HomeMy WebLinkAbout101590 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 15, 1990 - 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chlniaeff
Hoagland,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are
limited to three 13) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be flied with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes
1.1 Minutes of October 1, 1990.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.:
Applicant:
R epresentati ve:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Substantial Conformance No. 2, SP 16u,
Davidson Communities
RANPAC Engineering Corporation
Nicholas Road, 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. Lt of the Rorlpaugh Estates Specific
Plan.
Continue to November 5, 1990
Steve Jiannlno
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299
Presley of San Diego
Crosby, Mead, Benton and Associates
South of Highway 79, west of Margarita Road.
Extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23299.
Continue to November 5, 1990
Richard Ayala
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
5. Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
6. Case No.:
Applicant:
R epresentati ve:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Change of Zone No. 5611
Brent Dix
C - M Engineering
East side of Joseph Road approximately 1,000 feet north of
Nicholas Road.
Change zone from R- R 1/2 to R-1 in conjunction with
VTTM 2500~,.
Approval
Mark Rhoades
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500~
Brent Dix
C - M Engineering
East side of Joseph Road approximately 1,000 feet north of
Nicholas Road.
To subdivide u,2,~ acres into 115 single family lots.
Approval
Mark Rhoades
Tract No. 2511~3
Marstan Development
Gary Martin
South side of Margarita Road, between Moraga Road and
Avenida Cima Del Sol.
105 unit condomlnium subdivision of 7.31 acres.
Approval
Oliver Mujlca
Parcel Map No. 26239
Brookstone Development Company
Same as above
The southwesterly corner of Rueking Road and Madison
Avenue approximately 200 feet east of Cherry Avenue and
Jefferson Avenue.
To create five parcels for future office use on a 2.08 acre
site.
Approval
Scott Wright
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Parcel Map No. 2q.633
Robert Paine
Benesh Engineerin9
Northeast corner of Estero Street and Ormsby
To divide a 1 .~,3 acre parcel into two parcels,
Approval
5teve Jiannino
9. Planning Director Report
10. Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: November 5, 1990, 6:00 PM, Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California.
Planning/ACN10-15
ITEM #1
MT[N[T~.:S OF A RE~[I3[.AR Mq':F..TINC.
THE '~'f,ANN[NG COMM[SSJ'ON OF THF.
A regular meet~na of the Temecu]a Planning Commission was called to
order at Va]] Elementary School, 299]5 Mira l,oma Drive, Temecuja,
California at 6:10 P,M, The meeting was called to order by
Chajrpersnn Denni.g Cb]njaeff.
PRESENT:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Biair, Fahey, Ford
CbiDiaeff
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John CavaDauqb, Gary
Thornhi l. I, Acti. n~ Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project
Manager add Gaj] Z~]er, Minute Clerk,
COMMENT
FRANK KI.EIN, 30380 Santiago Road, Temecu]a, discussed various items
with the Commission, including: increas]nq bike paths in the city,
deVelOping a system for making addresses more accessible to
emergency vehicles, prohibition of tethered ball. Don advertising,
gtoraqe of a bus on an empty lot and disguising of cylindrical
tanks at the cnncrete batch plant, off of Front Street.
GARY THORNHII,I, advised Mr. Klein that some of these items were
under investigation; however, he could direct all of these
complaints to Mr. Marshall, Code Enforcement Officer, ~n the C~ty
PLanning Department.
MINUTES
3.7{ COMMISSIONER FORD moved to approve the minutes
20, ].990, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
NOES:
ABSENT:
4 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
] COMMISSIONERS:
of August
Blair, Fahey, Ford
Chiniaeff
None
Hoag]and
' ,ANN I N(~
O(InPO:Pl~.R ~ , i
COMM)iSSIONER ~'()RO moved tn approve t'h~ minut~g of
S~plpmber 37, Iq9(}, amended as fn~ lows: Pa0P ')8,
DatagraPh, ~ho~s: d read "discussion with
qowlnq ~mendmAnts: ~aqe 3, fi~th Datagraph,
read "w~ ~n nrd~D~D~e re~l]~remeDt"~
~hi rd paraqK'aDh, shoul. d read "prnpe~ty,
d~cret~nnary", seconded by
AYES: 4 COMML[SS[ONERS: R}a~r, Fahey,
Chini aeff
0
COMMISSIONERS: None
A~SEN'?: ;I COMMJSSIONERS: Hoagland
Ford
PUBf, IC HEARING ITEMS
?. 'PI~:N~PA~PIVF :PARCEl. MAP NO. ?563?
).i
Proposal to subdivide 4,7 acres into ].0 parcels in the
M.S,C, ZOne, tO cnnStruct aD industrial park on the
snllthwest side of Bmlsiness Park Drive, north of Rancho
('a{ifnrnja Road.
OI,IVER MUJICA presented the staff report on fbjs item.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing.
WARREN CANES, Wescon Properties representative, reguested
rlArifi, catlon and modifi, cation of the following Conditi, ons
nf Approval: P]ot Plan No. ]]688, Condition No. 77,
Mr. .lames requested that this item read "Unless already
paic~, prior to"; Condition No. 47, ETA be deleted.
COMMISSIONER EAHEY clarified that prior to the meeting, a
revised set of Engineer~ng conditions were provided add
under these revised conditions, Mr. James was requesting
Condition No. 3] be de]eted. Mr. James also requested
modifications to the Conditions of Approval for Tentative
Parce] MaD No. P563~, CnDd~f~OD No. 18, to read:
"reciprocal access agreement or common ownership";
Condition No. 20, revised to read "[ID]eSS a}ready paid,
prior to" Condition No, 37, revised to read "If required,
the subdivider"; Condition No. 4~, Mr. James requested
MIN.10/1/90 -2- 10/10/90
that this Conditiot~ h~ deleted. .IOPfN MIT)OT,ETON and GARY
~'HORNHTLL Agreed that f:n;4s (~nndjt~oD cou]d be d~lefPa,
COMHISSIONER CH[NIAEFF ~tated ~hat ~h~ RTA was as.~igned
cover the AOMD requirements ~or tb~ Cjtv add tber~for~
~nnu ~ r, r~m~i.n ~s part of Cnndl tlnn No. 47 .
(:OMMISS:ION~:w ~ORD advised Mr. James that the reciprocal
ac~.~s agreement would b~ a ~emnrandum to the parcel. ~ap
which wouid be further enforced by the CC&R's. MR. JAMES
stated that he wanted to ~vn~d having to record the CC&R's
and A~]~taDt (hty Attorney ;)OHN C~VANAUG~ advised bjm
that a~thnugh ~t was suggested that the CC&R's be
m[~t~ned jf the Cnmm].ssion could requi~e that the
(~(~&~'s De r~cnrded ~Dd JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that they
could.
,IOBN MIDDLETON stated that the reason the CC&R's were
written in was ~n create an agreement between the City
add the aDDle cant as to ~ow the .~jte wou]d be maintained.
Assistant City Attorney JO~N CAVANAUGR advised that a
separate landscape aQreemeDt co]l]d :be prepared for the
maintenance o~ the common areas.
(IOMM:ISSION~ FOHD moved to c:jose the pub]it bearing,
~econded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY and carried unanimousl. y.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, ~ahey, Ford
Ch~nj. ae~f
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ARSENT: ] COMMISSIONERS: Hoag)and
COMMISSIONER ~AHEY moved to AdoDt the Negative Declaration
for Tentative Parcel Map No. 75637, and PInt P3an No.
11688, Approve Tentative Parcel MaD No. ~563P and Approve
PInt P3an No. 33688 subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval (as replaced by the Planning Department) with the
fO]]OW~Dg modifications: PInt PIED, Condition No. 27,
amended to read "Unless previously paid"; Condition No. 3l
to remain as ~s; Tentative Farce] MaD, COndition NO. 38
to remain a~ is; Condition No. ~0 to read "Unless
Drev~ollsJy pa.~d"; Condition No. 4~ to be de)clad.
MIN. 10/1/90 -3- 10/10/90
PhANN| N(-; C(}M~4 I ,'-Lq 1 ()N ~ rNII'!'I;Lq
4
NO~,Sl: 0
AR,qF. NT: I
990
B) ai r, Pabey, ~'ord
Chln~aeff
~naq]and
3. C,c)NnT'e'l:~lN&r, [l,~IE PRP, M[q' NO. 4
ProDosa.i to construct a 924 sa. ft. gasoline service
station and ml. ni-market with beer and wine sales located
at the southeast corner of 8R79 and Bedford Court.
STEVE PArK)VAN provided the staff report on this project.
GARY T~ORN~:ILt, stated that the p'lanning department bad
been working with the apD].icant regarding the areas
herweeD the ;~I'~ceDt resideDrio) housing add the proposed
gasoline station. He stated that the app].icant had
recoDfigllred some of the rear parking add re]ocated the
air and water service area closer to SR79. He
advised the Commission that the applicant was re~luesting
a modification ~ the hours of operation proposed by the
PJaDDin~ })~DartmeDt of 7:00 A.M. to 'l:l:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFE opened th~ DUblie hearing.
LARRY ~ARK~AM, Markham & Associates, 4)750 Winchester
Road~ Temecu].a, indicated that the applicant has concurred
with the staff report: however, the proposed bouts of
operation were not acceptable, and that they were seeking
74 bollr operation. We stated that they felt they bad
adequate].y addressed the issue of noise by providing
]andscape buffers and block walls to separate the
residential housing ~rom the proposed gasoline station.
Me also stated that the applicant was proposing an
on-site security guard. Mr. Markham requested
modification of the following Conditions: No. 44, he
indicated that the SR79 right-o~-way had already been
dedicated; No, 49 - 54, 57 and 58, Mr. Markham stated
MIN.10/1/90 -4- 10/10/90
that under prior ~Dp~ovmi~ the~ w~r~ no ~eaui~ements
for the jmprnv~m~nt,~ other thaD what they bare allready
dnn~ and that Assessment ~listricr
that they do Dot W~nt tD~m done at
asked the CommlssTon if they had a time frame for the
fiaur~ on fh~ mitlgatjoD
TERESA SANESI, 44737 "C"l,a Paz, Temecuia, stated that she
]~ nne of the )46 homeowners adjacent to this pro~ecf and
~eets ~hat they should nnt have to live next to a gas
~t~tioD,
No ode e.lse requested tn speak nD tb~s ~tem.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that the applicant and
r~Dresentatiues have met w~tb the ~nmenwner's Hoard on
three different nccass~nns and presented the Planning
Department wjtn a draft letter from them gjviDg their
~DDrova] nf the Project.
COM~ISSION~:R C)~[N~AEFF iDdjcated he was torn OD this
Ornpnsar i.n that th~ commerci. af. desiqnation for this
property had b~n iD o~aae S]D~e b~fnre the condos
w~r~ built, [n addition, this is one of only ~hree off-
ramps iD tOWD and the proposed ~]se should be ~oc~ted at
an off ramp to held relieve congestinn in the core nf the
c~ty. The impact on the resjdeDces could be softened by
a redesjqn of the s~te.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing and
deny the Negati, ve Dec].oration and not adopt the Resolution
apDrovjDq CoDdjfjonal Use Permit No. 4, and directed staff
to re-submit to the Commission with appropriate landscape
p]aDs, assessmeDt district plans, determination on the
hours of operation, architectural plans and input from the
RaiDbow Meadows HomeowDers Association. COMMISSIONER
BLAIR seconded the motion.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 1,
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
ABSENT: ]
COMMISSIONERS: Hoag]and
MIN. 10/1/90 -5- 10/10/90
4, VAR[AN,-~'E NO. 9
348, ~ectqoln 19,4 (a.4) In order tn obtain aoOrQvai of a
~r~ ~hnnning c~n~ Incated at
ot W'snrn~st~r Road and Ynez
SCOTT WRIGHT orovided the staff report on thi. s item. He
stated that the DroDosed signs were smaller than the
maximum size ~]~owed and that the applicant had provided
~l)b~tan~al :landscaping for the arP~ around the ~igns.
H~ added ~ha~ the ~r~eway signs would hav~ m maximum o~
two fenant~ named add the other ~jqo~ woulld have a maximum
of ~nur t~nan~s named.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR Questioned that diagrams provided in
the agenda packaqes indicated eight tn ten names slots on
the
COMMTSSIONE}{ CHINIAEFF oPened the oub.~ic bearing,
~REG ERICKSON, Bedford PrnDerties, stated that they would
a~ree to condition the Slgns tn two and four tenants.
COMMISS[ONER FAHRY moved to close the public heari, ng and
adopt Resolution 90- approving Variance No. 2; add
approve Variance No, 2 based on the attached Conditions of
APDroVat add added Condition NO. 5 stipulating a maximum
of two names on ~e freeway s].qns and four names on the
other SigDS, seconded by COMMJSSIONER FOND and carried as
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fabey, Ford
Chi. ni. aeff
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
Boagland
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF dec]ared a five minute recess at 7:45 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 7:50 P.M.
MIM.10/1/90 -6- 10/10/90
PLAN NO. 11622
s~uare feet eachl ~ the 27800 b]oc~ of Diaz Road.
S'e~UE ,I{ANN]NO Drovqded the staff report on this project.
.TO~N ~4IDDI,E~ON advised the Commission that CoQdition No.
and Condition NO. 4P ~ad been rev3sed per the
memorandum of September ~8, 1,990.
CO~4~:I,q,qTO NW. R CT-)]NIA'F..'~'~' oDdned ti~e public hear]Dg.
Sq'?,,VF, H~,,NDT,f.:Y, Spectrum Cnntractinq, Inc., expressed
coDcllrreDc~ wj tb staff ' s recommeDdati Dos. ~P reouesfed
ciarificatqon of Condition No. '13, GARY THORNHI[J, stated
tDls Candillon coiled be de:lete(j; Cnndjtjon No. 30, amended
tn ra~d "if r~qui. red, nrotecti. nn shall be", Mr. Hendley
alan r~que~ted clarification of Condition No. 36. JOMN
~ID~T,~TON stated that Cnnditj. on No, 36 could h~ amended
to r~ad "cnDstrllct drive approaches, parkway trees and
gtr~et lights on Djaz ROad".
