Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111990 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 1990 - 6:00 PM VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Chairman Chiniaeff Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff Hoagland, PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the 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 filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Minutes 1.1 Minutes of November 05, 1990 NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: First Extension of Tim Vesting Tentative Map 23299 Presley of San Diego Crosby Mead Benton ~, Associates South of Highway 79, approximately one-quarter mile west of Margarita Road. First Extension of time Tract 23299, 232 Unit Condominium project Approval Richard Ayala PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case NO,: Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Change of Zone No. 5 Presley of San Diego Crosby Mead Benton & Associates South side of State Highway No. 79 between Margarita and Pala Roads To Change the zoning of 221.2 acres of land from R-R to R-3. R-q, and R-5. Recommend Approval Steve Padovan Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Conditional Use Permit No. 7 Harvey Levy Northeast corner of Ynez Road and Solana Way Motorcycle sales in an existing commercial building Approval Steve Jiannino Case No,: AppIicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Case No.: Applicant: R epresentati ve: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Plot Plan 18 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 9 Palmilia AsSociates Coombs-Mesquita, Inc. Northwest Corner of Rancho California Road ~, Lyndie Lane Construct a u,6,613 square foot shopping center on a 5.1 acre site. Approval OliverMujica Conditional Use Permit N0.8/Plot Plan 6353 Revised Permit Winston Tire Thomas J. Davis 27~15 Jefferson Avenue Convert existing theater into a Tire Sales and Auto Repair use. Approval Steve Jiannino Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Plot Plan 179 Johnson and Johnson Lusardi Construction Company Southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way Construct a 57,102 Square Foot Industrial/Office Building on a u,.5 acre site. Continue to December 3, 1990. Oliver Mujica Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Tract Map 265~9 and Plot Plan 1086~ Boyd and Iszler Markham ~, Associates South of Rancho California Road, East of Moraga Road Construct 260 Townhouses on a 20.88 Acre site. Recommend Approval Oliver Mujica Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Parcel Map No. 25599 Tom Griffin Markham F, Associates u, 1872 Motor Car Parkway To subdivide a u,. 31 acre commercial parcel into two parcels in the auto center. Approval Steve Padovan 10. Planning Director Report 11. Other Business ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: December 03, 1990, 6:00 PM, Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. plancomm\agn 11 - 19 ITEM .J2 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 1990 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 First Extension of Time Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Presley of San Diego First extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299, a 232 unit condomlnium project on approximately lu,. 3 acres. South of Highway 79, approximately one-quarter mile west of Margarlta Road. North: R-A-5 South: A-1-10 East: R-R West: R-R ResidentialAgricultural, 5 acre rain. ) Light Agricultural, 10 acre min. ) Rural Residential) Rural Residential) Vacant North: Single Famiiy Residential South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant Number of Acres: 14.33 Number of Units: 232 Size of Units: Plan A - 750 square feet Plan B - 933 square feet Plan C - 1,050 square feet Planned Density: 16.2 DU/AC SWAP Allowed Density: 2-5 DU/AC STAFF R PT\VTM23299. A 1 BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 was recommended for approval on October 19, 1988 by the County Planning Commission in conjunctio~ with Change of Zone No. 5150 and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267, Amended No. 2. Change of Zone No. 5150 was a request to change the zonlr~J on 221.2 acres of land in the Temecula area from R-R (Rural Residontiat) to R-3, R-LI, and R-5. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267 sought to subdivide the remaining acreage into 601 single famiiy reskiential lots with a minimum size of u,,500 square feet, two well site lots, and u, open space Iota totali4~g 57.9 acres. Both Vesting Tentative Tracts No. 23299 and No. 23267 along with Change of Zone 5150 were approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1988. The application for a First Extension of Time was submitted on May 18, 1990; and, presented before the City of Temecula Planning Commission on August 20, 1990 at which time was moved to continue the request for extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299, to the next available meeting for additional project information. The applicant is proposing to develop a 232 unit condomlnium project on approximately lu,.3 acres situated south of Highway 79, one-quarter mile west of Margarita Road. Access is provided by "A" street as shown on the site plan which indicates two entry points into the project. Desiqn Considerations The proposed condominium project has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R- 3 zone (General Residential) and the development standards of Ordinance No. 3~8 and Ordinance ~60. The circulation pattern for the condominium project uses "A" Street as the project~s main access with two entry points as shown on the site plan. In addition, the proposal is incorporating approximately 23,050 square feet of recreation area composed of a swimming pool/spa, tennis court, and a recreational building. The overall area of open space for the proposed project is approximately 318,325 square feet which equals to approximately 51% of the overall pro}ect site. STAFF R PT\VTM23299. A 2 Staff has reviewed the site plan and architectural design of the project and finds it to be consistent with City development code standards and with the overall architectural design found in the City. The design of the pro}ect and landscape plan will be illustrated at the Planning Commission meeting by the applicant. The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and have included additional conditions which are attached. Parking Ordinance 3L18 requires 524 parking spaces. The proposed condominium project is providing 232 covered parking, 290 open parking, and 7 handicapped parking spaces with a total of 529 parking spaces. Thus, the project exceeds the parking required under Ordinance 3~8. Quimby Act Issues Staff has reviewed the project relevant to the Quimby Act requirement and has determined that the applicant must pay the appii~=~hle Quimby Act fees or provide approximately 2.2 acres of land in lieu of fee':-. The applicant wilt be providing more information regarding this issue at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff is recommending the addition of the standard Quimby Act fees to be attached to the Conditions of Approval. Compatibility With Surroundinq Properties The project site is located south of Highway 79 and west of Margarita Road. This site used to be a part of the old Vail Ranch. Currently the site is vacant with dry vegetation. Surrounding land uses include vacant land to the south and west. The area to the North of Highway 79 shows single family residential dwellings on relatively large lots. Two specific plans adjoin the project site to the east. The Redhawk Specific Plan (SP 217) was approvod by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988. This specific plan calls for a mixed use development STAFFRPT\VTM23299. A 3 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: with residential densities ranging from 2 to 14 dwelling units per acre. This specific plan allows up to 4,188 dwelling units. The Vail Ranch Specific Plan {SP 223) adjoins the project on the northeast and was also approved by the Board of Supervisors on O~tober 6, 1988. This specific plan provides for 2,431 dwelling units with a density range of 2 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Density During their initial review and approval of this project IVTM No. 23299), the County of Riverside concluded that the "Policies within the Rancho CalifornlaJTemecuta subarea call for Category I and II Land Uses within the 1-15 corridor, transitioning to Category Ill Land Uses on the eastern end." These land uses include residential developmerits with densities ranging from 8 to 20 units per acre. It was also determined by the County that the proposed development fully complies with the development standards of the subject R-3 I General Residential) zone; and that the proposed density of 16.2 dwelling units per acre is consistent with these land use categories ICategory I, II, and III). The project has a density of 16.2 DU/AC, based on the 232 units approved on 14.3 acres. The density exceeds the density of 2-5 DU/AC indicated on the SWAP Land Use Map, which has been adopted by the City as a policy guide only. The City maintains the ability to consider appropriate density on a case by case basis. Category I 18-20 DU/AC) and Category II i2-8 DU/AC) now exists to the south of Highway 79 and west of Pala Road. This trend towards urban development has been established in the area south of Highway 79, and is continuing to be extended through the approval of several specific plans in the area. Two specific plans adjoin the project site to the east. The Redhawk Specific Plan ISP 217), approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988, calls for a mixed use development with residential densities ranging from 2 to 14 dwelling units per acre and atlows up to 4, 188 dwelling units. The Vail Ranch Specific Plan {SP 223), approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988 adjoins STAFFRPT\VTM23299. A 4 FINDINGS: the project on the northeast and includes 2,431 dwelling units with ~ density range of 2 to 20 DU/acre. The proposed tract is compatible with existing area development and with projects approved in the area, The proposal is therefore likely to be consistent with the City's new General Plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. There is not a likely probability of substantia~ 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 configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density. The project as 'designed and conditioned will not adversely-affect the public health or welfare. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmany in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The proposal witl not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does nat 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 Negative Declaration adopted for this project. STAFFRPT\VTM23299. A 5 10. 11. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the state map act in regard to the future passive energy control opportunities. Units 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 pro)ects. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents asseclatad with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Department Staff recommends that the' Planning Commission: Approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on findings contained in the Staff Report. RA:ks Attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval 2. E~hib~ts STAFFRPT\VTM23299. A 6 CITY OF TEMECULA A, DDITIONIs, L CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299, First Extension of Time Council Approval Date:. Expiration Date: Planninq Department Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of issuance of a buildinij permit. Unless previously paid, 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 Ptan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the appllcant shall pay the ' fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential IotJ unit within the proj~t bouadary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred doltars t$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as rnitigatlon for pubilc library development. iReplaces County Condition No. 20 .a. ) A heavy tree landscaping screen shall be provided along Highway 79 in the 20 foot buffer area as showa on the site plan. The trees shall be planted at a maximum of 30~ on center, the trees shall be a mixture of 20? box and 15 gallon size. The time extension is for one J l ) year. The tentative approval will be extended for one J l ) year from the original expiration date. The new expiration date is October 25, 1991. Vehicular circulation within the interior of the project shall be free of dead end circulation and shall conform with the revised site plan dated August 28, 1990. STAFFRPT\VTM23299. A 1 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 eesoments, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. The 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. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL: 9. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 10. Rancho California Water Distr}ct; 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 CalTrans. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions I CCSR's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CC~,R*s shall be signed end acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shell be enforceable by the City. The CC~,R's shall be reviewed end approved by the City and recorded. The CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CC~,R's shall be prepared at the developer"s sole coat 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. The CCF, R~s and Articles of Incorpor,~ion of the Property Owneris Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divlslans and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent STAFFRPT\VTM23299. A 2 with the fina~ map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CCF, R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facil ities. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. The CCF, R~s shall provide that the property 'shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CCF, R~s shatl provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CCSR~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 maintenemce required thereon by the CCF, R~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in faver of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteelng the canatructlon 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° A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 20? x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facllities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. STAFFRPT\VTM23299. A 3 17. Prior to final map, the subdivlder shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Davelap. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 18. 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 Off*ice, in addition to any other permits required. 19. 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 Engineer~s Office, in addition to any other permits required. 20. A grading permit shell be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 21. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and 9utter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 22. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 23. Aspbaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~ 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 9~, 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 EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its bui|dlng permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Pubtlc Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in exc~-= of those now estimated |~=~uming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. STAFFRPT\VTM23299. A ~ Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION: 25. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for State Route 79 and "A" Street, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 26. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design criteria. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 27. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 28. All signing and striping shall be instaiFed per the City requirements and the . approved signing and striping plan. 29. "A" Street access shall be limited to right turning movements in and right turning movenm~ts out only. There shall be no laft turns permitted and no provisions for such movements shall. be provided for on 5R79 South. Therefore, County Road Condition No. 6, from the County Road letter dated October T1, 1988, shall be deleted. 30. A stop sign shall be installed at the following )cr.~tion: Street at State Hiqhway No. 79 31. A secondary paved a~r~-roed shall be constructed with a 28' minimum width of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-of-way, in accDrdance with CalTrans and Riverside County standards, to the intersection of SR 79 and Lime Street or SR79 and Margarite Road to facilitate left turning movements on to and from SR79. 32. The developer shall bond for 50 percant 15096) of the cost for design and installation of the signal at the intersection of State Route 79 South and Lime Street minus the ass---ed traffic mitigation fees imposed by the County of Riverside as stated in Condition No. 16 from the County Road letter dated October 11, 1988. STAFFR PT\VTM23299. A 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Cary Thornhill, Planning Director THROUGH: Douglas Stewart, Deputy City Engineer ~ FROM: Transportation Engineering ~ DATE: September 6, 1990 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Study for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 The Transportation Engineering Staff has completed the review of the Traffic Impact Study for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299. This project represents a 232 unit, 1~,. 33 acre, multi-family residential condominium development located north of Wolf Valley Road, south of State Route 79, east of Pala Road and west of Margarita Road. Based on information provided in the study; this proposed project will generate little impact on existing total peak hour trips, existing roadway geometrics or existing intersectional level of service { capacity). Conditions of Approval are being written and will be transmitted when complete. KW:ks cc: Oilvet Mujica Richard Ayala Sayed Omar File TRAFFIC\M30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING OEPARll4ENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23299 DATE: EXPIRES: STANDARD CONDITIONS ** 1. l~ne subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any clalm, action, or p:roceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, Its advisory agenct*es, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299, which action is brought about within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to' promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County Of Riverside. 2. l!a~ tentative subdivision shall cemply with the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all tie requirements of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and Ordinance 460. l'ne subdivider shall suMit 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 stte. If any gradJn~ is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of ~ehens*t~e grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plm, sha3) comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these nd co ttions of approval. !ll~T~llG TENTAtiVE TItACT llO. 23299 ~J~d~Uons ef A~proval Page 2 10. 11. 12. .13. ME4. 16. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordatton of the final map. The subdivider shall con~ly with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside Caunty Road Department's letter dated 10-11-88, a copyof which is attached. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract mp bounda~ 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 b the Road Contnissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of ~e Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. ,' Water and sewerage disposal facilities Shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Rivers]de County Health Department's letter dated 8-2g-88, a copy Of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated ]D-18-B8, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Drdinance 460, appro rtate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be coVlected by the Road Commissioner. (Amended at P.C. on The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Harshal's letter dated 8-24-88, a copy of which is attached. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area tmprove~nt phasing, tf applicable, shall be subject to Planning Deparbeent approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and Furpose of the subdivision approval. . 17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: 10-19- 1lESTfill; TEXiXIIVE IIULr[ I10. 23~1g Comlttlons of Approval Page 3 Lots created by thts subdivision shall deve]opment standards of the R-3 zone. be in conformance with the Graded but undeveloped land shall be mtntatned in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Ot.roctor of Butldlng and Safety. c. 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. d. 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 mp the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the rocordation of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters f,~, the following agencies have been met: County Fire Department County Health Oepartment County Rood Control County Planning Department County Parks Department Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5150 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in confonnance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. Prior to recordation of the final mp, 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 Office of the County Counsel: 1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and 2) R 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. 1)e declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for revte~ shall (a) provide for a minimum tem of 60 years, (b) provide for the establtsbment of a property owners' association If~i m~G TENTATXVE litACT I10. 23299 Comfittons of Approval Page 4 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 c,,,,~n and (d) contain the following provisions verbatim: "Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: The property owners' association established herein shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhibit 'A' attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. 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 'c~,,,~n area' and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created. shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien. This Declaration shalT not be termtnated,"substantially' amended or property deannexed therefrom absent-the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial" if it affects' the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'teesnon aream. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the pro rty owners' association Rules and Regulations, if any, this DecOration 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 perkway landscaping conditions: 1) 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 C.S.A. for maintenance of arkways along Hi hwey 79 and Street mA' in accordance with the Candscaptng and Lighting Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing parkway nmlntenanca district, IrESTZIIG TENTAtiVE TRACT g0. 23299 Condftlons of Approval Page 5 z) · 3) 4) Prior to the issuance of butldtng permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the County Road and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans and s eciftcations shall be prepared in a reproducible format suitable with the County for filing permanent Road Department. The developer shall pest a landscape performance bond which shall be released concurrently with.. the release of subdivision performance bonds, guaranteetng the viabiltty 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. e. Prior to recordation of the final map, the project site shall be annexed into C.5.A. 143. Prior to recordatton of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the'ECS shall be transmitted- to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the . Planning Department and the Department of Building and .Safety. .g. The notice appearing in Section 6.a. of Ordinance No. 625, the Riverside County Right-to-Farm Ordinance, shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet, with this tract identified therein, in the manner provided in said Section 6.a., as being located partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of, land zoned for primarily agricultural purposes by the County of Riverside. h. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "County Environmental Impact Report No. 281 was prepared for this pro rty and is file at the Riverside County Planning I)epartmen~,. on t. The E.C.S. note found in the letter from the Count Geologist dated 1 October I , 1988, a copy of which is attached, sha{1 on the be placed Environmental Constraint .Sheet. kt~[zl~ TE]ITA11VE ~ I0. ~3Z99 Conditions of Approval Page 6 19. Prior to the lssuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All extsttng native specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planntng Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical-height shall incorporating the following grading techniques: natural terrain and be contour-graded 1) The an le of the raded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle oV the natural terrain. 2) Angular foms shall be discouraged. The graded fom shall reflect the natural Pounded terrain. 3) Re 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 pemtt such Pounding. PriOr to the issuance of grading pemits, t~e developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site mnufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responstbtlttles have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading pemtts, 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 gradin contractor shall be arranged. When necessa~, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to te~rartly divert, redtrect or halt grading activity to allow recove~ of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building pemtts shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any residential lot/unit within the project bounda~ until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars (lJ]_QI1X per lot/unit shall be deposited with the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public libra~ ~velo~ent. Ifi~'FZNG TE]ITAT~VE TRACT MO. 23299 Cemditgons of Approval Page7 b. Prior to the submittal ofbutldtng plans to the Department of Buildin and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acousticaV engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be ap lied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn and outside noise levels to 65 Ldn. c. The project shall be constructed so that it is substantial conformance with Exhibit A, Amended No. Z. · .... d. Building elevations shall be {n s'ubstanttal conformonce with that shown on Exhibit B. Hatertals used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformante with that shown on Exhibit B (Color - Elevations) and Exhibit C (Katertals Board). These are as follows: Materials Roof Tile Walls Stucco Trim Wood Accent. All street lights electrical plans Color U.S. Tile - E1Camtno Blend F~rlex P-141' Acceht Ameritone 1H45G SYLPH Amer. ttone 2HBP Cloversweet Ameritone 1M28E Latch f. and other 'outdoor lighting shall be shown on submitted to the Oepartment of Butldtng and Safety for plan ch.ck approval and shallthe re,utr.ents o, Rivrestde County Ordinance No-cand the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. g. Mitigation for liquefaction hazard shall be in conformance with County Geologic Report No. 493. h. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Oepartment approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requirtn landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limite~ to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and common open space planting I. Roof-mounted'equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property. 3- A fencing plan sbe11 be submitted for Planntng Oepartment Approval. T!~TTNG TENTAtiVE TitACT NO. 23299 Condfttons of Approval Page 8 Prfor to the tssuance of OCCUPANCY PERHITS the following conditions shall be sattsffed: a. hll and/or fence locations shall confom ~lth a~p~oved plans and be Installed prior to occupancy. b. All landscaping and Irrigation shall be Installed tn accordance with approved plans rtor to the tssuance of occupancy permits. 'seasonal conditions do not pemlt planting, tntertm landscaping and eroston control measures shall be uttllzed as approved by the Planning Dtrector and the Dtrector of Bufldfng and Safety. Ce GN:sc %0/%2/88 Notwithstanding the preceding coddtttons, ~erever an acoustical study ts required for noise attenuation purposes, the hetghts of all requtred valls shall be determined by the acoustlcal study where applicable. I I i ! I LeRoy D. Smoot OFFICE OF ROAD CONMI$31ONER & COUNTY S, Y~C F 1 g -, October 11. 1988 RIVEHbiUh CUUNTY ~LANNING DEPARTMEN RIverside County Planning Comnisslon 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Tract Hap 23299 -'(Exhibit A - Amend #2) Schedule A - Team SP Ladles and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Oepartment recanmends that the landdivider provide the following street Improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Or8inance 460 and Rivers ida County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461), It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate O's, and that their emission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmftted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a Complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall: be referred to the Road Comlssioner's Office. 