wi)l the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcoverlng of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\PP11759 1
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11759 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants ( including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthlc
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STA F F R PT\PP 11759 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. ~ncreases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Clare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances {including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation ) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existin9 housin9 or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
STAFFRPT\PP11759 ~,
15.
16.
Yes Maybe No
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X __
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ X
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X __
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X __
b. Police protection? X __
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFRPT\PP11759 5
17.
18.
19.
20.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard ( excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11759 6
Yes Maybe No
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? ( A projectts
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11759 7
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.
No. The proposed project will not result in cut and fill slopes.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree
and results in soll displacement, compaction and over-covering.
Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are
required.
No. Development of the proposed project will not require
substantial grading.
No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the
site.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and
significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading,
retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of
watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after
grading.
No. There is no body of water near the project site which could
be affected by the proposed project.
Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction and fault
hazard zone area according to the Riverside County General Plan
Geologic Hazard Map. A geologic report for the project should
address these potential issues.
Air
2.
Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the
project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particulate missions
will occur. This impact is not considered significant since the air
emissions from this project is only an incremental impact to the
area's air quality.
No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable
odors or alter the area's climate.
Water
3.
a,d-e.
b-c,g.
No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water.
No, The proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of
STAFFRPT\PP11759 8
LI. a-d.
water absorption. However, the introduction of irrigation to the
site will be off-set the water absorption rate. Drainage patterns
will continue to flow to the streets and channels,
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or
rate of flow of 9round waters.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply
system.
Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area.
To help mitigate the project's impact, a flood mitigation charge
shall be paid.
No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the
plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or
endangered species should be affected. New species of plants
will be introduced to the site as part of the landscape
requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is
not considered a negative impact.
The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Animal Life
5. a-c.
No. The proposed project is in an area that has been
experiencing urbanization for a number of years. It is
anticipated that the only animal life on or in the vicinity of the
site includes squirrels, rabbits, lizards, and other animals
common to the area. It is highly unlikely that an endangered
species habitares the site.
The project site is within the Stephen~s Kangaroo Habitat Fee
area and will be subject to habitat mitigation fees.
Noise
6.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during
construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to
increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be
significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise
sensitive.
No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 9
Liqht and Glare
7.
Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mr. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the
use of low pressure sodium vapor ILPSV) lights to help avoid
interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow".
The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced
by the proposed project.
Land Use
No. The surrounding land uses are commercial office and light
manufacturing.
Natura) Resources
9. a-b. No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of
any natural or non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Upset
10. a.
Maybe. If the manufacturing tenant uses any hazardous
materials in their operation, a list of hazardous substances and
disposal plan shall be submitted to the City.
No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any
streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street
or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City
and Police Department.
Population
11.
No. The proposed project will generate some jobs but not a
significant amount to alter the area's population.
Housing
12.
No. The proposed project will not generate a significant number
of jobs to create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13. a,c.
Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to
and from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this
increase will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the
project may add an incremental impact to the Winchester Road/
1-15 Interchange which is currently operating at capacity during
STAFFRPT\PP11759 10
peak hours. This potential impact may be mitigated by a
transportation improvement mitigation fee.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the
use. Based on 18,300 square feet, the project will need 36
parking spaces. The proposed plan illustrates spaces.
No. The proposed project will not alter the present patterns of
circulation.
No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air
traffic.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Public Services
14. a,b,e.
c,d,f.
Yes. The proposed project will require public services in the
areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and public facilities.
This impact is not considered significant. The incremental
impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed.
Property taxes should mitigate the impact and continuing need
for services over the long term.
No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these
public services.
Ener.qy
15. a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use
or increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16. a-f.
No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will
not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems.
Human Health
17 a-b.
Maybe. If hazardous substances are stored in the warehouse,
then that may create a potential health hazard. If hazardous
materials will be warehoused at the site, a plan for their use and
disposal should be submitted to the City.
STAFFRPT\PP11759 11
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open
to the public. The elevations of the proposed project are
consistent in architectural materials as the surrounding
buildings.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d.
No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is
unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is
discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on
site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is
significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of
historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or
restrict sacred uses.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqniflcance
21. a-c.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural
environment, have long term environmental impacts or have
considerable cumulative impacts.
Maybe. If the proposed use warehouses hazardous materials, the
project may cause a health hazard to human beings and wildlife.
If hazardous materials are to be warehoused at the project, a
plan for their use and disposal should be developed and approved
by the City. The project may also have a substantial impact on
the existing transportation system. To mitigate the potential
impact at the Winchester Road/I-15 Interchange, a traffic
mitigation fee should be paid.
STAFFR PT\PP11759 12
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\PP11759 13
ITEM It8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Case No.: Tentative ParGel Map No. 25538
Prepared by: Deborah Parks
Recommendation: Approve Parcel Map,
Adopt Negative Declaration
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538 was continued from the September 10, 1990 Planning
Commission hearing due to insufficient information regarding sewers. A copy of the
minutes and previous Staff Report is attached. Staff has researched this issue and
has determined that Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538 should not be required to
provide sewer improvements.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538 is a Schedule "G" Parcel Map Division. A copy of the
requirements for a schedule "G" map is attached. Section D I1 ) states that:
"No sewage disposal collection system is required;
however, the land divider may be required to provide the
Health Department with a sewage disposal feasibility report
in conformance with Health Department and Regional Water
Quality Control Board Standards."
A septic system currently exists on Parcel No. 1 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538
which received approval by the Health Department and meets the standards of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The Southwest Area Plan refers to this type of development as a Category 3 - Rural
Residential Development. A copy of the Policies for development of the Category 3
project are attached {Section IV (B) L~). By referring to "adequate soil percolation
conditions", Staff interprets this to mean that septic tanks are aliowed.
A percolation test was conducted and approved for the underlying Parcel Map No.
16705.
STAFFRPT\PM25538 1
%TAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Plannin9 Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Parcel
Map No. 25538
2. APPROVE Parcel Map No. 25538
3. ADOPT Resolution No. 90-
based on the analysis and findings combined in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
DP:ks
Attachments
STAFFRPT\PM25538 2
SEP 25 '90 i6:l? SENESH EI,IGjNEERING 420 P02
8ep~embBr 24, 1990
Ms. Deborah Parks
City P!anner, City of Te.~cula
43180 Business Park Dr., 1200
Tamsou]a, CA 92390
SUBJECT: Tentative Par'col Map No. 25538 Application
Dear Ms. Parks:
We would appreciate receiving the revised conditions and
justifications of approval in advance of the next Planning
Commission Nesting on October 1, 1990.
Some of the points under discussion are:
The application conforms and is not a variance of SWAP. Lot
sizes are .625 acres and lar9er than the 1/2 acre minimum,
Adjacen~ Winsor Crest is 1/4 acre minimum and nearby Psuba
Road is 2 tc 5 units per acre. Plus the application ie in
conformante with other 1/2 acre and 1 acre lots in Wineor
Crest to Santiago Ranchos and Los Rancharcs Homes on 2.5
acre minimum lots, over a one mile distance.
The development has no connection with Johnson & Johnson
Santiago Estates Development o~f Jedediah Smith Road.
The applicant with Dr. Lee te providing expensive road
improvements ana betterments without sidewalks, that is
equal to the adjacent 1/4 acre Winsor Crest sub-divisions
which also dces not have a~dewalke. Estero Street or Court
is not a through street and a maximum of 7 custom homes in
the $600,000 range is planned, of which 2 have been
completed on Parcel #1 and Parcel #3.
Sewer is not mandated. Each lot is in the excess of 18,000
square foot and conforms with ordinance 460. The lower
elevations will not allow connections to Winsor Crest sub-
division. Ynez Road sewer connection is some 3,000 feet
aNay and cost would be prohibitive.
SEP 25 '90 1G:17 BENESN ENGINEERING 420 P03
September 24, 1990
Ms. Deborah Parks
Page 2
4. Ownership of Z planned lots in Estero Court is vested in 3
owners; namely:
Lot Solit
Robert Paine - 2 1.25 Acre Lots
Dr. Ching G, Lee - 1 1.25 Acre Lot
Isaac Caberotic - 1/~ 1.25 Acre Lot
3 1/2 Acres
Mr. Ceharorie's 1.25 acre let has 2 pads, one with access to
Estero Court, and one with access to Showalter Drive on
Peuba Road.
Applicant has improved with retaining wall and landscaping,
~ of the proposed Z lots with Dr, Lee and stabilized the
slopes, as shown on the attached photographs, excepting
Parcel #2, owned by Mr. Cahsrorie,
With best wishes, we hope this information shall be of assistance
and I remain
8incer ly,
ins
for Robert Pains
NJP;nh/PAINEPARK
Enclosures
co: Mike Benash
Robert Paine
Dr. Chang Lee
CITY Of TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The subdlvlder shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or leglslative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 25538, P.C. No. 1, which action is brought within the time
period provided for in California Government Code Section 661~99.37. The City
of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the
defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim,
action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider
shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Temecula.
The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance
Schedule G unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the City Council approval date
unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~60.
The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision
Map Act, Riverside county Subdivision Ordinance 1160.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City.
Street names shall be subject to approval of the City of Temecula.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All
offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility
access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City of Temecula.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
STAFF,~PT\PM25538 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated 12-26-89, a copy of
which is attached.
The subdivide shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's Transmittal dated 12-8-89, a copy
of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 12-13-89, a copy
of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control
drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside County Land Division
Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to recordation of the final
map or waiver of parcel map.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated 12-13-89, a copy of
which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use 5ectlon's transmlttal dated 12-20-89, a copy
of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated 5-1-90, a copy
of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San
Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated 12-11-89, a copy of which is
attached.
Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall be required to pay
applicable Quimby fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance 460.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
STA F F R PT\ PM25538 2
1 t. is understood that the Developer correctly shows aH existing easements. traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for fur_ther consideration.
17.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
18.
Prior to final map approval, the developer shall receive written clearance from
the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
Rancho California Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
19.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
20.
Dedication shall be made to provide for right-d-way for a cul-de-sac per
Riverside County Standard No. 800.
21.
The subdivider shall construct or post security guaranteeing the construction
of the following public improvements in conforf,dnce with applicable City
standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, and
striping.
b. A domestic water system.
22.
The subdivider shall provide bonds and agreement, clearances from all
applicable agencies and pay all fees prior to the approval of the final map.
23.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
24.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. Lt61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
25.
Prior to recordstion of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum established per lot as mitigation for a
traffic signal impact.
STA F F R PT\ PM25538 3
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferrln9
said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineer/n9
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with
supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the
Riverside County Flood Control District for review.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in
addition to any other permits required.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance of an encroachment permit.
Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities
within the right-d-way.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
line.
All driveways shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with City Standard Nos. u,00 and u,01 Icurb sidewalk).
A minimum centerline grade shall be 0.u,0 percent.
The required improvements as reflected in the following conditions shall be
completed prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. The improvements
are required based on the following findings:
The improvements are a necessary prerequisite to the orderly
development of the surrounding area.
b. The improvements are necessary for the public health and safety.
Estero Street shall be improved with 28 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No.
105, Section B. (18'/30'), add concrete curb/gutter.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\PM25538 4
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
37.
Construct fuJI street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights
within parcel map boundary in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 800-cul-de-sac.
38.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
39.
Aspbaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than lu, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
9El of the State Standard Specifications.
Prior to Building Permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV
Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shah be installed to CATV
Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for tr'~fflc and public
facility mitigation as required under the Negative Declaration for the project,
in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the
date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any
phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of
Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer.
Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees
in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the
amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such
increase.
STAFFRPT\PM25538 5
c. All urban land uses shall be part of a water district which is
authorized to provide water and sewer service.
d. Commttmeqts for water and sewer service must be confirmed by the
district responsible for providing service.
e. Adequate and available water and sewer capacity must exist at the time
of construction to meet the demands of a proposed project.
Dry sewers Should be installed if it is anticipated that development
beyond the subject development will require such facilities.
Amenity features, such as open space and neighborhood parks, shall be
provided throughout all urban land uses.
4. Category 3 - Rural Residential Policies
Provided that residential development policies and standards are met,
density allocations range from 0.5 acre minimum lot size to 5 acre
minimum lot size. Development Shall not be more intense than the
stated ranges of the SWAP land use allocation map.
b. Adequate and available water and sewer facilities, water resources
availability and, if applicable, sewage treabnent plant capacity or
adequate soil parcolation condata ons shall be required to meet the
demands of the proposed land use.
c. The circulation system serving the proposed land use shall be required
to accommodate the additional traffic generated.
d. Water service shall be provided by either a community water
distribution system or by private wells.
5. Category 4 - Outlying Residential Policies
Provided that residential development policies and standards are met,
allocations range from 5 acre minimum lot size to 10 acre minimum lot
size. Development shall not be more intense than the stated ranges of
the SWAP land use allocation map.
b. The circulation system ~tthtn the area shall be able to accomnodate
the pro~ected tncrease in traffic from the proposed land use.
c. Sewage disposal shall be handled through I septic disposal system,
d. Adequate water facilities, including water resources availability,
shall be required to meet the demands of the proposed land use.
e. Con~tbnent for district water service shall be confirmed by the
district authorized to provide service, ~here applicable.
132.15
The water systen shall be capable of providing a fire flow of 1,000
GP~ for 2 hours auratiOn at a minimum of 20 PSI operating pressure
from each fire hydrant. This amount shall be in addition to the
average day demand as defined in the California A~inistrative Code,
Title 22, Chapter 16 (California Waterworks Standards).
The fire protection system shall be installed and operational prior to
any combustible building material being placed on the job site.
In zones that allow multi-femily residential uses, the minimum fire
protection shall be as set forth in Ordinance No. 546.
Sewage Disposal. The minimum requtrament for sewage disposal shall be as
fol 1 ows:
Sewage disposal shall be provided by connection to an existing
collection systen capable of accepting the waste load, or, if an
exi sting coll action syste~ is not available, by the development of
individual subsurface sewage disposal systems that meet Health
Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and
requiraments, or, by development of a package treatment plant that
meets the Heal th Department and Regional Water Quality Control Board
standards and requiraments.
Improvement plans for sewage collection systams shall be reviewed as
required by Section g.3 of this ordinance·
Dry sewer may be required as set forth in Section 12.1 when subsurface
sewage disposal iS approved.
E. Fences. Minimum fencing requirements shall be as follows:
Six-foot high chain link galvanized wire fence shall be installed
along any Canal, drain, expressway or other feature deemed to be
hazardous.
F. Electrical and Communication Facili ties. Minimum requireant for
electrical and communication facilities shall be as follows:
Electrical and cenmuntcation facilities shall be installed in
confon~tty with the provisions of Article X111.
SECTION 10.12. SCHEDULE 'G" PARCEL MAP DIVISION. Any division of land into 4
or less parcels, where any parcel is not less than 18,000 square feet in net
area to 1 acre in gross area, shall be defined as a Schedule 'G" parcel map
division· The mintms tmprovenents for a Schedule 'G' parcel map di ~sion
shall be as follows:
67
A. Streets. The minimum improvements for streets are established as follows:
Arterial Highway - 86 feet in width, designed and constructed in
confonnance with Ordinance No. No. 461, Standard No. 100.
Arterial (Urban) Highways - 110 feet in width, designed and
constructed in conformante with Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 100
(A).
Arterial (Mountain} Highways - 64 feet in width, designed and
constructed in confomance with Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 100
(B}, Section A. A maximum width of 40 feat in conformante with
Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 100 (B), Section C may be allowed when
anticipated low traffic volumes Or rugged terrain does not warrant
construction of a 64-foot four-lane htghway. A minimum width of 52
feet in conformance with Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 100 (B},
Section B may be required in steep terrain to provide for a passing
lane.
Major Highways - 76 feet in width, designed and constructed in
confomance with Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 101.
Secondary Highways - 64 feet in width, designed and constructed in
conromance with Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 102.
Collector Streets - 44 feet in width, designed and constructed in
confonnance with Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 203, Section B.
General Local Streets - 40 feet in width, designed and constructed in
conromance with Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 104, Section B.
Short Local or Circulatory Interior Streets - 36 feet in width,
designed and constructed in conromance with Ordinance No. 461,
Standard No. 105, Section B.
Restricted Local or Noncirculatory Interior Streets - 32 feet in
wtdth, designed and constructed in conformance with Ordinance No. 461,
Standard No. 106, Section B; provided, however, that in areas with an
elevation of 5000 feet or more it shall be Z8 feet in width, designed
in conformante with Ordinance NO. 461, Standard No. 11Z, Local
Mountain Residential Street.
Access Road - 32 feet in width, designed and constructed in
conromance with Ordinance No. 461, Standard NO. 106, Section
Frontage Roads - designed and constructed in conromance with
Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 107, Section B, 108 or 109.
6B
12. Cul-de-sac Streets o shall be designed and constructed in confor~ance
with Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 800.
13.
Alleys - 20 feet in width, designed and constructed in confonnance
with Ordinance No. 451, Standard No. 500.
14.
Part-width Streets - shall be one-half of the required improvement,
but not less than 28 feet, designed Ind constnJcted in conformante
with Ordinance No. 461, Standard No. 110, Section B.
15.
Street Name Signs - Type and placement shall conform with Ordinance
No. 461, Standard No. 815.
16.
Barricades shall be placed at the end of tided-end streets in
accordance with Ordinance No. 451, Standard No. 810.
Domestic Water· The minimum requirement for a ckxnestic water supply and
distribution system shall be as follows:
No water syste~ required. If a water system is installed, the
requirements shall be as follows.
Water Supply: water shall be provided to meet the requirements
as set forth in the California Ackninistrative Code, Title
Chapter 16 {California Waterworks Standards). Improvement plan
review shall be as required by Section 9.3 of this ordinance.
b. Piped water systems.
If no water syst~ Is installed, the following statement shall be
placed on each map sheet of the Environmental Constraints Sheet, in
letters not less than 1/4 inch high: NO WATER SUPPLY IS PROVIDED FOR
THE LAND DIVISION AS OF THE DATE OF RECORDATION OF THIS NAP.
Fire Protection. The minimum improvements for fire protection shall be as
follows:
Fire protection is requi red when a public water system exists within
500 feet right-of-way distance of the boundary of the land dimsion
and the water purveyor is not prohibited by law frm extending water
service to the land. In such cases, fire protection shall be required
as approved by the Fire Chief or as follows:
Approved fire hydrants shall be located one at each street
intersection, end spaced not more than 660 feet apart in any
direction.
69
The water syste~ shall be capable of providing a fire flow of
1,000 GPt4 for 2 hours ciuration at a minimum of 20 PSI operating
pressure from each fire hydrant. This anount shall be in
addition to the average day demand as defined in the California
A~inistrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16 {California Waterworks
Standards).
If a damestic water system is install ed that does not meet the above
mintm~ requirements for fire protection, · statement must be placed
on each map sheet of the record land division map in letters not less
than 1/4 inch high: THE DO(STIC WATER SYSTE)4 PROVIDED FOR THIS L/MiD
DIVISION DOES NOT ~HEET MINIMUM FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.
D. Sewage Disposal. The mtntm,,n Improvements for sew·g· disposal shall be as
fol 1 ows:
No sewage disposal collection system is required; however, the land
divider may be required to provide the Health Departant with a sewage
disposal leas· bili ty report i n conform·nee with Heal th Deparb~ent and
Regional Water Quality Control Board Standards.
E. Electrical and Communication Facili ties. The minimum requirements for
electrical an~ communication facilities shall be as follows:
1. No electrical and communication facilities are requt red.
2. If installed, they shall be installed in conformity with the
provisions of Article XIII.