The (?ommjssjoD expressed concern for the landscape plan,
~Decjf~ca~y landscaping adjacent to the building frosting
COMMISSIONER CHINIAF. FF stated that be would fee]
comfortable with st~ff approving the landscape as long as
thev were aware that the Commission wants we].[ developed
specimens and not five gal. l. on trees.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to c:lose the public bearing,
seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER FORD moved
to adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 3362?
and approve Plot P{an No. 1.].622, Request for Site
Approva], subject to the Conditions of Approval with tbe
following modifications: Condition No. 13 deleted;
Condition No. 30 modified to read "If required,
protection"; and Condition No. 36 modified to read
"construct drive approaches, parkway trees and street
lights on Diaz Road"; and direct staff to work with
applicant on landscape p]ans. Seconded by CO~U, dlSSIONER
F~/{EY and carried as fo].].ows:
MIN.10/i/90 -7- 10/10/90
,ANN
Fah~y, Ford,
Cb~n~aetf
NOER:
C¢ )MM F RSTONERS
(!OMM I R,R:IONR~'R:
R]air
T-]O~Q! add
h,1
PrODOF, ai tO con~trunt aD ]8,725 square foot reta3.1
showroom-furniture store on the north side of ~,nterprise
cj rc~ e, west nf Je~fPrsnD Avenue,
S'r'RVR JIANN[NO provided the staff report on this item.
He advjse~ t~e Commission that staff was concerned
with the ].oadi. ng and un].oading space. He stated that
the project iS not designed wjt~ rear :loading doors;
however th~ appti. cant has indi. cated that the buitding
w~ll be a furniture showroom for display on]y and that
the sal. es and shipping wi.].l. be from another l. ocation.
(;OMMISSIONE~ CHINIAEFF adOressod the ~s~ue of a furniture
showroom Located in a office/industrial. bui.[ding area.
GArY T~ORNHII,I, stated that the planning staff cannot
address the issue of use, which iS set by the ordinance.
JOHN M:[DDr,EmON advised t:~e Comm3ssion that Condition of
Approval. No. 31, was amended to read "area shown as 30'
X 50' ]DqTPBS add e(~ress on the PInt Plan sba]] be
7mproved with A.C. pavement to the same standards as
tDe on-site par~iDg lot"
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing.
JEFF HARDY, Jeff Hardy Architecture, 27349 Jefferson
Avenue, Temecula, advised the Commission that Condition
of Approval No. 2] stipulated that Buildings A and R,
which comprised of sixty to seventy percent of the
project could only be used for furniture, drapery,
plumbing, floor covering, and appliance stores, He
also commented that the CC&R's required the driveway
approaches to be decorative concrete and therefore
would ]jke Condition No. 3] amended. JOHN MIDDLETON
stated that concrete would be acceptabl. e. Regarding
MIN. 10/1/90 -8- 10/10/90
nC'l'OP, h:~ f , g qgO
De a)jowPn to ~n Units C tornvat F i~ they
ba~ed nn the r~qui,ement~ of th~ nrdi. nan~,
GARY THORNBIT,T, anvised the Comm]ssinn the Conditions 2]
and 2~ weY'~ nnt aDDli. cabl~ unless the applicant agreed to
them, M~. HARDY stated that be wol]]d agree to Condition
No. ~1, and Condition No. ~ with the modification he
reol]ested.
MR, BARDY teavested Condition No. 45 be ~eleted because ~t
applied to ~)ot 81an No, ]i759. ~e also asked if the City
Attorney wousd approve Condition No. 7 to read "The owner/
deve),oner sha~l, agree". JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that thi, s
woll)d be acceDtabse.
COMETSSInNER CH]NIAEFF exnressed concern for the quantity
and location o{ the trash enclosure. MR. HARDY stated
that the trash enclosure could be en]arqed to hoZId Roother
trash bin; however, in working with the City requirements
~nd the CC&R's, the proposed }neatiOn OT the trash bin
was the most appropriate pl. ace, COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF
and COMM]SSTON]4'.R FORD suggested revers~n~ the Jamdscape
island and the trash encsosure Locations. MR. HARDY was
agreeable to the suqgestinn.
The Commission expressed concern in approving the project
knnwinq that fixture uses of the s~te may cause the project
tn he underparked. They also expressed concern for the
lack of adequate trash faciftitjes for the uses add size of
the project and the proposed ].oading zone.
COMMTSSTONRR FABEY moved to close the pub]jc bearing and
not adopt the Negative Decla[ation ~or PLot Plan No.
]]609, Dot adopt Reso:lution 90- _, and deny Plot P]aD
No, ].L609, Request for Site Approv~k, COMMISSIONER BLAIR
seconded the motion.
COMMISSIONER CMINIAEFF reconunended that instead of
denying the application, jt be continued to allow the
applicant to work with staff on the problems. The motion
stood as made.
MIN.10/1/90 -9- 10/10/90
,ANN I N(~ (;(~MM F ,.~SH)N ~ I~UT~ O(~T()~ER i , ] q~O
~Y~S: 4 COMMISSiONerS: ~l~i r~ '~'a~ey,
NO~S: 0 CO~SS ~ONE~S:
A~Sd~N~': ~ COMMISSIONERS: Hnaq~ and
'1, PI'.OT Pr,&N NO.
'/, ::
Prnvagai tn construct an IS,300 square toot industrial
bul. ldinq on the north side ot Enterprise Circle, west
JeftersoD Avenue.
of
STEVE JIANNINO orovjded the staff report on thin project.
He stated that the building would be uned ~or a cabinet
JOHN MIDDI,~:TON requestea condition No. 35 be amended to
read "Construct A .C. or concrete pavement". A~ter
Commission Q~snussion, Condit.ion No. 35 wan amended to
read "Construct coilcrete pavement improvements" .
C0MM]SSIONF, r~ CH]NIAEFF apened the public bear~no.
JEFF HARDY, Jef~ Hardy Architecture, 27349 .Jefferson
Avenue, Temecll[a, requeste~ the to)]owing mod~f~catio~n
to the Conditions o~ Approval: No. 7, replace the word
app,ljcant wjtb owner/deve]oper~ No. 9, jf not a City
requirement would Like to utilize sing[e line striping
for parklDq StallS.
The Commission ~xDressed concern for the ]ocatloD and
number o~ dust/trash reciprocals. The applicant and
the Commission a~reed that rather than place them
Inside the bui[dinq, they should be placed outside the
bllj]d~nq wjtb a wa)] to properly ~creen them.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing and
adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. ]]759,
adopt Resolution No. 90-_ ...... and approve Plot Plan No.
3]759, Reguest for Site Approval, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval amended as follows: Condition No.
7 to read "The owner/developer shall"; Condition No. 9
MIN.iO/i/90 -10- 10/10/90
OCTOBER I , i gg0
r~ma]n as Written; Concljtion No. 35 to read "Constrllct
cnn~rete pavement"; and With the a(~(jjtjon ot Condition
which wj] I a~dress the ~nc~t]nn of the trash enclosure,
addition of anntaer trash h~n, GARY ~HORNHILL suggested
this CoDger]on be ~ncnrDnra~
l)enartment (inDUCtions. (]O~[SS[ONER FORD seconded the
mn~nn, wh~b carr~e~ ~s fn.llows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: HI. air, Fahey, Ford,
Chjnjaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Hnag]and
8. TRNTATTVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25538
PrnDOSa~ to suPdivide a 3.43 acre parcel into two parcels
at Winchester Road and 30565 Estero Street.
STRV~ JIANNINO provided toe staff report on this item.
JOHN MIODT,F.TON requested the fol, l, ow~ng modifications to
t~e COD(j3t]ODS Of Approval: No. 2jl(~) delete the reference
to "s].dewaLk"~ No. 33 amended to read "a m~nimum
CeDter~iD~ qrade s~al:l 0e 0.50 percent"; and No. 35
amended to read "(36-60)"~ and replace pages 3 and 4
of t~e Conditions of ADDrDVa) with amended pa~es 3 and
4 nf Sentember 28, )990.
COMM:[SS]ONF. R CH]NIAF.FF opened the pubJic hearing.
MIKF. BENF.SH, Benesch Engineering, requested c arification
of Cnnditjon No. 35. He questioned jf the engineering
department was requesting full street improvements at this
t~me. JOHN MIDDI, F.TON stated that they are requesting 28'
of improvements at this time.
MR. BF.NESH provided the Commission with a opinion from
the Attorney Genera[ in 1978 regarding the lega].ity of
the subdivision of one parcel under a tract map, which
indicated that the other parcels of the tract map do not
Deed to be ~nc]uded.
MIN.10/1/90 -11- 10/10/90
PI.ANNrNn
(~(')~ l SS I ON M INU'I'kS
(3C~Pf)BFR ~1 . ] 990
Assistant City Attorney JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that the
OD~DjOD Of the AttorDey GeDeral w~ not bind~n~ and the
Comm~ss].nn did not nave to bas~ their action on it.
MIK~ ~ENESH statec tDat
nnt recuired to PUt in
jmDrnvemeDts; Rowever,
udder the ordjDance they were
concrete curb and qutter
tb~v wou]d agree to Conall[job No.
¢~OMMrSSIONE~ RLAIR moved to cjose the public beardog add
~eoDt the Negative Declaration ~or Parcel. MaD No, ~5538
and approve Parc~) MaD No. 25538 glibjeer to the Cnndjt~oDs
o~ ADDroyal as submitted, including the modifications to
pa~es 3 add 4, seconded by COMMISS:IONER FORD add carried
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ASSENT: { (;OMMZISSIONERS: Boaqland
NON-PURI',I'C HEARING ITEMS
q, SUBS'FANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 2, SP 364
9.t¸
Proposal to delete the Clans I bike trai.[ i.n Pl. anninq Area
No. 4 o~ the Rnr]Dauqb ~iJjs Estates, [located at N~cho]as
Road, between Winchester and Genera[ Kearney.
GARY THORNHILL advised the Comm]ss~on [bat staff was
sti],{ working with the applicant and requested a
reconmnendatjon for continuance at th~s time.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue
Conformante No. ?, SP 364 to October
by COMMISSIONER BLAIR and carried as
Substantial
15, /[990, seconded
follows:
MZM.10/1/90 -12- 10/10/90
P~,ANNfN(; t:(~MMI,qS:I(~N MINIi'i'kS OCTOR~R 1, tgg0
Rlair, ~ahey, ~ord
0 COMM[SSIONgRS: None
AB.~:NT: t COI',fM :| SSIONF. R.q:
Hoaqlann
t.0. TENTATIVE MAP NO. ~27610 EXTENSION OF TIME and
~. 'PENTA'I'TVE MAP NO. ~PV6P, EXTENSION OF T:[NE
Prior to bearing this item, COHMISSlONER CHINIAEFF stepped down
~ue to a confllict of ~Dterest and turned the Qave{ over to Vice
Chairman COMMISSIONER FORD.
Proposal for first extension of time on Droiect located
south o~ Rancoo California Road, west o~ Ynez Road and
easterly of
Proposal for first extension of time on project Jocated
south of Ranchn Cai. ifornia Road, west of Ynez Road and
easterly of 1-715.
RICHARD AYAI.A orov3ded the stair report on this item.
COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the applicant was part
nf a ~eveioDmeDt agreement. The appjjcant confirmed
that they did have a devel. opment agreement.
{~ICHARD MY.ASSigN. Coleman Homes, 42850 Aqena Street,
'l'~mecu/.a, requested clarification of the following
Conditions of Approval: No. ~l, Mr. K.tassen stated
that the site has already been araded; therefore, the
SKR fees have been satisfied: No. ?, Mr. K]assen
questioned Dar~ and recreation fees. GARY THORNHILL
stated that they woujd satisfy this requirement under
the development agreement; therefore, the Condition
shou.ld read "pay the fee or satisfy tDe the County
requirement". Mr. K[assen also requested that Condition
No. 8 be modified to read "precise grading plan".
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to approve the First
Extension of Time and to approve Tentative Tract
Map No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval amended as follows:
MIN. 10/1/90 - 13- 10/10/90
Cnndi tic~n No. I }'o r~ad "litlies.c; Drevi. ollsI y Dai. d"
No, 2 to indicate either toe requirement has been
~atisfl~d or the t~ a~ nard; and No. 8 tn read
"orjor to buj.md~nO permit"', seconded by COMMI~BION~
RT,~IR and carri.~d as
AYF. S: 3 COMMISSIONERS: R:lair, Fahey, Fora
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ARST'A:[N: :l COMMISSIONERS: Cbiniaeff
ABSENT: L COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
C(~MISSIf)NER FAHEY movea to aDDrnve the First
Extension of Time and to approve Tentative Tract Map
No. ~'/62, sobjeer to the attached Conditions of
APProval. amended as forlows: Condition No, ] tn read
"liDless prev]ousjy paid": No, Y to indicate either the
requirement has been satisfied or the fees are naid;
and No. 8 to read "Drjnr to bli]ld~ng permit", seconded
by COMMISSIONER 8{,AIR and carried as
AYES: 3
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Fora
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: :~ COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
ABSENT: l. COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
COMMISSIONER CMINIAEFF returned to the chair.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that City Manager, David
Dixon would be present at the October 1.5, 1.990, P[anntng Commission
meeting to provide them with an update on the status of the Genera]
PI. an. Mr. Thornhill also directed the Commission to choose two
individuals to participate ~n the selection Of the General Plan
consultant. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND and COMMISSIONER FORD were
etected with COMMISSIONER BLAIR as an alternate.
ELM.10/1/90 -14- 10/10/90
M~. qT~ornhi. I I aiso di ~cl~ssed the diffficulty start ha,~ w~en
~v~Pw]n~ the ~e~j~ of a~Dl~t]n~ with no qll~deJjn~ on desIQn,
~an~cane, eta, He ~uqq~t~d that one ~niutlon Wn~lld be tn
an ~ntPrim ~P~ qll~de)~ne untO) t~e G~nPra~ Plan Wa~ complete.
He ~uqqe~te~ that the Cnmml,~ion may w~nt tn ~et-ilp a work ~hop to
andr~ th~ ~ nn~ ~ ~SU~. ']~b~ Comm~ ~j nn agreed tn
workshop addressing degi. q~ qui. deLi.~e~, to be held October 22, 1990,
6:00 P, M. at Va) J ~l.J em~ntary S~bnn; , )g9:l 5
{['emecula. He stated that ~e would provide them with examples of
AOJOURNMF, Nq?