1. The landdlvjdeP shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns. i.e., concentra- tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities Including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by both. All drainage easecents shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows: 'Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachmerits by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approved by the Road Department. 2. The ~anddivfder Shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Conmlssfoner permits the use Of streets for drainage p~ Dies, the proviSIons of Article X! of Ordinance No, 460 wllrV apply. Should the quantities exceed the street : capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivlder shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department, T, pact'HaP 23299 - .tr;xntblt A -/send It) O~.tober 11, 1988 ra~ Z 3. MaJor drainage ts Involved on this landdivision and Its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department, 5. "O" Street shall be Improved within the dedicated right of my In accordance with County Standard No. 102, (modified 64'/8Z'). I 6. The landdivider will provide a left torn lane on S.H. 79 and "A" Street at their Intersection with each other as approved by the Road Department. - 7. The landdivider shall comply ~tth .the Caltrans recommendations as outlined tn their letter dated March 30, 1988 (a copy of which ts art.ached), prior to the recordatlon of the final nap. 8. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Caltf. - Mater DIstrict prior to the recordatlon of the final nap. 9. A copy of the final nap shall be submitted to Caltrans, District 08, Post Office Box 231, San Oernardino, California 92403; Attention: ProJect Development for review and approval prior to recordatlon. The mtnlmum centerline radii shall be 1600 ' or as approved by the Road Department. S.H. 79 shall be ImprOved with concrete curb and gutter located 55 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; recon- struction; or rosurfaclng of existing paving as datemined by Caltrans within a 71 foot half width dedicated right of way. 12. All driveways shall conform to the applicable RIverside County Standards. llhen blocbmlls are requtred to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention uall shall be constructed at the street right of Nay line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road C_m-~ssfoner. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision tn accordance with County Standard No, 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk), Tracl~NaP 23299- (I;xhtbtt A- Amend 12) 1)CIPher 21, 1988 page 3 A secondar~ access road to the nearest paved road maintained by the County shall be constr~cted within the publ.ic right of way in in accordance with County Standard No. 1.06. Section B. (32'/60') at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Comtssloner. This ts necessary for ctroulatlon purposes. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road DeparUnent,. a cash sum of $140.00 per unit as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of pa3nnent, he may enter into a ~ltten agreeent with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a.l~..tldtng permit. improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the pro~ect boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Comissioner. Completion of road improvements does not tmply acceptance for maintenance by County. Lrlectrlcal and ce,,mntcations trenches shall be provtded in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 8Z7. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall 'be applied not less than fourteen da~s 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 Sections 37, 39 and 94 of;the State Standa~ Specifications. 20. Corner cutbacks in conromance with County Standard No. 805 shall be sho~n on the final mep and offered for dedication. 21. ~t access shall be restricted on S.H, 79 and so noted on the final Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approve by the Road Department. 23. Al1 centerline Intersections shall beat 90' with a mtnlmum 50' tangent measured from flow 1the. 24. 1~ street design and Improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with TR 23267 and TR 23063~ 25. Street' lighting shall .be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator detemines whether this proposal qualifies under an Tract,HaD 23299 ,(Exhibit A - Amend #2) IJctole, r 11, 1988 · page 4 E existing assessment district or not. Zf not. the land Owner shall file an application WIth LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a "LIghting Assessment District' In accordance with Goverrmental Code.Section S6000. :Z6. A11 private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shom on the street Improvement plans. , .. 27. A striping plan is required for "Am Street 'and S.H. 79. The removal of the existing striping shall be the r~sponstbility of the applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. GH:lh Very truly yours, Gus Hughes Road Dtvlston Engineer '. rKOM: RE: f County of Riverside RIV~IDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: ATTN: Dan Carton Tract Map 23299, Amended No. 2 08-29-88 Health Svcs. Environmental Health Services has revieved Tract Nap 23299, imended No. 2 dated August 19, 1988. Our current comments viII remain as stated in our letter dated Hay 2~. 1988. SM:tac z' Nay 27, 19888 RIVr~RSIIE COUNTY PLANNING D EPT,- 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 ~'-,,, ~ Attn: ~ . e_t,,a lIE; TRACT}lAP 23299; 926-160-011 on file Recorder, Riverside, (1 Lot) Being a portion of Assessor in the Office of the Counter California. Parcel No., Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has No, 23299 and recommends that: r'evieved Tentative Hap A water system shall be installed according t'o plans a~d specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the County Surveyor, The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the ~unction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all. respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. JUH 2 1588 RIVERSIDE CO ~ :,TY pLANNING DEpABTMENT Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two Attn= Den Carton Nay 27, 1988 · he plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Hap 23299 is accordance with the.va~er system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service,storage and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such tract. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it viII supply water to such tract at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose', This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. This Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing' satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement from the ~astern Bunicipal Water District agreeing to alloy the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the severs.of the DiStrict.. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system .shall be submitted in triplicate. along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the severs at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sever lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: 'I certify that the design of the sever system in Tract Map 23299 is in accordance with the sever system expansion plans of the Eastern Nunicipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat ~ anticipated wastes from the proposed tract." ,'. , Riverside County Planning Dept. Page ~hrew AIx~: Dan Carton May 27, 1988 It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. / It viII be necessary for annexation proceedingS. to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map. Sincere y, .. · H. I~.' L~CHS/'/?Land Use Supervisor Environmental Health Services HRL:SM:tac K~NNE'TH I_ EDWARDS ;eel MANKIT eTNsrr RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL~ AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT October 18, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department Count~ Adm~nistrative Center Riverside, California Attention= Regional Team No. Greg Neal 1 Ladies and Gentlemenz Rez Vesting Tract 23299 Exhibit "A" Vesting Tract 23299 is a proposal to construct condominiums on a 14 acre site in the Temecula Valley area. The property is lo- cated ~n the south side of State Highway 79,.one quarter mile 'west of Margarita Road. This project is located on the floor of TemeCula Valley and is subject to both riverins flows from Temecula Creek and sheeting offsite storm flows from two other sources. The main course of Temecula Creek flows along the southern ~ract boundary. Storm water from a 800 acre watershed to the north crosses the nort]lwest boundary of the project. Due to poorly defined drainage patterns, it is probable that large amounts of storm water emanating from tributaries north of Temecula Creek and from far to the east may sheet west, generally parallel to Temecula Creek. and across the site. Unless these storm flows are dealt with by upstream development in the watershed, the developer will have to construct drainage facilities to protect this project. Exhibit "A" shows that onsite storm runoff will be conveyed to Temecula Creek via interior streets and storm drains. The {m~rovements to Temecula Creek are proposed as a part of Assessment District 159. The District's interest in the con- figuration of the main channel is limited to its adequacy as a flood protection facility. It should be noted that the present design does not allow for habitat mitigation within the channel, nor does it specifically provide for joint use of the facility (e.g., equestrian or bicycle trails). A change in channel con- figuration or right of way width may require redesign of this proposal. Riverside County Planning Department Re= Vesting Tract 23299 Exhibit 'A' -2- October 18, 1988 The developerrs Exhibit 'B' proposes to collect storm flows from the 800 acre canyon at De Portola Road and convey'them to Temecula Creek in a trapezoidal channel. Two collection dikes are 'proposed on the east side of Margarita Road tO capture storm flows traveling parallel to Temecula Creek· These flows would combine with the northern stream just north of Highway 79. Following are the District's recon~endations= 1. Temecula Creek Channel should.-be constructed along this tract as shown on the tentative.map. 2. Both Temecula Creek Channel and the drainage facilities proposed to convey storm flows from the north and east should be built to District standards. Some of these facilities are proposed to be constructed byAssessment District 159. If these have not been installed by the time grading permits are requested, it will be necessary for this tract to construct drainage structures necessary to protect it from tributary 100-year storm flows. Evidence of a ~iable ~iOj~enan~.~_mechan~sm-shoU.~.~e__s~br n~itted to ~he District and County fo~.review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. 3. A portion.of the proposed project iS in a flood plain'and may affect "waters of the United States', "wetlands" or 'jurisdictional streambeds', therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and Related Regulations (44 CFR, Parts 59 through 73) and County Ordinance No. 458= A flood study consisting of HEC-2 calculations, cross sections, maps and other data should be prepared to the satisfaction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the District for the purpose of revising the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map of the project site. The submittal of the study should be concurrent with the initial submittal of the related project improvement plans and final District approval will not be given until a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) has been received from FFJ4A. be A copy of appropriate correspondence and necessary permits from those government agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State law (such as Corps of Engineers 404 permit or Department of Fish and Game 1603 agreement) should be provided to the District prior to the final District approval of the project. Riverside County Planning Department Vesting Tract 23299 Exhibit ~3~ October 18, 1988 Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainag~ easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, 'Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions'. Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to recordation of the final map. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape should also be provided. Development of this property should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties to ensure that watercourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not diverted from one watershed to another· This may require the construction'of temporary drainage facilities or offsite construction and grading. A copy of the improvement.plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Bob Cullen of this office at 714/787-2333. Very truly yours, cc= RANPAC Hj~nji~neer BC=bab q e,· RIVERSI DE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WiTH THE CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RAY HEBRARD FIRE CHIE~ 8-24-88 TO: ATll~: RE: TEAHI, ClF~!G, AL 'l'It 23299 - A!Ip~a~ED 12 ''~. A ~'' '~ Planflint &, EnginerinK Office 4060 L~mon Street, Suite I t RI,erslae, CA 92501 (714) 767.6606 gith respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the follcndng fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordina~css and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION The water mains shell be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 CFH end an actual fire tim/available from any one hydrant shall be 1500 CPH for hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. Approved super fire hydrant, 6x4x2]x2t shall be located at each intersection .mud spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of ~y lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. / Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Depnrtment for revieg. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant t~pes, lotsCion and spacing. end. the system shall meet the firs'flow requirements. Plans shell be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer an~ the local vster company with the foliosing certification: nI certify Chat the design of the water system is in accordance ~ith the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Dept,' The required water system including fire hydrants shall ba installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Prior to the recordsCion of the final map, the applicant/developer shall provide altermate or secondary access as spprovad by the County Road Department. !~ITICATIOH FEES Prior to the recordsCion of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Firs Department s cash sum of $400.~00 per lot/unit am mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment. he may enter into a vrittsn agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. ]~.~: ~ 23299 Page 2 m, All q~euCtono regarding the 'meaning of the conditions ,hall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering s~aff. · RA~4OND H. RY,~IS C~ief Yire Department Planner Me, Amttou. D~puty Fire Harsha~ August 22, ~988 County Administralive Center · 4080 Lemon SireeL 2ncl Floor giverside. California g2501-3E81 Riverside County Planning Department Attention$ Greg Neal County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street .... Riverside, CA 92501 RE= Vesting Tract 23299° Exhibit A, Amend ~2 Ladies and Gentlament The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditionss Prior ~o the issuance of building permits, the developer shall obtain Planning. Department approval for all on-site and off- site signage advertising the sale of the'subdivision pursuant to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348. Vet7 truly yours, Thcx~as H. Ingramo Director DEPARTHEN? OF BUILDING AND SAFETY Building Inspection (714) 7876480 · Administration '('714) 787-2020 Land Use Enforcement ('714) 787-4079, Engineering Plan Service (714) 787-2011 RiVER31DE COUnt,u PLanninG DEP R mEn October 11o 1988 Htghland Sotls Engineering 1832 S. Commercenter £trcle, Sutte A San Bernardtno, CA92408 Attention: fir. Robert C. 14anntng Nr. Marren L. Sherllng fir. it111am T. Allmeyer SUBJECT:' 'LIquefaction Hazard -. Job No; 07-6556-010-00-00 Vesttng Tentative Tract 23299 County Geologtc Report No. 493 Rancho California 6tea Gentlemen: We have reviewed the. liquefaction aspects of your report entttled "Fault Hazard and PreHmtnary Geote~hnlcal Znvestlgatlon, 242~ Acres;~Southwest of the Intersection of Nargartta Road and State Htghway 79, Rancho CaHfornta, Riverside County, CA," dated February 3, 1988. L !~:. ., . ........ .,~. Your report determined that t~e potent(a1 for 11quef~ct~0~ ts cons(dered h~gh I~n the larger dra(nage courses represented..by. Pauba .Valley~ The surface manifestation of lfquefactfon occu~r~'ng on 'thfs'.s~te ma~:(n~]ude differential settlement, loss of beart~g,.sand botls and lateral spreading of slopes along Teaecula Creek, Your report recommended that: " A compacted ftll mat along vtth a gravel blanket and additional footing reinforcement should be used to mltfgate 11quefactlon tnduced different¶a1 ~ettlement, Structural setbacks from tops of ft11 slopes toetng tnto liquefaction prone areas should be used to mftlgato liquefaction triggered lateral spreading. The geotechntcal engtneer should revtew the. project gradtng plans to develop s~eclftc des$gn fnformatfon. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787'6181 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 Highland Soils Engineering -2- October 11, 1988 Zt ts our optnton that the report was prepared tn a competent manner and satisfies the additional fnformatton requested under the Caltfornla Environmental Quality Act revtew and the RIverside County Comprehensive General Plan. FInal approval of the report 1s hereby gtven. Ve recomnend that the following note be pTaced on the ftnal tract map prior to · its recordatton: "County Geologtc Report 493 was prepared for thts property on February 3, 1988 by HIghland Soils Engineering and ts on ftle at the R~verstde County Plannlng Department. The spectfic ttem of interest ts liquefaction. This 1tam affects a11 parcels." .. .. The rec~,,,endattons made In your report for m~tfgat~on of ]tquefactton potential shall be adhered to fn the destgn and construction of this project. Very truly yours, SAK:rd RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTNENT Roger S.. Streeter,.~ Plan tng Otre tor c.c..Ranpac - Dave Dfilon Butldtng& Safety - Norm Lostban (2) Team I - Greg Neal October 13, 1988 Mr. Richard MacHart, Supervising Planner Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract HAp'Number'23299 Dear Mr. MacHart: The following summarizes our findings regarding the fiscal impact analysis for the project identified above'. The appendix attached summarizes the basic assumptions used in the analysis. Please note that these results reflect the current levels of service provided by the County based on Fiscal Year 1986 - 1987 actual costs (per caD.its factors) and Departmental ~nd Auditor-Controller review of operations and facility costs for services reviewed using case study analysis. Staff to the GroN~h Fiscal Impact Task Force and Departments are currently reviewing service levels provided and the need to increase the levels of service.' Current findings are that existing level8 of service are not adequate in moat cases. Should the desired level of 8errice be utilized in the fiscal analysis performed, it would significantly increase the coats associated with this developmeqt. COUNTY FUND (Operations and Haintenance) FISCAL IllPACT AFTER BUILDOUT CUNULATIVE FISCAL INPACT AT BUILDOUT County General Fire Free Library ($62,041) ($10,703) ($2,071) ($57,075) ($16,054) ($3,107) SUBTOTAL COUNTY ($74,815) ($76,236) Ro~d Fund $12,434 $18,256 GRAND TOTAL ($82,381) ($57,980) RobefiT, Andersen AdmJnisbative Center 40eOLEMONSllEWF · 12THFLOOR · mVDZSa~CALFORMA92rml · (7~4)787-2544 The following special circumstances apply to this project: 1, The developer assumptions included a factor of 2.1 persons per dwelling unit, CAO staff utilized a factor of 2.69 parsons per household, which is closer to the countywide average for this'type of unit, 2. CAO staff has reviewed library coats with Library personnel and incorporated actual operations and maintenance costs into the analysis. Using Library staff estimates of the coats of providing the current level of service, considering the increase in population, this project should result in one-time capital facility costs of $29,937 (library space, volumes) and ongoing annual operations and maintenance cost8 of $5,729, Library staff ha8 indicated that the current level of earvice is not adequate, 3. Flood Control staff has indicated' 'that flood control facilities constructed within Zone"7 -are unlikely to be sufficiently funded for maintenance costs, Current estimates indicate that funding shortage8 should occur for the next ten years. Suggested mitigation measures include a cash deposit by the project developer or use of an assessment mechanism, The amount of deposit would be determined by a present value analysis and project timing, The cost of maintaining flood control facilities will not be known until final design phases, when facility needs -have been fully identified,. Flood Control staff will, therefore, condition project approvals to identify a means of financing facility maintenance and operation (if necessary) prior to retardation of subdivisions, Based on the analysis and assuming that the average sales price of the units will be $X, overall X will have a negative fiscal impact at buildout of $57,980. After buildout, this project will have an annual negative fiscal impact to the County of $62,381 at current levels of service, Znitial Review By: Review Approved By: ~°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°'i April 4, 1g88 ' '~;~ ~F'P'. 0~ 19BB Riverside County Planning Department p.|VE~SID~_ 4080 Lemon Street, gth Floor . Riverside. California 92S01 pLANNII'I~ ~F.,.~T~,..'...~.NT SUBJECT: TRACT 23299 The District Is responding to your request for comments on the subject proJect(s) relattve to the provision of water and sewer service, The 1terns checked below apply to thts project review, T~e subject project: Is not within E3M3's: - X water servtce area sewer servtce area f(ust be annexed to this Dlstrtct's Imprcvement District No~ in order to be eligible to receive domestic water/sanitary sewer servi~e. X Mill be required to construct the following facilities: a,) Water Service b,) Sewer Service 0nstte/offstte regionally sized gravity sewers and participate in regional sewer facilities, No sewers allowed now or future along lot 1tries, Sewers must flow down and away from cul-de-sac toe, Sewer generally available at Hwy, 79/Pale IM,. Hust provtde adequate r~ghts-of-way. ENd' s Rtghl:-of-Way Department. The proponent should contact Flust provtde a stte for the construction of: seer lift statlon water pumptng starton' water storage reservoir i111 be requtred to use reclaimed water tn the graenbelt areas. Is wtthtn the Assessment DIstrict. Conditions must be ·tncluded that the tract cannot be recorded unttl the ~ssessment has been patd tn full or an amended assessment dlstrtct has' been recorded. Requtres major master planntng and the Dlstrtct cannot comment unttl Can be provtded ~tth water servtce s~nce the D~strtct has extstlng water facilities fn the area.(does not constder ftre flow) Can be provlded with SewaT service since the Dlstrtct has adequate sewer facilities. All above comments are subject to ravtslon dur(ng submittal of tracts approval. Should )~u have qeesttons on any of the above coments,.please'call me. for Very Truly Yours, EASTERN HUNZCZPAL ~kTER D~STR]CT Planntng Departae. t April 5, 1988 ~ff: ~,,.~ ,- . ~ Oflkers: Sdan T. Mills Phillip L Forbes D~r d F~ce - N~on L ~omu ~ of En~g ~o~ R. M~ier Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: water Availability Reference: Gentlemen: Vesting Tract 23299 Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property o~ner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management- rights, if any, to RCWD. Sites for addltional water production facilities may be required within the proposed development depending upon the level of increased demand created by the proposal. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please Contact this office. Very truly yours, RANCliO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Senga P. Doherty Engineering Services Representative F011/dpml13 RANCH0 CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 28051 DIAZ ROAD - POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA. CA 9239G0174 · {714} 676-4101 · FAX (714| 576-0615 e, · February 29, 1988 RiVER)iDE counc,u 'PLAnninG DEPARClTIEnC Assessor Bu23ding and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department Health - Ralph lachm Fire Protectlo~ Flood Control Dlstzict Ytah & Game LAFCO, S Patale7 U.S. Postal Se~vlce - Ruth E. Dmvldmou 1988 RIVEF. SID--: pLANNiNG Rancho Caltf, Water Eastern Huntctpa] Water Dtst. Southern Ca]if. Edison Southern Calif. Gas General Telephone Dept. of Transporation #R Temecula Union Elem Elsinore Union High School Temecula Chamber of Comnerce Mr. Polomar Sierra Club Valleladde Parks County Aviation . Comfssioner Bresson VESTING I~b~CT 23299 - (Tm-l) - £.A. 32544 - ~otem-&mertcan Corp. - Rancho Pacific Engineering - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorisl District - South Highray 79 and West of ~argarita Road - R-R Zone - 13.9 acres - Schedule A - 13.9 acres Request VTR 232 Unit Condomtnium Project - Concurrent Cases CZ 5150, 23267 - Hod 120 - A.P. 926-160-010 to 013; 926~160-002,003 / Please reviev the case described above, along vtth the attached case map. A Land Dtvtsto~ Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for April 28, 1988~ If it clears, it vlll then go to publlc hearing. Tour comehis and rec~,,,endatlens are requested prior to April 1~, 1988 in order that ve may Include th-- in the staff report for this particular case. Should 3~u have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Cre2 Neal at 787-1363 Planner Vesting Tract 23299 should be required to'annex to an appropriate Agency ghich provides park and recreation services. Annexation sdll mitigate impacts aria creased population to be sewed and fees (park development), shall be used to acquire and develop a park site. Vv ~r&SE print uamm a 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CAUFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 HanaSer, Valley-Wide Recreation and Pa~ Di,~tr~l 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 VICINITY MAP: N T.S. __ G ~ ' 1'~ ECT l i. li its,, ii! s: 0 0 ElL 0 0 C~ _l m >. 0 C~ _1 m ). I- CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Vestir~l, Tentative Tract No. 23299 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project, Fee Habitat Conservation Plan { K-Rat) Parks and Recreatien ~ Quimby ) Public Facility I Traffic Mitigation ) Public Facility I Traffic Signal Mitlgatien) Condition of Approval Condition No. 2 Condition No. 1 Condition No. 21 Condition No: County Road No. 9 Public Facility ( Library ) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition No. 3 Condition No. Letter of 8-24-88 Condition No. Letter of 10-18-88 STAFFRPT\VTM23299.A ITEM ~3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 1990 Case No.: Change of Zone No. 5 Prepared By: Steve Padovan Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Presley of San Diego Crosby Mead Benton & Associates To change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-3, R-~, R-5. South side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. R-R I Rural Residential) North: R -A-5 South: A-I-1O East: SP West: R - R ResidentiaiAgTicu)tural, 5 acre rain. ) Light Agricultural, 10 acre rain. ) Specific Plan ) Rural Residential) R-3, R-~, R-5 ( General Residential, Planned Residential, Open Area combinin9 zone Residential/Development Vacant/Graded Land North: South: East: West: Low Density Single Family Existing 5od Farm Vacant/Single Family Tract Construction Vacant Under STAFFRPT\CZ5 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Project Site: Total Proposed Development: Single Family Total Lots: Total Acres: Min. Lot Size: Density: Multi-Family Total Units: Total Acres: Density: Open Space: Remainclef: Acreage Designarid by Proposed Zones 221.2 gross acres 831 units 559 130.8 4,500 sq.ft. 4.27 DUIAC 232 14.3 16,22 DU/AC 57,8 gross acres 18.3 9ross acres R-3: General Residential - 14.3 gross acres R -~,: Planned R esldential - 130.8 gross acres R-5: Open Area Combining Zone- 57.8 gross acres BACKGROUND: The subject property was originally a portion of the Old Vall Ranch. It is located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads. The original application, Cha~ge of Zone No. 5150 was a request to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land froe R-R {Rural Residentiat) to R-3 {General Residential), R-4 IPtanned Residential), ar~ R-5 I Open Area Combining Zone). This zone change was approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on October 20, 1988. However, due to an oversight by the County, the zone change was never given a second reading and, therefore, was never officially adopted. The applicant submitted a new application, Change of Zone No. 5, to the City of Temecula Plannln9 Department on September 24, ft~JO. The following two tract maps were also approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1988 in conjunction with the zone change. Vestinq Tentative Tract No. 23267 includes 188.6 acres of land with R-~ and R-5 zoning. This subdivision contains 599 single family lots with 57.8 acres of open space. The minimum lot size is ~,,500 square feat. The open space acreage contains a proposed 35.8 acre regional park in the location of STAFFRPT\CZ5 2 the Temecula Creek Flood Channel, two neighborheod parks totaling 10.2 acres, and an 11.8 acre preserve for native vegetation and the original adobe r~anch house. Vestinq Tentative Tract No. 23299 contains 232 condomlnium units on !