SECTION 10.13. SCHEDULE "H" PARCEL I~AP DIVISION. Any division of land into 4
or less parcels, where all parcels are not less than I acre in gross area,
shall be defined as a Schedule "H" parcel map division. The minimum
improvenents shall be as follows:
A. Streets· The minimum improvements for streets Shall be as follows:
1. Parcels between I acre and less than S acres in gross area.
If the streets are not to be accepted for maintenance by the
COunty, all streets shall be improved with 24 feet in width of
four inch thick base material (minimum R of 60, minimum sand
unless difficult topography dictates e grided section not
less than 18 feet in width. Vertical . ·des (0.50% mtntmm~, 15%
maximum) end horizontal ·ltgment (R-I~ foot minimum) shall be
shown on an engineered plan detailing the construction
requirements for grading and drainage all ·s mpproved by the Road
C~ll,, t s s t one r.
70
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
GARY THORNRILL stated that the applicant has reque~
that this item be continued to the nezt regular
of the Planning Con~ission scheduled for Septe
1990.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned or not to open
the public hearing at this time and the item to
the next meeting or to open the pub hearing at the time
the item will be brought before commission. LOIS
BOBACE advised the Coffaniss~on open the public hearing
and continue the item.
IDA SANCHEZ, Markham & A , 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, stated that applicant was in the process of
re-design~na the prc GARY THORNHILL stated that
staff had some com wxth ~arkinq and the applicant is
addressing those by reducing the s~ze of the
buildings and some loading spaces.
C()MM]SSION3
No. 2 to
meetin,
FORD moved to continue Conditional Use Permit
September 17, 1990 Planning Commission
by C014N]SSIONER ROAGLAND.
AYE 4 COI~ISSIONERS: Blair, Ford,
Noaqland, Chiniaeff
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: ]
COMMISSIONERS: FaheV
~proximately 6:30 P.M. COMMISSIONER PAHEY arrived at the
and was no longer absent.
3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25538
3.1 Proposal to subdivide a 1.43 acre parcel on Estero Street
into two parcels.
DEBORAH PARES provided the staff report on this item.
8he stated that the net proposed size of the parcels are
within the one-half acre zoning of R/R. 8he stated that
the proiect is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan
and would be consistent with the city's forthcoming
Oeneral Plan.
e lllM.9/1019o -2- September 12, 1990
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTE34BER 10, 1990
MIRE BENESH, Renesh Engineering, 28993 Front Street,
Temecula, rePresentinq the apvlicant, addressed questions
from the Com{nission.
COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND exvressed concern that Rancho
California Water District was not listed as an agency
reauired to give written clearance to the developer
under Condition No. 19. JOHN MIDDLETON concurred that
Rancho California Water District should be included
in the list of agencies under Condition No. 19.
COMMISSIONER FORD stated that under SWAP, he understood
there was an OrdiDance requiring parcels under 2 1/2
acres to be fully improved. Staff stated that county
standards indicated that parcel maps can be septic
systems but tract maps were to be sewered. Comissioner
Ford expressed concern in anDrovinG the smal]er lot sizes
without a preclse determination on the sewer requirements.
COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND asked staff about the Resolution
that was included as part of the item and it's relation
to the Recommendation which did not include the
Resolution. GARY THORNHILL advised the Con~nission that
the Resolution should have been included in the
Recon~endation. COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND stated that he
d~d not agree with the wording of the Section 3 Finding,
No. 2(a). GARY THORHILL stated that the city attorney's
office constructed the Resolution. LOIS BOBACR stated
that the Findings are necessary in order to make a
Resolution.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by COMMISSIONER FANEY and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, FabeV,
Ford, Hoaqland,
Chinieaff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he would like to see the
item continued for clarification of the sewer imnrovement
requirements. COMMISSIONER CHIBIF~FF and COMMISSIONER
BOAGLAND also expressed concern regarding the
improvements.
e MIN.9/10/gO -3- September 12, 1990
PL]tNNING COMHI~SION MINUTE8
EEPTFJ~BER 10, 3990
COMNISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Tentative Parcel May
25538 to the regular meeting of the Planning Corm~ission
on October 1, 1990, seconded bV CONNISSIONER HOAGLKND and
carried unanimously.
aYES: 5
CO),~d,~ISS]ONERS:
BJa~r# Pahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COHMISSIONERS: None
CONDITIONAl, USE PERNIT NO. ]
4. Proposed C.U.P for an automobile sales lot and 528 souare
eet Of office space.
OI.I R MDJICA presented the staff report on this item.
He sta d that the offlce building is a modular unit
on a per ent foundation and the applicant proposes
~ tile roof and stucco walls. He also advised
the Commissio~ that the C.U.P. was bemno cond~tioned to
come back to the om~ission every two years, at a maximum
part of the svprova].~
COMMISSIONER FAHEY expres~ d concern for the attention
to the designated scenic hi~ way alonq this pro~ect and
how staff was addressing the~'ew from the highway.
MR: MUJICA stated that the improy me?ts to the m?dular
recreational v~hicles throughout the sts~ report.
GARY THORNBILL advised the Conm~isSion to & reqard
~roviding a minimum of 22 ~arking spaces, Condit~as
of Ap~ro~sl No. ~ ahould reflect a minimum of 22 par 'ng
lilN.9110/90 -4- September 12, 1996
Case No.:
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538
Approve Parcel Map,
Adopt Negative Declaration
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Robert Paine
Benesh Engineering Corporation
To subdivide a 1.43 acre parcel into two parcels.
30565 Estero Street, east of Ormsby Road
R-R Rural Residential
North: R-R Rural Residential
South: R-R Rural Residential
East: R-R Rural Residential
West: R-R Rural Residential
Single Family
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
STAFFRPT\PM25538 1
ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND:
The application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538
was submitted on November 14, 1989, as a result of
the County's review of Tentative Parcel Map No.
24633. Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538 was
reviewed by Riverside County's Land Division
Committee on December 14, 1989. The additional
information that was requested of the applicant was
submitted in April 1990. Tentative Parcel Map No.
25538 was then scheduled for Director's Hearing on
July 9, 1990. However, on June 8, 1990, the file
was transferred to the City of Temecula.
Area SettinqJParcel Map Confiquration
The underlying Parcel Map No. 16705 subdivided
5.1 acres of land into four parcels, creating Estero
Street. Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 16705 is the
subject parcel to be subdivided as part of Tentative
Parcel Map No. 25538. The gross acreage of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538 is 1.39 acres. The
proposed net acreage of Parcels 1 and 2 is 0.782 and
0.607 respectively. Parcels 1 and 2 meet the half-
acre minimum lot size designation of the R-R zone.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538 is part of a gentle
slope that extends to the south, approximately
1,000 feet, to a dry wash. The adjacent parcels to
the north and west are 1.39 and 1.07 acres in size,
respectively. An application is currently being
reviewed by Staff to subdivide the parcel to the
west into two half-acre parcels. West of Ormsby
Road is a subdivision of homes where the lot sizes
average 0.25 acres. East of the subject site is a
2.75 acre parcel and to the south is a 2.36 acre
parcel. Exhibit A illustrates the size of the
surrounding parcels.
The subject site is currently improved with a single
family home which would be located on Parcel 1 of
the proposed subdivision. Proposed Parcel 2 is
unimproved but has been graded. A future
homesite pad exists on Parcel 2 as illustrated on the
map.
The proposed one-half acre lots will provide an
appropriate transition between the existing 0.25
acre lots to the west and the larger one acre plus
lots to the east.
Approximately one mile east of the subject parcel is
STAFFRPT\PM25538 2
Santiago Estates, a large estate lot project.
Accordin9 to Johnson and Johnson Properties, the
developer for Santiago Estates, their project has a
minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Santiago Estates is
viewed by many as an exclusive development within
the City. It should be noted, that although the
proposed half acre parcels are located approximately
one mile west of Santiago Estates and function well
as a transitional land use between the smaller and
larger parcels, this subdivision could set a
precedent for landowners located between the
subject parcels and Santiago Estates to apply for
subdivisions of their land to one-half acre lots.
Grading
The subject site has already been graded according
to 9radln9 permit No. 538881, issued by the County
of Riverside. The grading was necessary to
construct the house on Parcel 1. in anticipation of
the subject parcel map, the applicant also had a pad
on Parcel 2 graded for a future home, as illustrated
on the map. At the time of development, grading
should be minimal.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The subject parcel is designated as 1-2 DU/AC
according to the Southwest Area Plan. The
proposed land division is consistent with this
designation, resulting in the potential of 1.4
DUJAC. It is anticipated that the proposed land
division, as conditioned, will be consistent with the
City's forthcoming General Plan as a transitional
land use between the approximate 1.25 acre lots and
the larger parcels to the east.
An Initial Study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
FINDINGS:
The proposed division is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan and Zonin9 Code in that
both parcels exceed the minimum lot size of
0.5 acres and the minimum average lot width
of 80 feet.
The lot design is logical and meets the
approval of the City~s Planning and
Engineering Departments.
STAFF R PT\PM25538 3
The legal owner of record has offered to make
all dedications required.
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration is recommended and all
impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels
through recommended conditions of approval.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once adopted, based on analysis
contained in the Staff Report.
The division of land is consistent with the
provision of Title 18 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff reco,,,,,,ends that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for
Parcel Map No. 25538.
2. APPROVAL of Parcel Map No. 25538.
based on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
DP:ks
Attachments:
1. Exhibits
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Initial Study
Resolution
STAFF R PT\PM25538 ~
e
.~-- < '|
iZ.J
,I
I
I ~ii I
I I
I I I
I
I
I'
I
·
OFF/uE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY ,~URVEYOR
December 26, 1989
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE~
Schedule G - Team 1 - SMD #9
AP #111-111-111-9
Ladies and Gentlemen~
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced
tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the
landdivider provide the following street /a~provements, street
improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards
(Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly
shows acceptable centerline elevations, all existing easements,
traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that
their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be
resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the
following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring
in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended
to be complementar7 and to describe the conditions for a complete
design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning
of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's
Office.
1. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from
damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i,e.
concentration of diversion of flow· Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including
enlarging existing facilities and/or by securing a drainage
easement. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final
map and noted as follows= "Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The
pro~ection shall be as approved by the Road Department.
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all
offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event
the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage
purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460
will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity
or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage puzl~3ses, the
subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER * 4080 LEMON STR/ET · RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNM 92501
PM 25538
December 26, 1989
Page 2
11.
The required improvements as reflected in the following
conditions shall be completed or a Performance Security in
lieu thereof shall be posted in accordance with Riverside
County Ordinance 460, Article XV, prior to recordation of
the final map. The improvements are required based on the
following findingsz
a) The improvements are a necessary prerequisite to the
orderly development of the surrounding area.
b) The improvements are necessary for the public health
and safety.
Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its
resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department.
Estero Street shall be improved with 28 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement within a 40 foot part width dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105,
Section B. (18'/30')
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries at a grade and alight as approved by the
the deceisner/owner shall submit a detailed soils investi-
gation report addressing the construction requirements
within the road right of way.
A standard cul-de-sac shall be constl~acted throughout the
landdivision.
Aspbaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less
than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt
surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per
square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37,
39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications.
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho
California Water District prior to the recordation of the
final map.
The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline
radii shall be in conformance with County Standard #114 of
Ordinance 461.
12. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and
knuckles shall be 35 feet.
PM 25538
Dece,iber 26,
Pag? 3
1989
14.
15.
15a.
16.
17.
18.
19.
0e
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside
County Standards.
The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from
the face of curb.
The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient
public offsite rights of way to provide for a primary
access road to a paved and maintained road. Said access
road shall be constructed in accordance with County
Standard No. 106, Section B. (32'/60') at a grade and
alignment approved by the Road CoNunissioner.
Said offsite access road shall be the westerly extension of
Estero Street to Ormsby Road, then southerly on Ormsby Road
to Santiago Road.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer
shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a
cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic
signal impacts.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the
streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance
control and slope easements as approved by the Road
Department.
The street design and improvement concept of this project
7 1
shall be coordinated with PM 96/39-40, PM 9 / 1-12, PM
115/71-72, PM 81/83-84 and Tentative PM 24633.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
comply with Road Department standards and require approval
by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing
maintenance through the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape
plans shall be submitted on standard County Plan sheet
format (24" x 36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted
with the street improvement plans and shall depict only
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way.
PM 25538
Decem.ber 26, 1989
Page 4
EB Jw
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act any
subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment
District must comply with the requirements of said Section.
Very truly yours,
ENViR0rINENfAL IIEALTII 5EI{VICES DIVISION
6 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
RIVERSIDE, CA 9250]
RE6 ! UN^L 1 E~M# / - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~
DATE:/j .' Y ' r ¢
IvATER SOU.CE:
PARENT P,M. (IF ANY)
X2,,,--,K-,
SCItEDULE /t/
HAIVER REQUEST?.,4,.~)
THE I:'"'RTMENT OF HEALTll tlAS REVIEWED TIlE MAP DESCRIBED ABOVE.
ANY C,:.~TIONS CONCERNING THIS TRANSr41TTAL, CONTACT
RECOMHENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
AREA/DISTRICT
gilD./16U
IF IllERE ARE
(71q) 787-65q~, OUR
'he Environmental Health Services Division [~IISD) has reviewed the above Parcel
ap attd while we are noc privileged to receiv~ any preliminary Information relative
o subsurface sewage disposal or connection to sewers or domestic water supply,
s our considered opinion titat the soils titat might be encountered ~n this area
ay noC be conducive to e~/ecclve subsurface sewage disposal systems and beenuric
E sol1 citaraccerletlcs In cite area, there may be a requirement ~or extensive
:adlng, compaction, cutting, etc. Pr;or to retardation DE the HnaZ map, an
:cepcable soils ~eastbllity report EIT~II'~ '~b~ed
, :,.....,.o....:., ,,..,,,. ,...,..
)R DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
!ALTH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ZALTII
SAN 117 (REV, 10189)
KENNETH L EDWARDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERS[DE, CALIFORNIA 92502
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. _L._
Planner b;,.~
Re: ?_5539
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the h~ff~t~ Creek/~'e,~c ~, V41~ AI> Area
drai.age pla. fees shall be paid t. ,ccorda.cethe a; ltcab e r les a.d
regulations,
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated
is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of . The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
V, ry ~u 1~,
H. ICASHUBA
enior Civil Engineer
DATE:
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET. SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 34Z-8886
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
12-13-89
ATTN: DIANE KIRKSEY
RE: PARCEL HAP 25538
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 92501
(714} 787-6606
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
Schedule "G" fire protection. An approved standard fire hydrant (6"x4"x2}")
shall be located so that no portion of the frontage of any lot is more then
330 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2
hours duration at 20 PSI.
The applicant/developer shall provide written certification from the appropriate
water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing or that
financial arrangements have been made to provide them.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with
the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as
mitigation for firs protection impacts.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Michael E. Gray,
Deputy Fire Department Planner
c])epa tment ct .i d(.9 a.d ga t5
AdministFat)ve Center · 1777 Atianta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
December 20, lgBg
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: D. Kirksey
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Parcel Map 25538~
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Auilding and SaFeLy
has the following comments and conditions:
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for
all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of
the parcel map pursuant to Section lg.5 of Ordinance 348.
Fireplaces may encroach l' into required minimum 5' side yard
setback.
Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 8'
side yard setback.
Very truly yours,
Robert ~nares "
Senior Land Use Technician
Administration (7141 682-8R4R · (7141
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
GRADING SECTION
FROM: M
DATE: May 1, 1990
RE: PM 25538
APN: 945-070-010
The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site.
The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends
approval of this project if the following conditions are included.
Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50.cubic yards, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from
the Building and Safety Department.
All grading shall conform to the Uniform Building Code and Ordinance
457.
Provide verification that any existing grading was permitted and that
approval to construct was obtained from the Building and Safety
Department.
Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' in vertical
height with grass or ground cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical
height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance
457, see form 284-47.
Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security
to be posted with the Building and Safety department.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate 100 year storm
flows.
NOTE: For the final ~rading plan, please provide the applicable information
form Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, Z84-21, 284-86,
and 284-46. These forms are available at all Building and Safety Offices.
ihank you.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backaround
1. Nmse of Proponent:
Robert Paine
Address aria Phone
h~-~er of Proponent:
6563 Via Aboles
Anaheim Hills, California 92807
3. Date of Environmental (213) 430-0316
Assessment: June 28, 1990
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TE~ECUIA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Parcel Map # 25538
6. Location of P,~vosal:
Southeast corner of the intersec-
tion of Ormsley Road and Estero
Street.
Environmental Imoacts
[Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe N__o
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
X
BIAMIClI:~IFt~I~M~ ~
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quallty?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yes
Maybe
N._9o
X
X
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS -2-
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
~,. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
be
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish end shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
Maybe
N,_9o
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
10.
11.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Clare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesttcides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe N_.9
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS '~-
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles. bicyclists or pedestrians?
lu,. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe
X
NO
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -5-
17.
18.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard lexcluding
mental health )?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe
X
NO
X
X
X
X
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildllfe
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term. to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? {A project~s
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe No
X
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
BLANKIES/FORMS °9-
RIVERS[DE COUNTY
EN~LliONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION
ENVIRO~ALASSESSMENT(F_A.)NUMBER: ~'~ L"/-~0-~ MODULENUMBER(s):
PROJECT CASE TYPF.~i) A.~TD NUMBERS(s): ~ trvN' ~ ~ 5' ...~>
/
ADDRF. SSOFAPPLICANT: I'~ %" (¢, ~ bl', r-,.. A v-L, ol,e5I Ax~-~e:k,,{ ~A
NAME OF PERSON(s) PRI~ARING ~A.:
I. l~O3ECr INFOEMATION
A.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (include proix~e~ us~ and minimum lot si,,- m applicable):
%,.., ~ ,..L; ,..,',~ ~-...- t · HI':' c,:,"--". % ,"'-Co ,,,~.L,~
B. TYPE OF PROJECT: SITE SPECIFIC ; COUNTYWIDE ; COMMUNr'f'Y ; POLICY
Two or more of the abov~ may appl~. A S~"gpeci~c Project invo~fewer than 1000 property ownen in a'~'~efina e
area and results in · chart e in ~mting land uses, zonin , open space designations or C.x>mmuni~ Plan lan use
aesi .,ions. u site s~_~J P"i-" "~ :p-k.d fill o., ,[e re,--ind. of ,li,. p.se.. site s ·; P,oj., .'a, no
ca~..~ aud the project a~, · dgfiu~ area, ml in only Items C 'Foal Proje~-t Area' and ~lc, w.d b't
C. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES i.L./~ ; or SQUARE FEET
De
To the extent po~ible fill out the re inin information for Item C m it s plies to the project.
Reside.till: Acres t ~[,
~mme~: ~ ~u ~ure ~ Buildinl N~ Projm~. of Emp oy~s
~d~t~l: ~u ~U ~re F~I of Build~S Nu ProJ~ No. of Emp oy~s
Other:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s):
, ,~f- o,,~b1. P-~.
F. SECTION, TOWNSHIP. RANOE DESCRHPrION OR ATTACH A LF.,GAL DE,K~IFrlON:
O. BRn:I:DESCRffTIONOFTH:EIDOSTINOENVIRONMENTALS~i~&NOOFTHI"-PROJECTSITEANDITS
$tiROU'NDINGS:
This p8 must only be comple[e~ for propc~._ls that ql~lify as Site Specific Projeas. The informaLion on this page is not
r_equir~fo~r projeas which are not Site Spe,~ however, completion of applicable portious of this seaion is encourage,eL
,~,~..., ~_..~%~.~J~. ~ ... th~ ~o,,...~.,..~th .ch ...hich .~ .~.ca~ie ,o the ~,oi~ "~o. ~,,e ~o~e
A OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DF,,,,~IGNATION(S) (Not applJcabie in R,EMAP):
B. LAND USE PLANNING AKEA: ~ '
C, SUBAKEA, 11= ANY:
D. COMMUNITY POLICY AREA IF ANY:
F_ COMMUNrTY PLAN, IF ANY:
F. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIONATION(s), IF ANY:
O. RF. MAP ADVISORY DIESIONATION(s), IF ANY:
K ADOrs~SPE~iCPLAN, IFANY: '~'
t SPECIFIC PLAN DF. SIONATION(s), IF ANY:
J. EX,~x~O ZONINO:
L ADJACEqT ZONINO:
~:~'' l~- IC PROPOSED ZONING, IF ANY:
//e-/
If the respoesc w Items M, N, O, R, S, or T is 'No" or "Co_ndi'-ionalP/, discuu the itcrn~ receiving thcr~ responses.