CHAIRMAN DENNXS CHINTAEFF adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.~. The
next regutar meeting of the Temecul. a P{anni. nq Commission will be
held October 35, ~{990, 6:00 P.M. at Vaj] Elementary School, 29935
Mira [,om~ Drive, Temecuka,
MIN. 10/1/90 -15- 10/10/90
ITEM #2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
F tom:
Date:
Subject:
Plannin9 Commission
Gary Thornhill
October 15, 1990
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR SP164
The above referenced project has been continued from the Planning Commission
meetings of September 10 and October 1, 1990. Staff is currently working with the
applicant and the City Attorney on the proper processin9 procedure for this project.
Staff is requestin9 a further continuance of this project until a legal opinion can be
received from the City Attorney's Office. The applicant has agreed to a continuance
to the November 5, 1990 Plannin9 Commission meetin9.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Substantial
Conformance 2, Sp164 to the November 5, 1990 Planning Commission meeting.
GT:dd
02158 3001 045
Mg/Plannin9
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director/~
October 15, 1990
Case No. 3:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299,
First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299, First Extension of Time was originally
presented before the Planning Commission on August 20, 1990, at which time the
project was continued to September 17, 1990 for further review by Staff. Due to
insufficient data, the project was again continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of October 15, 1990.
At this time, Staff is working with the applicant on the project and requests that the
Planning Commission continue the Time Extension request to November 5, 1990, at
which time Change of Zone No. 5 will also be presented before the Planning
Commission. The original Change of Zone No. 5150 for Vesting Tentative Tract No.
23299 was never adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors
conducted the first reading of the zone change ordinance, but never held the second
reading which is required for a zoning ordinance to be finalized.
The Vesting Tentative Tract Map can not be approved unless the zoning request is
approved. Staff feels that it is appropriate to process the Time Extension and the
Zone Change request concurrently in the same manner as an original tract map would
be processed when a zone change is required for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 23299, First Extension of Time to their regular meeting
of November 5, 1990.
GT:ks
STAFFRPT\VTM23299.A
iTEM ~1~ S, kS
Case No.:
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNINC COMMISSION
October 15, 1990
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25004
Change Zone No. 5611
1. Adoption of Negative Declaration
2. Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
Brent Dix
C-M Engineering
Vestin9 Tentative Tract No. 25004 to subdivide
approximately 59.0 acres into 135 single family lots,
and Change of Zone from R-R to R-1.
Northeast corner of Seraphina Road and Rita Way.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Zone Chanqe
Change of Zone 5611 is a proposal to change the
zoning of the subject 59 acres from R-R (Rural
Residential), which requires a one acre minimum lot
size, to R-1 (Single Family Residential), which
requires a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size. The
project site is surrounded by A-1-10 (Agricultural,
10 Acre Minimum) and R-R-2 1/2 to the east, and R-
R to the south and west. This project will provide
a buffer zone between the higher County approved
density to the north, and existing lower density R-
R zoning to the south. The Winchester Specific Plan
area, which is to the north and northwest, contains
lot sizes averaging approxlmateiy LLS00 to 5,000
square feet. This is substantially higher than the
density of the proposed project.
The SWAP identifies this area as residential, 2-4
dwelling units per acre. The proposed Change of
Zone is consistent with this designation.
Tentative Tract
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25000, is an application
to subdivide 59 acres into 135 single family lots.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 1
Four (4) additional remainder lots will be created,
two (2) of which will be considered for park
dedication (Lots 137 and 138). The proposed lot
sizes range from 7,200 square feet to 17,825 square
feet with an average lot size of approximately 8,800
square feet. The approval and density of this
project is dependent on the approval of Zone
Change No. 5611.
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
At its regular meeting on September 17, 1990, the
Planning Commission continued Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 25082 and Change of Zone No. 5611.
The Commission requested that the applicant submit
additional information regarding grading, design
guidelines and park space.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing
Staff met with the applicant's representatives to
discuss the Commlssion~s concerns. On September
28, 1990, the applicant submitted the additional
information.
The applicant provided the following information in
response to the Commission's concerns:
1. Provide Cross Sections for Slope Analysis:
Pursuant to Staff's recommendation, the
applicant identified three samples. The
samples represent worst case examples of
grading cuts located on site. Staff has
reviewed the cross sections and has identified
the maximum vertical cut to be approximately
30 feet high.
2. Revise Desiqn Guidelines:
The revised design guidelines reflect current
lot and tract numbers. No changes were
made to the design criteria as they pertain to
development standards.
3. Park Space invoivinq MWD Easement Area:
Lots 137 and 138 represent 16.4 acres of
unbuildabie land covered by Metropolitan
Water District and Southern California Edison
easements. The applicant has offered to
dedicate this area to the City for future park
space. Currently, Staff is only requiring
dedication and no improvements are
proposed. However, because the land has
limited usefulness as a park, it is Staff's
recommendation that the proposed offer of
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 2
dedication not be credited towards the
Quimby requirements as contained in
Condition of Approval Number
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Plannin9 Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 2500~, and Change of
Zone No. 5611, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Initial Study and
Staff Report; and,
APPROVE Change of Zone 5611, based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Initial
Study and Staff Report; and,
APPROVE Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25004,
based on the analysis and findings contained
in the Staff Report, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
MR:ks
Attachments:
1. Resolutions
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Planning Commission Staff Report
dated September 17, 1990
Planning Commission Minutes of
September 17, 1990
5. Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT\VTT25004 3
SEP'PFJ~4BER ] '/, 7l 990
'l.t F'rnDo~a~ to sunrl]v~de 42.4 acres Into )]5 sinote family
~nts.
H.) C~an~e ~one from R-R]/2 to R-t in coniunctinn with
Vest~n~ 'Centati. ve Tract No. 25004.
Property is Iocate~ at the ~ntersectjon of Njchojas and
,Joseph Roads.
Or, lV~R HUJIC~ presented the staff report on this item.
Mr. Mujlca stated that Condition No. 22 should be modified
to read a~ follows: "Prior to issuance of any ~radin~
permit, the aDDiicant must submit either a ietter from
th~ )]eDarfmenf of Fish and WitdiXie w~]ch states that the
~entif~ed habitat area wii[ not he affected by the
proposed development or sha.l] obtain a ]0A permit,
~ubject to the approval of the PLanning Director.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND cuestunned the findings of the
environmental impact of this project. OLIVER HUJICA
stated it was a Negative Declaration. COMMISSIONER
HOAGLAND stated that the ResoLution indicates that
no environmental ~mpact w~.tJ occur, when in fact an
environmental impact will occur however, it will be
m~tigated. Commissioner Hoagland 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 wi]] be m~tigated to the extent that a Negative
DecLaration 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 80RENTINO, Traffic Engineer, stated that they
d~d require th~s project to ~nstall a traffic
signal as a result of the traffic study.
MIN.9/17/90 -12- 9/21/90
Pl ,ANN [ NG
(:OMM] SS1 ON M | NU'PE,~
SEPTFJ~BF, R I '1, 1990
G~RY K()ON'PZ, C--M Engineering Associates, 4]593 W~ncnester
Roa~. 'C~m~cu~a, stated that Fish and Wild[ire has
renuPRtea that the aDDlecant not d~sturb this area
ana that they fence it off. He stated that the applicant
j~ w~jl]na to aa~ a condition that lots ]38 and ]39 wjJ]
be fenced on toe north and south boundaries as aDDroved
b~ SCK ana MWD, as we~t as the Jandscapjna of lots 140
and 14L. He stated that the apolicant concurs with the
Conditions o~ ADprova.I set fort~ bY staff.
COMMISSIONER FORD asked if Lot 137 would also be included
in the condition to fence off the easements. GARY KOONTZ
stated that they would aQree to include Lot 137.
COMMISSIONER FORD suoqeste~ that the applicant might
submit a request to SCE and MWD for the open areas to
be used as parks.
GARY DIX. aPpJjcant, 25]42 Bmrch Drive, Dana Point,
stated that as owner they would be very happy to deed over
the ]and to the c~ty to be used for a park.
BILL ANDREWS, 39515 Lielet Road, Temecula, stated that
he owned property a[on~ the east side of these easements
and preferred that they not be improved.
DIANA WALTER, 4268] Loma Porto]a, Temecula, stated that
she also owned Gropetry along these easements and
preferre~ to see them gored at both ends.
GARY THORNHILL indicated that due to the small amount of
]and that would ultimately be dedicated, it might 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. ~ARY THORNHILL stated if the city accepted the
land, then the applicant could be reimbursed for the
MII4.9/17/90 -13- 9/21/90
PLANN I NO CO~4M ] S,~ ! ON ~ [
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND Questioned the desiqn Qu3del]nes
enclosed in their Oackaqes as they relate to the Droject.
mne Comm~s~nn ~ndjcated there were Inconsistencies in
what they received and what was presented.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to not close the public hear~nq
and continue Vestinq Tentative Tract No. 25004 and Zone
ChanQe of 56]] to the Ptannjn~ Commission meet~nq of
Octobe~ ~5, ~990. GARY KOONTZ asked what issues staf~
would be a~dressing. GARY THORNHILL stated that they
would be lookinq at the fo[lowinq issues: use o~ the
easemenfs, ~he quj~e}jne standards which relate to the
maD, the dedication o~ easements, ~ook at Lot 137 as park
.~Dace, as wet] as Lot ]38, cbeck the cons~stency of the
verba~e ~or the [anascaoe ~or the ~ront yards and the
maintenance w~th what ~s DroDose(i ~n the Conditions o~
APProval, the wa[~ proposed between Lot 149 and Lot 150
anc~ obta]n~nQ a section Qra~e tor the Commission to
review. COMMISSIONER FORD seconded the motion which
carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoaqland,
Chjniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
MIILg/l?/90 -14~ 9/21/90
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500~
Change Zone No. 5611
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Pavilion - JLD Ventures #1
C-M Engineering
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500u, to subdivide
approximately 59.0 acres into 135 single family lots,
and Change of Zone from R-R to R-1.
Northeast corner of Seraphina Road and Rita Way.
R-R (Rural Residential)
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP ( Specific Plan )
R -R ( Rural Residential )
R-R-2 1/2, A-A-10
R-R, SP (Rural Residential,
Specific Plan)
R-1 ( Residential Agricultural )
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Single Family
West: Vacant
Number of Acres:
No. of Buildings:
Minimum Proposed Lot Size:
Minimum Permitted Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
u,2.u,
0
7,200 sq.ft.
7,200 sq.ft.
2.3 units/acre gross
STAFFRPT\VTT2500u, 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project was originally filed at the Riverside
County Planning Department on September 26, 1989.
The file was transferred to the City of Temecula in
May, 1990. Since that time Staff has met with the
applicant on several occasions to amend the map
configuration.
Zone Chanqe
Change of Zone 5611 is a proposal to change the
zone on 59 acres from R-R {Rural Residential ) to R-
1 {Single Family Residential). The project is
surrounded by A-1-10 IAgricultural, 10 Acre
Minimum) and R-R-2 1/2 to the east, R-R to the
south and west. To the north and northeast are
Specific Plan areas. The Specific Plan areas contain
lot sizes averaging approximately 0,,500 to 5,000
square feet. This is substantially lower than the
density of the proposed project. The Specific Plan
is Winchester Properties and is located in the
County.
The SWAP identifies this area as residential,
dwelling units per acre. The proposed Change of
Zone is consistent with this designation.
Tentative Tract
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25000, is an application
to subdivide 59 acres into 135 single family lots.
The density of this project is dependent on the
approval of Zone Change No. 5611.
Lot Size
The minimum proposed lot size is 7,200 square feet.
The maximum lot size is 18,300 square feet, with an
average lot size of approximately 9,000 square feet.
The minimum lot size in the R-1 zone is 7,200 square
feet.
There are 6 lots which will be created as a result of
easement dedications. The largest of which are lots
136, 137, and 138for the Metropolitan Water District
Aqueduct and Southern California Edison. Lot 138
also contains a Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Preservation area. A total of 16.6 acres are taken
by the easement lots.
STAFFRPT\VTT2S00~ 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Access
a, ccess will be provided off of Nicolas Road via
Joseph, Rita, and Seraphina Roads. The applicant
will be required to construct road improvements to
Nicolas Road. Access will also be taken off of
Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Improvements to
Murrieta Hot Springs Road will be constructed by
Assessment District 161. All maintenance and slope
areas outside of Lots 1-135 will be maintained by
County Service Area No. lu,3.
Architecture
Currently there is no product slated for this
project. When the housing product is proposed, a
plot plan will be presented to the City.
Gradinq
Approximately 380,000 cubic yards on u,2.u, are
proposed, with no export. Some substantial 2:1
slopes exist, however, the majority of the slopes are
located on easement lots.
The Land Use Designation exhibit from the
Southwest Area Community Plan targets this area
for residential development at 2-u, units per acre.
This map proposes a density of 3.5 units per acre.
The SWAP has been adopted as a policy guide by the
City of Temecula.
The project is consistent with lot standards of the
proposed zone. Probability of consistency with the
City~s future General Plan is considered likely by
the Staff, The Planning Commission and the City
Council maintain the authority to determine whether
projects are likely to be consistent with the future
General Plan, and each project considered by these
bodies must be considered on their own merit until
a new General Plan is adopted.
A preliminary environmental assessment was
performed by the County of Riverside Planning
Department prior to transmittal of the case to the
City of Temecula. That assessment was cornplated
by the City Planning Staff. The following areas of
potential impact were reviewed in detail.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500u, 3
Traffic Iml3acts
A Traffic Study was performed for the project by
Kunzman Associates in October, 1989. The Study
has been accepted by the City and appropriate
mitigation measures included in Conditions.
Biolog. y
A Biological Study was conducted in August, 1989.
The Study identified the existence of the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat on a portion of the site. A habitat
conservation area has been preserved on the
tentative map as approved by the United States
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Environmental Conclusion
Staff has concluded that no significant impact on the
environment will occur as a result of site
development, and a Negative Declaration has been
recommended for adoption.