~,3 acres of R-3 zoned land. 23,000 square feet of recreational open space have been provided for the residents of this tract. The expiration dte of these two tracts was on October 25, 1990, therefore, the applicant has submittad requests for First Extensions of Time. Severa| large subdivisions have been approvad adjoining the subject property to the east in conjunction with the two approvad specific plans. The R edhawk Specific Plan ( S. P. 217 ) was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988. This specific plan calls for a mixed use development with residential densities ranging from 2 to 11~ dwelling unita per acre. This specific plan allows up to u,, 188 dwelling units. The Vall Ranch Specific ' Plan (S. P. 223) adjoins the project on the north-----~ and was also appraved by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988. This specific plan includes 2,u,31 dwelling units with a density range from 2 to 20 du/acre. The turf farm to the seuthwest also has a specific plan currently being procured through the City of Temecula Plannin9 Departraent called Murdy Ranch IS.P. 228). The first two specific plans were based on densities and land uses designated by the Southwest Territary Land Use PlannlngArea. Thls document has been superseded by the Southwest Area Plan which designates densities on the subject parcel from 2 to 5 duJ acre. Currently, the land has been rough graded into streets and preliminary lots. No grading has occurred in the flood control channel because the applicant has not received approvals from FEMA and the U .S. Army Corps. The channel is to be built as part of Assessment District 159. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to change the zone on 221 acres of land in the former Old Vail Ranch. The proposal is identical to the original Zone Change No. 5150. The land use breakdown is as follows: STAFFRPT\CZ5 3 R-3, General Residential- 14.3 gross acres. This zoning pern~ts multi-family dwellings. R-u,, Planned Residential - 130.8 gross acres. This zoning permits single-family and multi- family dwelling units incorporating open space. This allows for a smaller minimum lot size provided open areas are developed and maintained for residents. R-5, Open Area Combining Zone, Residential Developments - 57.8 gross acres. This zone allows for the development of parkland and recreatlonal uses. The proposed zoning will be consistent with the surrounding projects to the east and the proposed project to the south, along with the two Vesting Tentative Tract Maps tentatively approved for this site. Tract No. 23299 wil~ be entirely zoned R-3 and will maintain a density of 16.2 dulacre. Tract No. 23267 will be zoned R-~ and R-5 and maintain a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre including open space. The average density of the two tracts combined will be u,. 1 units/acre inciuding the flood contro) channel GENERAL PLAN/SWAP CONSISTENCY AND COMPAT I B I LITY: The proposed zone change would greatly increase the density of the subject property from 2 dwelling units per acre to 3 to 16 dwelling units per acre. The Southwast Area Community Plan ISWAP) designates the subject property at a density of 2 to 5 units per acre. Combined, the density of the two tracts would be u,. 1 dwelling units per acre. This is in confermance with the current SWAP designation of 2-5 units per acre. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 has an acreage density of 3.2 units per acre. However, SWAP designates the entire flood control channel as recreational open space and therefore, this area is not included in the 2 to 5 unit per acre area. The portion of the map north of the flood channel maintains an average density of u,.8 units per gross acre. The area south of the cha~rmt maintains an average density of u,.0 dwettlng units per gross STAFFRPT\CZ5 ~ acre, These densities conform to SW/~P, This project does conform to the surrounding land uses in the area, The two approved specific plans to the east and south contain similar residential densities and minimum lot sizes as the subject property, These projects were approved under the plan previous to SWAP which allowed a slightly higher density, In addition, they contain over 6,000 housing units with si~'~lar characteristics to the proposed subject property, These plans have average densities between 5 and 6 DLI/AC, The apptlcant is proposing to have an average density of only 4 unltsJacre, The properties to the west are currently designated for commercial in SWAP, along with the land along the south side of Highway 79 between the subject site and Margarita Road, Staff feels that by breaking the commercial strip along the highway with residential, the commerclai will be concentrated at the corner of Margarita and Highway 79 where it is more deslreable, Another specific plan, Murdy Ranch, is directly west of the subject site and it contains similar residential densities to the propused zone change, The properties to the north are designated commercial in SWAP along Highway 79 and existing low density rural residential beyond ~ Santiago Estates), Staff feels that there w~ll. be no significant impact from the higher density residential along the south side of Highway 79 due tO the physical break of the roadway and the commercial barrier along the north Side of SR79, To provide a barrier to noise for the proposed development along the highway, Staff will require a significant landscaped buffer of 30 feet minimum, Therefore, Staff feels that the zone change on the subject property is a logical extension of the type of residentlai development that is found in the area, Circulation This residential proposal wlll signiflcantiy increase the residential densities in the immediate area and this will have an impact on the surrounding circulation system, Currently, there are traffic impacts at the Pala Road and Highway 79 intersection, and Highway 79 has nct been improved to its full planned 6 lane right-d-way, These improvements are to be constructed through Assessment District No, 159, In addition, the environmental impact report for the project STAFFRPT\CZ5 5 specifically states that a new bridge on Paia Road over Temecula Creek shall be constructed to mitigate traffic impacts. However, the Assessment District improvements do not include a new bridge on Pala Road. Therefore, the bridge will have to be constructed before the units ere occupied. To further m'~tigate traffic impacts, the proposed development would require signalizatlon of an intersection along Highway 79. In concluslon, the proposed zone change wltl likely be conslstant with the future adopted General Plan for the City of Temecula. This proposal is a logical extension of residential evelopment in the area and with the implementatlon of traffic mitigation measures for the development, there will be no significant impact on the surrounding area. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Environmental impact Report No. 281 was compieted on the subject property for Change of Zone No. 5150. The report indicated a number of mitigation measures that must be implemented in order to reduce the impact of the project below a level of significance. These mitigation measures included a new u,-lane bridge on Pala Road over Temecula Creek, the channelization of Temecula Creek, and several other .significant measures that have not currently been implemented. in addition, the Traffic Study indicates several mitigation measures that need to be implemented before occupancy of units. FINDINGS: Chamle of Zone No. 5 The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Environmental impact Report for this project. There is a reasonable probability that the zone change from R-R to R-3, R-u,, and R-5 will be consistent with the future General Plan. Further, densities and uses proposed are sln~lar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. STAFFRPT\CZ5 6 There is not a reasonable probabliity of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future and adopted Ceneral Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimate|y inconsistent with the plan. The proposed change in district classification is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it is a logical expansion of residential uses which exist ad)acent to, and in the vicinity of, the project site. The proposed change in district classification will likely be consistent with the goals, policies and action programs which will be contained in the General Plan when it is ultimately adopted. The density and land use proposed are consistent with the Southwest Area Plan. The site of the proposed change in district classification is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district as it is of adequate size and shape for the proposed residential use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely to arise as the pro)act prolooses residential uses similar to those existinoj i.n the general vicinity of the subject site. Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Highway 79, Margarlta Road, and Pala Road. Additional internal access and required road improvements to proposed lots wilt be designed and constructed in conformance with Riverside County standards. That said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmentsl documents associated with this application and hereln incorporated by reference. STAFFRPT\CZ5 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 90 - ; Recommend CERTIFICATION of Environmental Impact .Report No, 281 for Change of Zone No, 5; Recommend APPROVAL of Change of Zone No, 5 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, SP:ks Attachments Resotutlon Environmental Assessment Exhibits STAFFRPT\CZ5 8 RESOLUTION NO. 98,- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 5 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 221.2 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-R IRURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3, R-~, AND R-5 ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA AND MARGARITA ROAD. WHEREAS, Presley of San Diego filed Change of Zone No. 5 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was prct~sed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on November 19, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Co...ission hearing, the Commission approval of said Change of Zone; NCW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecuia Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty 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 rest: J 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. J2) The planning agency finds, in approvin9 projects and taking other actions. including the issuance of building permits. each of the following: Ja) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\CZ5 1 (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the (c ) The proposed use or a~tion 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 Chan9e of Zone is consistent with the SWAP and does meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: {a ) There is reasonable probability that' Change of Zone No. 5 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. ~c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. STAFFRPT~CZ5 2 D. Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Change of Zone may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, mqd further, that any Zone change approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safoty and general welfare of the community. E. As conditloned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Zone Change proposed is compotible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compllance. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zone Change No. 5 to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land from R-R to R-3, R-~, and R-5 along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala end Mergarita , Roads. A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 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 19th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\CZ5 3 October 3, 1988 FIIIAL E;iVI20~,~IT,~. IMp.a, CT RE~nORT NO. 281 ~elat~d Applications covlr~d by this E.I.R. Change of Zane rio. 5150, Vesting T.~ntati.te Tract rio. 23257 and Vesting Tentative Tract ',-'. 23299. S:::~ Clearinghouse No. 88032117 The Planning Deoartment certifies that this Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the EIR Guidelines and the County Rules to Implement CEQA. c f- ,, Date CdC:sc .-t080 LE,%ION STREET. 9TM FLOOR F~IVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (7141787-5181 46'209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342'8277 X/ICINITY N 3?05 _~:~ / ~02 27'30" ~70] / / L '/i ~t'~ \ ~ "\ ~ ' \ ,..., _ P ---7' VAIL . SP ~t"rE,. RI :~u/AC. :IAI //'. 2-5 DU/AC RED HAWK SP / / ICNAN4 ,./' INDIAN NIIIBVATIO · MT.N.(10 AC .MIN) %W% At~ 2-5 .DU/AC Z 0 N ?LAN. AREA NO. OF AEEA ~NSTT~ DENSITY LA~DUSB SpBCIlrIC PLA]I NO. 217 - REDHA~ R-1 ~88 42.2 R'a 550 129.1 R-3 69 22.0 R-4 200 45.7 R-5 19~ 51,3 R-6 514 93,1 R-7 145 R-IO 120 2g.9 R-11 137 11.4 R--13 11~ 9,~ R-17 218 ~1.4 R-18 284 68.4 S-14 8 -24 8-14 8-14 8-14 8-1~ ~-14 MEDIUM DENSITY RE41D~'TTAT, II~DITJM DENSITY RER!DMT3T' W~nIVM D~SZ~ BZ~ D~SI~ ~GH DN2~ NO, ~ ~ ~du/acj (~uls. cl J S~C~Ie~ PLaN H,0, 323 - V'AZI., 1t3~1C1t V-1 34~ 20,,L 17.o v-4 239 38,1 V-S 593 98.8 6.0 V--~ 366 91,5 4,0 V-7 139 27.S V-8 136 27.2 D~NSITY LNID USE ~J~G~ DENSITY SpXCIFXC pL~at NO. 238 - RD~DY RANC~ X-1 140 29,0 4,3 M-2 154 30.0 M-3 160 25,0 M-~ 353 46.c 5.5 M-5 142 33.0 M-6 269 48.0 M-9 273 47.0 M-10 236 1~,0 ~-11 350 22.0 M-l] 123 21.o M-13 122 21.0 5,8 X- 14 5 · 0 M-15 15.0 B-a 320 B-3 B-4 1~8 B-~ 155 B-8 400 8-9 B-10 351 B-Z3 B-14 369 B-15 93 B-I~ 371 B-17 328 220 202 B-~3 383 ~-25 67 ~--26 149 n-28 ~35 ~o,~ C~E~CIAL M~DI~M D~NSITY PjEaIDENTIAL Tr)T~L p,16 ITEM STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 1990 Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 7 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Harvey Levy Markham & Associates Motorcycle sales and repair in an existing commercial building. Northeast corner of Solana Way and Ynez Road. C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) North: C-P-S { Scenic Commercial ) South: C-P-S { Scen i c Commercial ) East: C-P-S ( Scen i c Commercial ) West: C-P-S { S c e n i c Commercial ) Highway Highway Highway Highway Same Existin9 Commercial Center North: Auto Sies South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Auto Sales Site Area: Building Area: CUP Lease Area Parking Required: Parking Provided: 1,3 acres 12,~00 sq.ft. 5,800 sq.ft. 62 spaces 69 spaces STAFFRPT\CUP7 1 BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The applicant origlnally requested a tenant improvement for the sale and repair of motorcycles within an existing commercial building. This use within the C-P-S zone requires a Conditional Use Permit be approved prier to estabilshment of the business. The appllcant has subsequently appiled for a Conditional Use Permit to conform to the code. The existing center was aiDproved under Plot Plan No. 103413 and subsequently constructed. The shell building being proposed for occupancy was~finalized on February 27, 1989. The proposed use, motorcycle sales and repair, will not further impact the site because no additional construction is being proposed. The project is being conditioned to not allow any outdoor sales, display, or repair of any vehicles. The CCSR's recorded for the underlying Parcel Map does not allow outdoor storage on the site either. Parking and circulation for the site are sufficient. Most of the commercial center is leased and occupied. The service entrance for the site will be from Motor Car Parkway. The other units adjoining this property also use Motor Car Parkway for service use. Staff feels that this use is appropriate for the proposed tenant space in that the eastern portion of the suite has no store frontage and can be used for storage and repair' without a major impact on the commercial nature of the center. The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP Land Use Designation of commercial. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. An Environmental Assessment was completed by the County for Plot Plan No. 103~3. The County adopted a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 103u,3. Conditional Use Permit No. 7 is consistent with the Environmental Assessment cornplated for Plot Plan No. 1031~3. Staff therefore, finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption. STAFFRPT\CUP7 2 FINDINGS: 10. There is a reasenable probability that Conditional Use Permit No. 7 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be cornplated in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. There is not a likely probability of substantial datriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsiatent 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 configuration, circulatlon patterns, access, and intensity of use. The project as desk)ned and cor~dltioned will not adverse|y affect the public health or welfare. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relatioaship with adjoining properties. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, be~*~se it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use ef the area. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study perfomed for this project. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. STAFFRPT\CUP7 3 11. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The P|anni ng Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commissien: ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 7; based on the anaiysls and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. OM:ks Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Large Scale Plans Letter from Tetraton dated November 6, 1990 STAFFRPT\CUP7 4 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 7 FOR THE SALES AND REPAIR OF MOTORCYCLES IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND SOLANA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-680-008. WHEREAS, Harvey Levy filed Conditional Use Permit No. 7 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by referonce; WHEREAS, said Conditional Usa Perrn~t application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Conditional Use Permit on November 19, 1990, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Conditional Usa Permit; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNINC COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That theTemecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Cede Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shal4 adopt a general ptan 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 ptan, if all of the following requirements are met: 11 ) 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: la) 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\CUP7 1 Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted 9eneral plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or a~tion complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Coe~nunlty Pla~, l 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 Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the SWAP and meet 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 approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building-permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: I a ) There is reasonable probability that Conditional Use Permit No. 7 proposed will be consistent with the 9aneral plan proposal bein9 considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. ~C) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. Pursuant to Section 18.30|c), no Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless the following findings can be made: { 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. STAFFRPT\CUP7 2 ~2) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surroundln9 property. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Conditional Use Permit proposed conforrr~ tothe logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The project is Categorically Exempt, Section 15303, Class 3. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 7 for motorcycle sales and repairs in an existing commercial building located on the northeast corner of Ynez Road and 5olana Way, and known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 921-680-008 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION u,. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ~t~is 19th day of November, 1990. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CNA I RMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Tomecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 19th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\CUP7 3 APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approvat for Conditional Use Permit No. 7. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\CUP7 4 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No: Conditional Use Permit No. 7 Project Description: Motorcycle Sales and Repair Assessorms Parcel No.: 921-680-008 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for motorcycle sales and repair at the northeast corner of Ynez Road and Solana Way in an existing commercial building. The permittee shah defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or omptoyees . to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 7. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecuia and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any s~h claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittse shall not, thereoflet, be responsibte to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two ~2 ) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and voki. By use is meant the baginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two 12) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the baginning af substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on The development of the promises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Conditional Use Permit No. 7 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operetion for a period of one { 1 ) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. The project shall conform to all the appropriate Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 103~,3. STAFFRPT\CUP7 1 There shall be no outdoor sales, allsplay, or repair conducted on site. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted on site. STAFFRPT\CUP7 2 Post Office Box 2159 · ENB Building · 613 West Valley Parkway, Suite 270 · Escondido, California/°d~L/5/ 92033 November 7, 1 ggO' Mr. Gary Thornhill Planning Director CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Re: Conditional Use Permit - Harvey Levy - Kawasaki; Outside Storage Prohibition oer Auto Park CC&R's Dear Mr. Thornhill: Pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit of Harvey Levy for the Kawasaki Motorcycle facility within the Temecula Plaza retail center, please be advised that current Auto Park CC&I~'s prohibit outside storage of prodUcts/equipment pursuant to Paragrap~ 5.25. The Association is' very diligent in enforcing all of the provisions of the recorded covenants, conditions, & restrictions. We are very happy to support Mr. Levy's application, subject to the above, inasmuch as we feel his facility, adjacent to an automobile dealership, and part of the Temecula Auto Park, is a most suitable place for his motorcycle, ATV, and other motor sport products. Thank you very much. Sincerely, John C. Raymond President JCR/nlm cc: Harvey Levy ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 39, 1990 Case No: Prepared By: Recommendation: Plot Plan No. 18 Lot Line Adjustment No. 9 Oliver Mujica 1. Adopt Negative Declaration 2. Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Palmilia Associates Coombs-Mesquita, Inc. Construct a 46,613 square foot shopping center on a 5.1 acre site. Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane. C-1/C-P {General Commercial/Restricted Commercial ) North: R -3-~000 South: R -3-~000 East: C-1/C-P West: C - P Not applicable Vacant General Commercial No. of Buildings: No. of Building Pads: No. of Acres: Total Square Feet: No. of Parking Spaces: Building Height: 1 3 5.1 q6,613 286 ~,5 feet STAFFRPT\PP18 1 BACKGROUND: Status Plot Plan No. 18 was submitted to the City of Temecula on April 27, 1990. On June lu,, 1990, this project was reviewed by the Preliminary Development ReView Committee tPre- DR C) in order to informally evaluate the project and address any concerns. as well as suggesting possible modifications. The comments by the Pre- DRC included the followkng: 1. Traffic Impacts 2. Circulation 3. Off-Site Improvements Grading 5. Building Pads A and B 6. Loading Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss possible design - mod~flcations in order to address the Pre-DRC's Col)terns, On September 27, 1990, Plot Plan No. 18 was reviewed by the Formal Development Review Committee (DRC); and, it was aleretained that the project, as designed,. can be adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's concerns. The DRC has forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to conditions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Location This project is located on the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane, which is between Ynez and Moraga Roads. Project Plot Plan No. 18 is a proposal to develop the subject 5.1 acre site with a u,6,613 square foot shopping center, as follows: Building "A" - Restaurant Building "B" - Bank Building "C" - Retail 6,500 sq.ft. u,,831 sq.ft. 35,282 sq. ft. STAFFRPT\PP18 2 The proposed development t site plan and Building "C") has been designed in accordance with the standards of the C-I/C-P IGeneral Commercial/Restricted Commercial ) zone. Staff has noted that under this request t PIot Plan No. 18), Buildings "A" and "B" are proposed as building pads only at this time. Therefore, Staff recommends that an approval for Plot Plan No. 18 shoutd be for the site plan design (including Building Pads "A'~ and "B" ) and the construction of Bulldin9 "C" only; and that Buildings "A" and "B~ should be required to file a separate plot plan application for approval by the Planning Commission, in order to provide a means of review of the actual buildings. ANALYSIS: Traffic Impacts The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed and accepted the findings and mitigation measures as specified in the Traffic Analysis prepared for Plot Plan No. 18; and has determined that the proposed project will have a minimal impact to the existing road system and given the proposed mitigation rr~a-ures, there will be no adverse unmltlgable significant traffic impacts resulting from the development of this project. Access and Circulation Access into the proposed development from Rancho California Road is provided with a forty {~0') foot wide driveway; and from Lyndie Lane with a thirty 130~ ) foot wide driveway. An internal, twenty-eight 128') foot wide driveway will provide acc~ to the required off-street parking, as well as the proposed twenty-four ~ 2u,~ ) foot wide driveway isles. Although both the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Staff have determined that the applicant~s proposed acc~ and circulation are accoptai~le, the Planning Staff is concerned with the proposed drive-thru for future Building Pad due to its potential conflict with the driveway from Lyndie Lane and the proposed loading dock for Building "C". STAFFRPT\PP18 3 Parking Two hundred, eighty-six 1286)parking spac,~ are provided, which exceeds the required 260 parking spaces under the Development Code ~ Section 18.12), as follows: Building "A" (Restaurant): Building "B" ( Bank ): Building '~C" (Retail): 77 18 165 Total Parking Spaces Required: 260 Loading According to Section 18.13 of the Development Code, based on the total square footage of ~6,613, the proposed project is required to provide four |L~) loading spaces. However, the applicant's proposal provides only one I1 ) loading space. Therefore, the applicant must provide three ~3) additional loading spaces. This issue was discussed at the DRC meeting; at which time, the applicant indicated that sinca mat of the deliveries are provided with utility type vehicles (i.e., UPS, Federal Express, etc.) that can adequately park in the standard parking spaces, the project did not warrant additional designated loading spaces. In addition to the fact that the Devdopment Code specifically requiresfour I~) loading sp~:e~_for this project, Staff is concerned with the potential number of delivery vehicles that could occupy the customer designated parking spaces, at onetlme, in which Staff has noted the potential for twenty- seven 127 ) different tenants on the site. Therefore, Staff would suggest that the applicant should provide three {3) additional loading this could be accomplished by converting six {6) of the standard parking spaces. Gradinq and Landform Alteration The subject property slopes down towards the north from Rancho California Road with a grade differential of approximately forty ( ~0' ) feet. The existing grade, along Rancho California Road, is approximately ten {1 0~) fee above the street. STAFFRPT\PP18 ~ As proposed, the project requires a mass grading of the subject property in order to provide a level site. With this, the proposed fieor elevation are between approximately twenty [ 201 ) to thirty [ 30" ) feet above the adjoining northeast and northwest properties. As a result of the proposed grading, a twelve i12') foot high crib wall is proposed along Lyndie Lane. Erosion Control All graded slopes are proposed to be planted with Disneyland ice Plant, at 12" on centers, or another approved ground cover. in addition, twenty-eight (28) 15 gallon red ironbark trees will be planted, as well as the following shrubs: indian Hawthorn (17), Mock Orange 922) and Xylosma (68). All slopes wilt have permanent irrigation systems. Crib Wail Plantinq The applicant proposes the following: Plant every other crib wall cell with two ~2) rooted cuttings of Lonlcera Japonica - Japanese Honeysuckle from fiats along the entire crib walls. in addition, plant at top and botto~ of crib walls with one (1) 9allon Ficus Pumila - Creeping Fig at 8'-0" on center spacing. Crib wall planting will have permanent irrigation systems. Project Deslqn The contemporary architectural style of Building "C" features a multi-level roof and parapet design, along with a pedestrian arcade which is provided through the use of arches and columns. The proposed building utilizes the following materials: Exterior Stucco - light I Pebble) and medium I Desert Wind) tan. 2. 