M. is th~ propo~ mnsistent with the slte's e~tin$ or propos~ zoning fDoe~ not apply to zone change proposals)?
N. is the proporal compatible with ggistin~. surrounding zoning?
O. It t~ propaul 1s implemutin$ · specific plan, is it wlnistent with the speci~c pltn'i duignatlon~?
Based on inditing conditions, what land use categorT(iei), REMAP categor~(ies) or Open Space Duignation(s) best
describe the site? 1I pC~siblc, indicate subcategories such as residential, co~/rcial, etc..
Q. in order for the propescd project to be approvcd, for what land u.~ catego~(iu), REMAP category(ies) or C. ommuni~
PllnPoli~(im)~ouidthcsitehavctoqualify? ~.~- "~- P-~-~v,~,,= ~z~j~z~-.~,J
R. Will the land use cal~Jo~(les), REMAP categoiT(ies) or Community Plan Policy(ies) required to approve the propoa:
be met on the sl,- through conditiom of approval applied at the development stage? ~/e .~
S. is the proporal mmpatlble with I~.~tinl and piamled surrounding land u~s? ~/~ P ~
T. we LI~ proposal consistent wt,k the land m duffnation and potides of rig Comprehensive Gencral Plan?
For all proj indicate with · ~ or no ) whether any issu,.~ will ~ffc~ or be affected by the prop<~._.t.
yes (Y) in Section V.
LAND USE
snlslantial alteration of the present
or plmmed innd use of an area?
Is the proposal affec~ by a city
sphere of tnauence and~or adjacent to
· city or county boundary?
PUBLIC FAc~n .rilES AND SERVICES
CIRCULATION
C~mintio~ (plb IV.1 - IV.11)
Will the prolxsal result in:
a... Generation of substan"sl additional
g. __ An effect upon, or a need for new or
altered maintenance of roads?
k .. An effen upon circulation during the
v~hlcular movement?
Effccu on aistinf parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation s)stcms?
Alteration to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alteration to w'dterborne, rail or air
usMc?
lncrea~ in traffic h,uards to motor
~lficies, blcyclists, pedestrian (or
equestrian) tr~Sc?
pro~cct's consmsction?
n.-- xv. z2- xv. )
4...~_ Wasat ('Fi~. IV.14 - IV.15 ,e, Agency
WWtheprolxsaltmuhin:
&~ 'Hg n~d for new systm~ or sources
ot su!~anUal al~ratlon w water
inkvision
i~ztemlonofwatfflinmthrtmghan
usk, ve, loped sru?
c. Tee seed for the formation of a
~ (pig. IV. 14 - IV. 15 & Agency Letters)
Will the proposal result in:
0.__ The z,-_~_~ for new systems, or
substantial alteration to c.~tsting
s~wer and s~ptic rank s)stems?
b. ,~tlension of s~ver lines through an
undcvaloped are~?
c ~ The need for installation of adz7
sewer s'~stem as sanitary sewers arc
not immediately available?
PUBLIC SERVICES
6. Fin series .26- xv.2s)
Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or
altered fire protozoa s~ccs?
7,...~= Shertff Servtas (Pig IV. 17- IV. 18)
__ Will the proposal have an effec~
upon, or result in · need for new os
altered shcr~r protection sc~ces7
&._~_ Scbooa (pit~ IV.~?- IV. aS)
Will the propogl have an effcc~
upon, or result in a nee41 for new oz
~. N seua Ware (Z~ ZV. ZV-
a. Wm Use propcsal restsIt in · need
Mw systems, or sulN. Llntlal alteratioz
of solid waste r, ncratlon and dispeg
b.__, Is Use prolxsal inconsistent witi
ClWMP (Cosmty !megrated Wash
Manafemem Plan)?
~ (pl8. IV.17 - IV.18)
Health Sentme ~ IV.17 - IV. aS)
]tECRI~ATION
12. Y Padre sod Reautloa ('F~g, IV.19 - IV.2G, ~
No. 4~), Section 10.3~, Oft No.
&_ Will '~c proposal !ave
u~ or m~t ~ a ~ for n~ or
~ ~ or o~.
~?
m~n ~c q~ or q~ of
~ Pvh ud ~fion
Plan (Qulmby fm).'Y
13._~ Rm~tv. atloual Tr~lls CFig, N.19 - 1V.24, Rtv.
Co. S00 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps, Open
Space and Comervztion Map for Western
Counzy trail alignm~n~s).
~4.,_~, u~u,,es (Fif~ IV.~S.
Will the proposal result in · neexl for ne'.v
systems, or subslxntial alteration of the
following utilities:
b. Natural
c. Communicatiom
d. Storm water drainage7
e. Street fighting?
f ,,
MISCELLANEOUS
15._~_ Airports ('Fig, IL18,2-11.18.4, 11.18.8 - II.18.10
i N,27 - IV,36)
Will the proposal:
a. Result in sn inr.~n~istency with an
Airlx>rt Muter Plan?
b. Require review by the Airpon Lane
Us~ Commission?
16. ~ Other
17.,,~~ Housing
a.._._ Will the
homing?
b.
HOUSING
prolxml silK;
Will the proposal a~ate a demand
for additional homing, psrti~hrly
homing affordable 1o households
e~ttinll 80% or Ires of the County's
median income?
c. Will the proposal ·her the lcx:ation
distribution, deniity or growxh rate o
the human population of an aru?
d.__ Is the proJx~sal within · CounP.
Redevelopmeat Project Area?
E~G'ERO~AL ~ ,L~:rx-'~-'M]~ (C,~tmmed)
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
l&,~. ~dqutst-Prkdo Spec~ Sm~es or Coun~h~t
HsnN Zooes (~r~ VI, I - VL2)
A-P Zones NA PS U R OR& VL3)
CFH Zones NA PS U R (i~ VL3)
u,pem, soe Po.n -, zone (mr. vu.
NA S PS U R (FIg. Vl.4)
NA s Ps U R CRy. v~)
Wm tJ~ proposal mull in:
L ~ rm-,,le in topography or ground
surfa~ rnlinf features?
b._ Cut or ~l siop~ greater than 9'1 or
hiiher than 10 feat?
c. Grading that affecu or negates
sub~urface t~vaJe dltpoal systems?
22. ~ Land~de R~k (Riv. Co. 8GG kale S~ismic
Map~ or On-site
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.6)
Will the propreal mull in:
a.__ Urnruble earth condttion~ or in
chafes in polo,gic sut~tru~ures?
b._ ~urc of people or propert), to
poufbk dope fafiure or rockfall
hazards?
2.3. ,~_ Soils (U.S.D.A. SOIl Cuns~r~ation krvice Soil
Sul~eys)
Will the proi~dl mull in:
a.__= Disruptions, displacements,
compm~tion or ovm'~l of ~e
M~?
b. __ ~u~ ofs~aurm to
M~ mn~Oom?
EARTH (Coetinued)
2.4. N Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soft Con.~rvation Service
Soil Surve3$)
Wffi the proposal result in:
a. r~nnfes in deposition, silLation or
errsion which may modify the
channel of a river or stream or the
bed of a lake?
Any increase in water erosion either
on or off site?
2~.._~= Wind Erodon & Blowsand from project either
moor off dt~ (Fig. Vl.l-VL2, Ord. 4~},Scc.
14~ & ~ ~)
~. ~ G~d SukM~
27.~ Uniq~ Future
Wlte pro~ rmult in:
~t~ion, ~ng or m~i~tion
of any unique g~logic or ph~i~l
f~tur~?
O~er
FLOOD
29.._~=
.30.
Dam Inundation .4d'P,a (Fig. VL?)
. . _l~-dplains (Fig. VI.7)
NA U R (Fig. Vl.8)
Wifi the proposal result in:
a._ Alteration to the a~urse or flow of
flood water~?
b.__ Ciliagas in Course or direction of
water movements?
,'_ Changm in absorption rates or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
d._ F=x'~osure of people or propert7 to
mater related hazards such a~
flooding?
NA - Not Applimbin
ratin ~k
Critical Essential Normal-l-fifh Risk
De~niltons for Land Use Suitabnit~ Ratings
Wlsae indicated above,, ctrck lbc appropriate Land Use S-ItabLlity Rating(s).
IIL
EI~.WIIO~ ISSUE~ ~ fC~tlam~
INVlRONMINTAL HAZARDS (Conflamed)
Airpert Noise (112. I1.185, I/-18.11 ,*, VI. I2 ,~
l~t AICUZ ~
NA A B C D (F!&VLII)
NA A B C D (Fig.VLll)
35._~.. NoiM DIm am m'l~ tht ~ (Fig. VLll)
a. Wi/i the propall result in increases
in aisting noise im,cts?
b. Wm the propessl result in the
ea'posure of people to severe noise
levels?
AIR OUAI.rr'I'
36. ~ Atr Qnulit~ Impacts
Will the proposal result in:
c.
Substantial air emission or
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Creation of objectionable odors?
Alteration of aiA' movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in
climate. ether locally or r~gionally?
d. ___ Eqxmsur~ of land uses usoc~ted with
sensitive rcccptors which arc located
w'l,wln I mile of a projoe% site to
projan point sou~z emissiom?
e,.__ The mmtruction of a semitire
t~c~ptor loretrot within one mile of
an existing point aout~ ~nittcr?
WA'Ir~K OUAI.rTY
37. ~ Water Quulll3, Impacts Will ~c pro~ r~ult ~:
~ __ D~rgc into su~a~ ~xe~ or any
~tmfion of surfa~ ~ter quailS,
~2 but not ~it~ to
~t~ dit~!~ O~gcn, Or
~ldi~?
b._ Su~l r~u~on ~ ~c amount
of ~t~ o~ a~ilablc to the
pubHc?
.. ~ P~aoa of mtc mate~ah or
~naminan~ into groundwater
~u~, ~ud~g but not Hmit~
to nitrate, petroleum based
mn~nu?
d.. ~urc of a proj~ ~itivc to
Mter quli~ to unh~lthrul ~tcr
suppli~?
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND CONDITIONS
39.~j
4z ~ nuntalons Fu~ Aru Oqg. VL.~O - vl.~l)
43. Y ML Pakmmr (Otd. No. 655)
,t4. ~ Other Lighting Issues
. .. Does the prop~al involve a risk of explosion
or the r~lc~ of hazardotto substancc~
(inciuding but not limite~l to: oil, l~ticidu,
chemimt~ or radiation) in the event of an
accident or u~t condition?
Does the proposal involve possible
interference with an emergency ruponse pla~
or an emergency evacuation plan?
, . Will the proposal mull in the acation of an)
health hazard or potential health ha,arC
(acludin2 mental health)?
· . WU/the proprail result in the exposure ol
people to potential health hazards?
WtU fist proposal result in:
& ,,_. Production of new light or glare?
b. P, zposurc of residential property
mm:ceptable fight levers?
.. Other
Definitions Ira' Noise Aectptabitity Ratings
Whexe indicated above, cixcie the appropriate Noise A,','eptability Rating(s).
~mmmmm~smmm
AGRIa;L~JI~
47. ~V
A~'tculuu~ (l~g. V'1.34 - VL35)
Will the proposal result in:
a. ___. Reduction in acreage of any
uJrlcultural aop or prime farmland?
Convertion of farmland w~in; or
adjacent to, an agricuhur~ preserve
(glv. Co. Agricultural Land
Conservation Contract Maps)?
Developmentofnon4griculturaluses
within 300 feet of agricuhurally zoned
property?
Wiidllfe (l=]g. V1.36. VL37)
Wl~ the proposal result in:
a.=.Y._ Impure on an adopted Habitat
Con.~ervation
b. __ Change in the divezsity of $pe, cies, or
overaft number of any spccies of
animals (birds, lind mammals,
reptiles, fish, and invertebrates
including insects and aquatic
species)?
c_ Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, threatened or
endangered species of animals?
d.' introduction of new species of
shim%is into an area, or a harrier to
the ml2ratJon or movement of
"_D~terioratjon of nilring ~h or
wildlife habitat?
VEGETATION
49. ~ Vegetation (Fig. V138 -
WllJ the proposal result in:
a. __ C~a,,Sc in the diversity of species, or
overall number of any species of
plant (in~uding trees, shrubs,
and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduajon in the numbers of any
unique, fate, threatened
endangered spee~es of plants?
r= inmxluction of new species of plants
into an area, ot a harriet to the
normal repien.tslunent of c~sting
apecies?
d. Reduction in the numbers of any
plim spe~es which are integral to the
life cycle of any sensitive animal
MINERAL RF..SOURCT, S
50. ...~L Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 - VL42)
Will the proposal result in
a. Prec, lusion of u~e of all or pan of a
State classified or designated
MKZ-2 zone resource?
b ..... Ina)mpatible lind uses being located
adjacent to a State classified or
designated MRZ-2 zone area or
aisting surface mine?
c._ Etp~ure of people or property to
hazards from proposed, existing or
abandoned quarrie~ or mines?
ENERGY RESOURCES
SI. KI ~ ~ (Fig. VU3- V~.44)
W~ ~¢ ~ ~ult m:
& __ U~ of su~l ~o~u of ~el or
b._ Su~ ~ ~ de~nd u~n
~g mm of mere, or r~uire
~ ~pm~t of n~ wur~ ol
~ __ ~n of ~ ~ of a ~u~
~m~ ~, or bio~
~ ~~) pwj~?
ENVIRON!M'k'NTAL iZPY, OURCES (Continued)
WA-~ ~a RESOURCES
~Z, ~ Wattr Ratout, us
Will the proposal result in:
s._ CI~ in ~ mount of surface
watu in any water body (including
l~sh water manhes, vernal pooh,
oases, tenaids, blueline streams, seeps
and springs)?
b. __ Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of pound watch?
either through dire~t
sddtUons or withdrswals, or through
Interception of an aquffer by mu or
m:autions?
t__ Alteration, dredgin2 or filung of
wetlands (including fresh water
manhes, ~rnal pooh, oases, tendies,
blueline streams, s~eps and springs)?
SCEIVIC RESOURCES
53. ~{ Scenic Rmur~es
a.__ Is the proposal within e genie
highway corridor? ('Fig. VI.45)
b. Will the proposal result in xhc
obstruction of any prominent scenic
vista or view open to the public, or
result in the t~eation of an
mthctjcalJy offc~ivc site open w
public view?
h'ISTORIC IIR~OURCF, S
54._~ Hlsem~: Resourm (Fig, V1.32 - VL33 .e
VL48)
Will the pmposul result in:
L__ Alteration or destruction of an
historic site?
b._ Adw. n~ physical or amthetic effecu
to an historic building, struaure or
object?
ARCI~,EOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Atr. haeologlcal Resour~s (Fig. VL32 - VIi3
x, VI.46 -
Will the proposal result in:
a. ,___ Alteration or destruction of ·
prehistoric resource site?
b. A~h, er~ physical or aesthetic ef/ec~
~o · piehistoric bullying, structure or
objea?
C. A physical change which would affea
umque e~mic cultural values?
t __, Adver~ physical or aesthetic
to u burial
e. Restriction of ousting religious or
s~crea ~ within the potential
irapad area?
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5~.._~_ Paleontologlcsd Ruourt~s (Palcontological
Resourc~ Map)
RESOURCE USE
57. ~/ Will the propoxal result it, · sub
depiction of any non-renewable
5& kl resourea?
Will the proposal alter the ra:
natural resource?
~.tiaI
aral
any
59.""__. Other
60.- Omer
FFI. ENVIRON1vEElcTM., L.n~u~ AS$~"cMElcT (c, mstmue~
61.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Doc~ the proJec~ have the pot~ntLal
the qusfi~ of the cnvi~nmcnk substantially
reduce the habitat of · fish or
mttr~ · fish or wfidllfe population to drop
b~iow ~lf s~taining ~ threaten to
elisnhxat~ a plant or animal community, reduce
the numt~T or m~ct the range of · ra~e,
threatened or ~sdanger~d plant or t~imn| Of
e. limlnat~ Important ~mmpl,'~ of the major
periods of California lalstot~ or prehistoaT?
Does the project have the potential ,,, achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
covironmcn~ goals? (A short-term Impact on
the environment Is one which o~cun in ·
roLati~!y brief, definhi~ !griod of Ihne while
long-term Impacu will endure well into the
future.)
Does the project have impaas which are
--individually limited, but cumulativcly
co.nsiderable? (A project may impocCo'n'rwo
or more s~parate resources where the impam
on each r~source is relatively small, but where
the effe~-'t of the total of those impact~ on the
environment Is si~ificant.)
64..__ Does me projecx have environmental cffc~s
which will mm~ substantial adverse effc~ts on
human b~ings, ~ther directly or indirectly?
IV. ~OrERONMDITAL IMPACT DETERMINATION:
['="1 l rl~d the ptolxmmd projen will not have a ~ignlfimnt e. ffe~ on the ~/ffoament and a Negative l:)~.Jaration ~ill b~
p~arml.
(or)
I sad titat nl u the pro ro eel could hav~ · si L~cant e, ffzct on tiz cnviro cnt, there will not be ~
V, IXFORMATION SOU]tCES, FINDINGS OF FACT, buiiGATION M:F.,~uKES AND MONITORING
REQUIREMEqTS
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
I]~FOEMATION INFOI~V, ATION INFORMATION FINDING
~ !~OUIRED REOUF_XI'ED RECEIVED ~"F_,S/NO. DATE~
~-. /~ ~,
For each issue marked yes 0') under Sections Ill. B, id¢ntlfy the mug number and do thg following, in the format a~
4. ~a~ditiolzal info~a~tion l~ m;luired ~)~fore the env-,ro p , Subsection
5. ~'addltlonal sheets are needed to mmplete ~hk section, check the box at the end of the section and attach the
necesur/sheets.
SOURCX$, AGENCIES CONSULTED, PINDINOS OF FACT,
MrFIOATION M'PA.~I..TRw~ AND MONTFORINO REOUTREMENTS
v. n~om~noN ~tl==e~ n~rnn~cs oF FACT, MmCAT~ON ~ A~rv Mo~rro~,~c
aF_~vnunm~
V. INFORMATION ~1:i~ !"INDI~GS OF FACT, M.ii1GATION { AND MONITOR, ING
IJ
~TB sy
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25538
TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.43 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS
AT 30565 ESTERO STREET.
WHEREAS, Robert Paine filed Parcel Map No. 25538 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on
September 10. 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approval of said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months
.following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
as not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
J l ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
12) The planning agency finds, in approvlng projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
Ja)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 1
{b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan,
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
{2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions. including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 25538 proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Parcel Map may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any Parcel Map approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 2
E, As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project cou)d have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project
and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 25538 for the subdivision of a 1 .L~3 acre parcel into two parcels located at
30565 Estero Street subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 1990.
DENNIS CHIN)AEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof. held
on the 10th day of September, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PM25538 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDCMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
hereln above in this Resolution of approval for Parcel Map No. 25538.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFR PT\TPM25538 ~
ITEM #9
Case No.:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Substantial Conformance No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 164
Prepared By: Deborah Parks
Recommendation: Continuance
Substantial Conformance No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 16~, was continued from the
September 10, 1990 Planning Commission Hearing. A copy of the previous Staff
Report and minutes of the hearing are attached. The item was continued for two
reasons:
To determine whether or not the request should be a specific plan
amendment or substantial conformance. The file was transferred to the
City as a Substantial Conformance.
To review the possibility of reinstating the original Class I bike trail
which traversed the entire project through the open space/park system
of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan.
The applicant is currently working faithfully with Staff to resolve these two issues.