FINDINGS:
A basic level of useable and total open space
has been provided on individual lots to meet
the needs of future residents.
There is a reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 2500~ 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 size and
shape of the lot configurations, circulation
patterns, access, and density.
STAFFRPT\VTT2S00~ ~
10.
11.
12.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25000, is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
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.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities. Units
will have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities.
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow
solar penetration in winter and shading in
summer.
The design of the subdivision, 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 projects.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 2500ai and Change of
Zone No. 5611, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Initial Study and
Staff Report; and,
APPROVE Change of Zone 5611, based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Initial
Study and Staff Report; and,
STAFFRPT\VTT2500u, 5
APPROVE Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500u,,
based on the analysis and findings contained
in the Staff Report, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
MR:ks
Attachments
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25004
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
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 conditlonally approved tentative map will expire two years after the City
Council approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance L~60.
The final map 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 shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County
Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety.
The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the
site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance kt60 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 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 faciiltles, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the )and
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any 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.
STAFF R PT\VTT 2500~, I
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmitta) dated May 23, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
11.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in
the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated April 11, 1990, a
copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control
drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division
Ordinance u,60, appropriatefees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits.
12.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department's letter dated September ~,, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
13.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittal dated April 13, 1990,
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated May 1, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
15.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, PaiDmar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
16.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmlttal dated May 9, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-1 ISingle Family) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
18.
The developer shall be responsible 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.
19.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits 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
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~, 2
20.
the followin9:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Plannin9 Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth bermlng. ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed
on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down
from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for
maintenance access.
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.
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.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for 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 divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
STAFF R PT\VTT25004 3
21.
22.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
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.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation m-~ures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to b,5 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees. slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant I Class A) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten 110) feet.
i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
i rrigation.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant must submit either a
letter from the Department of Fish and Game which states that the identified
habitat area will not be affected by the proposed development, subject to the
approval of the Planning Director.
STAFFRPT\VTT25004 4
23.
Prior to the issuance of a gradin9 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.
25.
Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall be required to pay
applicable Quimby Fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance 460.
Final landscape plans shall substantially conform to the design guidelines
submitted April, 1990.
26.
Prior to issuance of building permits applicant shall comply with agency letters
identified and dated:
County Health Department, May 23, 1990
County Flood Control, April 11, 1990
EMWD, May 9, 1990
County Geologist, March 30, 1990
County Health Department, April 5, 1990
County Fire Department, April 11, 1990
County Road Department, April 2~,, 1990.
Enqlneerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no coat to any Government Agency. All queations
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.
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. 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;
Engineerin9 Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
STAFFRPT\VTT25004 5
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.
30.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained
by a homeowners association or other means acceptable to the City. Such
proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering
Department.
31.
Murrieta Hot Springs Road shall be improved within the dedicated right-d-
way in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 100 (86'/110').
32.
In the event that Murrieta Hot Springs Road is not constructed by Assessment
District 161 prior to final map recordation, the developer shall
construct/bond, for the improvements to provide for improvements per
Riverside County Standard No. 100 186'/110').
33.
B, C, D, and E Streets, "H" Court, and Sandpiper Lane shall be improved
within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 104, Section A 140'/60).
"F" and "G" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right-d-way in
accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 103, Section A {4~'/66').
35.
Seraphina Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within a 36 foot dedicated right-d-way measured from the west tract boundary
line, in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 103, Section A
(44'/66).
36.
"A" Street shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within
a 60 foot full width dedicated right-of-way in accordance with modified County
Standard No. 10~,, Section A (40/60).
37.
The subdlvider shall construct or post security guaranteeing 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 traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
38.
39.
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.
STAFFRPT\VTT25004 6
Street Hghts shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineerin9 Department a cash sum established per lot as mitigation for a
traffic signal impact.
43.
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.
The subdivider 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.
in the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement right-d-way, as provided
in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with
the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant
to C;overnment Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City.
A hydrology study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
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-of-way.
The subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of the Intent to
Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards prior to issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy.
Corner cutbacks, in conformance with City Standard No. 805, shall be offered
for dedication and shown on the final map.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF C;RAD)NG PERMIT:
50.
The subdivlder 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 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
STAF F R PT\VTT25004 7
51.
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.
52.
All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within
its right-d-way.
PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE 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 EIR/Negatlve 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 the 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 the 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.
55.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights.
56.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
57.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 10, 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
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
58.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered traffic
engineer, and approved by the City Engineer for all streets 66/~1~ or wider
and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
59.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
60.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500q 8
61.
62.
Left turn pocket on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, for Street "C", shall provide
for 100' of storage capacity, if not included with Assessment District No. 161
improvements.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, if the ultimate circulation system has
not been constructed Iwith Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23428), this
development will be responsible for the following:
Widen Nicolas Road to accommodate a 200' minimum, centered, left turn
pocket for Joseph Road or for Primary access point.
STAFFRPT\VTT25004 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Pavillion - JLD Ventures
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
23181 Verduqo. Sp. 105A
Laquna Beach. CA 92653
8-23-90
CITY OF TEMECULA
Vesting Tentative TractMap No. 25004
and Chanqe Zone No. 5611
Location of Proposal:
Northeast Corner of the Intersection
of Joseph Road and Seraphina
I I 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
STAFFRPT\VTT2600~ 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
X
X
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 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
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\VTT2500u, 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe
a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ __ X
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?
X
X
X
X
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource? X
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances [including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
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:
X
X
X
X
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
STAFFRPT\VTT2S00~
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, blcycllsts 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
STAFFRPT\VTT2500u, 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 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?
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
X
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 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 prehlstory?
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
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~, 7
))1 Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this project. However, a
conceptual mass grading plan for the project was approved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula~s standards and the
Conditions of Approval.
1.b.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This
impact is not considered significant.
1 .c-d.
No. The mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross
natural topography of the site in its original condition. While
substantial grading and recontouring of this site will occur in the
immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of
site topography.
1.6.
Maybe. 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 significant but will
be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding of
disturbed areas after grading. After the project is completed,
increased water run-off during floods may occur. Water will be
channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage
control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and
designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions
of Approval.
1.f.
No. Since the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed,
the proposed project will not cause erosion of or deposition into any
creek or stream bed.
1.g.
No. The subject site is designated as subject to liquefaction and
subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan. To mitigate under
hazard, a geological report has been prepared. This report contains
mitigation measures addressed in the Conditions of Approval.
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the area~s air
quality.
Water
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water
bodies. The proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and
quality of run-off water in the City.
3.b.
No. The proposed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the
ground through the construction of impermeable surfaces on the site.
Run-off will increase but not substantially.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 8
3.c.
3.d-g.
3.h.
3.i.
Veqetatlon
~.a-c.
~.d.
Wildlife
5.a-c.
Noise
6.a-b.
No. Flood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood
channels.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or
quantity of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not impact the public water supply.
No. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require
proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
No. No sensitive vagetational associations or species were identified
on-site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
No. A survey for Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project
analyzed biologic resources on-site. Individuals of the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat were found. Conditions of Approval and habitat
preservation measures have been included in the Conditions of
Approval and on the Tract Configuration.
No. Analysis indicates that the project site may be exposed to
significant levels of noise as a result of traffic on Murrieta Hot Springs
Road. However, it is concluded that the project design, when
proposed, will comply with the interior noise exposure standard placed
on residential construction by the County of Riverside and the State~s
noise insulation standards.
It is further recommended that the final engineering design of the
project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure
compliance with the County~s noise standards.
Liqht and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Area Community Plan.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resource. Construction materials and patrolcure products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 9
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Population
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density from one
dwelling unit to 135 units, the proposed project is consistent with the
City Land Use Designation laccording to SWAP).
Housing
12.
No. Since the proposed project will create housing, the proposed land
use will not create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13. a. Maybe.
13.b-e. No.
13. f. Maybe.
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be
significant.
Public Services
lu,.a-f.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
public services other than parks and recreational facilities.
EnercJy
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 might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse affect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surroundin9 neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
No. Because the proposed project will not be removing any facilities
currently used for recreational purposes.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ I0
Cultural Resources
20. a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqniflcance
21 .a.
No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife species. 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 Stepbends Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.
21 .b.
No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
21 .c-d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatlvely considerable, nor will they have environmental
affects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~, 12
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE
APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 5611, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R IRURAL
RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1 ISINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF SERAPHINA ROAD AND RITA WAY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission
and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the
Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of
Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is
hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of
Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time
by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning
Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone
No. 5611 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached herato and
incorporated hereln.
SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the
City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and
cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City.
SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the
date of its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this__ day of
,1990.
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
ST A FF R PT\VT T2500~
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 25004 TO SUBDIVIDE A 59 ACRE PARCEL INTO
A 135 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SERAPHINA ROAD AND RITA
WAY.
WHEREAS, Pavillion - JLD Ventures #1 filed Tentative Tract Map No.
2500u, in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on September 17, 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 Tentative Tract Map;
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 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.
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
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 1
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, I 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 Tentative Tract 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 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
Tentative Tract Map No. 25000, 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 6.5, no Tentative Tract 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 Tentative Tract 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 Tentative
Tract Map 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
STAFF R PT\VTT2500z& 2
project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Tentative Tract Map No. 2500q for the subdivision of a 59 acre parcel into 135 single
family lots located at Seraphina Road and Rita Way subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
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 17th day of September, 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFF R PT\VTT2500~ 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 2500u,.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ q
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 15, 1990
Prepared by: Oilvet Mujlca
Case No.: Tentative Tract No. 25~J~3
Recommendation: 1. Adoption of Negative Declaration
2. Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
P R OPOSA L:
LOCATION:
Marstan Development
Gary Martin
105 unit condominium subdivision of 7.31 acres.
South side of Margarita Road, between Morega Road
and Avenida Cima Del Sol.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Tentative Tract No. 25443 proposes to subdivide the
subject 7.31 acre site into a 105 unit condominium
development, with an overall density of lu,.5 units
per acre. The proposed development has been
designed in accordance with the standards for
Planned Residential Developments JSection 18.5)
and the R-3-2500 zone. The gated project consists
of nineteen 119) two-story buildings 19-5 plex and
10-6 plex) and utilizes nine (9) different unit floor
plans ranging from 1,015 sq.ft. to 1,487 sq.ft.
The project design utilizes a mediterranean theme
with clay tile roofs, light-salmon colored stucco and
woad trellises (for the patio areas).
The project site plan incorporates two (2) tot lots
which contain a combined area of approximately
10,825 square feet and a recreation area of
approximately 8,700 square feet that features a
pool, recreation building and picnic area.
S~AFFRPT\TM25443 1
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
On September 10, 1990, the Plannin9 Commission
considered the applicant's proposal; and, continued
this item due to those concerns identified below in
the Staff Analysis.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting,
Staff met with the applicant to discuss possible
design modifications, in order to address the
Commission's concerns.
On October 4, 1990, the applicant submitted a
modified proposal for the Commission's
consideration.
In response to the comments expressed by the
Commission, the applicant modified the improvement
plans, as described below:
Relocate trash enclosures due to limited
accessibility and potential safety concerns.
As indicated in a letter from Inland Disposal,
Inc., dated October 2, 1990, if requested,
containers can be emptied without driving
large refuse trucks into the project site, in
which a small pick-up truck will move the
containers out and back into the project.
Therefore, in order to lessen the potential
safety concerns, Staff has included the
following Condition in the recommended
Conditions of Approval (see Condition No.
161d):
"Prior to the issuance of an occupancy
permit, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement with inland Disposal, inc., for the
refuse service to include the utilization of a
small pick-up truck equipped with a lift
mechanism in order to move the containers
out and back into the project; thus,
prohibiting the entering of large refuse
trucks into the project. Said agreement shall
be submitted to the Planning Director for
approval."
Provide adequate emerqency vehicle access
and turn-around.
Both the emergency secondary ac~s to the
adjoining property least) and the ninety
( 90' ) foot long hammerhead at the rear of the
subject property { north) have been designed
STAFFRPT\TM25~A3 2
:n accordance with the requirements of the
County Fire Department. In addition, the
Traffic Engineering Department has analyzed
this issue and has determined that this
proposal is adequate.
Provide perimeter wall alonq Marqarita Road
and provide front yard landscapinq.
The applicant is proposin9 a six 16') foot
high wall with a minimum setback of five
feet to a maximum of eight 18' ) feet from the
front property llne, undulatlng
approximately every thirty 130') feet. The
proposed wall will be constructed with a three
and one-half 13.5') foot high block wall and
two and one-half 12.5') foot high wrought
iron with pillars located approximately every
eight 18' ) feet.
The setback area between the front property
llne and the proposed wall will provide
sufficient area for adequate landscaping. At
this time, the applicant has not submitted a
conceptual landscaping plan, however, a
detailed landscaping plan will be required to
be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Staff prior to the issuance of any
building permits as noted in Condition No.
15{d).
There may be a potential traffic problem due
to the qated entry.
The project ingress/egress has been
designed to provide two ~2) entry lanes and
one { 1 ) exit lane. The gate itself is located
120 feet from the curb allowing for a total of
240 feet of stacking. The Traffic
Engineering Department has reviewed the
proposed ingress/egress design and has
determined that the location of the gate is
adequate, however, the proposed twenty
120') foot turn-around and radius in front of
the gate may not be adequate. Therefore,
Condition No. 66 has been included to insure
an adequate design.
Review Parkinq Issue.
In the previous Staff Report, Staff indicated
that according to Section 18.12, the proposed
STAFFRPT\TM25~,3 3
development is required to provide 270
parkin9 spaces. However, Staff has noted
that the proposed project is a Planned
Residential Development; and accordln9 to
Section t8.5112), the park/n9 standard is 2.5
spaces per dwellln9 unit 12.5 x 105 = 262.5
spaces). Therefore, the proposed 263
park/n9 spaces does comply with the minimum
parkin9 requirements.
In regards to the proposed parallel parking
spaces, the Traffic Engineering Department
has indicated the following minimum
standard:
Thirty-six (36') feet minimum curb to
curb with parallel parking (8~ wide) on
one side only and a twenty-eight (28~)
foot minimum driveway.