2-Piece Mission Tile - Custom Blend. 3. Natural Stone. Mexican "Missionu Wall Tile. STAFFRPT\PP18 5 5. Accent Wall Tiles Aquamarine and Lavender. 6. Aluminum Storefront - White Finish. 7. Wood French Doors - Painted White. 8. Fabric Awnings - Aquamarine. After reviewing the applicant's exterior elevations, Staff has determined that the proposed project design is compatibie with the surrounding commercial developments and wili not be visually detrimental to the neighboring residential properties. Landsrape Landscaping is provided throughout the site, in which the proposed 29~ landscaping for the site exceeds the required 10 ~ under the Development Cede. Staff has determined that the proposed landscape design is acceptable. Staff has noted that Building Pads "A" and "B" will be hydroseeded with turf until such pads are developed. in addition, a detailed landscape plan will be submitted for' approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP Land Use Designation of Ce,,,,,~rcial, which includes retail, bank, and restaurant uses. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Initial Study was performed for this project which determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the pro}ect, and a Negative Daciaration has been rec~.ended for adoption. STAFFRPT\PP18 6 FINDINGS: There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 18 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. There is not a )i)~eiy probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The pro)ect as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or- welfare. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible ' - physical relationship with adjoining properties. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it Tcloes not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. 10. The project as designed and conditloned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. STAFFRPT\PP18 7 11. That said findings are supported by minutes. maps. exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Lot Line Adjustment No. 9 Discussion During their review of Plot Plan No. 18. the Engineerin9 Department Staff noted a discrepancy in the westerly property boundary. in which a lot line ad)ustment approval is required by the Planning Commiss'~>n prior to the Commisslon~s approval of Plot Plan No. 18. Lot Line Adjustment No. 9 has been reviewed by the Engineering Department Staff and has been determined to comply with the Subdivision Map Act. in addition. the Planning Department Staff has also reviewed Lot Line Adjustment No. 9 and has determined that it meets all the requirements set forth in Ordinance ~60. Section 18.1. Environmental Determination STAFF RECOMMENDATION: According to Section 15305(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act I CEQA ). Lot Line Adjustment No. 9 is Class 5 Categorically Exempt. The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Co,,,ission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 18. and Adopt Resolution No. 90- Approvlng Plot Plan No. 18 and Lo; Line Adjustment No. 9: based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. OM: ks Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Environmental Assessment Exhibits A. Site Plan B. Exterior Elevations 5. Large Scale Plans STAFFRPT\PP18 8 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 18 TO DEVELOP A ~6,613 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER CONTAINING A 35,282 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND BUILDING PADS FOR A 6,500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AND A ~,8~15QUARE FOOT BANK; AND APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 9 ON A 5.1 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND LYNDIE LANE. WHEREAS, Palmilia Associates filed Plot Plan No. 18 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 9 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use. Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan and Lot Line Adjustment applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan and Lot Line Adjustment on November 19, 1990, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan and Lot Line Adjustment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan end Lot Line Adjustment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1'. Findinqs (Plot Plan). Commission hereby makes the foliowlng findings: That the Temecula Planning A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incor~r~ion. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan he 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 reasonabte 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\PP18 1 I b ) There is little or no probablilty of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the ptln. {c) The proposed use or a~tion complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordlnances. 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 prol0osed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: ~1 ) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. 12) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and takln9 other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: There is reasonable probability that Rot Plan No. 18 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. [b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. [C) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law end local ordinances. D. Pursuant to Section 18.30{c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: [ 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. STAFFRPT\PP18 2 (2) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the pub|ic health, safety and general welfare: conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and are compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have b==n added to the project and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 18 to construct a ~6,631 square foot shopping center containing 35,282 square foot retail building and building pads for a 6,500 square foot restaurant and a u,, 831 square foot bank on a 5.1 acre site located on the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane subj~tct to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached heroto. SECTION u,. Findinqs {Lot Line Adjustment). That the Temecula Planning Commission Hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment is consistent with the requirements set forth in Section 660,99.16 of the Subdivision Map Act, to wit: ~ 1 ) Dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated or abondoned by the reversion to acreage are unnecessary for present or prospective public purposes. ( 2 ) All owners of an interest in the real property within the subdivision have consented to reversion. B. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment is Consistent with the requirements set forth in Section 18.1 of the Riverside County Sibdivision Ordinance No. ~60, to wit: { 1 ) No new parcels are created, and no existing percels are deleted. 12) No parcel is reduced below the minimum lot area required by the zoning designation set forth in Riverside County Land Use Ordinance No. 30,8 and the Comprehensive General Plan of Riverside County. STAFFRPT\PP18 3 Resolution. (3) The proposed adjustment is exempt from the Subdivision Map Act, and no tentative map, or final map, shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment. . (4) Public rights-of-way are not altered in any way. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 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 regutar meeting thereof, held on the 19th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. STAFFRPT\PP18 ~ APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 18 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 9. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\PP18 5 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 18 Project Description: ' 46, 613 5quare Foot Shoppinq Center on 5.1 Acres Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-31-11 Pianninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the developmerit of a ~,6,613 square foot shopping center containing a 35,282 square foot retail building; and building pads only for a 6,500 square foot restaurant and a LI,831 square foot bank on a 5.1 acre site. The permlttee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees . to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 18. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. if the City fails to Ffremptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter~ be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. '3. This approval shall be used within two 12 ) years of approval date; *otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two 12 ) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to cempiation, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on November 19, 1992. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 18 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded end directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department"s Conditions of Approval which are included heron. STAFFRPT\PP18 1 10. 11. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a P arki ng, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 3~,8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. All landscaped areas shalt be planted in a~cnrdance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading pians prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten t10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shell not be permitted to grow higher then thirty inches. A minimum of 280 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~8. 280 parkin9 spaces shell be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on u, inches of Class II base. A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parkin9 space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at __ or by telephone " In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Ac~--sibillty in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Englneerin9 Department Environmental Health Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department STAFFRPT\PP18 2 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval: 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Landscaping, irrigation, and Shading Plans. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Pianning Director prior to occupancy. Building elevations shatl be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B (Color Elevations). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. In accordance with the written request of the developer to the City of Temecula, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement by the developer to contribute to the financing of public facilities, no building permit shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any units within the subject property until the developer, or the developer's successors or assign=----, provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry bl~ck and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view. Lands~,nlng plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking ar~. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. This project is located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Department identifying the potential for liquefaction or subsidence. Where hazard of liquefaction or subsidence is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) (the number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one- half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the STAFFRPT\PP18 3 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. · 28. 29. 30. 31. required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 18 Class Ill bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of plantinge, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition accept=d~le to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be property constructed and in good working order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to the issuance of 9redlng'permlts and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which shall describe haw compliance with required mitigation m~ures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she shauld fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Cede Section 66u,62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-sits property interests required in connection with the project. Security for a part/on of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the develol0er's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. A plot plan application for the development of Buildings "A" and "B" shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any building and/or grading permit. I n the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ( 1 ) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. STAFFRPT\PP18 32. A minimum of four lu,) loading spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.13, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~,8. Fire Department With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 5t~6. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2,250 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is pieced on the )oh site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6'lx~"x2 1/2x2 1/2), wilt be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the bulidlng as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The require~ fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engir, c:r and the local water company with the following certification: "l 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 1,500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building( s ). A statement that the buliding(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as required by the Uniform Building Code. )n lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section 505(e) of the Uniform Building Code. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprlnklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. ST A FF R PT\PP 18 5 Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Low-level exit signs, where exit signs are required by Section 331u, lA). Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum ratingof 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicantJdeveloper shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. Prior to the issuance of building permiLs, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a certified fire protection company for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. .All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering Staff. Health Department The Environmental Hel!ith Services has reviewed Rot Plan No. 6 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to building plan subrnlttal, the following items will be requested: "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies. 50. If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Managenent Branch ~ Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: Underground storage tanks. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. Hazardous Waste Disclosure |in accordance with AB 2185). Waste reduction management. STAFFRPT\PP18 6 Buildinq and Safety Department 51. The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances inspection. Allow two (2) prior to final 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. )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 resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADINC PERMITS: 52. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho Cal}fornia 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. 53. Street improvement plans including parkway tr:---- and street lights prepared by a Registered Civlt 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 developer shall provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay all fees prior to the approval of plans. 55. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 56. Concentrated drainagefiows shall not cross sldewaiks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. 57. The developer shall submit four iq) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geelogical conditions of the site. STAFFRPT\PP18 7 58. The developer.shall submit four tu,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2b,"x36I' mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 59. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 6O° A detailed drainage study will be required to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. This study shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and shall include existing, interim, and proposed conditions, including hydrology and hydraulic calculations. The drainage study shall also address a secondary overiand drainage escape route. 61. Provide a letter from the property owner of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 23687 that they will accept the proposed drainage into their property or provide a storm drain system along the northeast property line that will discharge the site drainage onto Lyndie Lane. 62. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Pien 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. If grading is to take ptace betwr.~'~ the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control .plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department'. The developer shall protect downstream prope-'ties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage pstterns; i.e. , concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by construoting adequate drainage facilities and by securing a drainage easeltent. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 65. All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit. 66. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as est~lished per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. STAFFRPT\PP18 8 The subdlvider shall construct or post security and an agrcc,,~ent shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with appli~l~le City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter.-medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and ether tru[[ic control devices as appropriate. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 68, Construct full street improvements including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 69, Lyndie Lane shall be improved with 37 feet of half street improvement within a L~8 foot dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111 156'/78'). 7O° Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and pub|ic facilities imposed upon the property or project, includlng that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in affect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy Of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated ~assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. 71. The street design and improvement concept of this project shatl be coordinated with adjoining developments. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDINC PERMITS: 72. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Lyndie Lane and Rancho California Road with transitions, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 73. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane and shall be included i~n the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. STAFFRPT\PP18 9 Plans for traffic signal interconnect shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer and shown on the street improvement plans along Rancho Ca)ifornla Road from Lyndie Lane east to Morega Road. 75. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transpertation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 76. All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved signing and striping plan. 77. The tr~rffic signal at Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane shall be installed and operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved traffic signal p~an. 78. All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements and the approvad plan. 79. The developer shall be responsible for constructing the raised median on Rancho California Road from Via Las Colinas east to Lyndie Lane. No median break for the main driveway on Rancho California Road shall be provided. 81. The eastbound to northbound loft turn pocket on Rancho California for Lyndie Lane shall be designed and constructed to provide a 120 foot transition and 200 feet of storage capacity. 82. The center line of the driveway acc~= from Lyndie Lane shall be 285 +/- feet from the center line of Rancho California Road. 83. The developer shall desig~ and construct half width street improvements including but not linlted to curb, gutter, center median and asphaltic concrete paving for the south side of Rancho California Road west of Lyndie Lane from existing improvements easterly through the intersection, providing an adequate transition to match existing improvements as approved by the City Engineer. I n the event that the improvements on the south site of Rancho California Road from existing curb and gutter easterly through the intersection with Lyndie Lane are not already constructed by the Margarita Villagas Benoflt District prior to occupancy, the developer shall construct these required off-site improvements on Rancho California Road as approved by the City Engineer. The developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for the full cost of the design and construction of these road improvements. STAFFRPT\PP18 10 85. The developer shall design and construct the signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for ~ of the total cost of this signal from the future development of the 6.12 acre parcel to the south of this intersection which may utilize this signal for access as specified in the addendure to the Traffic Study dated October 9, 1990 prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates. STAFFRPT\PP18 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Palmilia Associates Address and Phone Number of Proponent: ~,1530 Enterprise Circle South, Ste. 206 Temecula, CA 92390 (71~) 676-7177 Date of Environmental Assessment: May 21, 1990 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Plot Plan No. 18 6. Location of Proposal: NorthwestcornerofRanchoCalifornia Road and Lyndie Lane 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 medi- 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\PP18 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 turbldity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP18 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 Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals l 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 STAFFRPT\PP18 3 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a, Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or tl~e release of hazardous substances l i'ncluding, but not limited to, oil, pesticicles, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP18 4 b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? __ __ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, b/cyclists or pedestrians? X Public Services. Wilt the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a, Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schoots? d. Parks or other-recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services: __ __ 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ __ Yes Maybe X No X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP18 5 17. 18. 19. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard ~ excluding mental health)? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result. in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP18 6 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findin9s of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce . the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? I A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the' project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? {A project*s impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X STAFFRPT\PP18 7 Discussion d the Environmental Evaluation Earth 1.a,c. 1.b. 1.d. 1.e. 1.f, 1.g. Air 2.a, 2.b,c. No. However, development on the site will require a substantial amount of grading and an overall change in topography will occur. Cut and fill slopes will occur as a result of the extensive grading. This impact is not considered significant. Manufactured slope will haveto be properly landscaped. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soll displacement, compaction and overcovering. Further analysis will determine if additional analysis will determine if mitigations are required. No. There are no unique geelogic or physical features on the site. 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 high and significant * but will be mitigated through replanting vegetation and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed arm ~rter grading. After construction of the project, water run-off is likely to increase due to the addition of impermeable surfaces. Appropriate drainege control devices will have to be approved through the Engineering Department and will have to be designed in accordance with Temecula~s standards and the conditions of approval. No. The subject site is not located near any channel, lake or ocean that would be impacted by deposition Or erosion. No. the subject site is not located within a fault hazard zone, liquefaction or subsidence area according to the Riverside County General Plan Geelogic Map. Yes. The addition of approximately L~6,613 square feet of commercial space will generate a significant amount of new vehicle traffic to the site and area. The vehicle traffic will increase the amount of carbon monoxide and particulate emissions in the area. The proposed project will not by itself deteriorate the local area's or regional air quality, but will add to the cumulative impact on air quality due to the substantial growth in the area. No. The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors or alter the area~s climate. STAFFRPT\PP18 8 Water 3.a,d-e. 3.b,g. 3.f. 3.h. 3.i. Plant Life 4.a-d. Animal Life 5.a-c. Noise 6,a. 6.b. No. The proposed project will not impact any body of water. Yes Development of the subject site will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces which will decrease the amount of water absorbed into the ground which will reduce the amount of ground water. Due to the vast amount of existing ground water in the area, this impact is considered insignificant. No. Flood waters will continue to be directed to the streets and flood channels. Drainage plans for the site will have to moot the requirements of the City's Enginoor. No. The proposed project will not alter the rate of flow of ground water. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water supply. No. The Riverside County General Plan Flood Management Map does not designate the site in a hazardous area. No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or endangered species should be affected. New species of plants will be introduced to the site as part of the landscape requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is not considered a negative impact. The site is not currently being used for agricultural purposes. No. The proposed project is located in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of years. It is anticipated that the only animal life on or in the vicinity of the site includes squirrels, rabbits, lizards and other common animals. It is highly unlikely that an endangered specie habitaces the site. Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be significant since the surrounding land uses are nat noise sensitive. No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project. STAFFRPT\PP18 9 Liqht and Clare Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium vapor I LPSV) lights to help avoid interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope known as "skygloW". The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project. Land Use No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for commercial development. Natural Resources 9.a-b. No. The proposed commercial use will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewable natural resource. Risk of Upset 10.a-b. No. The proposed commercial uses on the subject site will not require ' the use of any hazardous substances. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. Population 11. No. The proposed b,6,613 square foot commercial facility will generate some jobs but not a significant amount to alter the area's population. Housinq 12. No. The proposed ~,6,613 square foot commercial facility will not generate a significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional housing. Transportation/Circulation 13.a,d,f. Yes. The proposed project will generate a substantial amount of vehicle traffic to the site. This impact is considered significant due to the current traffic problems which exist in the vicinity of the site. Through traffic on Rancho California Road, with one lane in each direction, is congested due to the traffic turning into the neighboring commercial facility and vehicle volume. Until Rancho California Road is widened to four lanes at the subject site, traffic will continue to be bottle necked and traffic hazards will increase. A traffic study dated April 26, 1990, was conducted by Kunzman Associates. The study recommends widening Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane in conjunction with development of the project; a 200 foot left turn pocket in Rancho California Road; limited access to site and participation in STAFFRPT\PP18 10 traffic signal fees. With these recommendations, it is anticipated that 1991 traffic at the site will operate at LOS'D'. However, it is not clear if the future traffic includes the new residential developments east of the site and weekend traffic to the wineries. If not, the traffic study should be reevaluated. 13.b. Yes. The proposed project will require the addition of parking spaces which should be consistent with the adopted parking code for commercial uses. The proposed plot plan is consistent with the parking code except that the handicapped spaces should be designated along with the addltlonai three loading spaces for the project. 