However, solutions to either issue have not been reached at this time and Staff
recommends continuance of Substantial Conformance No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 164
to the October 15, 1990 Planning Commission hearing.
DP:ks
STAFFRPT\SC2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
Case No:. Substantial Conformance ~2 to Specific Plan
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Davidson Communities
REPRESENTATIVE:
RANPAC Engineering Corporation
PROPOSAL:
Deletion of the Class I bike trail which
traverses the park and open space
area located adjacent to Residential
Planning Area No. u, of the Roripaugh
Estates Specific Plan.
ZONING:
Specific Plan #16L~ {park and open
space area adjacent to Plannln9 Area
No. ~.).
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP ~16~, Open Space
SP #161~ Single Family
SP ~16~, Park/Commercial
SP ~16~, Open Space
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
BACKGROUND:
North: Vacant
South: Single Family
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
Substantial Conformance #2 to Specific
Plan f~16L~ was originally submitted to
the Riverside County Planning
Department on January 22, 1990. The
County of Riverside accepted the
request as a Substantial Conformance
application rather than a Specific Plan
Amendment application since the
proposal would not change the intent
of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan
or change its' intensity. The
application requests the deletion of the
STAFFRPT\SC2 1
ANALYSIS:
Class ) bike trail which traverses the
park and open space area located
adjacent to Residential Planning Area
No. 4. Exhibit A illustrates the
location of the Class I bike trail. Since
the request was primarily a Planning
Department concern, the application
was not required to be reviewed by the
Land Development Committee. The
application was scheduled for an early
May Planning Commission hearing but
was then transferred to the City of
Temecula for processing.
Exhibit B illustrates the original
Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan
Bicycle And Equestrian Trails element.
By comparing Exhibit B to Exhibit A,
it is clear that the original Class I
bicycle trial traveling throughout the
project no longer exists. Exhibit B
was amended as part of Specific Plan
Amendment No. 1 for Specific Plan No.
164. The result was the Class I bike
trial in Exhibit A, which has limited
access and direction. The definition of
a Class I bike trail is one that is
separated from a roadway and
traverses a park or open space. The
Class I bike trail in Exhibit A no longer
connects to the Class II bike trail on
Roripaugh Road and no longer
functions as a component of a larger
bike trail system. The purpose of the
Subject Class I bike trail is somewhat
nebulous. The bike trail does not
improve access to the park or any
other land use within the plan.
Exhibit C is a portion of Tract Map
20703-3 which has been approved for
the subject location. The map
delineates the lots which are adjacent
to the Class I bike trail. One of the
access points to the bike trail is via an
open space easement between lots 66,
67, and 68. The developer of the
property is concerned that a bike trial
within this easement will be a nuisance
for the future residents of lots 66, 67,
STAFFRPT\SC2 2
and 68. The developer fears that the
easement area wi)) be used as a bike
raceway or gathering place for
resident children.
Exhibit D illustrates the proposed
change to the Roripaugh Estates
Specific Plan Bike and Equestrian Trial
exh)bit.
in a City where public recreation
opportunities is a concern, the review
of this request has not been taken
)icJhtly. However, due to Amendment
No. 1 of Specific Plan No. 16~,, the
original intent of the Class ) bike trail
no longer exists. It is unfortunate
that the County eliminated the
connecting trail which could allow
travel thorough the park and open
space designations of the plan,
illustrated in Exhibit E from North
General Kearney Road to Winchester
Road. This trail could have also been
linked up with the Class I) trait on
Nicholas and Winchester Roads
illustrated in Exhibit A. However,
given the fact that the integrated bike
trail system no longer exists in
conjunction with the Class ) bike trail,
staff believes that the request to
eliminate the Class ) trail would not
change the intent of the Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to APPROVE the
Substantial Conformity request.
STAFFRPT\SC2 3
and 68. The developer fears that the
easement area will be used as a bike
raceway or gathering place for
resident children.
Exhibit D illustrates the proposed
change to the Roripaugh Estates
Specific Plan Bike and Equestrian Trial
exhibit.
In a City where public recreation
opportunities is a concern, the review
of this request has not been taken
lightly. However, due to Amendment
No. 1 of Specific Plan No. 16u,, the
original intent of the Class ) bike trail
no longer exists. It is unfortunate
that the County eliminated the
connecting trail which could allow
travel thorough the park and open
space designations of the plan,
illustrated in Exhibit E from North
General Kearney Road to Winchester
Road. This trail could have also been
linked up with the Class l) trail on
Nicholas and Winchester Roads
illustrated in Exhibit A. However,
given the fact that the integrated bike
trail system no longer exists in
conjunction with the Class I bike trail,
staff believes that the request to
eliminate the Class ) trail would not
change the intent of the Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to APPROVE the
Substantial Conformity request.
DP:dd
02158/3001 / 0u,5
SR/PlanComm
STAFFRPT\SC2 3
c~c~ : I
® :e i
Z i.
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
FO / ~ "/ ~/ P, Ok~.
/14Tu° PER R'5 .5'<~ / 74,
~CHESTER RO~D NWY 7~
PER COUNTY ~P 854-F ~
g ~8 /77/72-7G. /
N4
A Portion of Tract Map 2703-3
RANCHO CAUF-ORN~
RORIPAUGH ESTATES
DAVIDSON COtvtt~
Exhibit
#I
ii
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Case No.: First Extension of Time
Tentative Tract Map No. 22761
Minor Change No. 1
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Coleman Homes
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
Eighty (80) lot residential subdivision of 28 acres.
First Extension of Time.
Between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road,
west of Ynez Road.
Specific Plan 180 (Rancho Highlands)
North: R-A-5
South: SP 180
East: R-1
West: 1-15
ResidentialAgricultural,
5 acre minimum)
Rancho Highlands)
One-Family Dwellings)
Interstate 15)
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Interstate 15
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots:
Open Space Lots:
Proposed DU/Acre
Proposed Minimum Lot Size:
28
80
1
2.8
7,200 sq.ft.
STAFFRPT\TM22761 1
ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands, was
adopted by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on June 5, 198b,. Amendment No. 1 to
this Specific Plan, Change of Zone No. 5105, and
Tract No. 22761 were adopted by the Board on July
18, 1988. The Amendment switched Planning Area
Nos. 8 and 9 (Tract No. 22761) from the very low
residential category of 0-2 DU/AC to the low
residential density category of 2-5 DU/AC.
Minor Change No. 1 to Tentative Tract No. 22761
was originally approved by the Riverside Board of
Supervisors on November 1~,, 1989. The application
was submitted for the reconfiguration of streets and
adjoining lot layouts to increase land use and
circulation efficiency.
Tract Map No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1 is a
proposal to subdivide approximately 28 acres into
eighty {80) single family residential lots with a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, The subject
site is located south of Rancho California Road, west
of Ynez Road and easterly of 1-15.
Oesiqn Considerations
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance Nos.
3b,8, b,60 and Specific Plan No. 180. The main access
to the project is Preece Lane. The project has been
designed to provide increase land use and
circulation efficiency.
Density
The proposed subdivision (Tract No, 22761, Minor
Change No. 1) according to Specific Plan 180,
requires proposed subdivisions to range from 2-5
DU/AC. The proposed subdivision consists of 2.8
DU/AC. Thus, meeting Specific Plan No. 180
density requirement for residential development.
The proposed density of 2.8 units per acre is
con sistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan.
In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project
will be consistent with the new General Plan when it
is adopted.
STAFFRPT' TM22761 2
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
On July 18, 1988, the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment Nos. 319~,3 and 3108L~ to
be applied to Tract Nos. 22761, 22762, and 21760,
Amended No. 2, at which time determined that the
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No.
22761, Minor Change No. 1 will mitigate any
environemtna) concerns.
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 22761, Minor Change
No. 1 will be consistent with the City's future
General Plan, which will be completed within
a reasonable time )n accordance with State
Law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditloned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Tentative Tract No. 22761, Minor Change
No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land
uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height,
density, and coverage is likely to create a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
STAFFRPT\TM22761 3
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated wit)~ this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No. 22761,
Minor Change No. 1, based on the analysis
and findings contained in the Staff Report
and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
RA:ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
STAFFRPT\TM22761
Location Map
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No. 22761
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA
143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has
provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with
Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. L~60. The agreement shall be approved by the
City Council prior to the recordat/on of the final map.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A
cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with
the City as mitigation for public library development.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineer/n9 Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
STAFFRPT\TM22761
Planning Department;
Engineerin9 Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements,
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office, in
addition to any other permits required.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2LP x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
10.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
11.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed
per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer.
12.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negetive Declaration for the
project, in the amount in affect at the time of payment of the fee. if an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\TM22761 2
RiVE=I iDE coun ,u
PLAnflinG DEPAR mEn
DATE: December 27, 1989
TO:
Applicant
Engineer
9~'veyor
Building & Safety
FZood Control
Health
Fire Protection
RE:
Minor Chonge No. 1
Tentative Tract/Parcel Map No. 22761
Regional Team No. Specific Plan Team
The Riverside Co~mty l' ] Planning Director ill
oction on the above referenced tentative map:
X
Boarrl of ~vervisor~ has taken the following
APPROVED Minor Change to revtsecl originally approve6 conditions as shown (attached).
APPROVED Minor Change to r~ise originally appro~ed map (attached).
DENIED request for Minor Change.
APPROVED Minor Change to waive the final map.
Approval of this ]dinor Change does not chanqe or effect the expiration of the originally
al~or~n~d tentotive map or ~y ~t ~l~ of time.
Ve~ ~ly ~
~ER~DE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
R~r ~ ~e~r, P~g D~c~r
GAN:aea
11-08-89
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342'8277
FROM:
IUII~'~ALI'OI'H~IOARD OF iI,,fi~RV~SORS
COUNTY OF NV~i~/)F,, ETA'ft- OF CA~D:ORNLak
P]anntng Depari~ent IUIMTllAI. DATE: October 19, 1989
p.
me
c:)
NOTICE OF DECISION OF MINOR CHANGE REQUEST ACTED ON BY
THE PLANNING COIq4ISSION ON August 16, 1989 for the Following
Cruse.
RECO~rn MOTION: ~EC ~ / ~'~ ~i3~ ~ ? ;~E~
RECEIVE AND FILE the Notice of Decision for Minor Change Request
for the following case.
The Planning Commission
APPROVE) MINOR CHANGE NO. I for TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 22761,
su'~to all previous conditions and based on the findings and
conclusions incorporated in the Planning Cowmntsston minutes dated
August 16o lgBg.
~' 'RG:FB:mp
~treeter, ~8nn~ng Director
AGENDA NO.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 16, 1989
(AGENDA ITEN 4-1 - Tape 2A)
TRACT MAP NO. 22761, MINOR CHANGE NO. I - EXE)(PT FROM CEQA - Glen Fed
Development Co. - Ranthe California Area - First Superbserial District - 80
lots - 28~ acres - SP Zone - Schedule A - MINOR CHANGE REQUEST:
Reconfiquration of Culs-de-sac and Adjacent lots (Cent. frue 7/26/89)
Hearing was opened at 2:07 p.m. and was closed at 2:16 p.m.
Staff advised that the letter in question frem the County Geologist has been
received.
TESTIMONY OF PROPONENT:
Robert Kemble (Robert Bean, Willtm Frost & Assoc., 38765 Single Oak Drive),
represents ng the applicant, said that they had hoped to move forward today;
however if the Ccmmtsston wishes a continuance. they would cueply. Mr. Kemble
asked that that continuance be one week.
C~,.,tsstoner Purvlance asked if the staff could peruse the letter from the
Geologist, then could the Camelesion act on this matter by this afternoon. Mr.
Streeter asked what the letter said. Mr. Gel dean advised that the letter was a
recam~endation regarding slope stability on the site. He said that it appeared
to accept the methodology used. Mr. $treeter saw no problem in moving forward
with this item. Mr. Kemble advised that he had no problem with the Geologist's
letter.
Mr. Gel dean suggested that the Comtsston get copies of the letter.
Camntsstoner Turner said that the letter ts pretty clear cut. The report
satisfies the General Plan requirement for a slope stability report, end the
letter is all positive. Mr. Goldman said that the recommendation of the
Geologist has been incorporated within the tract map. Cmmtssioner Turner
asked if there were any other concerns, and Mr. Gel dean advised that that was
the major issue. Mr. Geldean said that staff would racemend approval of the
Minor Change.
Mr. Umble referred to Page 4 of the conditions of approval, item d, which
relates to the CCIR's. He said that that is an older condition that usages
that they ~uld have ill the cornnon ireas going to the County in conromance
with C$A 143. It was not the intent of the applicant for ell the cnsmon open
space areas to go to the County, however, they have not decided which ereas
will or will not go to the County. He said that there ts Mother standard
conoltton for that situation, and they ~uld prefer that condition instead.
Mr. Streetmr said that. staff anted to make sure that the open space area are
maintained. He muld prefer that the maintenance he under something other than
Imeownere, but that honeowners would suffice. That standard language works
that the CC&R's go through the Planning Deparlaent, then County Counsel, so
staff could subs. tttute the alternate condition.
13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COte4ISSIDN MINUTES
AUGUST 16, 1989
Mr. Kmnble said on Page 8, Condition 23.a. requi res that "prior to issuance of
grading permits, that they sumit detatled common open space area landscapl ng
and irrigation plans.' He requested that that be changed to the building
;emit stage in order to be consistent with the conditions and standards
outlined in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. Mr. Golman said that that was
~ceptable. Mr. I~ble then referred to Page 12, Con~tton 24.f (top of page),
which requires building separations including fireplaces be not less than ten
feet. He asked that that state excludin fireplaces in order to allow the one
foot encreacl~aent for ~hlmneys which BuiVding and Safety allows. Mr. Golman
advised that that mould be consistent with Rancho Highlands as well. There was
no one else who w(shed to speak for or against the matter.
The hearing was closed at Z:16 p.m.
NOTION: Upon motion by Cam~tsstoner Turner, seconded by Cam~tssioner Beadling,
and unanimously carried, the Ca~mission mpproved Tentative Tract No. 22761,
Minor Change No. 1, subject to the conditions as mended this date.
14
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 26, 1989
(AGENDA ITEM 6-1 - Tape 2B)
TRACT FlAP NO. 22761, MINOR CHANGE NO. 1 - EXEHPT FROM CEQA - Glen Fed
DeveloFment Co, - Rancho California Area - First Supervisortel District - 80
lots - 28~ acres - $P Zone - Schedule A - MXNOR CHANGE REQUEST:
Reconftguratton of Culs-de-sac and Addacent Lots
Hearing was opened at 2:48 p.m. mnd was continued to 2:00 p.m. on
August 16, 1989.
Staff requested a two week continuance of this ttm in order to allow for
sufficient ttme for renew of this case.
TESTIMONY OF PROPONENT:
Robert Kemble (28765 Stngle Hope Drtve, Rancho California) advised that they
ere in concurrence with the two week continuance, No one else wished to
cement,
NOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Turner, seconded by C~nmisstoner Donehoe,
and unanimously cardted, Tract Map No. 22761, Mtnor Change No. Z was continued
to August 16, 1989, at 2:00 p.m,
33
Zontng Are: Itancho C411fornts
Supervlsortal DIstrict: Ftrst
.~ectflc Plan No. 180 (Rancho HIghlands)
Development Rgreement No. 3
Spectf~c Plans Team
Case: Tentative Tract No. 22751
Htnor Change No. 1
1. AppHcant:
2. Engtneer/Rep.:
3. Type of Request:
4. Locatton
S. Extsttng Zontng:
6. Surrounding Zontng:
7. Slte Clmrectertsttcs:
GlenFed Develoleent Company
Robert ktn, ttlllam Frost &
Associates
To change street and lot
configurations
South of Rancho C&llfornta Road,
lest of Ynez Road, and easterly of
1-15
$P
R-A-S, R-l, SP
Vacant, htlly t~rra4n covered wtth
sage scrub
8. Area Characteristics:
Ilestdenttal uses $xtst to the
aortaeast and south; otherwise,
vacant land uses surround the site.
lO. Land Dlvtston DiU:
S~eclfic tlanlo. IBO (hncho
HIghlands)
Total kresge: 28
lestdeettal Lets:
n Since Lets:
S~gJ~Per Acre: L8
IHn. Lot SIze: TZ0O $~$re feet
STAFF REPORT
lage 2
11, liecamendattons:
12. Letters:
13. Sphere of influence:
bad: June 13, 1989
Health: Nay 12, 1989
Flood: June 7, 1989
Ftre: Nay 11, 1989
LInd Use: Iky ~7, 1989
6redtrig: July 20, 1989
Caltrens: Nay 22, 2989
Opposing/Supporting: None
Not writh4n a ctty sphere
,ANA~YSZS
Pro:loci Description
141nor change NO. I to Tentative Tract No. 22762 tsen application for a
c|'.re'" 'nd ,o, ,.you,. to ,..,...s.
'lcn
The s4te ts located south of RancOo California Road, ktst of Ynez bad, and
ocsterly of interstate IS. At tiresent, the project sttets vacant.
t
Surrounding lend uses toclude mostly vaunt, hilly titrate, vtth res denttel
~s~ an~ the south and east. SP zootog tendlately surrounds the stte to the
h
soul . To the north ts R-A-5, end to the mast tS R-Z.
lACKGROUND
51imCtftC Plan No. ]80, liencOo HIghlands, ms adopad by the liverside County
IOlrd Of $taliWrvtlors on dune S, )J84. AreIncisor No. ) to tots Spectftc Pll ,
CM Of Zofm No. 6205, ~ncJ Tract No. ~2761 ere idol)ted by the Board on du~y
I8, n~leN8, TM/mudrout wttohnd Plinntng Areas 8/9 (Tract No, 12761) fran the
ver7 1oN residential catagor~ Of 0-2 de/so to the 1or PesSdenttll denstry
catIgor7 Of :-S du/oc.
Envlrormntol Malnts
Envtromental Met leport Ik, 177 ms Iwelierad for Slmlffc Plan No. 180; the
telacts eddrossad te the EZR and the condittos pro sad timrote should be
applied to Tract Is. 12762, Hieor he No. 1. ~ resolution adoptleg EXR
Io. 177 tndtcaten that no stgotftunt eevFronmntsl tmpacts u111 occur is a
result Of tots act. The conditions Of approval for Tract No. 2276~, ~nor
Cheep No. I vtlrr°jtfgete lr~ environmental concerns.
STAFF REPORT
S ctftc P]an 180
~4~CT 22761/Ntno~ Chang~ tl
Fqe 3
It should be noted that I geologtc beerS extsts on the sties the I11domar
Fault, rated potentially active, cuts across the eastern portton of the stte.
The Fault &qd 1as associated SO-foot setback have been delineated per Ordinance
NO. 547.
FURTHER PLANNZNG CONSIDERATIONS
The eester~ portton of the slte ascending from Yeez Road had a 3:1 (horizontal
tO vertical) slope In the or~gtnal tract map end was not analyze~ due to
flatter 1ncllnst4on. However, 1as 2:1 slope tn the present conftgurltton of
N(nor Change No. 1 to Tract No. 22761 prompted I request by stiff for a slope
t
analysts. As of th s wrtttng, the submitted slope analys~s study needs to be
revtsed and agaln revtewed by the County Geologist. Staff ls vatting for a
clearance letter.
RECOI~ENDATZON
COIfT/IIIARCE of fitnor Change No. 1 to Tentative Tract No. 22761.
,~FAB:gs:bem
IM, LOTNID ITREETF'~C21w 1(3J~AlION
L Am, IIANCHOCaLIqXIffiA lupJIm. lm ~'
Ir..TJl.,IU,.lW 4mesm'slLl:3 Pg.:,l (,~ _,,~,.~
II(l. looklm~.ll IMtI8..ll, ll Ilmmtly k .._
r, w ~COUNTrPLAMIV0DEPAR?ilBVT ~j~
I TR 22761 MINOR CHANGE NO, 1 I-EXISTING ZONING
IC:)
R-3
SP R-2
R.4
R-A-5 ~=
R-R
R-I RoR L
M-S~ m zm:L4~ ~
C-I~-SR,.R~ 7
0 814 "" %' ' """ ''~
i
Zontng Area: Rancho California
Supervisorial District:' Ftrst
Specific Plan Sectton
HinOr Change for Tract No. 22761
Planning Comission: 7-26-8g
Ageride Item No.: 6-1
lIVERSIDE COIJMTY FUUelIN6 DEPAER)T
STAFF liEPOeT
Minor change No. I for Tract No. 22761 is a lot and street reconfiguration.