The applicant~s proposal does comply with
this standard. However, Staff is still
concerned with the two (2) parkin9 spaces
proposed along the curve, at the entrance,
due to potential traffic/safety hazards.
Therefore, Staff would su99est the relocation
of these two ( 2 ) spaces.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Plannin9 Department Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract Map No. 25Lu~3; and,
ADOPT Resolution No. 90-
approvin9 Tentative Tract Map No.
25~,~3 based on the analysis and
findings contained in this report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
OM: ks
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Plannin9 Commission Staff Report
I Dated September 10, 1990)
Planning Commission Minutes
of September 10, 1990
5. Exhibits
6. Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT\TM25443 4
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO, 25L~q.3 TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.31 ACRE PARCEL
INTO A 105 UNIT CONDOMINI UM DEVELOPMENT AT 30005
MARGARITA ROAD,
WHEREAS, Marstan Development filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25k~u,3 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on October 15, 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 Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNINC COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. 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\TM25~3 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.
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 Tentative Tract 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.
( 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
foil owl ng:
There is reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract Map No. 25q~3 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 Tentative Tract 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 Tentative Tract Map approved shall be subject to
such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
STAFF R PT\TM25L~3 2
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Tract Map 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 could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described 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
Tentative Tract Map No. 25~43 for the subdivision of a 7.31 acre parcel into 105
condominiums located at 30005 Margarita Road subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th 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 15th day of October, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\TM25~43 3
APPLI CANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
) have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 25L1~3.
DATED: By
Name
Title
ST A FF R PT\TM25443 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25~3
Planning Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~60, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
Planning Commission approval date, unless extended as provided by
Ordinance L~60.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
~60.
The subdivlder shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County
Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety.
The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the
site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance L~60 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 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 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 City Engineer.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any 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.
STAFFRPT\TM25~3 3
10. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
11.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-3-2500 zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located
away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of
block walls and landscaping.
Bike racks and bike lockers in sufficient quantity shall be provided in
convenient locations to facilitate bike access to the project area.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit the following
documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be
subject to the approval of that department and the City Attorney:
a. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
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 60 years, (b) provide for
the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the
owners of each individual lot 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 common and (d) contain the
following provisions verbatim:
"Notwithstanding an provision in this Declaration to the
contrary, the following provisions shall apply:
The property owners' association established herein shall manage
and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly
described and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area', or any
part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning
Director of the City of Temecu)a.
The property owners' association shall have the right to assess
the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost
of maintaining the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of
the maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created,
shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice
of assessment or other document creatlnq the assessment llen.
This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially amended
STAFFRPT\TM254b,3 2
or property deannexed there from absent the prior written
consent of the Planning Direct. A proposed amendment shah be
considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent. usage or
maintenance of the 'common area'.
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws of the property ownerst
association Rules and Requlations, if any, this Declaration shall
control."
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is
recorded.
The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall file an
application with the County for the formation of or annexation to,
a parkway maintenance district or County Service Area for
Margarita Road in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing parkway
maintenance district.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans
from the City Engineer and Planning Department.
landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be
prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing
with the County Road Department.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which
shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision
performance bonds, guaranteeing the vlability of all landscaping
which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district.
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 irrigation systems until such time as those
operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the
Planning Director.
STAF F R PT\TM25~43 3
12.
13.
Prior to recordation 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 Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
map to the Plannin9 Department and the Department of Building and
Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount
Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall
comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar
Observatory recommendations dated 1-12-88, a copy of which is on file
in the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety and the
Riverside County Planning Department."
The developer shall be responsible 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.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
I1)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits 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 followin9:
a. 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 16) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be lands~-,ned to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Margarita Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the
perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from
the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance
access.
STAFF R PT\TM25q~t3 4
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-
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, relocatad and/or
retained.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Any oak trees removed with four IL~) inches or larger trunk
diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one {1) basis as
approved by the Planning Director. Replacement tress shall be
noted on approved landscaping plans.
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submittad 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:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentatlon during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten {10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-
graded incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted
to the angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form
shall reflect the natural rounded terrain.
STAFF R PT\TM25q~3 5
15.
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.
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 maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for 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 divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s succ~or~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.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to ~,5 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and indivldual front
yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant I Class A) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
STAFFRPT\TM25~3 6
16.
17o
18.
f
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten { 10) feet.
All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten 110) feet.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
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 planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding 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.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter
into an agreement with Inland Disposal, Inc., for the refuse service to
include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift
mechanism in order to move the containers out and back into the
project; thus, prohibiting the entering of large rafuse trucks into the
project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for
approval.
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 satiafaction 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. q60. The agreement shall be approved by the
City Council prior to the recordation of the final map.
STAFFRPT\TM25~,3 7
Engineering 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.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL
19.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. L~60 unless modified by
the conditions listed below.
20. 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.
21.
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. u,60.
22.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained
by a homeowners association or other means acceptable to the City. Such
proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering
Department.
23.
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.
Margarita Road shall be improved within the dedicated right-d-way in
accordance with County Standard No. 100, Section A. ~3'/55~)
25.
Non-vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following
streets:
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Margarlta Road and so noted on
the final map with the exception of one u,5' driveway opening as
approved by the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\TM25~,3 8
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
35.
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 approved by the
City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, 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 City Engineer.
The subdivider shall construct or post security guaranteeing the construction
of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City
standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping.
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. 461 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 as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards troffic signal impacts.
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.
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.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with any of
the approved conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer;
or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement right-d-way,
as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66~62.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
STAFFRPT\TM25~t~3 9
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
tl. 1.
42.
43.
46.
147.
48.
A hydrology study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
It 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.
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.
Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Enginesr's
Office, in addition to any other permits required.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and
shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
line.
The subdlvlder 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 2~,'' x 36" 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.
A minimum centerline grade shall be 0.50 percent.
All storm drain systems will be provided with a secondary storm flow escape
as approved by the City Engineer.
Drainage easements when required shall be shown on the final map and noted
as follows: "Drainage Easement - no buildings, obstructions or encroachments
by landfills are allowed."
STAFFRPT\TM25443 10
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT:
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.
50.
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.
51.
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 CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
52.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, raised median sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway
trees and street lights on all interior public streets.
53.
A 28' wide secondary access road to Margarita Road shall be provided within
a recorded private road easement as approved by the City Engineer.
All units shall be provided with garage door openers.
55.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
56.
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 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 lassuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
57.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered civil engineer,
and approved by the City Engineer, for Margarita Road and shall be included
in the street improvement plans.
STAFFRPT\TM25~t~3 11
58.
Design and construct a traffic signal interconnect to show 1 112" rigid
conduit, with pull rope, and ~3 pull boxes on 200 foot centers along the
property frontin9 the south side of Margarita Road. This design shall be
shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the City
Engineer.
59.
Design and construct a flashing yellow school zone signal for the intersection
of Avenida Barca and Margarita Road. The plans shall be designed by a Civil
Engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and shall be separate from the
street improvement plans. The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement
Agreement upon recordation of the subdivision map adjacent to the southwest
of this map to receive a 65% refund for the cost of desi9n and construction for
this flashing yellow signal.
6O°
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
61.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
traffic engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City
Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic
circulation, as required by the City Traffic Engineer or the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
62.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan.
63.
All traffic signal interconnect shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved plan.
The developer shall inform the land owners that when the median on Margarita
Road is constructed, there will be no break provided to permit left turning
movements into or from the proposed development driveway. Condition No.
u, from the County Road letter dated March 9, 1988 for Tract No. 23211, Amend
No. 2, shall be deleted.
65.
All flashing yellow school zone signals shall be installed and operational per
the City standards, special provisions, and the approved plan.
66.
A minimum of 2~0 feet of inbound, on site, storage/stacking capacity shall be
provided for by designln9 and constructing two 12 foot wide, 120 foot long
lanes for enterin9 vehicles. An adequate vehicle turn around shall be
designed and positioned before the entrance gate and shall have access to a
single 12 foot wide outbound lane for exiting vehicles.
Riverside County Fire Department
67.
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 5u,6.
STAFFRPT\TM25LI~3 12
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 500 (+/-)
GPM for a two (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
16"x~,"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.
The required fire flow may be adjusted as a later point in the permit process
to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in
fire protection measures.
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."
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1500 CPM 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 buildingl 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 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, buildingl s) must be area separated into
square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section
505 (el of the Uniform Building Code.
A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must
appear on the title page of the building plans.
install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code. - Rec. Buildings.
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with aminimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
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 $L~13.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check f===.
ST A FF R PT\TM25~.43 13
80.
81.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per unit as
mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
Building and Safety.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer shall provide
alternate or secondary access as approved by the County Road Department.
STAFFRPT\TM25q~,3 14
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Tract No. 25~43
Recommendation: 1. Adoption of Negative Declaration
2. Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLI CANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Marstan Development
Gary Martin
105 unit condominlum subdivision of 7.31 acres.
South side of Margarita Road, between Morega Road
and Avenida Cima Del Sol.
R-3-2500 |General Residential, one unit per 2,500
square feet)
North: R-1
South: R-3
East: R-3-3000
West: R -3-3000
( Single Family Residential )
I General Residential)
|General Residentia), one
unit per 3,000 sq.ft. )
I General Residential, one
unit per 3,000 sq.ft. )
Large lot with single family residence
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Vacant
Multi-Family Residential
No. of Units:
No. of Acres:
Proposed Density:
SWAP Density:
105
7.31
lu,.5 units per acre
8-16 units per acre
STAFFR PT\TT25~3 1
BACKGROUND:
Status
This project was originally submitted to the County
of Riverside on November 30, 1989. It was initially
scheduled for review by the County Land
Development Committee on January 4o 1990;
however, the item was indefinitely continued until
addlt~onal materials were submitted and reviewed by
the appropriate agencies. An incomplete file was
transmitted to the City of Temecula in April of 1990,
and the application was deemed complete on July 6,
1990.
On August 2, 1990, Tentative Tract Map No. 25443
was reviewed by the Preliminary Development
Review Committee (PDRC) in order to informally
evaluate the project, prior to determining Staff's
recommendations and potential conditions of
approval. Comments by the PDRC included:
2.
3.
4.
Off-Site Grading
Secondary Access
Proposed Drainage System
Density.
On August 30, 1990, the project {TT 25433) was
reviewed by the Development Review Committee
IDRC). The DRC determine that Tentative Tract
Map No. 25u,43, as designed, can be adequately
conditioned to mitigate the DRC's concerns. The
DRC has forwarded a recommendation of approval
subject to conditions.
Prior Actions
On May 31, 1988, the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 23211 which proposes to subdivide the subject
7.31 acre site into a 128 unit condominium
development, with an overall density of 17.5 units
per acre.
An application for a First Extension of Time was
acted upon by the Riverside County Planning
Commission on March 21, 1990, in which an
extension of time, to May 31, 1991, was approved
and forwarded, with a recommendation of Receive
and File, to the City of Temecula, on April 21, 1990.
On August 28, 1990, the City Council approved a
First Extension of Time, subject to the reduction in
density to a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre
|117 unit). This approval was based on the
STAFFRPT\TT25~.43 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
enaxlmum density allowed under the Southwest Area
Community Plan, which is 16 D. U./AC; and due to
the fact that the applicant has filed a revised
project (Tentative T tact Map No. 25u, u,3). It was the
consensus of the City Council that a project with a
lower density such as Tentative Tract Map No.
2511L13 is more desirable as opposed to the 128
dwelling units of the previously approved project
(TT 23211).
Location
This project is located on the south side of
Margarlta Road, approximately 1,500 feet east of
Moraga Road.
Tentative Tract No. 25uA3 proposes to subdivide the
subject 7.31 acre site into a 105 unit condominium
development, with an overall density of 1Li.5 units
per acre. The proposed development has been
designed in accordance with the standards of the R-
3-2500 zone. The project consists of nineteen J19)
two-story buildings |9-5 plex and 10-6 plex) and
utilizes nine J9) different unit floor plans ranging
from 1,015 sq.ft. to 1,u,87 sq.ft.
Grading and Landform Alteration
The proposed project will generally utilize the
existing contours of the site in order to minimize the
alteration of an existlng, fairly prominent, natural
ridgeilne. The grading involves approximately
~0,000 cubic yards of excavation and approximately
80,000 cubic yards of fill, in which u,0,000 cubic
yards of soil will be imported.
Although the City does not currently have policies
with respect to grading, Staff would' suggest that
the Planning Commission consider the proposed land
form alteration and future, potential grading of the
subject area since the City Councll has expressed a
CONCern.
Circulation and Access
The proposed project will be gated and will take
access from Margarita Road approximately 1,500 feet
east of Moraga Road. An internal, thirty-six {36')
foot wide, private driveway wilt provide access to
the required off-street parking areas. In order to
lessen potential internal vehicular congestion, the
Engineering Staff has recommended a condition
which require automatic garage door openers.
STAFFRPT\TT25~,3 3
.Parking
The proposed project includes a total of 263 parking
spaces. The total number of spaces required by the
Development Code |Section 18.12) is summarized
below.
Two Bedroom Dweliings: 2.25 spaces per
dwelling unit
Three Bedroom Dwellings: 2.75 spaces per
dwelling unit
Based on the above requirements and the proposed
development, the project must provide the following
total number of parking spaces:
67 Two Bedroom e 2.25 = 85.5
38 Three Bedroom e 2.75 = 184.25
Total : 269.75 space
By comparison, the applicant is proposing to
provide 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit (190
private garage and 73 guest).
Traffic Impacts
A Traffic Study was prepared and submitted in
March of 1990. The report has been reviewed by
the Engineering Staff, in which a conclusion was
made that the cumulative impact of the proposed
residential development will generate no significant
off-site traffic impacts. However, the Planning
Commission may want to consider the cumulative
impact of concentrated high density development in
this area along Margarita Road.
Proiect Deslqn
The proposed project has been designed to feature
a Mediterranean theme with terra-cotta roofs,
textured stucco walls and trellises. A central
recreational area will provide useable open space for
the project's residents.
After reviewing the applicant~s renderings, Staff
has determined that the proposed project design is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
STAFFRPT\TT25~q3 ~
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
The proposed density of 1~,.5 units per acre is
consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan
designation of 8-16 units per acre, In addition,
Staff finds it probable that this project will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is
adopted.