13.d-e. No. The proposed project will not effect the present pattern or circulation of goods or people. Public Services l~.a,b,e. Yes. The proposed Ii6,613 square foot co, u,~rcial facility will require public services in the areas of police, fire andmeintenence of roads end public facilities. Th~s impact is not considered significant. The incremental impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and continuing ' need for services over the long term. Energy 15.a-b. No. The proposed project will not result In the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy. Utilities 16.a-f. No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will not require substantial alteration to the existing systems. Human Health 17.a-b. No. The proposed project will not create a health hazard or increase human exposure to hazardous materials. Aesthetics 18. No. Development of the subject site will not obstruct any scenic vista or view that is open to the public. Recreation 19. No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses. STAFFRPT\PP18 11 Cultural Resource~ 20.a. Maybe. The proposed project may impact an unknown cultural resource site. If a site is discovered during grading, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is significant. 20.b-d. No. The proposed project will not impact any building of historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict sacred USeS · Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificaace 21 .a-c. No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact of the quality of the area's natural environment nor will the project achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term goals. In addition, the project does not cumulatively considerable impacts. 21 .d. Yes. The proposed projeot has the potential of exposing human beings to increased traffic hazards. The location of the project is at the top of a blind hill and a bottle-neck where traffic is already a concern. The additional traffic generated by the proposed project will significantly increase the potential for accidents at the subject location unless the mitigation measures as recommended in the supporting traffic study are implemented. STAFFRPT\PP18 12 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~Nill 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 effec~on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. / ~/ Date ~OO ~ZM~EEC ~' For C) F U~ STAFFRPT\PP18 13 ,. :g.L~311HDHV,_' hli!l !~[ll, illl~,'~-'l. t. t _1 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEM ECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 1990 Case No.: Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353 Winchester Square Prepared By: Steve Jian~ino Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Winston Tire Thomas J. Davis Conversion of an existing theater into a tire sales and auto repair use. 27~15 Jefferson Avenue C-1/C-P IGeneral Commercial) North: C-1/C-P South: C- 1 / C-P East: C-P-S West: M- S C ( General Commercial) ( Genera| Commercial ) (Scen'ic Highway Commercial ) ~ Manufacturing - Service Commercial ) Existing Commercial Center North: South: East: West: Commercial Center Commercial Center Auto Sales Self Storage Site Area: Building Area: CUP Lease Area Parking Required: Parking Provided: 12 acres 88,732 sq.ft. ~,800 sq.ft. 3~2 spaces 7~7 spaces STAFFRPT\PP6353 BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP, CONSISTENCY: The applicant originalty requeste¢l a tenant improvement for a Winston Tire store in an existing theater in the Winchester Square commercial center. The alterallen to the buiIdln9 requires a revised permit be processed and approved for the project. The applicant is proloosing service bays and overhead roll-up doors on botJn fie north ~ seuth elevatkx~s of the building. Staff's position is that overheed roll-up doors on the south building elevation are inajopropFiate due to traffic circulation and integrated building design. The proposed use does not require the patrons to drive directly into the service bays. The applicant is proposing service bays that will be accessed from the service drive. Staff thinks this is the appropriate design and has conditioned the project not allowing any vehicle access from the front of the building. All vehicle access to the service bays is to be from the service aisle on the north side of the building. The proposed use |Winston Tire), as conditioned, will not significantly impac~ the site, The proposed use is al~wed within the C-1/C-P zone pursuant to the approval of a piot plan, The applicant is processing a revised permit to an approved plot plan to allow the proposed chaFKJes to the building elevatiens. The proposed site is over-parked for retaiI use because the previous use was a theater, which requires more parking then retail uses. Staff has conditioned the project to only atiow overhead rolt- up doors on the north side of the building. Staff has aise added a condition not allowing outdoor sales display or storage of merchandise. Staff feels that the use is appropriate for the site and would represent a minor impact to the commercial center so long as the service use is required to be maintained from the rear of the building as proposed by Staff. The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP Land Use Designation of commercial. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this pro)ect will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. STA F F R PT\PP6353 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Environmental Assessment was completed by the County for Plot Plan No. 6353. The County adopted a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 6353. The Revised Permit is consistent with the Environmental Assessment completed for Plot Plan No. 6353. Staff therefore, finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption. FINDINGS: There is a reasonab|e prebability that Revised Permit No. 6353 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The project as designed and condltioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The proposal will nat have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does nat represent a significant change to the present or planned )and use of the area. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. STAFFRPT\PP6353 3 10. 11. The project as designed and condltioned will not adversely affect the bullt or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 90~ approving Revised Permit Plot Plan No. 6353, Winchester Square, based on the analysls and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. OM:ks Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Large Scale Plans STAFFRPT\PP6353 ~ RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING REVISED PERMIT FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 6353, WINCHESTER SQUARE, FOR TIRE SALES AND AUTO REPAIR IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 27q,15 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND KNOW AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 909-211-0-001. WHEREAS, Winston Tire filed Revised Permit for Plot Plan 6353 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Revised Permit application was processed in the tim and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a pubilc hearing pertaining to said Revised Permit on November 19, 1990, at which tim interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Revised ' Permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Revised Permit; 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: Ja) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general pian proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. ST A FF R PT\ PP6353 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 compiled with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area CormmJnlty Plan, I herelnafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Revised Permit is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements sat forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (a ) There is reasonable probobiilty that Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353 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 usa or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. ~C) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. Pursuant to Section 18.30|c), no Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless the following findings can be made: [ 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. STAFFRPT\PP6353 2 12) The overall development of the lend is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. E. As condltlonEt pursuant to SECT ION-3, the Revised Permit proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The project is Catogorically Exempt, Section 15303, Class 3. SECTION 3_~. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353 for tire sales and auto repairs in an existing commercial buildlng located at 23u,15 Jefferson Avenue and known as Assessor"s Parcel No. 909-2u,0-001 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION Resolution. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 1990. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Rasolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 19th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP6353 3 APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolutlon of approval for Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353. DATED: By NaRle Title STAFFRPT~.PP6353 4 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No: Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353 Project Description: Tire Sales and Auto Repair Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-680-008 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for tire sales and auto repair at 24715 Jefferson Avenue in an existing commercial building. The permlttee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Tomecula 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 7. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify. or hold harmtess the City of Temocula. This approval shall be used within two ~2 ) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the baginnlng of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two 12 ) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the baginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. In the event the use hereby permitted ce~ operation for a potted of one t 1 ) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. The project shaP, conform to all the appropriate Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 6353. STAFFRPT\PP6353 I 8. There shall be no outdoor sales, dispray, or repair conducted on site. 9. There shall be no outdoor storage of merchandise permitted on site. 10, Overhead roll-up doors shall only be on the north elevation of the building. Vehicular access to the building shall only be from the service aisle on the north side of the building. STAFFRPT\PP6353 2 ITEM STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMM~SSIO N November 19, 1990 Case No.: Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353 Winchester Square Prepared By: Steve Jian.ino Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: P R OPOSA L: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATIST)CS: Winston Tire Thomas J. Davis Conversion of an existing theater into a tire sales and auto repair use. 27~15 Jefferson Avenue C-1/C-P JGenera) Commercial) North: C-1/C-P South: C-1/C-P East: C-P-S West: M-SC I General Commercial) ( General Commercial ) (Scenic Highway Commercial ) JManufacturing - Service Commercial ) Existing Commercial Center North: South: East: West: Commercial Center Commercial Center Auto Sales Self Storage Site Area: Building Area: CUP Lease Area Parking Required: Parking Provided: 12 acres 88,732 sq.ft. 4,800 sq.ft. 3~2 spaces 747 spaces STAFFRPT\PP6353 1 BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP.CONSISTENCY: The applicant originally requested a tenant improvement for a Winston Tire store in an existing theater in the Winchester Square commercial center. The alteralien to the building requires a revised permit be processed and approved for the project. The applicant is proposing service bays and overhead roll-up doors on both the north and s~uth elevations of the building. Staff's position is that overheed roll-up doors on the south building elevation are i nalopropriate due to traffic circulation and integrated building design. The proposed use does not require the patrons to drive direct|y into the service bays. The applicant is proloosing service bays that wilt be accessed from the service drive. Staff thinks this is the appropriate design and has conditioned the project not alk~wing any vehicle ace,,~ from the front of the building. All vehicle access to the service bays is to be from the service aisle on the north side of the building. The proposed use (Winston Tire), as conditioned. will not si9ni~icantly impac~ the site. The proposed use is at~wed within the C-1/C-P zone p~rsuant to the approval of a plot pian. The applicant is processLng a revised porn~t to an approved plot plan to allow the proposed changes to the buliding elevations. The proposed site is over-parked for retail use because the previous use was a theater. which requires more parking then retail uses. Staff has conditioned the project to only allow overhead rol|- up doors on the north side of the building. Staff has aiso added a condition net allowing outdoor sales display or storage of merchandise. Staff feels that the use is appropriate for the site and would represent a minor impact to the commercial center so long as the service use is required to be maintained from the rear of the building as proposed by Staff. The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP Land Use Designation of commercial. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this pro}ect will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. STA F F R PT\ PP6353 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Environmental Assessment was completed by the County for Plot Plan No. 6353. The County adopted a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 6353. The Revised Permit is consistent with the Environmental Assessment completed for Plot Plan No. 6353. Staff therefore, finds that the proj~-t qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption. FINDINGS: There is a reasonable prebability that Revised Permit No. 6353 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reason=hie time and in accordance with State taw. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The project as'designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scate, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project has accept=hie access to a dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. STAFFRPT\PP6353 3 10. 11. The project as designed and condltioned will not edverseiy affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project. The design of the project and the type of improvements are suct~ that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving Revised Pemit Plot Plan N'~' 6353, Winchester Square, based on the anaiysls and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. OM: ks Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. C_onditions of Approval 3. Large Scale Plans STAFFRPT\PP6353 ~. RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVlNG REVISED PERMtT FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 6353, WINCHESTER SQUARE, FOR TIRE SALES AND AUTO REPAIR IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 27~15 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND KNOW AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 909-2~,0-001. WHEREAS, Winston Tire filed Revised Permit for Plot Plan 6353 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Revised Permit application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Comn~ssion conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Revised Permit on November 19, 1990, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Revised Permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the St~fi' Report regarding the Revised Permit; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECT ION 1. Findings. That the Temecuta Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Cede Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-menth 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 pian. (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 consistant with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAF F R PT\ PP6353 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 Cofm~unity Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorpoFation of Temecuia 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 Revised Permit is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements sat forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: ~1 ) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits. pursuant to this title. each of the following: (a) There is reasonable probability that Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. ~c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Condltiona) Use Permit may be approved unless the following findings can be made: ( 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinance. STAFFRPT\PP6353 2 (2) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECT )O1~3, the Revised Permit proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The project is Categorically Exempt, Section 15303, Class 3. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353 for tire sales and auto repairs in an existing commercial buiidlng located at 27415 Jefferson Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-2L~0-001 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION Resolution. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 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 mc~,ing thereof, held on the 19th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP6353 3 APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\PP6353 ~ CITY OF TEM ECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No: Revised Permit for Plot Plan No, 6353 Project Description: Tire Sales and Auto Repair Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-680-008 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for tire sales and auto repair at 2u,715 Jefferson Avenue in an existing commercial building. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmlees the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or ompioyees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Tomecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 7. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fuily in the defense. If the City fails to prompity notify the permittee of any such claim, actien or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permlttee shall not, thereeftar, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall become ndll and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter dillgently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Revised Permit for Plot Plan No. 6353 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. I n the event the use hereby permitted c~=~es operation for a period of one ( 1 ) year or more, this approval shalI become null and void. The project shal~ conform to all the appropriate Conditions of Approval for Plot P|an No. 6353. STAFFRPT\PP6353 8. There shall .be no outdoor sales, dispray, or repair conducted on site. 9. There shall be no outdoor storage of merchandise permitted on site. 10. Overhead roll-up doors shall only be on the north elevation of the building. Vehicular access to the building shall only be from the service aisle on the north side of the buildin9. STAFFRPT\PP6353 2 ITEM 17 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission ~ Oliver lVlujica, Senior Planner November 19, 1990 Case No: Plot Plan No. 179 Plot Plan No. 179 was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of November 19, 1990; and the Public Hearing Notices were sent to the surrounding property owners. This item was placed on the agenda and advertised based on the agreement by the applicant and Staff that the traffic analysis required by the Traffic Engineering Staff would be submitted prior to October 31, 1990; and reviewed by the Formal Development Review Committee (Formal DRC) on November 8, 1990. However, the applicant has not yet submitted the traffic analysis (as of November 9, 1990), nor has the project been reviewed by the Formal DRC. At this time, both the Planning and Engineering Staff are working with the applicant on this project and requests that the Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No. 179 to their ragular meeting of December 17, 1990, at which time the project and traffic analysis has compieted its review by the Formal DRC. R ECOMMEN DAT iON: The Planning Department Staff recommends t, hat the Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No. 179 to their regular meeting of December 17, 1990. PLANNING\MD,0 ITEM t7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission ~ Oliver M~jica, Senior Planner November 19, 1990 Case No: Plot Plan No. 179 Plot Plan No. 179 was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of November 19, 1990; and the Public Hearing Notices were sent to the surrounding property owners. This item was placed on the agenda and advertised based on the agreement by the applicant and Staff that the traffic analysis required by the Traffic Engineering Staff would be submitted prior to October 31, 1990; and reviewed by the Formal Development Review Committee (Formal DRC) on November 8, 1990. However, the applicant has not yet submitted the traffic analysis (as of November ' 9, 1990), nor has the project been reviewed by the Formal DRC. At this time, both the Planning and Engineering Staff are working with the applicant on this project and requests that the Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No. 179 to their regular meeting of December 17, 1990, at which time the project and traffic analysis has completed its review by the Formal DRC. -RECOMMENDAT iON: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No. 179 to their · regular meeting of December 17, 1990. PLANN)NG\Mb,0 ITEM t8 Case No.: Prepared By: Recommendation: 1. 2. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 1990 Tentative Tract Map No. 265~,9 Plot Plan No. 1086q Oilvet M~jjica Adopt Negative Declaration Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Boyd and Iszler Markham & Associates Construct 260 townhouses on a parcel containing approximately 22.22 acres. South of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga Road. R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) North: R -3-3000 South: R -3 East: R-2 West: R-3 I Gen'era| Residential) I General Residential ) (Multiple Family Dwellings) ( General Residential ) Not applicable Vacar~t North: South: East: West: Multi-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential No. of Units: No. of Acres: Proposed Density: SWAP Density: 250 22.22 11.70 units per acre 8-16 units per acre STAFFRPT\TM265~,9 1 BACKGROUND: Plot Plan No. 10864 was originally approved at the Riverside County Planning Director's hearing of August 7, 1989. The project was approved to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on the subject property. On October 11, 1989, the Riverside County Planning Commission considered an appea~ of the Planning Director's approval. The adjacent property owner. located to the south, filed the appeal based on the contention that development wo~ld significantly increase surface rur~ff and sufficiefft measures were not taken to insure that their downstream property would not be damaged. It was the belief of the appellant that this impact was caused by the proposed density of the project. After considering the project, the Riverside County Planning Commission upbetd the Planning Director's approval of Plot Plan No. 10864 and denied the appeal based on the fact that the Riverside County Floe~ Control and Conservation District determined there were adequate provisions made for offsite drainage. On December 12, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors referred the appeal of Plot Plan No. 1086~, to the City Council of the City of Temecula. On January 23, !990, the City Council considered and continued this matter "off calendar"; and referred Plot Plan No. 10864 back to Staff, in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to ~edasign the project. Tentative Tract Map No. 265~,9 and Revised Rot Plan No. 10864 were submitted to the City of Temecula on September 11, 1990. On September 27, 1990, this project was reviewed by the Preliminary Development RevletN Committee ~Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project and address any possible concerns, as well as suggesting possible modifications. Thecomments by the Pre-DRC included the following: 1. Traffic Impacts 2. Circulation 3. Grading 4. Drainage 5. Landscaping STAFFRPT\TM265~9 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss the required supplemental material in order to address the Pre-DRCIs CoFicerns. On November 8, 1990, Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 1086~ were reviewed by the Format I)evelopment Review Committee J DRC ); and, it was determined that the project, as designed, can be adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's concerns. The DRC has forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to conditions. Tentative Tract No. 265~9 and Plot Plaf~ No. 1086~ proposes to subdivide the subject 22.22 acre site into a 260 unit townhouse development, with an overall density of 11.70 units per acre. The proposed development has been designed in accordance with the standards for Planned Residential Developments (Section 18.5) and the R-3-3000 zone. The proposed project, which is not planned to be gated, consists of forty-nine (49) buildings (32 two-story with tuck-under garages; and 17 two- story only ) and utilizes nine { 9) d'~fferant unit floor plans, as follows: Two Bedrooms 1,161 to 1,266 sq.ft. Three Bedrooms 1,387 to 1,585 sq.ft. The project site plan incorporates two [2) tennis courts; a recreation area of approximately 16,500 square feet that features a pool, spa, tot lot, and a 4,000 square foot recreation building; and an open space area of approximately 5u,,O00 square feet. Traffic Impacts The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed and accepted the findings and mitigation measures as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 1086~; and has datermined that the proposed project will have a minimal impact to the existing road system and given the proposed mitigation measures, there will be no adverse unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting from the development of this proposed project. STA F F R PT\TM26549 3 Access and Circulation Access into the proposed development from Rancho California Road is provided by the proposed construction of an extension to Moraga Road, which calls for a fifty-six {56') foot street section. In addition. a secondary access is provided by the proposed construction of Lot "A" street, wh'~ch has a forty-four ~44' ) foot street section. The primary access point, off of Moraga Road, provides two ~2) ingress and two |2) egress banes; and, a four {4' ) foot landscaped mecF~an, for a total of sixty { 60' ) feat. The secondary access point, off of Lot "A" Street, provides one 11 ) ingress and one I1 ) egress lane, for a total of thirty-two {32' ) feet. An internal, twenty-eight 128' ) foot wide, private driveway will provide access to the required off- street parking areas. In order to lessen potential internal vehicular congestion, the Traffic Engineering Staff has recommended a condition which requires automatic garage door openers. In addition, it should be noted that parking will be prohibited along the private driveway and shall be enforced through the CCF, R's. A meandering sidewalk throughout the project site provides pedestrlal circulation; and has been designed to lessen the potential safaty hazai~ds by separating the sidewalk from the driveway. Both the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Staff, as well as the Planning Department Staff, have determined that the appilcant's proposed a,:~_ess and circulation are acceptable. Parkinq Six hundred, eighty-five 1685) parkin9 spaces are provided, which exceeds the required 680 parking spaces under the Development Code l Section 18.12). Each dwelling unit is provided with a two-car garage 1520 total spaces), and 165 guest parking spaces are also provided. STAFFRPT\TM26549 4 Refuse Collection With the exception of the recreation center, the applicant's proposal does not provide trash enclosures. The appiicant has indicated that the trash will be collected from each individual unit; and that all u,lts wlll be provided with a trash compactor. in order to lessen the potential safety and noise concerns, Staff has included the foliowin9 condition in the recemmended Conditions of Approval {see Con~'~tion No. 16d- Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9; and, Condition No. 35 - Plot Plan No. 1086~): "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 and collection container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. ,l Gradlnq and Landform Alteration The proposed project .will generally utilize the existing contours of the site in order to minimize the alteration of an exiting, fairly prominent, natural ridgeline. The grading involves approximately 184), 000 cubic yards of excavation and approximately 180,000 cubic yards of fill. Hydroioqy The Engineering Staff has reviewed and accepted the drainage study prepared for Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~; and has determined that the proposed mitigation measures (Conditions of Approval) will provide for no adverse unmitigable significant hydroiogy impacts resulting from the development of this proposed project. Drainage The proposed project is designed to drain towards STAFFRPT\TM265~9 5 Rancho California Road and the southerly property line. The applicant is proposing to construct a storm drain from the southeast corner of the subject property with an outlet to Empire Creek, in which an approval must be obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control District in order to drain into the creek. as welt as an easement from Southern California Edison to construct the proposed storm drain. The applicant has indicated that there may be a difficulty in obtaining the necessary easemeffts, from the property owners, in order to drain onto the adjoining southerly properties. Therefore. the opp~icant is proposing to oversize the drainage facilities along the southerly property line in order to prevent surface run-off. Pedestrian Accessway The Temecula Valley Unified School District has noted an existing I unimproved) pedestrian accessway, within the subject property, which is currently utilized by the school children of Vail Elementary School iocatad on Mira Loam Drive. The School District has indicated that an alternative to this accessway must be provided in order to obtain their support of the pro~ect. The School District has indicated that the easement along Empire Creek is owned by Southern California Edison {SCE); and that SCE has agreed to dedicate this property to the City for a bicycle/pedestrian trail. The applicant has agreed to dedicate ten (10') feet aton9 the westerly property line from Moraga Road to the Empire Creek easement. At the time this Staff Report was finatizad, the City's Community Services Department had not yet determined whether or not the subject easement would be acceptable to the City of Temecula, for use as a blcycie/pedestrian trail. The concern is due to the uncertainty of the totat costs lincluding: engineering design; improvements; and maintenance). Therefore, a recommendation by the Community Services Department is not available at this time. However, it is anticipated that this issue STAFFRPT\TM265~9 6 would be resolved prior to the Planning Commission meeting of November 19, 1990, in which Staff will present an update. Proiect Des~n T he tra4~itionai arch'ttecturai style features a multi- level roof line, bay windows and chimneys. The proposed buildings utiilze the following mate~'eal. Roof - Concrete Tile Blend Stucco Wails -Eggsheti "Smooth Texture" Window/Door Frames - White Paint Entry Doors - Colonial Blue Wood Trim - Beige and Gray After reviewing the applicant~s renderings, Staff has determined that the proposed project design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Landscafae Landscaping is provided throughout the site, in which the proposed ~8% landscaping for the site exceeds the required 10~ under the Development Cede. Trees within the area of the perimeter of the park, recreation canter, tennis courts, primary and secondary entrance, and along the Rancho California Road shall conIprise of (2u," box) Ficus Florida, Meioleuca, Carrot Wood, and Ficu~ Retusa. Staff has datemined that the proposed landscape design is acceptable. In addition, a deta'tled landscape plan wit| be submitted for approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The proposed density of 11.70 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. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 7 FINDINGS: Tentative Tract Map No. 2650,9 There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract No. 265~9 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 detri~nent 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. 265~9 is compatlble 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 effect 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 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. 10. 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 STAFFRPT\TM265~9 8 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Initial Study was perfomed for this project which determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enviror~rnent, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration has b=;'~ recommended for adoption. FINDINGS: Tentative Tract Map No. 265u,9 There is a reasonable probabiilty that Tentative Tract No. 26549 wilt be consistent with the Cityms future General Plan, which will be complatad 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 piannlng and zoning laws. The Site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the-circulation patterns, access, and de~slty. The project as designed and condltlened will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Tentative Tract No. 265u,9 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 effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. STAFFRPT\TM26549 8 10. 11. The project as designed and conditioned 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 env'Fronmentat documents associated with this apptlcation are harein incorporated by reference. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on tha environ~aent in that Stephen as Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees are required and archaeological resources are not likely to be found at the site. The pro)ect will not be detrimental to human health or safaty 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 fissuring at the site are very low. A soils report must be submitted to the Building and Safaty Departmeat adcireasing soil stability and gootogicai: contritions, Plot Plan No. 10864 There is a reasonable probablilty that Plot Plan No. 1086~ wil) be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. There is not a likety probability of substantial detrifnent to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning taws. The site is sultable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of tha size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. STAFFRPT\TM26549 9 10. 11. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The propasal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or p~anned land use of the are. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useabie by, vehicular traffic. The project as deskjned and condltloned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project. The design of the pro~,-:t a~d the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed pro)ect. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmei~tal documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the following recommendations to the City Council: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 265~,9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~; ADOPT Resohutlon No. 90- approving Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and STAFFRPT\TM265~9 10 OM: ks Attachments: ADOPT Resolution No. 90- al0proving Plot Plan No. 1086u,, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and sub~=~:t to the attached Conditions of Approval. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Resolution (Tentative Tract Map No. 265u,9) Conditions of Approvat (Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9) Resolution (Plot Plan No. 1086~) Conditions of ApIOFOVa} (Plot Plan No. 1086~) Environmental Assessment Exhibit: Site Plan City Council Staff Report (dated January 23, 1990) City Council Minutes idated January 23, 1990) Large Sca|e Plans STAFFRPT\TM265~9 11 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 265~,9 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.88 ACRE .PARCEL INTO A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DVELOPMENT LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011. WHEREAS. Boyd and Iszler filed TentatiVe Tract Map No. 26549 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 November 19, 1990, at which time interested ~ersens 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 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECT IO__N 1_=. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the foilowing.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 end taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: ~a) There is a reasonable prebebility 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. STA F F R PT\ TM265q9 1 There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. ~c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (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 boundarias 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: I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. ~ 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, e~ch of the following: la) There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 265L~9 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 appli~-hle requirements of state law and local ordinances, STAFFRPT\TM265~9 2 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 indicaf-~ that although the proposed project could have a signifi~,,t 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 Decla~.Lion, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Tomecula Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 265u,9 for the subdivision of a 20.88 acre parcel into 260 townhouses located on Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Par'e| No. 9qJ4-290-011 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached herato. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 1990. DENNIS CHINIAEFF C HA I R MAN 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 19th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFR PT\TM26549 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. 265~9. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\TM265~9 4 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 265~9 Plannin9 Commission Approval Date; Expiration Date: November 19, 1990 November 19, 1992 Pianninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 14to0, 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 ~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 subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor~s Office and two copias to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Any delinquent property taxes shatl be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance ~,60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. All road easements shatl 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 slopas, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are lacated 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. STAFF R PT\TM26549 1 10. Lots created by this subdivision sha~l comply with the following: 11. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-2 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 Bulldlng 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 ~nd bike lockers in sufficient quantity shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bike access to the pro~,~t 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 restrictlops; 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 l a ) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, I b ) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised, of the owners of each individual lot or unit, I 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 id) 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', mare 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 Temecula. The property owners~ association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable coat of maintaining the ~common areat and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of the maintenance ass_,~sment. An ass---rnent lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice STAFFRPT\TM265~9 2 of assessment or other document creatinq the assessment lien. This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially amended or property deannexed there from absent the prior written consent of the Planning Direct. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common areas. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws of the property owners' associat.'mn Rules and Requlations~ if any, this Declaration shall control." Once approvecJ, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the flnal map is recorded. The developer shall comply with the following pai'kway landsc~,ning 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 Rancho California 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. All 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 sh~tt be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, guaranteeing the viability 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. STAFFRPT\TM265u,9 3 12. 13. Prior to recordatlon of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet IECS) shall be prepared in con)unction 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 shilli be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Depmt of Building and Safety. The followin9 note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: ~This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lightin9 systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendat'runs 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 ether parties as approved by the Planning Director. 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 appFeval~ for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automath: irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscape~ areas requiring irrigation. Lanckc~pe screening where required shall he designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six 16) feet at maturity. All utility service ar~ and enclosures shall he 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 landst-~ped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landsc~,ne elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be lands~,ned and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Rancho California Road, Moraga Road, and Lot "A" street. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the STAFFRPT\TM265~9 ~ 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 visuat focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and pro}ect parkways due to insuffloient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorpor~i.e native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. Allexisting specimen treesand signS(cant rock outcropplngs 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 steal staked. Any oak trees removed with four Ju,) inches or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement tr-~ shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. If the pro)act is to be phased~ prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shell be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The pl,an shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shatl include the following: Te~hniquas which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentat(on during and after the grading procH~, 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. STAFFRPT\TI~265u,9 5 15. Angular form shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the · slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. 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 responsibllities 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 paleonto~ogicai impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleentolagiat and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When ner-~ry, 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 PERMIT,S ,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 devetoper~s successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars i$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 Deportment of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be perfor~med by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation m-a~ures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 1~5 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, $TAFFRPT\TM265b,9 6 16. 17. parkway plantlng, street trees, slope planting, and indivlduai. 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 equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property. Building separ,~Lion between all buildings including fireplaces shall. not be less than ten {10) feet. h. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten 110) feet. All front yards shall be provided with lanciscaping end 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 lands~=ping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Plannlng Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be' installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be vet!fled by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever en acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required wails shall be determined by the acoustlcal study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the appiica, i~ shall enter into an agreement with inland Disposal, Inc., for the refuse service to include the utilization of a sill pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism end collection container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks inte the project. 5aid agreement shall he submitted to the Plenning 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 ordinence or resolution. STAFFR PT\TM265~9 7 18. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 1~60. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the 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 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. 19. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 20. 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. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL: 21. The developer shell 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. 22. Rancho California Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 143'/55' ). 23. Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right- of-way in accordanca with County Standard No. 111 156~/78~). Street ~A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be pu,Led, within a 45' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A {~,~/66~). STAFFRPT\TM26549 8 26. 27. 28. 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 or 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. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Rencho California Road and so noted on the final map as approved by the City Engineer. Corner property line cut off shall be required par Rivarside County Standard No. 805. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrlctiof~s ICCSR~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 CCSR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCeR's shall be prepared at the developeris sole cost and expense. The CCBR~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 intarest of the City and its residents, The CCeR's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Ownar~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 CCeR~s shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of ait cc,,mon areas end facilities. The CCSR's shalt provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CCeR's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CCSR's, then the City, after making due demand and givin9 reasonable notice, may entar the property and perform, at the owner~s sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&.Rts or the City ordinances. The p,uperty shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 29. The subdividar shall construct or pest security and an agreement shall be STAFF R PT\ TM265~9 9 30. 31. 32. 33. 3~. 35. 36. 37. 38. executed 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, striplng, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drai~ facilities. c. Landscaping ~ street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 0,61 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic slgnal 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. Improvement plans shaM. 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. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 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 30, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 21&" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 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. A drainage stud~y shall be submitted to and approvad by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as reguirad by the City EnginccT. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or dlvertad storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the STAFFR PT~TM265~9 10 City for review prior to the recordatlon of the final map. 39. All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be designed for the 100 year storm plus 50% bulking, or as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADtNG PERMITS: Prior to any work being performed in pubiic right-of-way, fees shalt be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Englneer~s Office, in addition to any other permits required. Prior to any work beln9 performed on the private streets or drives, f;== shall be paid and a const~uctlon permit shall be obtained from the City Enginee"s Office, in addition to any other permits required. 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. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate muitlpiled by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control Disl;rict prior to issuance of permits. if the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already ~redited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: A precise grading plan shall be submittad to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. u,8. All units shall be provided with garage door openers. STAFFRPT~ TM26549 11 All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 50. 51. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours d~ring construction. Asphaltlc emulsion {fog seal) shall be applied not less t~n 1L~ days foliowin9 placement of the asphalt surfacing an~ shall be a~plied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. AspbaR emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9~, of the 5tale Standard Specifications. 52. Developer shatl pay any capital fee for road improvemem~ and public fa:ilities imposed upefi the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the ElR/Negatiye Decteration 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 Pubik Fa~illty 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. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION 53. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Ranch~ California Road which includes but is not limited to a 200' left turn lane for southbound Moraga Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125' left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe. These plans shal~ be included in the street improvement plans. Design of a traffic sigaal inter~onnect to show conduit with pull rope . and pull box locations along the property fronting the south side of Rancho California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be aloproved by the City Engineer. 55. Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. 56. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the desi~a requirements. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 12 PRIOR TO THE iSSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 57. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 58. All signing and striping sha~ be installed per the City requirements and the approved signing and striping plan. 59. All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultlmate location and operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved traffic signal p~an. 60. All traffic slgnai interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved p~an. 61. "A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho California Road to permit these movements. 62. The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for: 50% of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications at Rancho Catlfornia Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward signal mitigation fees. 100% of the cost for design and construction of lJ2 width 'street improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho Callfornia Road to Via_ Las Coilhas. 63. I n the event that the pro)t~t becomes a 9ated entrance community, the gates shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storag~ lengths: 1. Moraga Road entry: 125 feet 2. "A" Street entry: 75 feet STAFFRPT\TM265~9 13 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROV)NG PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 TO CONSTRUCT A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 94~-290-011. WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Plot Plan No. 10864 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on November 19, 1990, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temacula 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-menth 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 ganeral 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 p|an proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\TM265~,9 1 {b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. {c) The proposed use or a~tion 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 'ISWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: ( a ) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 1086u, proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studded or which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: ( 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. STAFFRPT~TM265u,9 2 12) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfere; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding prope~*ty. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial Study prepared for this pro)ect 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 m-=~ures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a NecJative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 1086~ to construct a 260 unit townhouse complex located on Rancho California Road and known as Assessorms Parcel No. 9q~-290-011 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached herato. SECTION ~. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of Novombe-, 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 19th day of Nove.,L, er, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFF R PT~ TM265~9 3 APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions f~r approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 10864. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\TM26549 4 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: 10864 260 Townhouses 9~4-290-011 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of a 260 unit townhouse development on a parcel containing approximately 20.88 acres. The permlttea shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employs from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Tomecula 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 Plot Plan No. 10864. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittea 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 permittea of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittea shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend. indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shait be used within two ( 2 ) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of Substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two i2 ) year period which is thereafter dillgimtly pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on November 19, 1992. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 1086~, marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department~s Conditions of Approval which are included heroin. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three ~3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 3~8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the STAFFRPT\TM26549 , 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. appropriate filing fee. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feat of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty ~30) inches. A minimum of 685 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~,8. 685 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with l asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.) (Decomposed granite compacted to a minimum thickness of three 13) inches treated with not less than 1/2 gallon per square yard of penetration coat oil, followed within six months by an applicatio~ of 114 gallon per square yard of seal coat oil. ) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Hea~th School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following eddltionai plans shall be submitted for Plannir~j Department approval: Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be Submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B (Color Elevations). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the devetoper's successors-in-interest, provides evidence of complian4:e with public fac',lity financing measures, A cash sum of one-hundred dollars I$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development. STAFFR PT\TM265~9 2 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2~,. 25. 26. In accordance with the written request of the develol0er to the City of Temecula, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement by the developer to contribute to the financing of public facilities, no building permit shall be issued by the City of Temacula for any units within the subject property until the developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities. Prior to the final bulkling inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a six foot high decorative block wall or combination tanrl_~aped earthen berm and decorative block wall shall be constructed along the perimeter of the property. The required wall and Jot berm shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuar~e of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shell be made with masonry block and a steel gate which acteels the bins from external view. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six ~6) feet at maturity along Rancho California Road, Moraga Road and Lot "Am' street. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy tree: along streets and within the parking ar-~,~. All existing specie trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relecated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Any oak trees removed with four 14) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten {10) to one |1 )basis as approved by the Planning Director. All street lights and other o,~tdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. This project is located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior to issuance of any bullcling permit by the Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Department identifying the potential for liquefaction or subsidence. Where hazard of liquafactian or subsidence is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) (the number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one- half 11/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by STAFFRPT\TM26549 3 27. 28. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance s. ecuritiee, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required lands~=,ne planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to the sale or lease of any structure as shown on Revised Exhibit A, a land division shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance. Prior to the issuance of grading permits andJor building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity coat. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay to the 'City all applicable Quimby Act f~-== or shall provide land in lleu of fees. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 660,62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the project. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. STAFF R PT\TM265~9 0, 35. 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 and collection container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. Buildinq F., Safety Department 36. The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two 12) weeks proc,,ssing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final inspection. Riverside County Fire Department 37. The Fire Department is required to sat a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 5u,6. 38. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of dalivering 1750 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 39. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x~,"x2 1/2x2 1/2 ), will be located not less than 25 feat or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant{s) in the system. The required .fire flow may be adjusted' at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area sepai~dtion of 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: ill certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." install a cornplate fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building{ s ). A statement that the building{ s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. STAFFR PT\TM265u,9 5 Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per UBC. ~u,. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. u,5. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum ratingof 2A-IOBC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placanent of equipmen1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, T~00.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Enginesring Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questiens regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADINC PERMITS: The developer shatl receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho Cailfornia Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; ~Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and The developer shall submit four (~) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Enginesring Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 21~"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 50. The developer shall submit four (~,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils st=hility and geolegical conditions of the site. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 6 51. S2. 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. if grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shell be coordinetad for consistency with approvad plans. 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. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, f=== shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any ether permits required. 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 Eng'ineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. A street closure p~mlt may be requiFed. The subdivider shall construct or pest security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City stan~urds. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping Jstreet and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 7 60. 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. 51. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved ~iy the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 62. All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be designed for the 100 year storm plus, 50~ bulking, or as approved by the City Engineer. 63. A drainage easement shati 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. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 65. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 66. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the ,developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as establlshedper acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 67. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 68. Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 69. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. 70. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. ~,00 and qO1. 71. improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 8 72. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 73. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. The following perimeter lands_~=ped parkways are requi~ed to be a~nexed into the landscape maintenance districts: Lots 1, 2, and 3. 75. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 76. Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City~s C.A.T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 77. Rancho California Road shall be improved with ~,3 feet of asphalt concr=te pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 1~,3'/55'). 78. Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111 156'/78'). 79. Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane within a ~.5~ dedicated right-of-way in accordance with. County Standard No. 103, Section A l~V66'). 80. 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 or right-of-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. 81. Dedicate a 28 foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access for all private streets and drives. 82. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 83. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. if an interim STAFF R PT\ TM265~9 9 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 iass. uming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSRIs) 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 enforce?hie by the City. The CC~,RIs shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions: a, The CCSR~s shall be prepared at the developer~s 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. The CCSR's and Articles of incorporation of the Property Owner's Association aFe subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CCF, R's shall provide for the effective estat31ishment, operation, management, use, rapair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. The CC&R's shal4 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 CCSR's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the ownerms sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CCSR'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. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 10 Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 85. A signing and stripin9 plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Ra. ncho California Road which includes but is net limited to a 200~ left turn lane for southbound Moraga Road, for northbound Morega Road which includes but is not limited to a 125' left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for northbound 'A' Street which includes but is not limited to a centerllne stripe. These plans shall be included in the street improvement ptans. 86. Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope, and pull box locations along the property fronting the south side of Rancho California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the City Engineer. 87. Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Rancho California Road and Morega Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. 88. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 89. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and alaproved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruptlen to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 90. All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved signing and striping plan. 91o All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved traffic signal plan. 92. All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved pian. 93. 'A' Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho California Road to permit these movements. STAFF R PT\TM265~,9 11 94. The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for: 95. 50% of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward signal mitigation fees. 100% of the cost for design and construction'of 1/2 width street improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California Road to Via Las Coilhas. I n the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengths: 1. Moraga Road entry: 125 feet 2. "A" Street entry: 75 feet STAFFRPT\TM26549 12 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Boyd and Iszler Address and Phone Number of Proponent: PO Box 5718 Canyon Lake, CA 92380 (714) 211~-2823 Date of Environmental Assessment: October 30, 1990 ~,. Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tentative Tract Map No. 256~9 and Plot Plan No. 10860, 6. Location of Proposal: South of Rancho California Road, east of Moraqa Road Environmental Impacts - I Explanations of all answers are provided On attached she. ) 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\TM265b,9 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 )ake? Exposure of people or property to geo|ogic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground faiiure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration Of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal resul~c 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 STAFFRPT\TM26549 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 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 STAFFRPT\TM265~9 3 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise )eve(s? Light and Clare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal resutt in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to. oil, 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: Ceneratlen of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\TM26549 4 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 lu,. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? __ __ 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 utiiitias: a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X STAFF R PT\ TM265z~9 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 l 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 STAF F R PT\TM265~9 6 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential ~o degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildllfe species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goats? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,. but cumu- latively considerable? {A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X STAFF R PT\TM26549 7 Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth 1.a. 1.b. 1.f. 1.9. Air 2.a-c. No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort. There will be substantial grading for this p;-oject. 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. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, coopaction, and overcovering. 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 racontourlng of this site will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservatien of site topography. Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will incr-_==--e 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 coopleted, increased water run-off durln9 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 liqu~4~ction 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 area~s air quality. STAFFRPT\TM265~,9 8 Water 3.a,d-e. 3.b. 3.d-g. 3.h. 3.i. Veqetation u,.a-c. ~.d. Wildlife 5.a-c. 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. 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 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 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 resourc,~ on-site. In that no individuals of the Stephenss 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 imp~able residential and other barriers and reinvasion 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 Staphen|s Kangaroo Rat Fee Ordinance is required. STAF F R PT\TM26549 9 Noise 6.a-b. 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 Rancho California 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. 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 resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will be used extensively 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 ente-gency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. Population 11. Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 260 units, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use Designation which allows a maximum of __ units (according to SWAP). Housing 12. No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use will not create a doraend for additional housing. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 10 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 14.a-f. No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on public services other than parks and recreational facilities. Energy 15.a-b. No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy. Utilities 16.a-f. No. The proposed project 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 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 resideD. Cultural Resources 20.a-d. No impact. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance 21 .a. No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or wildllfe 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 Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 11 21 .b. 21 .c-d. No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environrnental goals. No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable, nor will they have environmental affects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. STAFFRPT~ TM26549 '12 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~vill 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. required. October 30, 1990 Date ~jic L//~ FZ;ni°r ::~:F T~M~ECULA X ST A FF R PT\TM265q9 13 :iii!,~ ~gl''1 !i ! :IEVE:DEDE coun .u pLAnnin6 DEPA:I mEn DATE: TO: JANUARY 3, 1990 CITY OF TENECULA; FRANK ALSHIRE, CITY MANAGER PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 REQUEST: Appeal of Planning Com~ission's approval of 335 unit apartment complex on 22.22 acres. LOCATION: South of Rancho California Road and east of Marage Road APPLICANT: Helen MOore Oder Planning Commission and Staff Re=o---end: ~nOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 based on the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment~ and D~IAL of the Appeal based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the staff report~ and ~PPROV~V. of PLOT PLAN NO. 10864, AND. NO.'2, based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. Ro reeter, Planning Dire KJJ: aea 1-3-90 City Nanagers Note: The propose project is a previously approved plot plan to construct · 335 unit apartr~ent complex en af:~roximately 22.22 acres Located south of Rancho California Road and east of Norage Road. The site, k~nich is currently vacant, is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning is R-Z, R-3-4000, R-3-3000 and R-3. Surrounding Land uses include muttifami Ly and single family residences and vacant property. The project was el)proved st the PLanning Director hearing of AUgust 7, 1989. The adjacent prlTlc]erty at/flare, Located to the south, filed an appeal based on the contention that development k~jLd significantly increase surface runoff and sufficient measures were not taken to insure that their darnstream property ucuLd not be damaged. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 J PP 10864/APPEAL J EXISTING 7ONING -R-3-4000 A-2-20 C-WC-P '~' ~ R-3-3000 · LEVANr I 3 't ~R-A-5 App. RANCHO VIEJO APARTMENTS ~ LOCATIONAL MAP ,U~e 22.22Ac. Gr.:I: .~...,fA t-D A Arm~ RINCHO CALIFORfIIA ,~p.Di~ IST ~ "~ z~ fl~""~ s,:.~ T. aS.,.3w. ,--.,.', ,~. s~3 ,,. ~9~"~"~:~ Ciroulmtton ~) I~REEIAY VARtA~I..E ~ ._ _ . ~,,. SUBMITI'AL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: October 27, 1989 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 - Rancho Viego Apartments - First Supervisorial District - Rancho California Area - 22.22 Acres - REQUEST: APPEAL of Planning Commission's Approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Con~nission and Staff Recommend: ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 based on the findings incorporated in the environmental assessment and the conclusion that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and, APPROVAL of PLOT PLAN NO. 10864, in accordance with Exhibit A, Amended No. 2, based upon the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated October 11, 1989; and, DENIAL OF THE APPEAL based on the findings and conclusions incor- porated in the Planning Commission minutes dated October 11, 1989. CD: 5c 10/24/89 Roger~.' Streeter, Planning Director Prey. Agn. ref. Dept$. Commenls Dist. AGENDA NO MIN ES OF THE BOARD OF SUPER~. 3RS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1:30 p.m. being the time set for further hearing on the adoption of the negative declaration for EA 33292 and on the appeal on the Planning Commission's denial of the application of Rancho Viego Apartments in the Rancho California area for Plot Plan No. 1086A, for a 335 unit apartment complex the Chairman called the matter for hearing. The matter was presented by Joe Riobards of the Planning Staff who turned the discussion over to Gerald J. Geeflings, County Counsel. Gerry Geeflings, County Counsel, stated it is now in the jurisdication of the City of Temecula. On motion of Supervisor Abraham, seconded by Supervisor Dunlap and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the Planning Staff is directed to refer the matter to the City Council of the City of Temecula. Roll Call resulted as follows: Ayes: Ceniceros, Dunlap, Larson and Noes: None Absent: 'Younglove Abraham hereby certify that the foregoing is a full. true and correct copy of an order made and entered on December 12, i989 of Supervisors Minutes. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervisors (seal) Dated: December 12, 19 9 Gerald A. Maloney. Clerk of the Board Supervisors. in and for the County of Riverside. S ate f a ' Ornia. ~ Dep ry AGENDA 10.2 xc: Planning, Applicant, Co. Co., City of Temecula (AGENDA ITEM 5-6 - Tape 3A, 3B) APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN 10864 - EA 33292 - Helen Moore Oder - Rancho California Area - First Supervisortal District - 22.22~ acres, south of Rancho California Rd, southeast of Moraga Rd - PROJECT: 335 unit Aparbnent Complex - REASON FOR APPEAL: Appeal of project approval by adjacent property owners Hearing was opened at 3:23 p.m. and was closed at 3:50 p.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of a Negative Declaration for EA 33292, approval of Plot Plan No. 10864, Amended No. 2, and denial of appeal of approval of Plot Plan No. 10864 based on the findings and conclusions listed in the staff report. Staff advised that the proposed project is a previously approved plot plan to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on approximately 22.22 acres located south of Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road. The site, which is currently vacant, is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning is R-2, R-3-4000, R-3-3000 and R-3. Surrounding land uses include multifamily and single family residences and vacant property. The project was approved at the Planning Director hearing of August 7, lgBg. The adjacent property owners, located to the south, filed an appeal based on the contention that development would significantly increase surface runoff and sufficient measures were not taken to insure that their downstream property would not be damaged. The appellant indicated that she would not be available to attend the public hearing until November, but staff scheduled this item for hearing on the first available date in order to move it along in an expeditious manner. TESTIMONY OF APPELLANT: Robert Oder (29923 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula) said that he was the son of the appellant. He said that his parents are overseas and cannot attend this hearing, but would make themselves available as soon as they come back. Therefore, he asked that this item be continued. When asked~ Mr. Oder said that he believed that his parents will be returning on October 19th. Staff advised that possible continuance dates were suggested. In answer to Commissioner Purviance, Mr. Oder said that his mother has an attorney but he was also unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Oder said that his mother suggested that November 15th would be an appropriate date. TESTIMONY OF PROJECT PROPONENT: Grant Becklund (647 N. Main Street, Riverside), representing the project applicant, indicated on a mylar exhibit of the subject site that the upper portion showed the existing drainage conditions. He noted that the site has a ridge that runs through the property in an east/west direction. The lower portion (in blue) drains to the south onto the Oder's property and the yellow portion drains out towards Rancho California Road. The bottom exhibit showed the drainage pattern which will occur after the project is built out. The conditions from the Flood Control District require that they do not change the drainage areas, but maintain the drainage patterns as they exist. They are also required to place the water onto the offsite property in the same manner as the drainage presently occurs. Mr. Becklund said that he met with Robert Oder and offered a $12-13,000 offsite storm drain which would deliver the water underground further south and on to EmpireCreek. This storm drain would be built at his client's cost and would alleviate any concerns that the Oders had concerning water going onto their property. The only thing the Oders had to do was to provide an easement so the storm drain could be constructed. Mr. Becklund said that that proposal was evidently not satisfactory. He said that he knows the Oders are asking for a continuance, but he was requested that a decision be made today. They have done what the rules require them to do. The Flood Control ~istrict has conditioned them so that they cannot drain all the water onsite to to Rancho California Road. He did not believe a continuance would gain anyone anything. Commissioner Purviance said that he did not believe the water in the blue area could be diverted. Mr. Becklund concurred, but said that that was the opinion expressed at the Director Hearing. Mrs. Oder wanted them to take all onsite water and drain it towards the north. He felt that they went an extra step in offering to build the underground storm drain, but they are not getting anywhere. He did not want another month's continuance. In answer to Commissioner Turner, Mr. Becklund said that the Flood Control has conditioned them to be within one acre of a match in drainage. John Kashuba, Flood Control District, said that they do not want to see the blue area changed. Commissioner Turner asked about the proposed underground diversion to Empire Creek. Mr. Kashuba said that the Flood Control District would be satisfied with something less, but the underground drain could be done, if the applicant could acquire the easement. REBUTTAL: Mr. Oder said that he was not fully prepared to present this case, but what he heard scared him. He lived on one of the properties immediately south of this tract when the 100 year flood occurred ten years ago, and he personally witnessed what happened. If they take a nondeveloped piece of land and pave it, then water that used to soak into the groundwill be put into pipes and sent on in concentrated fashion to those areas which are presently ice plant landscaping. The place where the water ends up eventually is Empire Creek, which is the southwest boundary of the parcel to the south. He said that this is an extremely sensitive area. During the 100 year flood the water got so high, the buildings nearly washed away and people had to be moved out. Now, they are talking about sending more water onto those aparbnents. He said that there are several other problems with the design and documentation, and those problems are substantial, but he was not prepared or qualified to present them. He said that water runoff was not one of those problems, but that some of those problems were significant. If his parents are not able to attend soon, then he will prepare and present the case to the Commission. Their downstream property has been substantially damaged by a project that was approved. Commissioner Purviance said that he read the letter from the law firm and noted that there was quite a bit of staff, with partners and associates. It seemed to him that there could have been someone from that firm who could have attended today. Mr. Oder said that he wished that they had. He has been told of some of the issues; however, without documentation, he could not bring them up. He was very concerned that Mr. Kashuba said that he would approve the concentration of storm runoff. He suggested that there might be some facts that Mr. Kashuba was not aware of. Mr. Oder said that they have owned and operated the two properties for 15 years and have seen what happens in that area. Mr. Oder went to the exhibit to state that where the site plan shows "storm drains to existing channel," and said that there is no existing channel. However, if a storm drain is put there, then there will be a channel. He indicated where the proposed underground storm drain would go. He said that they have had problems with Empire Creek, where the proposed drain is to empty, and expressed concern about anymore water being dumped into that Creek. He felt that this needed further study. He also discussed the storm drain with Mr. Kashuba. Mr. Oder said that the storm drain and easemeht was originally his idea, and he presented that idea to Mr. Becklund. Mr. Kashuba said that he heard general agreement that the drainage problem could be taken care of with the pipe. It was Mr. Oder's suggestion to put the pipe in, and it seemed like a good suggestion. He heard that there were other matters, but they did not sound like ones that he could speak to. Commissioner Smith asked about the discharge where the drain would terminate. Mr. Kashuba said, if designed properly, the discharge could be handled by the drain. He said that the Creek itself has problems, but not necessarily as a result of water from this property. Mr. Oder said that the runoff would be increased from the developed property. Commissioner Beadling said from the way the drainage is shown, that in a 100 year flood, the water would not flow straight down and hit the Creek in a "V" shape. Mr. Oder said that the stream changes course. Mr. Kashuba said that he was not aware which storm frequency hit this area ten years ago. Mr. Oder said that it was classified as a 100 year flood. Mr. Kashuba said that there were several points where damage was done, and at one point the walkway of the existing apartments were eroded underneath. There were also some construction going on, and both water and mud caused considerable damage. Commissioner Turner asked if this item could be ~ppealed further. Ms. Lind advised that it could be appealed to the Board. Commissioner Turner said that 'he could understand the appellant's concern. On the other hand, ingivi~g people the right to make an appeal, they. also have the responsibility to be available to represent the case; in not in person, then by counsel. He did not believe a delay was fair to the applicant. Mr. Oder said that the topic was brought up with the Planning Deparbnent and they had several discussions regarding scheduling. He said that he had a letter {a memorandum of understanding) dated September 25, 1989 which was the result of a telephone call between Ms. Dobson, Planning staff, and one of their people. The letter is from Jean Van Ness {Legal Assistant to E. Ludlow Keeney, Jr., of Mitchell, Keeney, Berry & Pike} in reference to the telephone call, where they were led to believe that the appellants would not have to be at the hearing, or they would have been. He said that they understand and respect the responsibility they have to present the case that they started. However, they were given lnfornmtion indicating that this course of action was acceptable. Mr. Streeter asked Ms. Dobson to make her position clear. Mr. Dobson said that when she spoke to the attorney's assistant on the phone, she was asked if the appellant needed to be there. Ms. Dobson advised that she said that staff was going to make a recommendation, and whether or not the item is acted upon or continued was entirely up to the Planning Commission. Ms. Dobson said that she could not commit to the attorney's assistant. Mr. Oder said that he was not a party of the telephone call, so he could not argue the position. Commissioner Purviance said that Mr. Oder does not have any evidence in hand as to how Ms. Dobson responded, except the lawyer's office's interpretation of the conversation. The letter may be the understanding of one party, but may not be the understanding of the other party. Mr. Oder said that he understood. Ms. Lind asked, for the record, if Ms. Dobson ever indicated to Jean P. Van Ness that a decision could not be made without the appella~t's presence at the hearing. Ms. Dobson advised that she did not. Commissioner Turner said that Mr. Oder did an admirable job with the small amount of information that he had, and that the appellant has a further right to appeal, which would not hold up the applicant. Mr. Oder said that there were other substantial issues besides the one of storm water runoff. Commissioner Purviance said that they have not discussed nor have received any evidence of those issues. Commissioner Beadling said that she personally believed that there was a water problem, but that she also believed that it is up to the person who is appealing to have someone present when the case comes up. Mr. Oder said that he was not a party to the telephone call, but he did not believe that Ms. Van Ness "dreamed it up." Mr. Streeter said that no one on his staff is going to tell someone that a decision will not be made when an item is scheduled for hearing. He felt that the real issue is one of flooding, and Mr. Kashuba has said that he is comfortable with the conditions the way they appear on this plot plan. Also, that there are some solutions to the problem, which he believed was the key. They do not need any more information, as they have relied on the Flood Control engineers in the past and he sees not reason to change that now. Mr. Oder responded to that statement by saying that, yes, the Flood Control District is the authority here, but he felt that the history from the 100 year flood proves that Flood Control makes substantial mistakes. He said tha~ they will not see that happen again. The hearing was closed at 3:50 p.