Subsequent to the case being scheduled for Planning Commission, the County
Geologist and the Grading Section of Building end Safety requested more time
for review.
MECO~IqENDATION
With the appltcant's conCurrenCe, staff recommends continuance for four weeks
to allow sufficient review time.
FAB: ban
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761
MINOR CHANGE NO. I
DATE: August 16, 1989
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, ·nd employees from any claim, action, or
iproceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
~ employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
~ ~) of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal beards or legislative body
w concerning Tract No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1, which action is brought
about within the time period provided for in California Government Code
Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the
subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of
Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or
fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
County of Riverside.
2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
A, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors ·pproval date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
The final mop shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
Ordinance 460.
The subdivider shell submit one copy of · soils report to the Riverside
County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and
Safety. The re rt shall address the sot1· stability and ~eologtcal
conditions of ~estte.
if any gr·ding is proposed, the subdivider ·hall submit one print of
comprehensive grading plan to the DeparUnent of Butldtng ·nd Safety. The
plan ·hall c~ply with the Uniform Building Code, Chmpter 70, is ended
by Ordtn·nce 457 and ·s myhe additionally provided for in these
conditions of ·pprov·l.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 2
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Oepar)ent of Building and
Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained
road right of way.
8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final map.
9. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
1
out ined in the Riverside County Road Oepartnent's letter dated June 13,
1989, a copy of which is attached.
10. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force unit1 the governing body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
the Road Commissioner.
2.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County
Surveyor.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
letter dated Nay 12, lgBg, a copy of which is attached.
4.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control reconmendations
outlined by the Riverside County Rood Control Oistrict's lettar dated
June 7, 1989, a copy of which ts etaached. If the land division lies
within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of
Ordinance 460, eppro rtate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shell be collected by the Road Coantsstoner.
15. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recmmendattons
outlined in the County Fire Marshel's letter dated May 11, 1989, a copy of
which ts attached.
The subdivider shell comply with the conditions set forth tn the
Depmrtmnt of Building and Safety Land Use Dtvtston's letter dated Hay 17,
1989, · copy of which is attached.
17. The subdivider shall comply with the conditions set forth in the
Department of Building and Safety Grading Dtvtston's letter dated July 20,
1989, a copy of which is attached.
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 3
0e
The subdivider shall comply with Caltran's letter dated Hay Z2, Z989, a
copy of which is attached.
Subdivision phaslng, Including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasln , if applicable, shall be subdeer to Planntn9
Departant approvaV. /my proposed phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the
provisions of Development Agreement No. 3 and Specific Plan No. 180.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net.
3.8C of n 460.
Ce
Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with
additional area pursuant to Section 3.BB of Ordinance 460 and so as
not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in
non-corner and through lots.
d. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformante with the
development standards of the S.P. zone.
When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot
shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
exclusive of the utility masem4nt.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained
condition end shall be either planted with tntertm
rovtded with other erosion control measures as
~trector of Building and Safety.
in a wed-free
landscaping or
mpproved by the
Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the folhmtng conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the rocordatton of the final map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and ~rvey Department
that ell pertinent r~qutrements outlined tn the attached approval
letters from the following agenctes have been met.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 4
County Fire Department County Health Department
County Flood Control County Planning Department
Building and Safety, Land Use and Grading Divisions
Caltrans
The cmmon open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on the
ftnal map and shall be managed by a master property owners'
association.
A property owner's association with the unqualified right to assess
the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs
shall be established and continuously maintained. The association
shall have the right to 1ten the property of the owners who default in
the payment of their assessments. Such 1ten shall not be subordinate
to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed
of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to
the lien of the association.
P~4ow 4a ~e{owda{4em e~ the f4ma~ map, the aubd4v4deF ihal~ fiesway 4e
um~eeawded~ led e.ementh oNeeel those eamemamfm wN4eh 4M the sole
.h.,...1, .,....,la,,.., ..,,i,...
seempUnS title 40 lush a~eah Ue awkd4v4dew ahalq aubmi~
She (e~ewiMg dalumen&s to the P~ann4mg geeawlmemt law Fev4ews which
documents mha~l be meb~ee4 to the app~eval of that depawedMMt IMd
Of--el. ae GouR(y GeNtsell (Deleted by Planning Commission 8-26-8g)
t~ A deelawat4an o~ levelaMiss Io~dit4ena led ~eetw40141Ma4
~ A aample deserve1 aenvay4q t4t4e to the pu~hfiew ff am 4nd4vidua~
104 e; unit wN4ah p~ev4dea that the dalawa14em el eeveManla,
aemditi~m and ~tat;4atCena 4a 4maem)ewaied tbe~e4m by ;'efe~eMeem
(Deleted by Planning Cixnmtssion 8-16-8g)
ff ann 4M4w4dum~ ~ Vet, mmmem4m~4e M~eed ~ the wme~m
mw4e4eMm we~mlbe ()le~d by Planning C~sston ~1~89)
eoet~am~, lbe ~ w4q Imv4a4en ~
snell app ~e (Deleted by Planntng
Commission 8-16-89)
demnt~ be aat4vae4d~ by 4eaePpewat4eM' o~
~equeal el 4~e Goue~y el R4vepl4dev led the
lthepw4ae, at the
Pebewty edMewa~
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22761. Htnor Change No. 1
Page 5
ossoe~a~40n ska~ uneeRd~440.s~y aaeept ~om the ~o~,~y o~
Rtvepstdel epen the Gevn(y~a damash ttUe 40
ateasked he.to.
be at theists d~se~ettet of the henry ~ R4ve~s4de. (De]eted by
P~ann~ng Co,n~ss~on 8-16-89}
w~4tten earnest ef the PtInn4n 94reete~ o~ the teeely o4i R~vewatde
~eeeFded aub,,ent to the settee 0~ a,e.men4 eF etheF dosemete
e~eettn! the eaaeasmen~ 4400. (Deleted by Planetrig Commission
8-16-89)
or t,ete~ey deanne.ed the.e~.oa absent (he t~4e~ w~ten Ionseat
the Phnntn! g4reate~ oF the ~een~y e~ R4ve~s4de e~ the gay.tyPe
eueeeaae~-4n-4nterest. A ereposed amendmerit she44 he eens~de~ed
Aaubo(anttat~ 4~ 41 ef~ee(s the eateat..eaSe ew me4ntenatee of the
Assam, a,az. (Deleted by P3anntng C~tsston ~Z~8~)
A~t4dea e¢ ineewte~at4ee. ~he ~tewe. or the trete~y eWne.z
ee~trelva el)elated by Planntng Commission 8-16-89)
Oeee lpt~evedl abe de~tepa(4eW e~ seveRnantes eeed4(4ens and
ellt~4lt4lna Ikl~ Im ~elotqJed at ~e elm ltm that abe fire; mp 4s
,,~ed. (bleed by Planetrig C~tsston
Prtor to recordat~on of the ftnal subdfvtston mp. the subdivider
shall submtt the fo]]wtng documents to the Planntng Department for
raytaW. uhtch documents she1] be subtact to the approval of that
deparment and the Office of the Count~ Counsel: (Added by P3anntng
Co.etsston 8-~6-89)
1) A declaration of covenants. conditions and restrtct$ons; and
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 6
2)
A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an
individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by
reference.
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
review shall (a) provide for a minimum term of 60years, (b) provide
for the establisl~nent of a roperay owners' association comprised of the
owners Of each individual V
ot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the
common area by either the property owners' association or the owners of
each individual lot or unit as tenants in co~non and (d} contain the
following provisions y~rbatim: (Added by Planningg Conmission 8-16-89)
"Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary,
the following provision shall apply: (Added by Planning Commission
8-16-89)
The property owners' association established heroin shall manage and
continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly described
on Exhibit ' ' attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the
'common are'lnl",or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent
of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's
successor-in-interest. (Added by Planning Conmission B-16-89)
The property owners' association shall have the right to assess the
owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of
minteining the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien the
property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a
maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be
prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of
assessment or other document creating the assessment lien. (Added by
Planning Ceme..ission 8-16-89)
This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended or
property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the
Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's
successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shell he considered
t f
'substent el' tf it if acts the extent, usage or omtntenance of the
'common area'. (Added by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
Zn the event of any conflict between thts Declaration end the Articles
of Incorporation, thm Bylaws or the property mrs' mssoctatton Rules
and Regulations, If any, this Declaration shall control." (Added by
Planntng Conmission 8-16-89)
Once epproved, the declaration of covenants, conditions end restrictions
shall be recorded at the same ttme that the ftnal map is recorded, (Added
by Planning Commission 8-16-8g)
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 7
gmm
The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
1)
Prior to the issuance of buildin pemlts, the developer shall
SeCure approval Of proposed landscapVng and irri arson plans from
the County Road and Planning Depar)ent. AV1 landscaping and
irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a
reproducible format Suitable for permanent filing with the County
Road Department.
z)
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall
be released concurrently with the release of subdivision
performance bonds, uaranteeing the vtabtltty of all landscaping
which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district.
3)
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or
assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping
maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the
district.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and trri tion system until such time as
those operations are the responsi~ili ties of other parties as approved
by the Planning Director.
Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance
with the standards Of Ordinance 461 and the following:
I) Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with
the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the
i layout first from the Road Deparl~ent's
proposed street 1 ght
traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor.
2) Following approval of the street lightin layout by the Road
Depertment's traffic engineer, the developer shall also ftle an
application with LAFCO for the formation of a street lighting
t exlstlng lighting district, unless
district, or annexat on to an
the site is within an existing ltghttng district.
3) Prior to recordatton of the final mmp, the developer shall secure
condtttonll ipproval Of the Street ltghttng Ippltcatton from
LAFCO, unless the site ts within an existing 11ghttng district.
:;; l;v...% ..d o...r .tdoor ligh,i.g .h. ll, sh. o.
h
c submitted to t · Department of Building and
Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the
Page Two
October
This certification shall be signed by s responsibie
officiil of the witor company. Tl:lt,gilai_lvi~_bt
lVbg~Ltd_~9,tht_CggU~Z_ig~YtXi~S,g~LSt_S~_~tX~t~
g~_Atll~_~e_Vtt~l_li~il_~g_~bt_ltgUll~,lg~,~bt
This Depirtment hit a statement From the lincho
Mater District &treeing to serve domestic viter to eich
every lot in the ,ubdivi,ion on dem,nd providing
sltisfectory finiscall arrangements ire completed with the
Subdivider. It will be necessary for the finincise
&fringemerits to.be made prior to the recordsLion of the
final Rap.
This Deplrtmsnt has a ststsment from the WAstorn
Miter District agreeing to alloy the subdivision sewsOs
system to be centssoled to the severs of the D, strict. The
sever system shill be instilled according to p~sns and
specifications ss approved by the District. the Co~mty
Surveyor and the Health Depirtment. Permanent prints of the
p~sns of the sever system shall be submitted tn tripiiclte.
along with the original driving. to the Co~mty Surveyor. The
prints Ihlll Ihov the internil pipe diameter. lociLion
sa~holsg, complete profiles. pipe and 3slut spscificltiens
sad the line of the severs at the 3unction of the nov system
of sever lines ~d water l~nss shall be s porti~ of the
sevige pl~s ~d proflies. ~e pi~s shall be signed
registered stinger ~d the seer district with the
fol~wine eerLtfScstS~: 'I certify that the deti~ of the
s~er ~stem in Tr,et Nip JJT61 is in ,ccord~ce with the
s~er system ~st~ pl~s of the hste~ bScSptl Mater
District ~ ~t ~e waste disposal lyeto is sde~sts
~is kiss ~o treat ~e ~ticip&ted ustss rrn the proposed
trmct." FotJlnl_lgslbt_tubaiLStd_te_Sbt,GmFnSx
£tlitl~z_llr j, bt reCOnditiOn_Of tbt_LLDIL,ISB-
It viII be accesssty for the financial arrangements to be
aide prier ks the rmcordstto~ Of the finel
"iVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
Count~ ~m~ntstr~t~ve Center
Rtve~tde. Ca11fo~t,
have revtewed this case and have the following coosants:
Except for nutsince nature local runoff ~htch may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary stom flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause SON damage. New construc-
tion should comply vtth all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area conststs of yell deftned ridges and natural water-
courses ~htch traverse the property, There ts adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for butldtng sites, The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings Ind obstructions tn order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the erie and to prevent flood damage to new build ngs.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "Ali new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the fintshed floors a mtnimum of
18 tnches above adjacent ~round surface. Erosion protection shall be provtded
for mobile home suppo~s,
Thts project ts tn the . Area
1 paid tn accordance with the applicable rules and
drainage plan fees she 1 be
regulations.
fully develop to the
COntrOl facilities or fioodpruoftng
tap1 ted denstaT.
The D!atrlct'a report dated ts st111 current for this pro~lect.
The Dtatrtct does ant object to the proposed ltnor change.
Thts project taa part of . The project wtll be
t
free of ordtnary store nod hazard Ilhln improvements have ken construc ed tn
accordance vtth Illproved plans.
The attached cmaents apply.
ttlVERSIDE
RRB DEPARTMENT
~ COO~PtA~O~ 14HTH THE
CALIFO~Ntk ~EPA~rMEWr OF
5-11-89
PLA.'4NZNGDI:I~A,RTMI:NT
,BPECZI'ZC PLAN TEAM
TR 22T61 -MIN0~ CHARGE # I
With respe~ to the conditions of al~r~vel for the above referenced land division,
the f~re Deper~meAt recommends ~e foll~lng fire p~ec~ton neas~es be prov~de~
In accor~ce vt~ Rlv~stde ~ty ~dl~ces ~d/or recognized fire pro~ect~on
FIRE P~OTECTION
Schedule 'A' fire protection approved standerd fire hydrants (6'x4*x2J'), located
one at each street tntertec~lon and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any
direction, vi~h no l~rtlon of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant.
Kinj~,~ fire flew shall be 1000 G~M for 2 beurs duration at 20 PSI.
~licant/develc~er shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
Departmen~ for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and
spacing, and, the s~ste~ shall meet the fire flew requirements. Plans shall be
signed/approved b~ · registered civil engineer and the 1coal water company with
the following cer~iflcation= el centf~ ~hat ~d~e desi~ of the water system is
in accordance with ~he require~ents prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
The required water s~stem, including fire h~lrants, shall be installed and
scoep~ed by the ~r~rie~e water agent7 prior to any ,&..~ustibe building
All Imlldlngs shall be ommtructed with firm retardant roofing Raterie1 e~
doscxibed in Section 3203 of the Unifors Building Code. Any vood shingles
or shekel the11 have · Class °Be rattug end shall be ~provod by the Fire
Pxi~r t~ the xecezdatiem of the final ss~, the ~1~ ~ ~Sit wi~ ~e
~verside ~ty r~ ~t a mh m of ~.~ ~ ~/~t u ~tigatton
fin ~tG ~. ~d ~ da~ ~m ~ dek ~ ~ of
~nte b/~ my etu ~ · ~it~ e~mnt wl~ ~e ~ty deferring
xtt questions regarding the ueaning of the conditions shall be referred to
Fire Department Planning and Bnginenring staff.
Administrative Center, 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
RIverside ~n~z~.~lAnn J)a~a~tment BAY 28198~
Attention: mllc~i Ire'~lmld
County Adm strattve Center _IVERS~COUNTy
4080 Lemon Street IItANNiNQQEpi4RTM~NT
RIverside, CA 92501
RE: Tract 22761 ~ Ntnor Change
Ledles and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Dtvtston of the Department of Butldtng and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
Prtor to the Issuance of bu~ldtng permtts, the developer shall
obtatn Planning Department approval for all on-stte and off-
stte signage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant
to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348.
FIreplaces may encroach 1' tnto requtred mintmum 5' side yard
setback.
Nechantcal equipment may not be located tn requtred mtn~mum 5'
stde lard setback.
Stte located tn i Special Studtes Zone -- G-lgg.
Developer Agreement f3 fees due prtor to butldtng permtt
Issuance.
Very tru11 (ours.
CDUNTY DF RIVERSIDE
U
iNITiALs
J(,_P/ea·e make the following · ConOitiOn Of mDprovalz.
the Owner Of that property Shall Obtain a grading
from the Department of Building and Safety
yards.
Prior tO approval Of thl· uoe/oub~ivl·ion · grackle; permit
and approval Of the rough eradinS shall be obtaine~ from
the Building and Safety Department.
owner shall Obtain a graOlng permit a~d approval
construct from the Building a~O Safety Departmen:.
Constructing a road, ~here greater than 5e Cubic yar~l O(
material is placed or moved, teasire· a V-·dinS pe-mit.
Prior tO occupancy end/or beginning ·cruel u·e of th:s
be at:rained from the Building and Safety Department.
Provide verification that the esiottng grading
permitted ·~d ·pDroval to construct ~aa obtained from
Building and Safety,
The mr·dieS Section hal ~o cammeet On this site.
For the final 9rediq plan - Please provide the applicable
lnformetlo~ from County 8fading Jrorms lib-S6
lla-Jl
Rev. 1119
· sa rarer to the lollowing c~m~an~s vhan ~ubmit~lng a grad~n~
p~an Zor plan ravia~ b:y the Grading Section.
~(~Z- Please re~er to department forms 284-86, 284-120,284-21
and 14-46' for applicable inZormation to include on your
ftading plans. . . - . . ' ' · '
X - · In order to issue a-grading pe~dt, the/oi lovih~ items
W 11 be needed .at the plan review stags.
h. 'Obtain a plan review perm/t. ' "' '
- Provide 2 copies 'of the Preliminarf 2oils
· lepor~. ' ' · ' . ·
j~Lc- Provide · copy cf the Ixydrologic-h~draulic
Provide clearance letters fz~m the lollowing
deparlmanU. ~Pla~hg
· ' Flood Control
load Depa~e~
" ' O~et ~/~
Pr=v~ee . a set ef Plying Depamen=
· ' conditions of approval on the approved case.
Provide an erosion con?.Tol plan, prepared by
a licensed landscape. archi~ec=, for plan
review, permit, end bonding.
Submit 5 copies cf the ~rading p. lan for dis=ribut~on and
review. :
:. Refer to any specific plant elated tothis
T is property is located .in the Rancho Cal~fornia
Potential Subsidence area. Per Board Resolution aS-S1,
additional geotechnical ~nformation Is
~_S. Observe elope setbacks ~tcm perml~ areas and structures
per set=ion ?Oil and liqur~.21-I oft he Uniformlulldin~
Code as modif~edbyCt~nanca 4~7. -'- '
Driveway erades shall be XS% or less.' · ·
Show s~eeC~d pad elmtio~. 'Z~e~a= a
C~n~ c~be~~ed f~h~Of pad to
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Development Review
08-RIV-15-4 . 83
Your Reference:
TTM22761
Pancho Rlghlands
Planning Department
Attention lea. Felicie Bradfield
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Ms. Bradfield:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Tentative
Tract Map No. 22761 located southwesterly of Itancho California
Road and Ynez Road, east of X-IS in Rancho California.
Please refer to the attached Development Review Fore which
documents Celttens' requirements for this project. Confcreance
with these conditions is required for issuance of en Encroachment
Zf any work is necessary within the state highway right of way,
the developer must ~btainanencr~e~hsentpereit fr~mthe
Calftans D~stri~ I N~l~ Office prior ~ ~i~ine work.
Zr additional inforeation is desired, please call Mr. Thomas a.
levilie e~ (714) 313-4384.