In compliance with the California Environmental
Act..n .nv,ronm.nt., .ss.ssm.nt ,'n,,ia,
was performed for this project. Staff
determined that Tentative Tract Map No. 251~3 will
not have a significant effect upon the environment.
Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been
recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 25u, u,3 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. 25b, u,3 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.
STAFFRPT\TT251~,3 5
10.
11.
The project as designed and condltloned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
The project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment in that
Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
fees are required and archaeological
resources are not likely to be found at the
site.
The project will not be detrimental to human
health or safety in that drainage and flood
control measures must be approved by FEMA
prior to map recordation, and the potential
for liquefaction, differential subsidence, and
surface flssuring at the site are very low. A
soils report must be submitted to the Building
and Safety Department addressing soil
stability and geological conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission:
1. APPROVE Negative Declaration
APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No.
25~u,3 based on the analysis and
findings contained in this report and
subject to the attached. Conditions of
Approval.
OM:ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Initial Study
3. Renderings
Large Scale Plan
STAFFRPT\TT25~J43 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. IJame of F, vy~ent:
MARSTAN CORP{1RAT10N
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessmnt:
1225 W. 190th Street
Gardena, California 96248
(213) 532-4550
August 27, 1990
4. Agenc}, Requiting
Assessment:
CITY OF l'c~ZECUI~
Name of Proposal,
If applicable:
Z~cation of Prol~sal:
Tentative Tract Map No, 25443
Southside of Margarita Road, between
Morage Road and Avenida Cima De] SoI
EnvlronmentaS Impacts
(Explanations of ell "yes" end "maybe" answers Ire provided on
attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or In
changes in geologic substructures?
be
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?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands. or changes in
siltslion. 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:
a. Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates. dralnege 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 turbidSty?
Alteration of the direction or fete
of flow of ground waters7
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?
h#
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public wster 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 s barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
d. 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, lend onlmels Including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthlc
organisms or Insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
C$
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife hebitat?
yes
Maybe
,No
x
X
X
Noise. Will the proposal result In:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. EXposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oli, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
b$
Possible interference with sn emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal miter
i
the location, distribution, dens ty, or
growth rate of the human population of
In ares?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create m demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes .Maybe N..2o
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS
be
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
de
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 sit.red governmental
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
faci I ,ties?
e. Maintenance of public facilities.
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
Use of substantial .mounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial Increase In demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sourcea of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
· need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes
~aybe
No
x
X
X
X
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 (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 s
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause e physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes .M. aybe
No
x
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
-6-
Yes Maybe No
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrede the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildIlls
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 m relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Ce
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
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
-7-
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
ANKlES/FORMS
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have · significant
effect on the environment, end · 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 · 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 In ENVlRONMEN~E~~is.
required.
August 27, 1990 ~ ~-
Date ~ y
For CITY OF TEMECULA
BLANKIESIFORMS '~'
Ill.
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a-c.
Water
3.e,d-e.
Environmental Evaluation
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this project. However, a
conceptual mass grading plan for the project was approved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with Temeculats standards and the
Conditions of Approval.
Yes. All development disrupts the soll profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcoverlng. This
impact is not considered significant.
No. The mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross
natural topography of the site in its original condition. While
substantial grading and recontouring of this site will occur in the
immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of
site topography.
Maybe. 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 significant but will
be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding of
disturbed areas after grading. After the project is completed,
increased water run-off during floods may occur. Water will be
channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage
control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and
designed in accordance with Temecula~s standards and the Conditions
of Approval.
No. Since the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed,
the proposed project will not cause erosion of or deposition into any
creek or stream bed.
No. The subject site is designated as subject to liquefaction and
subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan. To mitigate under
hazard, a geological report should be prepared prior to any
construction of the property. The report should include mitigation
measures.
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the areaIs air
quality.
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water
bodies. The proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and
quality of run-off water in the City.
STAFFRPT\TT25~,3 8
3.b.
3oc.
3.d-g.
3.h.
3.i.
Veqetatlon
4.a-c.
Wildlife
5.a-c.
Noise
6.a-b.
No. The proposed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the
ground through the construction of impermeable surfaces on the site.
Run-off will increase but not substantially.
No. Flood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood
channels.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or
quantity of ground waters.
No. The proposed project wlll not impact the public water supply.
No. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require
proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified
on -site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
No. A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project
analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no individuals of the
Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat were found there is no occupied habitat within
the bounds of the tract map.
Implementation of the tract as proposed will not result in a taking nor
would it result in any adverse effect on the species or on the species'
habitat. In that surrounding lands to the north, south, east and west
have previously been developed at urban levels of use or are presently
being developed at such levels of use, preservation of this site as a
reserve is inappropriate. In addition, the site is now isolated from all
other known colonies by impassable residential and other barriers and
relnvaslon of the site is virtually impossible. Implementation of the
project as proposed will not have a significant effect and no mitigation
other than payment of fees under the Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat Fee
Ordinance is required.
No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project.
Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels
of noise as a result of traffic on Margarlta Road. However, it is
concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will comply
with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential
construction by the County of Riverside and the State~s noise insulation
standards.
STAFFRPT\TT25~3 9
It is further recommended that the final engineering design of the
project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure
compliance with the County~s noise standards.
Liqht and Clare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Area Community Plan.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extenslve)y to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Population
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density from one
dwelling unit to 105 units, the proposed project is consistent with the
City Land Use Designation which allows a maximum of 117 units
laccording to SWAP).
Housing
12.
No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use
will not create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a. Maybe.
13.b-e. No.
13.f. Maybe.
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be
significant.
Public Services
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
public services other than parks and recreational facilities.
STAFFRPT\TT25~3 10
Enerqy
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 might require the use of utilities but wltl not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human HeaSth
17.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health,
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
No. Because the proposed project provides adequate recreational
facilities for the subject residents.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findlnqs of Siqniflcance
21 .a.
21 .b.
No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife species. 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 Stepbends Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.
No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
21 .c-d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable, nor will they have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
STAFFRPT\TT25z~,3 11
PLANNING CON~/S~ION NINUTE8
el{IN
~acil
whet
recei
SEPTEMBER 10, 3990
]nfc
C3 rc
rec 3(
AYE;
~dar
CC :
7. TENTATIVE TRACT MaP NO. 25443
7.1 Proposed 105 unit condominium subdivision of 7.31 acres.
MIN. 9/10/90 -8-
September 12, 1990
PLis,~N I NG
COMMISSION NINUTES
SEPTI~4BER 10, ]990
OLIVER MUJICA presented the staff report for this item.
He stated that this was previously aDDroved as Tentative
Tract 2321], by the County, to estabjisb a 128 unit
condominium development. The item went before the City
Council for an extension of time, add the Council
expressed concern reuardinq the density of this project.
The Council granted the extension of time subject to the
condition that the Project not exceed 16 units Der acre.
He stated that the aPPlicant had reduced the development
to 14,5 units per acre. He also advised the Comission
that the applicant was proposing 263 parking spaces which
he understood would be acceptable under County standards:
however, staff's calculations for parking indicated
a reauirement of 269.75 spaces. Mr. Mujica stated t~at
the ~eve]oper had upgraded the units in square footage
and provided for recreational areas for the property
owners.
CO4~ISSIONRR FAHEY reauested clarification of the density
reauirement of the project. GARY THORNHILL advised that
the project was ojven an extension of time on fhe orioina]
approval subject to the condition that the project did not
exceed ]6 units per acre however they had one year to
record the final mad on the oriainai approval.
C0M~ISSIONER FORD asked staff if the applicant was aware
of the reference to the project beina qated. MR. MUJICA
stated that the app]acant had indicated that the project
would be ~ated and that they could include that as a
condition.
COe~MISSIORER FAHE7 stated that homeowners in the
surrounding area expressed a desire for some type of
Consistency to the appearance of these types of
projects and asked if thls project could be conditioned
for future development a]on~ that corridor. GARY
THORNHILL stated that design standards would be
city guidelines and that this project cou]d not
be conditioned to establish these guidelines.
COM~4ISSIONER Iqi)RD auestioned the block wall reauirement.
MR. MUJICA stated that staff would be amending
Condition No. 13 (E) to read "and a]ono Margarita Road"
instead of Via La Vida.
MI14.9/10/90 -9- September 12, 1990
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTFIbBER ) 0, 3 990
COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND exnressed his concern for the
single access into the Project and how it affects
fire add safety protection. MR. MUJICA stated that
there is a reguirement for secondary access and they
have requested that the developer obtain an sgreement
from the adjacent Property owner for this access. He
advised that both property owners were working together
to provlde the fire and safety protection reguirements.
Co~ssioDer HoaQlaDd slso addressed the developers
participation in the fundinc for parks. GARY THORNHILL
stated that Con~jtion No. 38 covers the fees for Parks
and recreation.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR asked if staff had done any studies
on the saturation of condomlnium housing in the city.
GARY THORNRILL stated that this data is part of the study
beino conducted for land use inventory and upon completion
of the study the Planning DeDartment would have a better
idea of the degree of saturation of this type of
development. He stated that the study whould be completed
at the beQinninQ of October. Commissioner Blair also
expressed concern for the QradinQ of this site as it
relates to the overall gradinQ belng done in the city.
Mr. Thornhill stated that there are no guidelines
established at this time re~ardin~ grading.
GARYMARTIN, 3060] Cabri]]o Street, Temecula, developer of
the project0 discussed the design of his project. He
added that in working with the City Council to develop
a desireable project whl].e addressinQ their concerns, he
voJunteered to reduce the project to 14.5 units per acre.
He stated again that he feels the proposed 263 parkinQ
spaces is adequate for the ProPosed number of units.
Mr. Martin requested the following modifications to
Findings in the Staff Report and to Conditions of
Approval: Finding No. 11 amended to read "must be
in accordance with FEMA"; Condition No. 35 amended to
read "prior to the grading plan being approved and street
improvement plan and final map being substantially
completed."; Condition No. 60 amended to read "shall be
designed by a registered civil engineer"; and Condition
No. 61 amended to read "Provide in-street plans and
conduit for future interconnect routing".
NIN.9/IOIgO
-lo-
September 12, 1990
PI.ANNING
COMM I SS I ON M I NIITES
SEPTF_J~BER 30, 3990
COMMISSIONER FORD asked Mr. Martin if they were 3n fact
qating this development. MR. MARTIN stated that they
wouJd be Puttina in a gate. GARY THORNHILL stated that
staff was not looking at this as a oated project and may
have some concerns with trafflc safety.
SAL MUNOZ, 41823 Humbert Drive, Temecula, expressed hzs
objection to the hiob-densit? deve]opment of the
corridor which this project is located in, traffic
problems in this area, erosion of natural landscape
and the need for each development to support itself
in the needs of parks and recreation area for the
property owners rather than paying fees to create these
areas.
MR. MARTIN stated that the development did address the
needs of recreation within the project by includino a
pool and spa area as we]] as two tot lots.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed concern for aDDroving th~s
project without the forthcomlna ]and use ana mad studies.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR expressed concerns for the lack of
sufficient park an~ recreation space in the project and
the lmpacts another hiuh density project such as thls.
would have on the already over-populated schools.
COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he felt the developer has
looked at the needs of the community and attempted to
provide the necessary recreation areas within the project.
Commissioner Ford also expressed concern for the naral]e]
parking and access of the project.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF also expressed concern for
emergency vehicle access in the project. He suqOested
that the trash bins be relocated to make them more
accessible. He also expressed concern for the potential
traffic problem that may be created at the gated entrance
and for landscape design along Margarita Road.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue the item to the
October 15, 1990 Planning Connission meeting, to address
the issues of varkino, turn-around locations for trash
trucks and landscape and desiqn of the Marqarita Road
frontage, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
WIN.9/10/90 -11- September 12, 1990
PLANNING COMNISSION MINUTES
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 2
COMMISSIONERS:
item Octoh 1,
OP~
el a to m
DAVE En
West sta' concu
~ item meet~
NER t to
meeti of Oct 990,
AYt ~ISSI( ~RS:
NOES: 1 COMM] :
SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
Blair, Fahe¥, Chiniaeit
Ford, Hoagland
o~
DallQ Est
.d re, that
~ an the
DUb hea~ anO
.tem.
Ent, se le
w star to
of Oc1 ]
8 the
COMM I
Chin:
Ho~ and
9. ~SINI
aft.
time
of the
mme i o
aft is
o whi the
item and
on of Oe ral
t
KIN.9/10/90 -12- September 12, 1990
ITEM #7
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 15, 1990
Case No.: Parcel Map No. 26239
Prepared By: Scott Wright
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration
2. Adopt the Resolution Approving PM No. 26239
3. Approve Parcel Map No. 26239
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Brookstone Development Co.
Brookstone Development Co.
To create five parcels for future office use on a 2.08
acre site.
The southwesterly corner of Bueklng Road and
Madison Avenue, approximately 200 feet east of
Cherry Street and Jefferson Avenue.
M-SC {Manufacturing - Service Commercial)
North: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
South: M-SC {Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
East: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
West: M-SC ( Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Retail Commercial, under construction
Vacant
STAFFRPT\PM26239 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
No. of Acres:
No. of Parcels:
Parcel Sizes:
2.08 acres
5
Parcel No. 1: 0.26 acre
Parcel No. 2: 0.22 acre
Parcel No. 3: 1.18 acre
Parcel No. L~: 0.18 acre
Parcel No. 5: 0.23 acre
On March 12, 1990, the Riverside County Planning
Director approved Plot Plan Nos. 11556 and 11557,
four office buildings located in proposed Parcel
Nos. 1, 2, u,, and 5. On April 10, 1990, the
Temecula City Council approved a motion to Receive
and File Plot Plan No. 11556 and 11557. Plot Plan
Nos. 62 and 63, the landscape plans for Plot Plan
Nos. 11556 and 11557, were approved by City Staff
on July 9, 1990.
The proposal is a commerclal parcel map to create
four parcels for four previously approved office
structures and a fifth parcel which will serve as a
common parking area.