Oistrl~ Yerai'ts engineer
&tt.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 8
21
requirements of Riverside County Ordinance rJo. 655 and the
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
he
Prior to recordatton of the final map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be transmitted to the Planning Deparlznent for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
map to the Planning Deparl;nent and the Deparl~ent of Building and
Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Geologic Report No. 199 & G.R. 199 (update} was
prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County
Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the report are as
follows: The following note shall be placed on the Environmental
Constraints sheet: "Structure for human occupancy shall not be
allowed within the 50 foot setback associated with the Waldomar
Fault."
A copy of the final map and Environmental Constraints sheet shall be
submitted to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review
and appoval.
The follow. ng note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Nount
Polomar Observatory."
Prior to the recordorion of the final map, the subdivider shall
provide a final geologic report for Planning Deparl;nent approval. The
report shall be performed by a qualified geologist using standard
scientific methodology. Any mitigation measures proposed shall be
incorporated into the destgn of the final map and directed by the
Planntn Director, Thts report shall be noted on an Environmental
Constratnts Sheet, wherever necessary.
Prior to recordorion of the final map, the subdivider shall prepare
and submtt a written report to the Planning Director of the County of
Riverside demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval
and mrltlgatton measures of this map and Envirormental Assessment Nos.
4 which BUSt be satisfied prior to recorderIon of the
319 3 and 31084
final map. The Planning Director may require inspection or other
mOnitoring to assure such compliance,
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERNITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 2276Z, Mfnor Change No. 1
Page 9
Detailed common open space area landscaping and Irrigation plans shall
be submitted for Planntng Department approval for the phase of
development in process· The plans shall be certified by a landscape
architect, and shall provide for the following: (~ended by Planning
Commission 8-16-89)
Permanent automatic Irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation. (Amended by Planning
Cormntsston 8-16-89)
Landscape screening ~here requtred shall be destUned to be opaque
up to a mtntmum hetght of sfx (6) feet at maturity. (~ended by
Planning Commission 8-Z6-89)
All uttltty servlce areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view wtth landscaping and decorative barrters or baffle
trea1~nents, as approved by the Planning Director. Utt}~ttes shall
be placed underground. (Amended by Planntng Commission 8-16-89)
Parkways and landscaped buildtrig setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide visual screening or a transition tnto the primar~ use area
of the si re. Landscape elements shall tnclude earth beming,
ground cover, shrubs and spedman trees tn conjunction with
meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amentries where
appropriate as approved by the Plannfng Department. (Amended by
Planning Commission 8-Z6-89)
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
6. lhere street trees c~nnot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the read
right-of-way. (kendad by Planning Cmmtsston 8-16-89)
Landscaping plans shall Incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants ~here appropriate, (Amended by Planntng Comtsston
8-16-89)
/,11 extsttng specten trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject prolxrtY shill be shown on the proJect's gredtng plans
Ind shell note those to be moved, relor4ted end/or retained.
(~ended b7 Plenntng CoBmission 8-Z6-89)
All trees shall be .dntmum double staked. lleaker and/or slow
rowtng trees shell be steel staked, (Amended by Planning
~emtsston 8-16-89)
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Hinor Change No. 1
Page 10
All approved gradin and building plans shall reflect the utilization
of post and beam )oundations or of split
the appropriate combination
level pads and post and beam foundations when development is proposed
Conwnisston
8-16-89)
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline
for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of
development and shall include the following: (Amended by Planning
Commission 8-16-89}
1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedtmentation during and after the grading process. (Amended by
Planning Commission 8-16-8g)
2)
Approximate time frames for gradin and identification of areas
which may be graded during the hlgher ty rain months of
probebali
January through M4rch. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. (Amended by Planning
Commission 8-16-89)
4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
(Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
c. Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent
grade. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
d. Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development
Standards: All cut and/or ftll slopes, or Individual combinations
thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical Might shell be modified by
an appropriate combination of a spactal terracing (benchtng) plan,
increase slope ratio it.e., 3:1}, retaining walls, and/or slope
planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shell not exceed a
6
fifteen percent grade, (Amended by Planntng Commission 8-1-89)
All cut slopes located a~acent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet tn vertical height shall' be contour-graded
Incorporating the following grading techniques: (Amended by Planning
Canmission 8-16-89)
1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 11
he
2)
3)
4)
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes
where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
Natural features such as water courses, specimen trees and significant
rock outcrops shall be protected In the siting of Individual building
pads on final grading plans. (Amended by Planning Cowmnission 8-16-89)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent
off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that
slope natntenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by
the Director of Building and Safety. (Amended by Planning Commission
8-16-89}
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist
shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the
proposed grading ~th respect to potential paleontological impacts.
Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact impact
to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the
paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be
arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall
have the authority to temporarily diverts redtrect or halt grading
activity to allow recovery of fossils. (Amended by Planning
16
Commission 8- -89)
I. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a drainage study indicating
on- end off-stta flow patterns end volumest probable tm~acts, end
roposed mitt atton measures shall be prepared and shall be approved
C; County FTood Control District and Cmltrens. (Amended by Planning
Cammission 8-16-89)
All dwellings shall be located a minimum of ten feet from the top and
tops of ell slos over ten feet in vertical bet ht unless otherwise
epproved by the P~nntng Director. (Amended by )lanntng kisston
8-16-89)
wherever (Mended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
TENI'ATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 12
31
All brow ditches, terrace drains and other minor swales where required
shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete, as
approved by the Planning Director and Building and Safety. (Amended
by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
me
ne
Any import or export of materials shall be in accordance with County
Ordinances No. 457 and No. 565 respectively. (Amended by Planning
Commission 8-16-89)
Prior to the issuance of grading permi t, the subdivider shall prepare
and submit a written report to the Planning Director of the County of
Riverside demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval
and mitigation measures of this map and Environmental Assessment Nos.
31943 and 31084 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a
grading permit. The Planning Director may require Inspection or other
monitorfng to assure such compliance. (Amended by Planning Commission
8-16-89)
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following
be satisfied:
conditions shall
No building pemits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any
residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's
successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public
facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100)
per lot/unit shall be deposited with the Riverside County Department
of Building and Safer as mitigation for public library development.
(Amended by Planning ~omm ssion 8-16-8g) i
be
de
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Buildin
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acousticaV
engineer to establish appropriate mitt tton measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units withVan the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to 45 CNEL and exterior noise levels to
65 CNEL. (Amended by Planning Ccxmntsston 8-16-89)
Prior to the issuance of building penfits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Deparment approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not ltmtted
to, parkway plantin , street trees, slope planting, and individual
front yard lanclscapVng. (Amended by Planntng Conmission 8-16-89)
All dwellings to be constructed wtthtn this subdivision shall be
designed and constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as
approved by the County Fire Hitshal. (Amended by Planntn9 Comtsston
8- 6-89)
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 13
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted wtth Planning Deparbnent approval.
(Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89}
f. Buildin separation between all buildings excluding fireplaces shall
not be Vess than ten (10) feet. (Amended by Pla ning Commission
n
8-16-89)
g. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
(Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
h. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation. {Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
i. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the subdivider shall
prepare and submit a written report to the Planning Director of the
County of Riverside demonstrating compliance with those conditions of
approval and mitigation measures of this map and Environmental
Assessment Nos. 31943 and 31084 which must be satisfied prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The Planning Director may require
inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. (Amended by
Planning Commission 8-16-89)
J. Detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of
development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape
architect, and shall provide for the following: (Amended by Planning
Commission 8-16-89)
1. Permanent automatic irrigation Systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque
up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All uttl try service areas end enclosures shall be screened from
view with lendscaptn end decorative barriers or baffle
treaments, as approved Ey the Planning Director, Utilities shall
be placed underground.
4. Parkways end landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area
of the site. Landscape elements shall Include earth bermtn9,
ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conSunction with
meandering sidewalks, benches end other pedestrian imenittes where
appropriate as ipproved by the Planning Department.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Hinor Change No. 1
Page 14
5. LandScaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road
right-of-way.
7. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans
and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
9. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If
seasonal conditions do not permit lanting, interim landscaping and
erosion ContrOl measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning
Director and the Director of Building and Safety.
Notwithstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study
is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applicable.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461,
d. Street trees sh·ll be pl·ntad throughout the subdivision in accordance
with the standards of Ordinance 460.
Prior to the issuance of ·n occupancy permit, the subdivider shall
prep·re and submit · written report to the Planning Director of the
County of Riverside demonstrating Compltmnce ~tth ·11 remaining
conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this map and
Environmental Assessment Nos, 31943 and 31084, The Planntng Director
may require Inspection or other menttortng to ·ssure such compliance.
F1: mp
August 14, 1989
UIIIAIn'rMINTAI, LI,r,rllll
CDUNTY DF RIVEREIDE
PLANNING DEPARTHENT
TO: Fellcla Bradfield - Specific Plans
FROH: Steve A. Kupfermen - Engineering Geologist
RE: Tentative Tract 22761
Slope Stability Report No. 14 (update)
The following reports have been reviewed relatlve to slope stability at the
subject site:
· Slope Stability Evaluation for the Proposed Restdenttal Development,
Tentative Tract 22761, Rancho California, RIverside County, CA," by
Letghton and Associates, dated July 19, 1989.
2. "Response to County of Riverside Review Letter," by Letghton and
Associates, dated August 9, 1989.
These reports determined that:
1. The proposed ftll slope adjacent to Ynez Road wtll be stable against
beth deep-seated failure and surfacts1 fatlure.
2. The proposed fill slope should be stable agatnst beth the deep-seated
and the surfacts1 slopo fatlure under seismtc conditions,
These reports ricemended that:
1. The recemendattons tncluded tn the General Earthwork and Grading
Specifications (Appendix D) of the Letghton 9eotechntcal report dated
shou dbe
June 16, lg8g, 1 Incorporated tnto design and construction.
2. M;I cut slopes should be observed by an engineering geologist du~lng
grad1 ng.
3. Cut and fill slopes should be provtded vtth Ippre rtlte suffice
oYatnlge features and landscaped (idth drought-tolerant vegetation) as
soon as Imsstble after gradtrig to mtntmtze the potential for eruston.
Betas should be provided st the top of ftll slopes, and bru~ ditches
should be constructed it the top of cut slopes. Lot dratnage should be
erected such that suffice runoff on the slope face ts minimized.
Feltcta Bradfield - 2 - August 15, lgBg
The other portion of fill slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet
(minimm) .and trimmed back to the finished slope or conpacted in
increments of 5 feet (maximum) by a sheepsfoot roller as the fill is
placed and then trackwalked to achieve the final configuration.
These reports sattsfy the General Plan requirement for a slope stability
report, The rec~nmendattons made in these reports shall be adhered to in the
clestgn and construction of this project,
SAK:al
OFFICE OF lOAD COMMISSIONER · COUNTY fOrZ, VEYOR
June 13, 1989
Riverside County Planning Commission
4060 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Tract Hap 22761
Ntnor Change fl
Schedule A o Team SP
I4d/es end Gentlemen:
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative
land division Rap, the Road Department recommends that the lenddivider
provide the ~clloving street improvement plans and/or road dedications in
accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement
Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative Rap
correctly Ihcwl acceptable oenterline profiles, all existing easements,
traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate O's, and that their
omission or unaccept·hilLty Ray require the amp to be resubmitted ~o:
further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are
essential parts and a requirement occurring Ln ONE is as binding as
though OCcurring in ell. They ere intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for · con;lets design oZ the improvement. All
questions regarding the true meaning oE the conditions shall be ragerred
to the Road Commissioner*s Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties ~rom
damages caused b alteration oZ the drainage patterns,
i,e., toncontrition of diversion offlow. Protection
ehall be provided by ~onstructing adequate drainage
facilities including on]~rging ezistin facilities and/
or b~ oe~uri · dreiMge easesent, ~l drainage
onsosents :~$n~l be Sheen on the final Rap and noted
;refection iball be ms aS;roved by the lad Departsent.
The lenddivider shall seaopt and properly dispose of
all offsite drainage fleeing onto or through the site,
%n the event the Road C~$$issioner ~$raits the use o~
streets for drainage $mrposes, the provisions o~ Article
XZ Of OrdiNate So, 460 viII apply, Should the
quantities exceed the street ~$pac ty arthe use
· treats be prohibited for drainage purposes, the
subdivider sJmll provide adequate drainage facilities
as approvedb~theRosdbpartmnt*
~ract ~ap 22761 - Htn0r Change t1
June 13, 1989
Page 2
Se
aajor drainage is involved on this landdivision and its
resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department.
cA" and me' Itreets shall be laproved within the dedicated
right Of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104,
Section &. (40'/60')
mS' Street shall be laproved viable the dedicated right of
way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A.
(36'/60')
Preece Lane and mS' Street shall be improved with 34 feet
of asphalt concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width
dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard
No. 103, Section k. (22'/33')
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the
linddivision In accordance with County Standard No. 400 and
401 (curb sidewalks).
Ynes Road (northerly of lancho Vista load) shall be
improved with concrete curb and gutter located 38 feet from
centerline and match up asphalt concrete pevlng~
reconstruction; or resurfactng of existing paving as
determined by the Road Commissioner within · 50 ~oot half
width dedicated right of way An accordance with County
Standard No. 101.
Ynez Road (southerly ot Rancho Vista Road) shall be
improved with Concrete curb and gutter located 32 feet from
centerline and latch Up asphalt concrete paving;
rcconstructlon~ or tesur~ecing of existing paving as
h
deterslewd by the Road Coanlesioner within m 44 fOOt all
width dedicated right of Way Ln accordance with County
Standard No. 102.
A cocoedify access road to the ·earlit paved road
n ha
maintained by the Cou ty s 11 be constructed within the
blic right ef way in accordanew with County Standard
~06, Section R, (32'/60'1 st · grade and alignment as
· roved by the Road Casaleeloner. This is nmcaesary for
,riot to the recordsriCo of the final sap, the developer
shall d·posit with the Riverside ~mnt Road Do rtmmnt, a
each sum of $lSO.O0 r lot as RiteparSon ~o~ traf c
signal impacts. 2houlF~e developer to defer the timmZ~Z
payment, · written agreement say be entered into with the
Count deferring said payment to the tire Of issuance o~ a
building pernit,
Tract ~p 22761 -Ntnor Change
dune 13, 1989
P~ge 3
18.
21,
:3.
ImProvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
extending · linlmum o~ 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries at a erade end alignment as approved by the
RIverside County Rood Commissioner. Completion of
road improveRents does not iiply acceptance for main-
tenants by County.
electrical and Ccmmunlootions trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 217.
Aspbaltic emulsion (fo~ seal) shall be applied not less
than fourteen days foliowine placement of the asphalt
surfstine end shall be'applied at · rate of 0~05 eallon per
square yard, &sphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37,
39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications.
Standard cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the
landdivision.
Corner outbacks in conformante with County Standard No. 805
shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication.
Lot eccell lhall be restricted on Yneg Road and so noted on
the final map.
Landdivisions crestinS cut or fill slopes adjacent to the
streets shall provide erosion control, eight distance
control end slope easements as approved by the Road
Departsent.
The lendd/vtder shall provide utility clearance from Ranch.
t
California Meter DIs rice prior to the recordsalon of the
final
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or es
approved by the Road bperUent,
The minisus lot frontages alerte the knuckles shall be 35
feet.
The Binin garage letback ~hall be 30 feet measured from
the face of onrb,
All centerlice intersections s!~ll be at l0° with a mintsum
S0' tangent measured free flon line or as approved by the
Road Cmmiselonsr,
Tract J~ap 22761 - N(nor Change
~ne 13, 1989
Page 4
The street design and improvement concept of this project
Shill be coordinated with SP 180, Pm 22?08, TR 22204, TR
21760 and 'fit 22762.
Vary truly yours,
' County of Riverside
O: B'~VERSIDE COUNTY PLAJ~ING DEPT.
FROM:
DATE: IOy 12, 1989
~ALTH SPECIALIST
TIACT MAP 22761, MINOR CRANGE ~ I
bitmental Health Services has zevieved Minor Change No. I dated
u,y 5, 1989 . Our curvent cements ~ remain as stated
in our letter dated ~gtobsrd,-le87.
IN:tat
e
OCTO
Riverside County Plxnning Conistion
4080 ranon It. RIVERSIDE COL
Riverside, CA g2S01 PLANNING DEPAR
K; TRACT MAp 12761: Being a subdivision of s portion of
Lots I. 2. d · 8 Block 18 and · portion Of Lots I · IS Block
19 of Pauba Land and Water Co. me shov~ by Map filed in Book
II, Page 507 uf Maps, Records of Sin Diego County
California.
(80 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Nap
and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed according to
plans and specification as approved by the water
coopiny and the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall
be submitted in triplicate. with a minimoo scale
not less thin one inch equals 200 feet. along v~th
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter.
location of valves and fire hydrantIX pipe and
Joint specifications. and the sloe of the Rain
at the Junction of the new system to the
existing system. 111o plans shall Cooply in
all respects with Div. g, Part l. Chapter 7 of
the California Health and Safety Code. California
Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and 0choral
Order No. i0J of the Public Utilities Omission of the
Itato of California,when applicakle. The plans shall
be signed by a registered engineer kud water coopany
with the..folloving certification: '! certify that the
design of the water eyetaR in Tract Map 22761 ts in
accordance with the water system ex~ansion plans of the
lancho California Water District and that the water
service, storage and distrllmtio~ OysteR will be
adequate to provide water so,fee to ouch tract.
This sertifieatto~ does not eonstttwte · guarantee that
it will supplywater to such tract it any specific
quantities, flows or pressures for fire.protection or
any other purpose".
ITEM ~11
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Case No.: First Extension of Time
Tentative Tract Map No. 22762
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Coleman Homes
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
Fifty (50) lot residential subdivision of 16.86 acres.
First Extension of Time.
Between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road,
west of Ynez Road.
Specific Plan 180 (Rancho Highlands)
North: R-A~5
South: SP 180
East: R-1
West: 1-15
ResidentialAgricultural,
5 acre minimum)
Rancho Highlands)
One-Family Dwellings)
(interstate 15)
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Multiple Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
1-15
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots:
Open Space Lots:
Proposed DU/Acre
Proposed Minimum Lot Size:
16.86
50
1
3.1
7,200 sq.ft.
STAFFRPT\TM22762 1
ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands, was
adopted by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on June 5, 1984. Amendment No. 1 to
this specific plan, Change of Zone No. 5105, and
Tract No. 22761 were adopted by the Board on July
18, 1988. The Amendment switched Planning Area
No. 12 ITract No. 22762) from the medium
residential category of 4-10 DU/AC to the low
residential density category of 2-5 DU/AC.
Tract Map No. 22762 is a proposal to subdivide
approximately 16.86 acres into fifty 150) single
family residential lots with a minimum lot size of
7,200 square feet. The subject site is located south
of Rancho California Road, west of Ynez Road and
easterly of 1-15.
Desiqn Considerations
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance Nos.
348, 460 and Specific Plan No. 180. The main access
to the project is Tetra Vista Road. The project has
been designed to provide increase land use and
circulation efficiency.
Density
The proposed subdivision (Tract No. 22762)
according to Specific Plan 180, requires proposed
subdivisions to range from 2-5 DU/AC. The
proposed subdivision consists of 3.1 DU/AC.
Thus, meeting Specific Plan No. 180 density
requirement for residential development.
The proposed density of 3.1 units per acre is
consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan.
In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project
will be consistent with the new General Plan when it
is adopted.
STAFFRPT\TM22762 2
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
On July 18, 1988. the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment Nos. 31943 and 31084 to
be applied to Tract Nos. 22761. 22762, and 21760,
Amended No. 2, at which time determined that the
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract
22762 will mitigate any environmental concerns.
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 22762 will be consistent
with the City's future General Plan, which
will be completed within a reasonable time in
accordance with State Law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Tentative Tract No. 22762 is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is
likely to create a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
STAFFR PT\TM22762 3
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are hereln
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No. 22762,
based on the analysis and findings contained
in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
RA:ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
STAFFRPT\TM22762 4
Location Map
r~
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No, 22762
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA
1~,3 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has
provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with
Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 1~60. The agreement shall be approved by the
City Council prior to the recordat/on of the final map.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developePs successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A
cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with
the City as mitigation for public library development.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
STAFFRPT\TM22762
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in
addition to any other permits required.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department, The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
10.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed
per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer.
12.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIRJNegative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in affect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has nat been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\TM22762
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF A~PROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 22762
DATE: 5-25-88
EXPIRES:
STAh'I)ARD CONDITIONS
· Th. ,,,ivid,r ,h,ll.;." hold h..l.ss th, COu.ty of
Riverside, tts egents, o ;;; from ·ny cl·tm, Ictton, or
proceeding ·gainst. the County of Riverside or its .agents, officers, or
employees to ·ttack,' set ·stale, void. or annul an approv·l of the county
of RIverside, Its ·dvtsory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning Tract No. 22762, ~htch ectton' is brought about ~thtn the time
period provided for in California Government code Section 66499.37. The
County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of ·ny such claim,
egalnst the county o Riverside and will cooperate
actton, or proceeding f
fulbly In the defense. If the county fails to promptly notify the
su dtdder of any such claim. action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate
fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible
to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the county of Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply ~th the State of California
Subdivision Hap ~ct end to ·11 the requirements of Ordinance 460, Scheduh
A. unless modified by the conditions listed behw.
~ ' 3. This Conditionally approved tentathe.map .will expire two years after the
county of Riverside Board of SuperviSors approval date. unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
e
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and
Ordinance 460.
The subdhtder shall submtt one copy of · soils report to the Riverside
County $urve or's Office and t~copies to the Department of Building ind
Safety. The report shall address the soils steblltty and geological
conditions of the stte.
If ·~/grading is proposed, the ~ubdhider shell submit one print of
comprehemstve red·rig plan to t~eDepart, eat of Building led Safety. The
pl·n Shall tempT; vith the Unt ormButldtq Code, Chapter 70, Is amended
nd ~
by Ordinance 457 and Is mybe eddltion·lly provided for in these
co illotis of ·pprov·l.
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page Z
& grading permit shall be obtained fro~ the Deparl=nent of Butldlng and
Safety prtor to comencement of any gradtrig outside of county maintained
road rtght of way.
8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordeaton of the
ftnal map.
The subdlvtder. Abel1 comply with the street Improvement recomendattons
outlined in the Riverside county Road Oepartaent's letter dated 11-13-87 a
copy of which ts attached.
10. Legaq access as required by Ordinance 460. shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
M1 road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances ms epproved
by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
the Road Commissioner.
Easements, when requt~ed for roadway sTopes, drainage facilities,
utiqittes, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land dtvtston boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted end recorded as directed by the County
Surveyor,
Vater and sewerage dtsposel facilities shall be installed tn Accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Departn~nt's
letter dated 10-5-87 m copy of which is mr,ached.
34. The subdivider ShAll comply with the flood control rec~n~nendations
outlined by the Riverside County Rood Control Dtstrict~s letter dated
10-7-87 a copy of which is Attached. If the lend dtvlston lies within an
adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance
460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the Road Comtssloner.
35. The subdhtder shall comply with the fire improvement reco,anendattons
outlined 4n the Count~ Fire Harshel's letter dated 10-6-87 e copy of which
ts attached.
26. The subdivider shell comply with the recoemendations outlined in the
Celttans hater dated 10-20-87, e copy of which ts attached.
Subdivision phasing, Including any proposed co~tqon open space area
improvement phasing, tf applicable, shall be subject to planning
Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 3
vehicular access to all lots tn each phase, Ind shall substantially
confom to the Intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
18. Lots'created by thts subdhlslon shall.comply ~tth the folioring:
a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net.
b. M1 .lot: length to ~tdthrettos sha11..be tn conromance vlth Sectton
3.8Cof O~dtnence 460.
c. Corner lots and through lots, ¶f any, shall be provtded vtth
additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as
not to contain less net area than the hast mount of net area tn
non-corner and th~odgh lots. ...
Lots created by this subdhtsIon shall be tn conromance vtth the
development standards of the $.P. zone.
~hen lots are c~ossed by ma~or publlc utt1Ity easements, each lot
shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
exclusive of the uttltty easement.
Graded but undeveloped land shell be metntaaned In a eed-free
condition and shall be either planted wtth tntertn landscaping-or
provided vtth other e~oston control measures as approved by the
DIrector of Building and Saferye:
The subdivider shaql comply wtth the Roncho Hater Dtstrtct recomendattons
dated 10-6-87, a copy of~htch ts attached.
Prior to RECORO&TIO?I of the final map the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
e. Prior to the recordatlon of the ftnal map the applicant shall submtt
~rttten charences to the RIverside County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outltned tn the attached approval
htters fram the following agencies have been met.
County FIre Department
County flood Control
County Health Dep~rtmnt
County Planning Department
b. Prior to the recordatton of the ftul mp, Change of Zone No. 5105-
shell be approved by the bard of Supervisors and shall be effective.
Lots created by this lend dtvtston shall be In conromance vtth the
development standards of the zone ultimately appl?ed to the p~operty,
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22752
Page 4
c. The consort open space area $hall be shown as a numbered lot on the
ftnal mp Md shall be managed by ·mster property owners
association.
A master property owners association or appropriate publlc maintenance
agency shall be established by the developer encompassing the enttre
specific plan, for the ownership, maintenance and management of the
nature1 open space, and ·11 c~non open space lots landscaping and
trrt atton systems along publlc roads, major prodact entry point
facilities, signtng end lighting as necessary as defined through the
spectftc plan end conditions of Ipproval.
A property ovmer*s association ~th the unqualified fight to assess
the mmers of the tndh~dual units for reasonable maintenance costs
shall be established and continuously maintained. The association
sha]] have the right to lien the propert of the o~mers who default In
the pa~qnent of their assessments. Such ~ten not
shall be subordinate
to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed
of trust ts made tn good faith and for value and Is of record prior to
the lien of the association.
Prior to recordorion of the ftnal subdivision map, the applicant shall
submit to the Planntng Department the following documents for County
approval which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department
that the total project vtll be developed and maintained tn accordance
with the intent and purpose of the approval.
1) The document to convey tttle
2) Covenants, codes and restrictions to be recorded
3) lMnagement and maintenance agreement to be entered Into with the
unit/lot owners of the project.
The approvod documents shall be recorded at the same time that the
subdivision map ts recorded. hid documents shall contatn provisions
for ownership or the Irrevocable right to use the open space and
enitte$ by the owners of the project. The approved documents shall
also contatn o provision which provides that the CC & R's may not be
terminated, or substantially ended wtthout the consent of the County
or 1to successor-In-Interest.
Conditions of Approyal
Tract No. 22762
Page 5
g. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
he
I)
Prior to the tssuance of building permits, the developer shall
secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from
the County Road end Planning hparl~ent, All landscapin and
irrigation plans end specifications shall be prepared ~n a
reproducible format suitable for permanent-filing with the County
Road Department.
2) The developer shall post a landscape performance bend which shall
be released concurrently with the release of subdivision
performance bonds, guaranteetng the vtabtltty of all landscaping
which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district.
3) The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or
assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping
maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the
district·
The developer shall be responslble for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as
those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved
by the Planning Director,
$treet lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance
with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following:
1)
Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with
the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the
proposed street ltght layout first from the Road Department's
traffic engineer 8nd then from the appropriate uttllty purveyor.
Following approval of the street lightin layout by the Road
Depart~ent's traffic engineer, the developer shall also file an
application wlth LAFCO for the formation of I street lighting
district, or annexation to an existing lighting district, unless
the site ts within on ulstln9 lighting district.
3)
Prior to mordatton of the final map, the developer shall secure
conditional Ipproval of the street lighting application from
LAFCO, unless the site ls within an existing lighting district.
Prior to recordatton of the final map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (EC$) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 6
ftled wtth the offtce of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be tr·nsmttted to the Planntng Department for revtew end approval.
The epproved ECS shall be forvarded ~lth copies of the recorded final
map to the Pl·nntng Department ·rid the Department of Butldlng and
Safety.
k. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Geologic Report No. 199 & G.R. No. 199 (update) was
Frepared for thts property and ts on file ·t the RIverside County
Pl·nntng Department.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "Th~$ property ts located within thtrty (30) mfies of Nount
P·lomar Observatory. All proposed putdoor lighting systems shall
comply v~th the California Institute of Technology, Palomar
Observator~ recommendations dated 10-6-87 · copy of which ts attached.
Prfor to the tssuance of GRADZNG PERNITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prtor to the tssuance of gradlng penntts detatled con·non open space
· roe landscaping ·nd Irrigation pl·ns shall be submitted for Planntng
Department ·pproval for the phase of develoFment tn process. The
plans shall be carttried by· l·ndscape architect, ·rid shall provtde
for the following.
1. Permanent ·utomattc trrSgatton systms shall be installed on all
landscaped ·re·s requiring Irrtgat(on.
2. Landscape screening where requtred shall be designed to be opaque
up to · mtnfmum betght of stx (6) feet at mturtty.
All uttllty service ereas and enclosures shall be screened from
vtev vtth landscaping end decorative bertTars or baffle
treatments, is approved by the Plenntng DIrector. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
4. Parbays and landscaped butldtng setbacks shall be landscaped to
provtde visual screenfng or a transition tnto the primary use area
of the stte. Landscape el·cents shall tnclude earth bermtng,
ground cover, shrubs and spectmen trees tn conjunction wtth
meandering sfdedalks, benches and other pedestrian muentttes where
appropriate as approved by the Pl·nntng Depart·ant.
S. Landscaping plans shdl incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees ·t key fisu·l focal points wSthSn the project.
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 7
6. ihere street trees cannot be planted vtthtn right-of-way of
triterfor streets end ro~ect arkways due to t
rtght-of-~Ay, they shaT1 be t of the road
p~anted outs de nsufftctent road
.rtght-of-~ay.
7, Landscaping plans shall Incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where ApproprIAte.
8. All extstfng specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the sub3ect property abel1 be sho~n on the pro3ect's grading plans
and she1'1 note those to be removed,.rolocated And/or retained.
9. All trees shall be mintmum double staked. Meaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
b, Prtor to the Issuance of grading permtts, a dretnage study Indicating
on-and off stte flow patterns And volumes, probable impacts, and
proposed mitigation measures shall be prepared end shall be approved
Ca trens.
by County Rood Control Dtstrtct and
c. All approved grading and building plans shall reflect the utilization
of post And beam foundations or the Appropriate combination of spltt
hvel pads and post and beam foundations vhen development Is proposed
on slopes of fifteen percent or greater measured over A hoHzontal
distance of thSrty (30) feet.
d, }f the pro3ect ts'to' be phased, prtor to the approval of grading
pemtts, An overall conceptual gradIn plan shall be subelated to the
Planning DIrector for approval, The fan shall be used as a guideline
for subsequent detailed grading ~Ans for (ndlvtdual phases of
development and shall include the following:
1. Techniques whtch vtll be ut!lfzed to prevent erosion and
sedimenteaton durtng Ind after the grading process.
2) Approximate time frmaes for tAdtrig and Identification of Areas
~hichmay be graded duffrig the ~tgher probability rain months of
January through 14arch
3) Prellmtnery pad end roadway elevations
4) Areas of temporary gredtng outside of I pert¶culAr phase
e. Dr4veways shall be designed so Is not to exceed I fifteen (15) percent
grade.
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 8
Grading plans shall confom to Board adopted Htllslde Development
Standards: Ali cut Indlor ftll slopes, or Individual combinations
thereof, ,htch exceed ten feet In vertical hetght shall be mod(f$ed by
in appropriate combination of · special terracing (benchang) plan,
lncre·se slope retlo (t.e., 3:1), retaining yells. and/or slope
planting combined vtth irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a
fifteen percent grade.
cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded ,·tufa1 terratn and
exceeding ton (10) feet tn ve~ctcal hetght shall be contour-graded
Incorporating the following gradtng techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the nature1 terratn.
2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natural rounded terratn.
3) The toes end tops of slopes shall be rounded ~tth curves with
red11 destgned tn proportion to the total hetght of the slopes
vhere drainage and stab(lfty pemIt such rounding.
4)
VhePe cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved $na continuous,
undulating fashion.
h. Natural features such ms water courses, spectmen trees and s(gn4f(cant
rock outcro s shall be protected tn the string of tndhtdual bu~ldtng
pads on ftn·~ grading plans.
Prtor to the tssuence of gradtrig permtts, the developer shall provtde
evtdence to the DIrector of Butldtng and Safety that ·11 adjacent
off-stte manufactured slopes have recorded Slope easenenta and that
slope mint·hence responsibilities have been assigned as ·pproved by
the Director of Butldtng and Safety.
Prior to the Issuance of gradtrig permtts,e qualified p&leontulogtst
shell be rat·tried by the developer for consultation and consent on the
reposed gradtrig ~tth respect to potent1·1 paleontologIcal 'Impacts.
~hould the psTeontologtst find the potential is high for impact Impact
to significant resources, · pre-grsde meeting between the
paleontolegtst end the excavation and grading contractor shall be
arranged. tihen necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall
have the authority to temporarily dlvert, rodtract or halt gradtng
acttvlty to ·11ow recovery of fossils.
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 9
All d~elltngs shall be located a minimum of ten feet from the toes and
tops of all slopes over ten feet in verttcal height unles otherwise
approved b h Planntng Director. yte
1. Natural drainage courses shall be retained in their natural state
vherever possible,
All brow ditches, terrace dratns and other minor s~ales vhere requtred
shall be 1Dried ~tth natural erosion control materials or concrete, as
approved by the Planntng Otrecter end Butlding and Safety.
Any tmport or export of materials shall be in accordance vtth County
Ordinances No, 457 and No, 565 respectively.
Prior to the tssuance of BUILDING PERHITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
No butlding Pemlts shall be tssued by the County of Riverside for any
residential lot/unit ~thtn the prolect boundary unttl the developer's
successor's-In-Interest provides evtdence of compliance ~dth public
facility financing measures, A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($I00)
per lot/unit shall be deposited vtth the Riverside County Department
of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the submittal of buildtog plans to the Department of Butldlng
and Safety an acoustlcal study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwe111ng units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior notse hvels to 45 CNEL and exterior noise levels to
65 CNEL,
c. Prtor to the Issuance of butldtng pemtts, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval,
The plans shall Iddress ill areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed Including, but not limited
to, parkwa planting, street trees, slope planting, and tndhtdual
front yard {lndscaptng,
&ll dwellings to be constructed' ~tthln this subdivision shall be
desfg~NI and constr~cted vtth fire retardant (Class A) roofs as
approved by the County Fire IMrshal, ..
e. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted ~tthtn the'
however so ar equ pment or any other energy savtng
subdivision, 1 t
devtces shall be permitted ~tth Planntng Department approval,
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 10
f. ~utldtng separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall
not be less than ten (10) feet.
g. &ll street side yard setbacks shall be · minimum of ten (10) feet.
b. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic .
irrigation.
Prior t · the issuanceof. OCCUPANCY PERNITSthefollowtng CondtUons shall
be satisfied:
· . All' 'landscaping and irrigation shall beinstalledln accordance with
epproved plans prior' to the tssuance of occupancy pemits. If
seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and
erosion control measures shall be uttltzed as approved by the Planntng
Director and the Director of Building and Safety.
Rot withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
rposes, the heights of all
study is required for noise attenuation ~y the acoustical study where
required walls shall be detemtned
applicable.
c. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461.
d. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance
with the standards of Ordinance 460.
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER · COUNTY SURVEYOR
November 13, 1987
Itlverstde County Irlarmt.n9 Comdsston
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside. CA 92501
lie: Tract Nap 22762
Schedule A - Team' $P
tadtes end renal'each:
Vtth respect to the conditions of approval for tee referenced tentative land
dtvtston map. the Road Department recommends thdt tee lenddivider provide the
follmrlng street Improvement plans end/or road dedications tn accordance vlth
-Ordinance 460 and RIverside County bad Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461).
It ts - understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline
praftles, all extsttng easements, traveled m~s, and dratnage courses ~th
appropriate q's, and that their omlsston or unacceptabtllty may requtre the map
to be resubnttted for further consideration. These Ordinances end the follo~ng
conditions are essential parts and e requirement occurring tn OliE !s as binding
as though occurring tn e11. They are intended to be compTementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions
regard(rig the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road
Commt ssloner*s Office.
~he landdivider'she11 protect downstream properties from ~mges
caused by alteration of the' dretnege patterns, (.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlargtn~
existin fadltttes or by securtn e dratnage easement or by
both. Xll draina easemonte sha~l be shom on the ftnal map
sinage e~
t
and noted as lollova: "Dra nege Easement - no building,
ObStTuCtfOnS, or encreacbnents by land ftlls are allo~d". The
protection shall be ms mpproved by the Road Department.
2. The landdivider 'shell accept and properly dispose of all offstte
drainage ~owtng onto or through the site. In the event the
Road CMm~;ss¶o~er parl~lta the use of streets for dratnage'
Pu oses, the provisions of ArtSde X] of Ordinance Ro. 460
~l~appl~. $hculd the quantities exceed the street
capeday or the use of streets be proMbleed for dratnage
purposes, the sulxlfv(der shall provide adequate drainage
facilities as approved by the Road Department.
Tra~Map 22762
No'vember 13, 1987
Page 2
3. Pa3or drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as approved by the Road Oepar~nent;
4. Streets "8", "D" shall be improved within the dedicated right of
way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/
60').
5. Street "C" shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in
A 6
accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section . (3 '/60').
Street "A" shall be improved with 34 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement within a 45 foot part-width dedicated right of way in
accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. (22'/33').
Concrete sidewalks' shall be constru6ted throughout the landdivision
in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
A primary and secondary access road to the nearest paved road
maintained by the County shall ha constructed within the public
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section
B, (32'/60') at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road
Commissioner. This is necessary for circulation purposes.
Prior to the rocordation of the final map, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of
$150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should
the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter
into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to
the time of issuance of abutldtng permit.
Xmprovement plans shall be based upon a centerline roftle
extending a mrlntmum of 300 feet beyond the pro~ect ~undartes at
· grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road
Cmm~tsstoner. Completion of road improvements does not imply
acceptance for maintenance by County.
11, Lrlectrtcal end commntcattons trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817,
Asphelttc e~ulston (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and
shall be ep lied at · rata of 0.05 gallon per square yard.
Asphalt mudston sbell confom to Sections 37, 39 ·nd g4 of the
State Standard Specifications.
,.,' Tr.,rt Nap 22762
· Nov. ember 13, 1987
· ' P~ge '3.
13. Standard cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the land
division.
4.
'18.
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
Comer cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall
be shown on the ftaai map and offered for dedication.
The landdivider shall comply with the caltrans reconmnendattons as
outllned in their lettar dated October 20, 1987 copy of whtch is
attached), prior to the recordatton of the final map.
The lenddivider shall provide uttllty clearance from Rancho Calif-
ornia Water District prior to the recordatton Of the ftnal map.
A copy of the final map shall be submitted to Caltrans, District
08, Post Office Box 231, San Bernardtno, California 92403;
Attention: Project Development for review and approval prior to
recordatton.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the
Road Commissioner.
The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall
be 35 feet.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County
Standards.
The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face
of curb.
All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50'
tangent measured from flow line.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be
coordinated with TR 22761m TR 21760 and $P 180.
GH:lh
Very truly yours,
Road Dtvtslon Engineer
Riverside CourtLy PXtnning Conission
~iverside. CA gZSOl
OCT 0 5 1987
RIVERSlOE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE; TRACT IOkP 22762: Being 8 subdivision of portions of Lots
1, 2o · & 8 Block 18 tad · portion of Lo~$ I & 15 Block 19
of Pauba Land and Water Co. as shown by Map filed in Book
II, Page 501 of Maps, Records of San Diego County
California.