Geoloqy
County Geologic Report No. 561 was prepared in
1988 in conjunction with the site's underlying Parcel
Map No. 23561. The report determined that faults
encountered along the western portion of Parcel Map
No. 23561 are PIelstocene Age displacements and are
considered to be inactive, and that the potential for
liquefactin and subsidence is low. No setback zone
for human occupancy was recommended. The report
recommended standard mitigations for liquefaction
and ground lurching which were included as
conditions of approval for Plot Plan Nos. 11556 and
11557. The County Geologist reviewed the report
and found that it met the requirements of the
AIqulst Priolo Act and the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Drainaqe
The County Flood Control District reviewed Plot
Plan No. 11556 and 11557 and commented that the
site is part of Parcel Map No. 23561 and will be free
of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements
have been constructed. Payment of flood mitigation
charges for the construction of flood control
facilities was a condition of approval for Plot Plan
No. 11556 and 11557.
STAFFRPT\PM26239 2
Reciprocal Access and Parkinq Easement
Parcel No. 3 of Parcel Map No. 26239 is defined in
the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions as a
common parking area subject to easements for
ingress, egress, parking, and traffic circulation.
The Madison Business Park Association will levy
assessments for the improvement, operation, and
maintenance of the common facilities owned by the
Association or subject to easements in favor of the
Association.
Street improvements
Full street improvements already exist on Madison
Avenue. Curbs and gutters have been constructed
in the right-of-way of Bueking Drive, but the
street has not yet been paved at this time. Bedford
Properties owns the land to be dedicated for
Bueking Drive and is providing street improvements
by agreement with the applicant.
T raffi c
A Traffic Study was prepared for the previously
approved office complex to be located on the subject
property (Plot Plan No. 11556 and 11557). The
Traffic Study was reviewed and accepted by the
City Transportation Engineer. The site is being
developed in a manner consistent with the existing
zoning and the street system is designed to
accommodate the anticipated level of traffic.
Fossil Resources
The site is located in an area containing fossil
resources which will be impacted by excavation of
the site. Plot Plan No. 11556 and 11557 included a
condition of approval requiring monitoring of the
excavation of the site by a qualified paleontologist,
recovery and preservation of any specimens
uncovered during the excavation, and a report and
inventory of the findings.
Kanqaroo Rat Impact Mitiqatlon
The site is already disturbed, and a biological
survey of the site was not required. It shall be a
condition of approval for Parcel Map No. 26239 that
the applicant shall pay habitat conservation fees in
accordance with Ordinance 663.
STAFFRPT\PM26239 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
ZONING CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The site is designated Light Industrial in the
Southwest Area Plan and is located in the
Manufacturing - Service Commercial IM-SC) zone.
The minimum lot size in the M-SC zone is 7,000
square feet where water and sewer services are
available, All five proposed parcels conform to the
minimum lot size. Parcel Map No. 26239 is therefore
consistent with SWAP and the Zoning Ordinance.
County Environmental Assessment Nos. 3Lffi13 and
3[~,1~, were prepared and adopted in conjunction
with the County Planning Director's approval of Plot
Plan Nos. 11556 and 11557, an office project which
will be located on the subject propert. The
environmental assessments adequately identified the
potential environmental impacts of the project.
Mitigation measures were incorporated as Conditions
of Approval for Plot Plan No. 11556 and 11557.
FINDINGS:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26239
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law. The project
conforms to the current zoning for the site
and to Ordinance No. ~60, Schedule E.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
STAFFRPT\PM26239 4
10.
11.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildllfe or their habitat.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated right-of-ways which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
The design of the subdivision, 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.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map
No. 26239.
Adopt Resolution No. 90-
Approve Parcel Map No. 26239 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
SW:ks
Attachments
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
STAFFRPT\PM26239 5
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 26239
TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.08 ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE
PARCELS AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF
BUEKING ROAD AND MADISON AVENUE.
WHEREAS, Brookstone Development filed Parcel Map No. 26239 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 15, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, atthe 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. FindincJs. That theTemecula 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.
12 ) 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.
STAFFRPT\PM26239 1
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 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.
12 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approvlng 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. 26239 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 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 approvad shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
STAFFRPT\PM26239 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.
Environmental Assessemnts prepared for two plot plans approved on the
site indicates that although the proposed projects could have a significant impact on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect on this case because the
mitigation measures described for the two plot plans and in the Conditions of
Approval have been added to the project and a Negative Declaration was granted for
the two projects. The proposed Parcel Map will not cause any additional
environmental impacts.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 26239 for the subdivision of a 2.08 acre parcel into five parcels located at
the southwesterly corner of Bueking Drive and Madison Avenue, subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th 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 thereef, held
on the 15th day of October, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PM26239 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Parcel Map No, 26239.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PM26239 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No.
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planning Department
The followin9 conditions of approval are for Parcel Map No. 26239, creating
five parcels on a 2.08 acre site in the M-SC zone.
The subdivider 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 legislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26239, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66L~99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdlvider 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 ot
Temecula.
The Tentative Parcel Map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance k~60,
Schedule E unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Planning Commission
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 ~,60.
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 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
submittad 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.
STAFFRPT\PM26239 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
111..
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordat/on of the final
map.
Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 0,57, shall be submitted to the
City Department of Engineering.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the City Transportation Engineer's Conditions of Approval
included herein.
The subdlvlder shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal for Plot Plan No. 11556
dated November 1, 1989, a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control reco.,,,,endations included
as Condtions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 11556 and 11557. 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 reeordation of the final map or waiver of parcel map.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geolagist's transmittal dated July 26, 1988, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should
Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation
Plan prior to the payment of the fees required under the Habitat Conservation
Plan as implemented by County Ordinance or resolution.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
City 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.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the M-SC zone.
All lots created by this land division shall have a minimum area of 7,000 square
feet.
All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of
Ordinance 0,60.
A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be transmitted to
the Planning Department for review and approval.
STAFFRPT\PM26239 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CONDITIONS:
20.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final
map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordation 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 fornNarded with copies
of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of
Buildin9 and Safety. The following noteIs) shall be placed on the
Environmental Constraints Sheet.
21.
"County Geelogical Report No. 516 was prepared for this property on July 12,
1988 by Schaefer Dixon Associates, and is on file at the Riverside County
Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the report are; inactive
faults, liquefaction, lateral spreads, and uncompacted trench backfill.
22.
"This property is located within thirty {30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the
Observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure sodium lamps that
are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal
plane passing through the luminare.n
23.
Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject property as
of the date of recordation of the final map.
Enqineerinq 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.
)t is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmltted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions I CCF, 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 CCI;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 developerrs sole cost and expense.
The CCSR~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.
STAFFRPT~PM26239 3
25.
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 CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation.
management, use, repair and maintenance of all 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 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.
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 CCSR's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the
map.
26. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
27.
28.
29.
30.
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 Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~60.
Dedication shall be made for the following right-d-way on the following
streets:
DEDICATE Madison TO 50' FEET FROM STREET CENTERLINE.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
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.
STAFFRPT\PM26239 4
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.
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 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 (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\PM26239 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
Planner ,7~
At,,:
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 ho~ supports.'
This project is in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea
end
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 Otstrtct's report dated
is still current for this project.
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of {>ez~ard2~enS(,-I- I . The project wfil be
free of ordinary storm flood w tmprovemnts have been constructed in
JOHN H. KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
DATE:
The County Board of Supervisors has adopted the
~ ~ F~,'~ F~//~ Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of
collect~n~g~ drainage ~es. Those fees are used to construct
needed flood control facilities within the par~icular area. The
Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and other
t~pes of new development.
Vir~ually all new development causes increased storm runoff.
These increases are par~icularly troublesome in those watersheds
where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti-
gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff,
the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans
and Public Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation
charge. Mitigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar
to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rats.
Following is the Dlstrlct's recommendation:
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 new development in this'
case includes a total of /./3 acres. At the current
fee rate of $ ~,~ ~o per acre, the mitigation charge
equals $ 9/~o The charge is payable to the Flood
Control D~t~ict prio~ to issuance of permits. If the full
Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been
credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Nitigation Charge
(mitcharg)
County of Riverside
TO:
FRO~A..~~.
RE: Plot Plan 11556
Riverside County Planning Dept. DATE:
IV
November 1. 1989
1989
kt~,t,~tut, O0~h
PLANNING DEPARr'f'MENT
Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan 11556 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and ware services are available in this area.
Prior to any bufiding plan submittals, "will-serve" letters from the
water and sewering agencies will be required.
SM:cr
:liVE:lbiDE counc.u
PLAnninG DEPA CfilEnC
July 26, 1988
Schaefer D(xon Assodates
2168 South Hathaway Street
Santa/me, California 92705
Ateerie(on: Hr. Paul Davts
Hr. Jimas J. Weaver
SUBJECT:
Alquht-Prtele $pedal $tudtes Zone
LIquefaction Hazard
Job 80-245
Parcel Hap No, 23561
County Geoqogtc Report No, 5Z6
t Area
Rancho Caqtforn a
~entlemen:
Me have revteffed your report entttled "Geetechnical Znvest~gatton, A Portton of
North Jefferson Busthess Park (Phase 4), P.H. No. 23561 (Formerly P.H.
1958t-Z), Rancho California, CA," dated June 1, 1988, and your revtsed report
dated Jul~ 12, 1988.
Tour report determined that:
2. The faults encountered ~n trenches elong the western pert of the
property are considered to be tntra-Pauba (Pleistocene age)
dtsplecements and Ire considered to be tnacttvl, tn Iccordance ~th
criteria of the California State Division of Hines and Geology.
2. The lO0-year probable earthquake effecttng the site resulting free an
6
event on the Mhtttter-Elstnore (~tldomar) fault ts expected to be .0
mgntt~de, v(th a peak horizontal ground accelerstton of 0.35g.
3. The likelihood of liquefaction related ground movement during e
Ikgnltude 6.5 event ts considered to be 1or. The liquefaction
potential fs considered to be verl lw for slto sotls considering e
Nagn4tude 6,0 design ear~.hquake,
4. The potential for setsmtc setthment end differential cmapectton ts
considered vet/1me.
S. The potentSeq for landsliding ts considered to be vet/rmote.
4080 LEMON ':: "qEET, 9'r" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STr,,IEET, ROOM 304
Schaefer Dtxon Associates
- 2 - ~uly 26, 1988
6. The potential for eirthquake (nduced flood(ng, tsunamts and setches ts
cons(dared t~ be v~P/lw.
The potent(a1 for sympathetic fault movement'an ~he zone of tnacttve
faults encountered tn the trenches, as a result Of setsmtc event on the
nearby M(ld~r fault, (s cons(dared to be low,
8. The potential for lurchtng and lateral spreads tn the ereas adjacent to
Santa Gertrudts Creek may extst at the southeasterly property boundary.
Tour report recommended:
No setback zone for human occupancy structures ts recmnded w~th(n
the bounder(as of the subject property.
The potentlaq for l(quefact(on-reqated ground movlment on the
should be mat(gated by the placement of engineered f(11 wtth(n
1~(ng areas dur(ng s(te grad(ng.
3. The potent(a~ for lurching and latera~ spreads (n areas adjacent to
Santa 6ertrudts Creek should be m~t(gated by channe~tzat(on of the
stream and use of standard bu(ld~ng setbacks.
The exploratory trench backftll should be considered dur(ng future
development. The trench locat(ons were determ(ned by the project
end(near.
of the Alqutst-Pr(olo $peda~ Studies Zone Act, the
satisfies
issodlted R(vers~de CounV ~d. 547, lad the idd(ttonil tnfomt(on Nquested
un6er the Clllforn~l bv~romntll Qulllt~ Act rev~w. F~nal Ipp~vll of the
report Ss hereb~ given.
Me recmmend that ~he following note be placed on the Ftnal Nap pHor to (ts
recordit!on:
Schaefer D~xon Associates
- 3 - Ju~y 26, X988
"County 6eologtc Report No. 516 yes prepared for this p~operty on July 12.
1988 by Schaefer Dtxon Associates, and ts on ftle ~t the Riverside County
Planntng Department. The spectf(c ttems of concern Ire tnecttve faults,
14quefactton, lateral spreads, I~d uncompacted trench backfill.
Very truly yours.
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNXNG DEPARTENT
CE~1205
$AK:rd
c.c. Bedford Properties o Applicant
Earl Hart - C!)HG
Roy $hlemon & Assoc.
Norm Lostbom o Butld~ng & Safety (2)
John Ch~u - Team 1
i
VICINITY M,4P- ~v.r.s.
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 15, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~633
Prepared By: Deborah Parks/Steve Jiannino
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Robert Paine
Benesh Engineering Corporation
To divide a 1.43 acre parcel into two parcels.
Northeast corner of Estero Street and Ormsby
Road.
R-R I Rural Residential)
North: R - R
South: R - R
East: R-R
West: R - 1
R-R I Rural Residential)
Existing Residential Home
North: Single Family
South: Vacant
East: Single Family
West: Single Family
BACKGROUND:
The application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2Li633
was originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on July 25, 1989. The
proposal was to split Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map
No. 16705 and form four parcels. However,
Riverside County Council determined that parcel 1
and 3 were not contiguous and that it would be
necessary to file two separate parcel map
applications. The applicant subsequently filed
STAFFRPT/TPM24633
1
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538 for Parcel 3 and
submitted a revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 24633
for Parcel 1.
The revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 24633 was
reviewed by the Land Development Committee twice
requesting additional information regarding
grading, archaeological concerns and biological
impacts. A biological report was prepared which
determined that due to the disturbed nature of the
site the project will have a minimal impact. The site
was examined for Stephens Kangaroo Rats but no
evidence of their existence was found. The site is
located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Habitat
Conservation Plan and will be subject to mitigation
fees. Since the site has been graded, it was
determined that an archaeological study would not
be required.
The site was previously graded as illustrated on the
Tentative Parcel Map. The grading for the site was
completed approximately one year ago and was
approved by the County of Riverside.
ANALYSIS:
Parcel Map Confiquration and Settinq
Parcel Map No. 24633 proposes to divide Parcel 1 of
Parcel Map No. 16705 into two parcels. The size of
the proposed parcels is as follows:
Parcel 1 - 0,702 Net Acres
Parcel 2 - 0.520 Net Acres
The proposed lots meet the minimum half acre lot
size requirement of the R-R zoning for the
property.
The subject site is surrounded by a variety of
parcel sizes ranging from 0.18 net acre to 5.04 net
acres. Surrounding the subject parcel are the
following parcel sizes ( net acres):
0.23
0.19
0.18
2.06
0.64
1.39
1.39
1.07
STAFFRPT/TPM24633
2
The existing parcels that are approximately 0.25
acres are a result of a single family subdivision
subject to R-1 zoning.
The surroundin9 one acre and larger parcels are a
result of large lot subdivisions. Staff believes that
the proposed one half acre parcels would provide an
appropriate transition between the 0.25 acres
parcels and one acre plus parcels.
Approximately 1 lJ2 miles east of the subject parcel
is Santiago Estates, a large estate lot project.
According to Johnson and Johnson Properties, the
developers from 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
1 lJ2 miles west of Santiago Estates and function
well as a transitional )and use between the smaller
and larger parcels, they may encourage landowners
between the subject parcels and Santiago Estates to
apply for subdivision of their land to one-half acre
lots.
CIRCULATION:
Access to the project will be from Estero Road which
is paved and connects to the Windsor Crest
Development which connects to Pauba Road or from
Ormsby which is paved but contains pot holes and
connects to Santiago which is only partially paved.
Staff still has concerns regarding the existing 30
foot road dedication of Ormsby Road north of Estero
Street. The current map shows the proposed
vacation of the road, but the road is used as access
for a parcel of land to the north. This project has
been conditloned to work with the City Engineer to
develop an acceptable access easement for the
property to the north, which currently used
Ormsby Road, prior to recordation of the final map.
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN and
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
The project conforms to the current zoning for the
site, R-R, which allows a minimum lot size of .5
acres. The project has been conditioned to conform
to the improvement standards of Ordinance No. 460,
Schedule G.
The subject parcel is designated as 1-2 du per acre
according to the Southwest Area Plan. The
proposed land division is consistent with this
designation, resulting in the potential of 1.6
STAF F R PT / T PM24633
3
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
du/acre. 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 0.25 acre lots and
the surrounding larger parcels.
An initial study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
FINDINGS:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24633
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law. The project
conforms to the current zoning for the site
and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule G.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations. access. and
density.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated right-of-ways which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
STAFFRPT/TPM24633
10.
11.
The design of the subdivision, 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.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map
No. 2~633.
Adopt Resolution No. 90 -
Approve Parcel Map No. 2u,633 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
SJ:dd
Attachments
2.
3.
Resolution
Exhibits
Conditions of Approval
Initial Study
STAFFR PT/T PM2~,633
5
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 24633
TO SUBDIVI DE A 1.43 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ESTERO STREET AND
ORMSBY ROAD.
WHEREAS, Robert Paine filed Parcel Map No. 24633 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 15. 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:
| 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.
STAFFRPT/TPM24633
1
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 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 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 approvlng 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. 2~,633 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 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.
ST A FF R PT / T PM24633
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.
project will
Declaration,
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 24633 for the subdivision of a 1.43 acre parcel into two parcels located at the
northeast corner of Estero Street and Ormsby Road subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED· APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Plannin9 Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 15 day of October, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ST A FF R PT / T PM24633
3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Parcel Map No. 2~,633.
DATED: By
Name
Title
ST A FF R PT / T PM2u~633
/
/
t
/
/
/
/
/
/
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24633
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceedin9 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 legislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 24633, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. 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 G unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Planning Commission
approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance LIFO.
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 ~60.
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 460 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
STAFFRPT/TPM2~,633
1
10.
11.
12o
13.
1~,.
15.
16.
17.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
The subdivide shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's Transmittal dated 12-5-89, 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 1-6-90 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 5-4-90, a copy of which
is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Sectlon's transmittal dated 3-6-90, 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 3-19-90, a copy
of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San
Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated 7-28-90, 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.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the R-R zone.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet lEGS) shall be prepared with the final
map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office of the City Engineer. Prior to the recordation of the final
map, a coy of the 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.
STAFFRPT/TPM2~,633
2
"This property is located within thirty 130) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory, Light and 9late may adversely impact operations at the
Observatory, Outdoor lightin9 shall be from low pressure sodium lamps
that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the
horizontal plane passing through the luminare."
Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject
property as of the date of recordatlon of the final map.
The following note shall be placed on the final map: Constraints
affectin9 this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental
Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the
City Engineer. These constraints affect all parcels.
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.
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. ~,60.
20.
The developer shall vacate Ormsby Road north of Estero Street concurrently
with the recordatlon of Parcel Map No. 2L1633.
STAFF R PT / T PM2q633
3
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
A 30' wide private driveway and utilities easement shall be provided alon9 the
west property line of Parcel No. 1 for the benefit of the property located to
the north of Parcel Map No. 24633.
The subdivider shall construct or post security guaranteeing the construction
of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City
standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and 9utter, drive approaches, street lights, signing, and striping.
b. A domestic water system.
The subdivider shall provide bonds and agreement, clearances from all
applicable agencies and pay all fees prior to the approval of the final 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. 461 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.
The subdivider 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.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
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-of-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. 400 and 401 {curb sidewalk).
STAFFRPT/TPM2~,633
4
33. A minimum centerline grade shall be 0.50 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.
35.
Estero Street shall be improved with half street improvements within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 105. Section
B (36/60) with concrete curb and gutter. A minimum of 28' of asphalt roadway
shall be provided to Ormsby.
36.
A driveway approach shall be provided on Estero Street for the private drive
on Parcel 1.
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.
38.
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 prior to
issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct half street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights
within the parcel map boundary in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 105, Section B 136/60).
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Aspbaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 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
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
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 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
STAFFRPT/TPM2~633
5
in excess of those now estimated (assumin9 benefit to the project in the
amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such
increase.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic
Engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, and shall be included in the
street improvement plans.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signin9 and stripin9 shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan.
STAFFRPT/TPM2~633
6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLF. N J. NEWMAN
FIII. E CHIEF
May 4, 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46.209 OASIS STREEI SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 9220t
(619) 342-8886
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 9250~
(714) 787-6606
TO:
PLANNING DEPkRTMENT
ATTN: DIANE KIRKSEY
RE:
PARCEL MA~ 24633 - kMENDED #1 - ROAD CORRECTION #1
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
ithc 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 approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2~") located
one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 660 feet apart in any
direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 330 feet from a hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, and, the system shall meet th~ 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 requiremenzs prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Dept."
The required water system including fire hydrant8 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 'fire protection impacts.
HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA
The land division is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" of Riverside County
as shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Any
building constructed on lots created by this land division shall comply with ~
the special construction provisions contained in Riverside County 0rdinance
546. I
RE: PM 24633 Page 2
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
Kurt Mantwell, Fire Safety Specialist
ml
KENNETH L EDWARDS r
1995 MARKET STREET
P.O, SOX IO33
TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015
FAX NO (714) 788-9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502
Riverside County
P1 anning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
P1 anner '}~)~-
Area:
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
v/'~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 ho~.~TA~/T~ncc-u~,~,'~-~c~ ,~:'~ Area
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~les 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
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~av/hb~e~r°ject will be
constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
H. KASHUBA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
GRADING SECTION
TO: PLANNING / DIANE KIRKSEY
FROM: TONY HARMON ~,
DATE: March 19, 1990 '
RE: PM 24633 AMENDMENT ~ 1
APN: 923~370-010-,022
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
applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval
the Building and Safety Department.
cubic yards, the
to construct from
All grading shall conform to Chapter 70 of the 1988 Uniform Building
Code as amended by Ordinance 457.73.
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.
Prior to obtaining any further permits, 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' and/or cut
slopes greater than or equal to 5' 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.
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.
SA-N'BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM
2024 Orange Tree Lane · Redlands, CA 92374
"' ~)792-1334 , 792-0052 · 825-4825 , 825-4823
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY
DR+ ALLAN D. GRIESEMER
Director
July 28. 199U
City of Temecula Development Review Committee
'lemecula Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 9239U
re: PALEONTOLOGIC SENSITIVITY REVIEW
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on nonrenewable paleontologic
resources within the City of Temecula. The museum generally reviews
proposed developments on an individual basis. This review, however, will
summarized cases following the August 2 agenda you forwarded in order to
insure a timely response.
C.U.P. No. 1
No recommendations are offered in regard to paleontologic resources.
T.P.PI. 23969
No recommendations are offered in regard to paleontologic resources.
TT 25443
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 qual~ied 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.
TT Map 25603
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 inventory.
PM 24633
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: (if monitoring of excavation
b.v 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.
PP 74
No recommendations are offered in regard to paleontologic resources.
PP 86
No recommendations are offered in regard to paleontologic resources.
PP 76
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 inventory.
Robert E. Reynolds
Curator, Ear:h Sciences
San Bernardino County Museum
z~ ~-~,,-~
COUNTY c RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF. EALTII
· ENVIRON iNTAL HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION
LAND USE SECTION
3575 Eleventh Street Mall
Riverside, CA 92501
PARCEL 2C/ 53
REGIONAL TEAM ~ ~ <blA~;J~/,() 1~J~3
,WATER SOURCE:~,~iZ4JZ2 SCHEDULE ~ ORB. 460
PAtLENT P.M. (If Any)
WAIVER REQUEST?NO
THE DEPART~ENT OF HEALTH HAS REVIEWED THE b~P DESCRIBED ABOVE. IF
THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS CONCER~ING THIS TRANSHITTAL, CONTACT 787-6543.
OUR REC0~ENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
The Environmental Health Services D!visien (EHSD) has reviewed the above Parcel
Map and while we ~:e nct privi!eBed to receive any preliminary infcrmation relative
to subsurface s>3'va?~ disp'~s~C. or coP. nection to sewers or alemastic water supply,
it is our conside~,~d .};~i..?-~ tis:~t the soils that nliB,t~ be encountered in this area
may not be conducive to eftactive subsurface ~waBe disposal. Some difficulty may
be encountered in effluent disposal from individual sewaBe disposal systems and
because of soil chin a~eristics in the area there may be a requirement for extensive
BradinS, cornice!ion, cuttinS, etc. Prior to reccrdation of the final map, an acceptable
Soils feasibility report shall be submitted for review and al)proval by the EHSD.
.;
This parcel map indicates that 4Pe*" j'° c/*/"r~"/~"/"'/¢f
Will serve the lots. This Department has not received any
Official certification from that water company indicating their
willingness and desire to do so. Therefore, no certification~
. for a water distribution sys~.em or connection is made,
FOR .FEPU?Y DIRECTOR OF
Hv ~t FOR ~FvT_REINF~
li ~/H
Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
March 6, 1990
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Diane Kirksey
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Parcel Map 24633, Amended Map No. 1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
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 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
Sincerely,
Vaughn Sarkisian
Land Use Technician
/sn
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Robert Paine
6563 Via Arboles,
Anaheim, CA 92808
1213) 633-0161
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
June 26, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24633
Location of Proposal:
Northeast corner of Estero Street and
Estero Street and Ormsby Road.
II
Environmental Impacts
Explanations of all 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
STAFFRPT/2~633
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, includin9, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
X
X
i .X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT/24633
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-
in9 or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants ( includin9 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 existin9
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
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 N__~o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ST A F F R PT / 2~,633
3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existin9 noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or 91are?
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 (includin9,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emer9-
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 housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT/2~633
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
14. Public Services, Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the followin9 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
15. 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
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFR PT / 24633
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
X
ST A FF R PT / 24633
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
STAFFRPT/24633
7
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
1.a,c,d
e,f,9.
1.b.
2.a.b,c.
3.a,b,c,
d,e,f,
i.
~.a,b,c,
d.
5.a.
5.b.c.
~.a,b.
8.
9.a,b.
10.a,b.
11.
12.
13.a,b,c,
d,e,f.
1Lka,b,c,
d,e.
STAFFRPT/2~,633
No. The site has previously been graded under an approved County
grading permit.
Yes. Parcel 2 will have a house erected on the existing graded pad.
The building constuction cannot take place without proper permits.
Any mitigation necessary will be part of the building permit process.
No. The grading has been completed on the project no major air
eramissions are anticipated.
No. The project has already been graded and no drainage course exist
on site.
No. The project has been previously graded no further impacts will
OCCUr.
No. The project site has been graded under previous permits.
Yes. The area is shown as Stephens Kanagroo Rat habitat. The project
will mitigate impact by payment of the appropriate fees.
No. Only temporary construction noise impacts are anticipated.
Construction activity will only occur for a limited time and be during
the hours of 6 a.m. - 7 p.m.
No. Only one additional residential home is being proposed.
No. The proposed project conforms to the planned land use of the area.
No. Only one residential unit is proposed no substantial impacts should
occur to Natural Resources.
No. Only a single family residence is proposed.
No. The project conforms to the zoning for the site and area
developement.
No. Only one additional housing unit will be consturcted.
No. Proper transportation facilities are provided for to the site.
Yes. The project adds to the cumulative impacts on City facilities and
14.f.
15.a,b.
16.a,b,c,
16.d.
17 .a,b.
18.
19.
20.a,b.
20.c,d.
21 .a,b,d.
21 .c.
resuorces. Mitigation will be achieved by payment of appropriate fees.
Maybe. See 14 a-e.
No. Only one single family residence is being proposed.
No, No major utility extensions will be required.
Yes. Septic tanks are proposed for project. Septic disposal must be
approved by the Riverside County Health Department. Soil percolation
test must be completed and shown as adequate prior to recordation.
No. No health hazards were apparent or proposed on site.
No. The project conforms to the area development.
No. The project is not located in a proposed recreational, open space
area.
Maybe, The project is within possible prehistoric areas if excavation
occurs a qualified Palentologist or Archaeloglst must be on site.
No. No cultural or religious potential was evident on site,
No. The project will not have a significant impact on the area.
Maybe, The project will add to accumlative impacts caused by
development. Proper mitigatlon measures are incorporated in the
Conditions of Approval.
STAFFR PT / 24633
9
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 NECATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ticant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ticant 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.
X
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
For CITY OF TEMECULA
ST A FF R PT / 2u,633
10