(80 Lots)
Gentlemen=
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Hap
~No;~22763 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed according to
plans and specification as epproved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
~rints of the plans of the water system shill
be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale
not less than one inch equals 200 feet. along vzth
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter.
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
3oint specifications. and the size of the main
at the ~unction of the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in
all respects with Div. S, Part 1, Chapter 7 of
the California Health and Safety Code, California
Administrativm Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Comamission of the
State of California,when applicable. The plans shall
be signed by · registered engineer and water company
with the tollowing certification= '! certify that the
design of the water system in Tract Hap 22?62 is in
accord·now wi~h the water system expansion plans of the
Rancho California Water District and that the water
service, storage and distribution system viII be
adequate to provide water service to such tract.
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that
it viii supply water to such tract at any specific
quantities. flows or pressures rot fire protection or
any other purpose'.
Riverside County Planning Department
Page Two
October 5, 1987
This certlflcatietx shall be signed by a responsible
official of the water company. 1tll_~l!D!_mMl~-~g
This Department'has a statement from.the l~ncho California
Mater District agreeing to serve domestic vatmr to each ud
every lot in the subdivision on demknd providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the.
subdivider. It will be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made-prior to the recordation of the
final map.
This. Department has a statement from theE astern Municipal
Mater District agreeing to alloy the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the sewers of thf District. The
sewer system shall be instilled according to plans and
specifications as approved by the District. the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate.
along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint ,pe~ifications
and the ,txe.:of the sewers.at the junction .of the new system
to the existing system. A single plat indicating location
of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plus ~nd profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and the ,e~sr district with the
following certification: "I certify that the design of the
sewer system in Tract Map 22?23 is in accordance with the
sewer system mapart,ion plans of the Eastern Municipal Mater
Di,trtct and that the waste dimposal ,ystsm is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
tract.' lbt_ lsoa_ ga!_ m_a _bsitttd_t _ b _; utx
2~£XSXe£:l_~//iGt,tL£tXttX_sLlmaat_txn_Xtttm_~£ig£_is_tbt
£mg~sat_Lm£_ibe_£m;e£~atl;u_gf-tba-Liuil_mam-
2t viII be necessary fmr the financial arrangements to be
made prior tm the recordatimnef the final map.
Sincerely,
~~~v~ca~s Divilion
· I~leN~TH l_ IDWAR~i
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
October 7, Z987
ltiverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
P_tversideo California
Attentions Specific Plans
,~e~f Weinltein
Ladies and Gentleant Re: Tract 22762
This is a proposal to' d~jvide about 16 acres in the Temecula valley
area, The propert7 is between Interstate 15 and Yne= Road about
ll0O feet south of Rancbo California Road,
Well defined ridges and watercourses are the main geographical fea-
tures In this area. Storm runoff beth ~rom Tract 22761 to the east
and on this property is designed to he carried by interior street
system and outletted at the southwest corner to a culvert under-
neath the freeway,' .According t~ the tentative map, storm runo~f
generated by a pert of the northwest portion of this tract would he
diverted.
Following are the District' 8 reconnendations t
This tract is located within the limits of the Hurrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage. Plan ~or Which drainage
~eee heve been adopted by the Board. Drainage ~ees shell
be paid as set ~orth under the provisions of the "Rules and
Regulations for Administration o~ Area Drainage Plans',
amended ~uly 3, 1984s
Drainage fees shell be paid to the Road P~_~eqissioner as
part of the filing for record of the, subdivision final
map or parcel map, or i~ the recording of a final per-
oil map is waived, drainage fees shall be paid as a
condition o~ the waiver prior to recording a certi~i-
oats of c~npliance evidencIng the waiver oa the parcel
At the option of ~ land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting defersent of the payment of
foes, the drainage fees shall be paid to the Building
Director at the time of issuance of a grading permit or
building permit for each epproved parcel, vhichever may
be first obtained after the recording of the subdivi-
sion final map or parcel mapx however,
Riverside County
Planning Department
Res Tract 22762
October 7, 1987
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Connuissioner as
· part of the filing f~r record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or before receiving a waiver
to record a land division, for each lot within the land
division where construction activity as evidenced by
one of the following actions has occurred since May 26,
1981s
A grading parm/t or building permit has been
obtained.
(b) Grading or structures have been initiated.
Oneire drainage facilities located outside of road right of
way should be contained within drainage easements shown on
the final map. A note should be added to the final map
stating, 'Drainage easements shall be kept free of build-
ings and obstructions'.
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected proparty owner(s). The doc~uent(s) should be
recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordation of the final map.
A/1 lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street
or an adequate outlet-
The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb
and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the
street right of way. When either of those criteria are
exceeded, additional drainage facilities should be
installed.
6. The proparty's street and lot grading should be designed in
a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage
patterns with respect to tributary drainage area and outlet
7. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented
immediately following rough grading to prevent deposit/on
of debris onto downstream properties or drainage
facilities.
B/verside County
Planning Department
Re z Tract 22762
- 3 - October 7, 1987
Development of this proparty should be coordinated with the
development of adjacent propart/es to ensure that
watercourses remain unobstructed end Stormwaters are not
diverted fr~ one watershed to another. TI~Ls my require
the construct/on of tempotax7 drainage facilit/es or
offsite construct/on end grading.
Drainage facllitLes outlett/ng sump oondit/ons should be
designed to convey the tributax7 100 year storm flaws.
Addit~onal e~ergency escape should also be provided.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans end final
map along with ~upport/ng hydrologic end hydraulic
calculations should be sub~itted to the District for review
and approval prior to recordation of the final map.
Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of
grading perm/ts.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang
of this office at 714/787-2333.
Ver~ truly yours,
ccs FaS/Lowr
~~Eaer
CAUFC)RNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOAESTRY
RAY HEBKARD
SPECIFIC PLAN TEAM
.10-6-87
I~e~l & E~lineerl~I Ofilc~
22762
With respect to the cond~tions of apparel for the shove' referenced land division,
the t4re Departneat re__ends the following fin prote~tion measures be provided'
in accordance with Xivurside County Ordinances end/or recognized fire protection.,
standardas
Schedule 'Aft fire protect~n aleroved standard fire h~drants (6*x4"~2J"), located
one at each street latersection and spaced no more than 330 feet. apart in any
d~rection, with no portion of any lot fi~ntsge ~ore than 16S feet fro= a hydrant,
Mbxianm fire floe shall be 1000 GPH for 2 hours duration et 20 PSZ.
Applicant/developer shell furnish one copy of the water S/Eta pleas to the Fire
Depert~nent fOr review, Plans shall ~onfotm to fire hydrant tTpes, l~catlon and
spacing, and, the system shall meet the fir~ flow requirements. Plans shall be '
signed/app~oved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company.with-.
the following certifications el certify that the'design 6r the water system is
~n accordance with the requite~ents prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Depattmenteo
~e requLred water e:Fxtem, including fits hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted b7 the ei~opriate water egency prior to e2y conbust, ibm btttlding
---fermi being ~laced on an individual lot.
All buildings shall be constructed with fLre retardant z~ofing material as
desoribed in Section 3203 Of the Uniform Building Code. Any rood shingles
or shakes sJmll/ave · Cbss el" rating and abeIX be N~roved by the rite
Ikpertmeat ~ to inst&llation,
II~TXG3~I'Z~ F~
l~x4__~_- to tim recorderion of the ff~al ma~, the dad~ ~all deceit vi~ ~e
~v~ide ~ Fl~ h~t a ~lh ~ of 1400.~ ~ l~uit as ~tigation
f~ f~e prot~ ~s, ~ld ~e d~el~er ~se ~ defer ~e t~ of
~nt, he/~ my ~tet ~ a ~ltten agrea~t vl~ ~e ~ty deferri~
said pa~t e ~e ~ of len~e of s h~l~g ~t.
All questions reqanding the meaning of .the c~nditions shall be referred to the
F~re Department Planning sad bgineerin~ sta~.
DATE: Septsaber 1, 1987
TO:
:IiVE::IbiDE COUrIEr.
PL,t, rlrlirl( DEPA::IEITIErl/
~f
klldlng e Sefe~
Surveyor - Dave Dude
Road Departrant
Dealth - Ralph Lutes
Ftre Protection ~,~ O~ ~ RECEIVED
fish & Sine
u.s, Sotrace - Ruth E. fi~d~o~n .pN.OMAR OSS~:.TTOrr
Rancho Callf.
Southern Callf. Edtson
Southern Callf. Gas
Denere1 Telephone
Dept. of Transportation 18
Hurrteta School
.Tamecull
Teaecule Chamber of Coonarea
fit. Palomr.
County Ltbrery
C~an~sstoner Breason
TRACT 22762 - (SP) - E.A, 31943 - raiser
Development - NBS/Lowry -Rancho
California D~str(ct - FIrst Supervisor(a1
DTstrtct - Southwest corner of Rancho
CalfromPs Road and Ynez Road - R-R Zone
- 16 acres tnto S1 lots - (Related cases
TR 21760/TR 22781 & CZ 5007) - Nod 119 -
A.P. 923-020-038
Please rayled the case described above, along v~th the attached case map. A Land
Otvts40n Committee meetTrig has'ken tonialive17 scheduled for October 8, 1987. if 11
clears, tt Hll then 9o to publlc heating°
Your tomants led reconnendattons are requested prior to October 1, 1987 tn order that we
a~y Include them In the staff report for this particular case,
Should you have any questions regs.rdtng this 1teas please do not hesitate to contact
OeffWetnstetn st 787-1363
Planner
R,ZAS~ SEF,, ATTA~r,u
DATE: 1016187 SIGNATURE
PLEASE prl~ t name end tttle
Dr. Robe J. lrucato/lJetetant Dlrector/Palomar
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Thee cue ~J vith~- 30 -4lee off the PaXour Observatory ~nd in therefore
~th~ the z~e requi~ t~ ~e of l~pressurt s~i~ vapor l~s fqr
szree~ ~lh~g, M stippled ~ ~e ~vt~e ~ kurd o~ Superiors,
request t~t eh, desiRa for. other tapes of outdoor 24ghting that my be
apl~ed' n ~b ~i, er~ h u~e c~sistenc ~th the spiri~ of the decist~
the Board of Superbors ~ieh is intended to ~tigate the adverse effects
,u~ f~ctlities h~e ~ ~he utrm~eal rasear~ at P~r, ~ne~lclal
seeps to tht end ~clude:
1. Use the uf~dJngm amount of 3~ght needed for the tlJk.
2. Orient and shield light to pre~ent direct upvard illumination.
Turn off lights at 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in c~ercial
applicetluns, the associated business is ooen past that time, in vhich
me the ]~Shts should he tufted off at closing.
l~se lou-pressure sodi,-- l~s for roe~eys, valid;aye, equipment yards,
parking lots, security and other strutlet applications. These llghts
~eed Dot be tuned off
For further information, call (818) 356-t,035.
Robert J. Bruceto
Assistfit Director
Ridreed D. Btdfe7
k. V'r~ Pmidmtt
Juae A. Dtrby
Jon A. Ludin .
October 7, 1987
OCT 13 '1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Riverside Couraty Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
R~verside,' California 92501-3657
Sub::Ject: Water Availability
Reference: Tract 22782
Gentlenan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the
property owner -signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
· contact'this office. ,
Very ttmly yours,
RANCliO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
~enga P. Doherty ~
Engineering Services Representative
ro12/qr,"25z
qiVE )iDE COU~C,u
PLAnninG DEPAtC EnC
DATE: September :~, 1-987
TO: Assessor
BuiTdfng end Safety
Surveyor - Dave Ovda
bad Depar~nent
Health - blph Laths
Ftre Protection
Flood Control Dlstrtct
Fish & Game
LAFCO Dou Yterrl
UoS. Posta~ Service, Ruth E. Davidson
Rencho Callf. ' '
Southern Callf. Edison
Southern Callf. Gas
OCT 0 9 1987
RIVERSI DE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRACT 22762 - (SP) - E.A. 3Zg43 -Katser
General Telephone Development - gg$/Lo~ - Rancho
Dept. of Trans rtatim e8 California District - First Supervisetin'
Nuvrteta Scboo~° District - Southvest corner of Rancho
.Temecula Union California Road and Ynez Road - R-R Zone
Tametale Chamber of Comerce - 16 acres 1rite 51 lots - (Related cases
fit. Palemar TR 21760rrR 22761 & CZ 5007) - Nod 119 -
County Library A.P. 923-020-038
£om~tsstoner Iresson
tlease review the case described above, along v(th the attache~ case map. A Land
'Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for October 8, 1987. Zf it
clears, tt ~lll then go to publtc hearing.
Tour Co~ments end recmnendations are requested prtor to October i, 2987 In order that we
m.y tnclude them tn the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this 1tam, please do not heattare to contact
Jeff Wainstein at 787-1363
Planner.
Node of future delivery: centralized. Contact vith U.S.P.S. Grovth
Coordinator required before construction for delivery locations.
oxTE: SZSN&TURE
PLF.~E print anne and Utle
4080 LEMON STREET, P FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 , INrtlt~ ~..AI IFt"JRNIA 92201
qiVEt iDE COUnCY
PLAnninG DEPAtCfilEnC
DATE: Septe~er l, 1987
TO: Assessor
Butldtng and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Dude
bad Department
.Health- ROlph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control Dtstrfct
FIsh & Gain..
·o ,:w , -.... . ..
U,S, PService - Ruth L Gavtdson
Runcho Callf.
~outhern Callf. Edtson
Southern Caltf. Gas
General Telephone
Dept.. of Transportation
Harriers School
· Temecula Union
Teaecula Chamber of Comerce
fit. Palomar
County Ltbrer7
Coaatsstone~ aresson
OCT 0 7 1987
· - RIVEFiSIDE'COUNTY "-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~RACT 22762 - (SP).- E.A. 31943 - Kaiser
DeveTopment - RBS/Lov~y.- Rancho
CaHfornte District - First Supe~v?sor~a
District - Southvest corner of Rancho
California Road and Ynez Road - R-R Zone
- 16 acres tnto S1 lots - (Related cases
TR 21760ffR 22761 & CZ 5007) - Hod 119 -
A.P. 923-020-038
?lease revtw the case described above, along v~th the attached case mp. A Land
Division Coaatttee mating has been tentatively scheduled for October .8, 1987. If tt
'£1ears, tt Idl] then 9o to public heartag. .. :. -'
Your cobants and recmndattons are requested prtor to October 1, 1987 tn order that
my include them tn the staff repor~ for thts particular use.
Should~ou bye a questions regarding thts item, please do not heattale to contact
Jeff Wainstein a:n~87-1363
Planner
~PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
October,9.7 Dev.lop.,nt
:'.:i08-Riv-15oq. 83
OCT ~ ~ 'i987 ~our Reference:
TTH 22761 end
TTX 22762
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPAR'FMENT
Pleanini Department
Count/of Riverside
Attention Hr. Jeff Veinstein
,~080 Lemon Street
liverside,. CA 92501
Dear Hr. Veinstein:
Thank you for the opportunity to reviev proposed rfN 22761 and
TTN 22752 located southwesterly of Rancho California Road and Znez
load, east of Interstate 15 in Rancho California.
Please refer to the attached material on vhieh our comments have
been indicate~ by the items checked and/or by those items noted
under additional comments.
If any york 1s necessary Mithlnth~ state highway right of way,
the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
District 8 Office of the State Department of Transportation prior
to beginning the .ork.
If additional Information is deslred, please oall Mr, Patrlek M,
'Connally st (71~) 383-q38q-
Very truly yours,
Dlstrlot Permlts Engineer
I
(Co Rte p~)
Alth~u~ the traffic and drainage peersted by thls propcoal do not sppear to hav~ '
· significant effect on ~ state hlgtsay systmn, consideration met be 2ive~ to
the -,-,bt~e effect of continued develqmmt in t~ts ares. Any masures
mmees~m-y to mdl=t2ate the -m,lmtlve impact of traffic and drainage sh~ld be
~ Zt endears that the trstTle and draftage generated by this prcS~sal --~-;ld lave ·
t me necessary
mignlflen effect eu the state !tigJ~sy slmtem or the ares. /.tO, asures
· :,:, ta mitigate the traffic and drainage impacts shculd be included with the
. development.
This prtim or state ktatrda7 is included in the Callfcrnls )faster Phn or State
HIatamy~ £jiglble for Official Scenic Highway l)eslgnaClcn, and in the f~cure yc~r
agency my. wish t~ have this route officially de~tpated as · state scenic
,This pm=Cl~ of state hlg~my has been officially designated as a s~ate scenic
- ldgt~a~, and development in this ecrrtdor shculd be cce~atlble ~4.th the ecenlc
It is ~ecogntzed that there is eculderable public concern about noise levels
mdJacent to bearlly trsvelm:l Ittghwaya. Land develc~ment, in order t~ be cc~pattble
with t.his ccncern, my require speclal noise attenuatlc~ measures. Development of
prc!~rr, y &/~xald include any necessary no~se attenuation.
IE !tE:CI:3II~:N~,
Mona1 right- of way dedtcatl~ to provtde*
belr- Xdth cn the state 'hlg ry.
Ifcrmal street ln~roveme~ts to provide half-~idth co the state higlafay..
Curb and gutter. State Stan.dm'd along 'the state hl~ay.
FarkinK be prohibited along the st~t~ higl~ay by paintln~ the c~rb red
.and/or by the prcpr plac*m,~t of rune Parkingw sip.
redrue ~urb returns be provided st intersections with the state h12~sy.
/'~ndard kd~eelchalf ra~ met be provAde~ in the returns.
· positive vehicular 6errlet slq the prcpertT f~cmtage be provided to Jimit'
physical seem to the ~tate hipfQr. '
T~eulmr access not be developed d/reetly to the State h/2tsmy.
TmNleular seem to the state kii~aY be provided by extstln2 public road
Vddoular ~ccess to the state hii~y be prodded by . studard
dr I vmmya.
Vehla~lar seeus shall not be provided within
of the lntersectla.*
Vehicular access t~ the state hig~n~sy be pro_~ded by ~a read-_ty~e connection..
Vehimlsr e_~_~_- csrmecti~ns be lived st Ieast within. the stst~ higtnmy right
amy.
Ms" points t~ the state highmay be develc:q:~ in · manne~ trmt ~ill Irovide si~h~
distance r~r mph along the state highsday.
-landscaping alcn'g the state hi~-sy be lo~ and fu'givin~ in nature.
· left-ttr~ '/~ne, Lneluding any no~;;_~ry wide~ir~, be provided on the state
highway st .
r----tdersticn be given to the provisim, or figure provision, of siS~allzatlon and
laShtinS or the intersecttom or and
impacts, and Ireposed mitipticn measures be prepared.
Farking lot be developed in a manner that will not cause any vehicular moverant
conflicts, including paricing stall m~trsnce and exit, within of the
entrance £rcm the state hiatnmy.
Kandicsp parking not be ~eveloped in the Imay driveway entrance ares.
Care be taken k~en developing this property to preserve and perpetuate the existing
.drainage p~tte~n of t~e state hagInlay. Particular consideration should be given to
cumulative t~creased storm r~orr to ~sure that. highly drainage problem is not
Any necessary njtse attenuation be provided as part or t~e develo~xMnt of this
property.
Flease refer to 'stteched sddltionsl c~-nts.
· oopy o1' any conditions or splrc~al or revised approval.
a ec~ or any documents proriding sddltinnal'state hiSJ~ray right of kmy upon
re~crdetlcu of the mike.
Any prqx~ls to Arther develop this property.
· copy or the traffic or envirornnental study, If required.
· check print of the Parcel or Trsct Hap, if required.
· check print of the Flsns fcr any improv-eMnts within the state highway right
my, if re~u__t_red.