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Plot Plan 10864 is an approved request to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on 22.22 acres; the site is located south of Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road in the Rancho California area; Plot Plan 10864 was continued from the July lOth to the August 7th Planning Director's Hearing due to flooding concerns raised by an adjacent property owner; the August 7th decision was deferred and the subsequent determination made that flood mitigations required were adequate; Plot Plan 10864 was approved on August 8, 1989 by the Planning Director; the site is vacant, surrounding by vacant land and apartment complexes; the site is zoned R-Z; surrounding zoning is R-2, R-3, R-3-3000, R-3-4000 and C-l/C-P; environmental concerns include slopes, grading, noise, biological and archaeological resources; the General Plan calls for Category I and II uses in this area; the ~roposed project meets the criteria for Category I residential development; the Southwest Area Community Plan shows a tentatively approved designation of 8-16 DU/acre; the appellant's stated basis for appeal is the contention their downstream property would be severely damaged by runoff from PP 10864 during the "100 year flood"; and, the appellant objects tot he property development because of runoff concerns and because of the density of the project. Plot Plan No. 10864 is consistent with Ordinance 348, Category I residential criteria, the General Plan, and with the tentatively approved Southwest Area Community Plan; Plot Plan 10864 is compatible with area development; environmental concerns can be mitigated to a level of insignificance; the Planning Department defers to the Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District in matters of flood control; and, Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District determined there were adequate provisions made for offsite drainage, therefore, staff cannot support the appellant's appeal request. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Turner, seconded by Commissioner Beadling, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the Negative Declaration for EA 33292, approved Plot Plan 10864, Amended 2, subject to the conditions of approval, but denied the appeal of Plot Plan 10864, Amended No. 2, based on the above findings and conclusions. Zoning Area: Rancho California First Supervisorial District E.A. Number 33292 Regional Team No. 1 APPEAL OF PLOT ft.,MR NO. 10864 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUUEMING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2. Type of Request: 3. Location: 4. Existing Zoning: 5. Surrounding Zoning: 6. Site Characteristics: 7. Area Characteristics: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: Land Division Data: Agency Recommendations: 11. Letters: 12. Sphere of Influence: Helen Moore Oder Appeal of Planning Director's approval. South of Rancho California Road East of Moraga Road R-2 R-2, R-3-4000, R-3-3000, R-3 Vacant, moderate to severe slopes. Vacant, multi-family and single family residences. Land Use: Category I Density: 8-20 du/ac Open Space/Cons: Areas not Designated Total Acreage: 22.22 Total Lots: 1 DU Per Acre: 15 See letters dated: Road: 4-14-89 Health: 4-03-89 Flood: 4-19-89 Fire: 4-04-89 Bldg. & Safety - Land Use: 4-20-89 Grading: 12-01-89 Health-Special Services: 7-07-89 Co. Geologist: 6-05-89 Opposing/Supporting: None received Not within a City Sphere ANALYSIS: ProJect DescriptioN: Plot Plan No. 10864 was submitted as a r~quest to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on 22.22 acres. The site is located south of Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road in the Rancho California area. APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN 10864 Staff Report Page 2 Project Background Plot Plan No. 10864 was first heard at the Planning Direct~r's hearing on July 10, 1989 where it was continued to allow time for investigation of flooding concerns raised by adjacent property owners. At the August 7, 1989 Planning Director's hearing the adjacent property owner's, the Oders, indicated they were still not satisfied their downstream property would not be damaged by run-off. The Hearing Officer deferred decision for one week to confer with the Flood Control District. On August 8, 1989 (see letter attached} the determination was made that the existing conditions of approval were sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised on July 10 and August 7, and the project was approved. Land Use/Zoning: The site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include apartments to the north and south, commercial and vacant land to the west, and a horse ranch to the east. The site is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning includes R-2, R-3, R-3-3000, R-3-4000, and C-1/C-P. Project Consistency: The project site is with the Rancho California subarea of the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area. Policies for future land uses indicate uses should generally be Category I and II. Plot Plan No. 10864 meets the criteria for Category I residential land uses, and .the applicable requirements of Ordinance No. 348. The site has a tentatively approved designation of 8-16 du/ac on the Southwest Area Cocrnunity Plan. Environmental Analysis: The initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 indicated the following concerns; slopes, noise,biological and archaeological resources, and grading. Studies wore prepared to address all the issues and mitigation measures were incorporated in the conditions of approval when applicable. Basis for Appeal: The appellant's primary basis for appeal (see attached statement dated 8-22-89) is in re ards to the potential dama e to their downstream property (adjacent to the south} due to inadequate provisions on Plot Plan No. 10864 for runoff control during the "100 Year Flood". The appellant contends they are not legally required to accept runoff from upstream properties. The Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District's letter dated 11-30-88, Item #2, does require a drainage easement to be obtained from affected property owner's for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows prior to the APPE~. OF PLOT PLAN 10864 St~ff Report Pige 3 issuance of permits. Therefore, the appellant would have the opportunity to review improvement and grading plans and refuse to grant' an easement if they were not satisfactory. The applicant's engineer (Grant Becklund} indicated to staff they had offered to construct a drain on the appellants property in order to insure prevention of flood damage. The appellant apparently did not feel this was sufficient protection and subsequently filed an appeal of the Planning Director's approval of Plot Plan 10864. The Basis for Appeal states that the appellant is "vehemently" opposed to the proposed project due to both runoff concerns and the project's lack of open space. At the time the application for appeal was submitted on August 23, 198g the appellant indicated she would be out of town until November and requested a hearing date during that month. Staff subsequently informed that appellant that Ordinance 348 required the Planning Department to schedule appeals within 30 days. On September 18, the appellant's attorney submitted a letter again requesting a hearing date in November. For the reason stated above staff could not accommodate the request. It is staff's position that it is in the best interest of all parties concerned to expedite this matter as soon as possible. FINDINGS: 1. Plot Plan 10864 is an approved request to construct a 335 unit aparbnent complex on 22.22 acres. 2. The site is located south of Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road in the Rancho California Area. Plot Plan 10864 was continued from the July lOth to the August 7th Planning Director's hearing due to flooding concerns raised by an adjacent property owner. 4. The August 7th decision was deferred and the subsequent determination made that flood mitigations required were adequate. 5. Plot Plan 10864 was approved on August 8th, 198g by the Planning Director. 6. The site is vacant surrounded by vacant land and apartment complexes. 7. The site is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning is R-2, R-3, R-3-3000, R-3-4000, and C-1/C-P. 8. Environmental concerns include slopes, grading noise, biological and archaeological resources. g. The General Plan calls for Category I and II uses in this area. The proposed project meets the criteria for Category I residential development. APPEAL OF PLOT PLAM 10864 Staff Report Page 4 10. The Southwest Area Community Plan shows a tentatively approved designation of 8-16 Du/Acre. The appellant's stated basis for appeal is the contention their downstream property would be severely damaged by runoff from PP 10864 during the "100 Year Flood." 12. The appellant objects to the proposed development because of runoff concerns, and because of the density of the project. CONCLUSIONS: Plot Plan No. 10864 is consistent with Ordinance 348, Category I residential criteria, the General Plan, and with the tentatively approved Southwest Area Community Plan. 2. Plot Plan 10864 is compatible with area development. 3. Environmental concerns can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The Planning Department defers to the Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District in matters of flood control. Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District determined there were adequate provisions made for off-site drainage, therefore staff cannot support the appellant's appeal request. RECOFtIENDATIONS: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Environnental Assessment No. 33292 based on te"~'finding the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and, APPROVAL of PLOT PLAN I10. 10864, AMENDED N0. 2, based on the findings and conc'6'6TliiTons In the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval; but, DENIAL of the appeal based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report. LD:bc;sc 9/25/89 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Rancho Vle3o Apartments Post Offlce Box 5718 Canyon Lake, CA 92380 PLOT PLAN NO. 10864, Amenoed No. ProJect Description: TO Consttuc':, a 335 Untt apartment tomDie., Assessor's Parce'l No.: Area: Rancho California 1 . The use hereDy permitted by this plot plan 's Tot a j%L ul~t apartinert complex. 2. The peri,~lttee snal I de~end, indemnify, and hold narmle~ tr, e C.our:t) of Rivers!de, ~t5 agents. officers. anG emilcress from any claims, action, or pt'oceed~ng against the County ot ~verslde or lts agents, officers. or employees to attack, set. aside, voqd. ~r annul, at/aQDroval of the County of R;versIde, ,ts aJ,.l~o-y agencies. appeal boards, or ieg~s}a~e UcCy concerqlng Plot Plan i0864,, Amended No. 2 E~h~blt A. lr, e County of R~verslde w~ll promptly notify the permittee c',f any sdch C:alm, aCtlOl!, Or Droceed~ng against the Count) of P~verslde and 'w~ll cooperate fully in the defense. if th~ Ccunty falls to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or falls to cooperate fully ~n the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter. De responsible t.o defend, 3ndemnify, or hold harmless the County of ;lverslde. This approval shall be used w~thin two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantqal construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period which is thereafter diligently pursued tc completion, or the Peginning of substantial util~zat~or contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall Conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, Amended No. 2, or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted Ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, thls approval shall become null and void. 15 14 15, 15. The &DD: lcarlt 8hal 1 ~o~Dly wltr. the recommendations ~et in the Department of Health transm~ttal da~ed July 7, 1989, a coPz of which ~s attached. tCDrrected ~': Directar's Hearing 7-10-89~ The applicant shall comply with the Elsinore Un~c,n recommendations dated November 1~. 19S8. A11 landscaped areas shal 1 be planted ~n accordance ~:t!'= aDDroved landscape, irrigation and shading plans prior issuance of occupancy Derm~ts. An automatic sprinkler system shal 1 be instal leci and al 1 landscapee. areas sr, a malntailled iF, a viable. gr.Dwti~ cc~%d~tlon. Plantlria (10) feet of an entry Or exit dr]~ewa~ 8ha)~ ~c,~ be to 9~,Dw h~gher %haq thirty (30) ~ches. Z placards or' ~ icense plates issued for ar,,,.~-,:--;' ha!~d~can,ge, d persons may be t,c,~,d a~,. To,,,ea ~ehi,sles m~y te reclalmea at. c,' :- re i eoh.:,n i hO s,lr4,",1 of &zc.e.~;- ,L',~ ' '~','... "~ true DB r'~,. ,:}~ kZ. ie,7,5t :.1 ~,r-. '~.-_ PLOT PLAN NO, 10.364 Cc. nditions of Approval Page 4 21, Prlor to the lsa.uano6 of building per'mlts, the appl!cant Shal) obtain Clearerice a:~a/'or permlts from the foliowin9 aq~ncle!:: Road Department Environmental Health RIverside County Flood Control F!re Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety, 22, 23. Building elevations shall be in substantially conformante tPat sho~n on Exhibit iC(~lor Elevatlonsl and E~nlblt M-1 ~tarlal Roof T~le Clay wa;ts ~Accent) Paint W~ndow Glass Walls Stucco Mater ~ a? _q Boar Rec x-50 Crystal Clear White 24. 25. 26. 27. Roof-mounted eauipmenL shall be shielded from ground v~e~. Screening mater~a! shall De subject to Plann~ng Depa,'tmept approval, Nine (9) trash enclosures which are ademuate to enclose a total of two bins each shall be centrally located w~th!n the project, and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be s~x feet ~n height and shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens the bins from external view. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall De shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of R~verside County Ordinance NO. 655 and the Riverside COunty Comprehensive General Plan. Four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall De provided ~n convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to trte project area, the fc::cego',r9 u/_.~c *..- '11tl: PTS - . VAC SCHOOl. AR~. C 0 VtlEJO kPA~T~IIE:NTS LOCATI,ONi~L ,lAP Use 22,Z2Ac,Gr,+ ~ RAI~HO CALIFORNIA Sup.Dilt. IST Ci'culetion (~) FREEWAY VARIABLE " K.OT R. AN ~ ..=.~s ,~) tA I, d a6 ,g oPP 1G864 - Amend #2 April 14, 1989 Page 3 15. 16. 18. 19. per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications~ Projects creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. All entrance driveways shall be channelized with concrete curb and gutter to prevent back on parking and interior drives from entering/exiting driveways for a minimum distance of 50 feet measured from face of curb. The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient public offsite rights of way to provide for full width right of way On "A" Street. Said right of way shall be improved to the nearest paved maintained road in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 103, Section A. (44'/66') at a grade and alignment approved by the Road Commissioner. Curb and gutter on project site only; asphalt concrete dike may be required for drainage control. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 at all-intersections of roads constructed or improved within the development. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether the development is within an existing assessment district. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of'a County Service Area in pursuant to Governmental Code Section 56000 et. seq. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street improvement plans. Street design and improvement concept shall be coordinated with PP 9195 and PP 8328. A striping plan is required for Moraga Road and Rancho California Road. The removal of the existing striping shall be the responsibility of applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. truly yours, Principal Eng. Technician LJ:dw KENNETH L. EDWARDS P. o, Iox Io33 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Attention: Regional Team No. { Area: "~c~o ~4~k'~/,,~~ ' Re: PP A,,,e,,(-(t 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 t'he finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosio'n protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the drainage plan fees shall be paid regulations. Area in accordance with the applicable r~les and The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to implied density. hazards. Some flood fully develop to the The District's report dated ~V'ov 3ojlqf)f) is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached comments apply. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS lief ~ HN N. KASHUBA ~rCivil Engineer DATE: ~fP ~i,C~i C ~unty of River,, TO: FROM: RE: RIVERSIDE C01/NTY PLaAqNING DEPT. DATE: April 3.1989 /~HAR~~NMENTAL HF. ALTH SPECIALIST IV PLOT PLAN 10864, Amandad No. 2 Environmental Health Services has reviewed Amended No.2 dated March 30, 1989. Our current colerite will remain as stated in our memo dated November 18, 1988. SM:tac RIVERSIDE COUNT/ ~,,,,,,,,HNtNG DEPA""' ':Y GEN. FORM 4, (Rev 8/87J TO: FROM: RE: County of RiversiQe RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: 11-18-88 Arx'H: Alex Gann Steve Hinds, Sr. Sanitarian, FJlvironmental Health Svcs Div Plot Plan 10864 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan 10864 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to any building plan submittals, the following items will be required: "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies. Three complete sets of plans for the swimming pool/spa will be submitted, in order to ensure compliance wlth the California Administrative Code, California Health and Safety Code and the Uniform Building Code. SH:tac GEN. FORM 4, (l~v. 8/87) KENNETH L. EDWARD$ F'. o, Iox los2 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Attention: Regional Team No. { Area: 'R~<-)lo ~4~/~k'l~/t.;Ga~'~ ' Re: PP 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 shallbe provided for'mobile home supports." This project is in the drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea 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 Nov 30yl~f)f~ is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached comments apply. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS lie~ HN H. KJ~SHUBA ~~Civil Engineer DATE: /~-fP I~i[~Yi KENNETH L. EDWARD~ Ill~ MARKrr ITREET RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 30, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 1 Alex Gann Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Plot Plan 10864 This is a proposal to construct an apartment complex in the Rancho California area. The 22.22 acre site is located on the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road. This site lies on a ridge with little or no tributary offsite runoff. The developer proposes to drain the site with interior streets and storm drains. The site plan shows a diversion to the north of about 4 acres which should drain-to the south. The Board of Supervisors has adopted the Murrieta Creek/Temecula 'Valley Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of collecting drainage fees. Those fees are used to construct needed flood control facilities within the particular'area. The Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and are normally not required of other types of new development. Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff. These increases are particularly 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 rate. Following are the District's recommendations: 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 20.88 acres. At the current fee rate of $932 per acre, the mitigation charge equals $19,460. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If Area Drainage Plan fees or mitigation charges have al- ready been paid on this property in conjunction with an earlier land division or land use case, the developer should contact the District to ascertain what charges are actually due. Riverside County Planning Department Re: Plot Plan 10864 -2- November 30, 1988 The property's street and lot grading shSuld be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or di- verted storm flows· A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the issuance of permits. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be re- corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to the issuance of permits. A copy of the improvement plans an'd grading plans along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for review and ap- proval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Kris Flanigan of this office at 714/787-2333. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief Engineer JOHN H. KASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer cc: Palmer-Namdar Engineering KF:bab City Council Minutes January 23. 1990 ~he ith PUBLIC HEARING 5. Plot Plan No. 10264 - anneal of Planning commissions~s AnDroYal of 335 Unit Xnartment ComPlex on 22,22 Acres. Mayor Parks declared the Public Hearing open at 8:46 p.m. and explained the process for hearing all interested parties. staff Report city Manager Frank Aleshire introduced County of Riverside Planning staff member Laurie Dobson who gave the staff report outlining the history of the zoning considerations on the subject property. She explained the basis upon which the appeal had been filed. Councilmember Lindemans questioned if the Quimby Act had been met for this project. if the park fees had been paid. provisions of the He also inquired Miratea\l\2]\90 -5- 021091q0 city Council Minutes January 23. 1990 Richard McCatt, principal planner for the County of Riverside, responded stating that only he didn't know if this project is subject to park fees. ADDliCant Presentation The applicant, Stan Steel, 13555 Plantation Way, Moreno Valley, addressed the Council, expressing a willingness to return to the City Council with the specific landscaping plan showing the percentage of open space and play areas. He also stated that the figure of 1,S00 additional residents would represent 5-6 residents per apartment, which in his opinion could not be determined prior to actual occupancy.' Grant. Beckland, 647 North Main, Riverside, engineer for the project, presented a map showing how drainage is being handled. Mayor Parks questioned the position of the retaining wall adjacent to the appellants property. Mr. Beckland showed a map detailing the retaining wall and percentage of the grade slope at Los Colinas. Councilmember Lindemans questioned the street access for the project. Mr. Steel pointed out two points of entry. and exit, one from Moraga Road and one from the cul-de-sac off Rancho California Road. City Manager Aleshire requested a report from the developer regarding the fees being paid for public improvements. The applicant responded that fees were being paid for traffic signalization, fire mitigation, flood mitigation, Kangaroo Rat litigation fees, and building permit fees. APpellant Presentation Robert Oder, 29923 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, addressed the City Council speaking in opposition to the proposed apartment development. He addressed the history of the project and presented his continuing concerns about the project. He advised the Council that the project represents a 53% increase in density over his neighboring apartment project. Tamar Stein, Esq., of Cox, Castle and Nicholson, 2049 Century Park East, Los Angeles, representing the appellants outlined the points covered in her letter to the City Council dated January 19, 1990. Her testimony stressed concerns regarding the incompleteness of the project file currently in the Ninutes\1\23\90 -6- 02109190 City Council Minutes January 23. 1990 City~s possession. In summary, she stated the environmental assessment was not complete enough for the Council to support the recommendation of the county Planning Department. Robert Oder, St., 29911 Mira Loma Drive, #63, Temecula, spoke to the matter of retaining the current topography. In response to a question from Mayor Parks, he stated that there is not an existing flood control easement across his property. In response to a question from Councilmember Lindemans, Mr. Oder stated the density of his apartment project is 12.18 units per acre. Helen Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive #63, Temecula, requested that the Council consider the fragility of the Empire Creek. Public InPut Ron Fortson, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, requested the City Council allow the School District time to assess the impact regarding the number of students this project will generate. Jean Sparkman, 30554 San Pasqual, Temecula, representing the Temecula School Board requested denial of this project based on the n-mher of additional pupils it wi-ll generate. 'Steve Sander, 40213 Holden Circle, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project because of the limited open space and because of the lack of input by citizens of Temecula during the planning process. Jim A11mon, 43594 Gatewood Way, Temecula stated that there are already too many apartmetns and too much traffic congestion. John Cloghen, 41304 Bravos Court, Temecula spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation, citing the traffic congestion and crime rates in rental properties. Rebuttal Grant Becklund said there is a need for easement and that the school impacts were the approval process at the staff level. a flood control addressed during F, ir, utes\1\23\90 -F- 02/Oq/~O City Council Minutes Januarv 23. 1990 Stan Steele said he believes the developers have adequately addressed environmental concerns in the planning of this project. He stated that he would look favorably on a continuance to allow the developers to explore the City~s criteria which differs from that of the County. The owner, Mr. Tony Boyd responded Councilmember Lindemans that he might the project if further delays occur. to a question from not be the builder of Mayor Parks declared the public hearing closed at 10:15 p.m. Councilmember Lindemans spoke considerations and the need topography. regarding the density to respect the existing Mayor Parks expressed his concern regarding the changes in topography inherent in the design. He also outlined his concerns about the retaining walls and agreed that the criteria has changed as a result of the City's incorporation and involvement in these projects. City Attorney Scott Field outlined the Council's options as follows: 1. Approve the project and deny the appeal. 2. Approve the project and add new conditions. Reopen the hearing and continue the project to a date certain with instructions to staff for considerations to be addressed at the next hearing. Deny the project subject to staff preparing a resolution reflecting the findings which confirm the denial. It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to deny Plot Plan 1086 subject to the appropriate resolution to be prepared by City staff reflecting the appropriate findings. Tony Boyd, owner, responded to a question from Councilmember Moore, that he would prefer to see the project given the opportunity to make modifications rather than compelling them to start over again with the entire development process. Councilmember Munoz withdrew the motion on the floor and Councilmember Lindemans withdrew the second. Ninute$\l\Z,l\90 -8- 0;'/09/90 City council Minutes January 23, 1990 Councilmember Birdsall questioned the necessary time frame needed by the developers to address the concerns expressed by the City Council during the deliberations.' It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to continue the meeting for an additional five (5) minutes. The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to continue the matter "off calendar" and refer it back to staff. The motion was unanimously carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS Birdsall, Lindemans Moore, Munoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded Councilmember Munoz to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. motion was Unanimously carried. Councilmember Lindemans left the chamber at 10:37 p.m. by The Minutes\1\23\gO -9- 0Z/09/90 ITEM ~9 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 1990 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25599 Prepared By: Steve Padovan Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Tom Griffin Markham F, Associates To subdivide a 0.31 acre commercial parcel into two parcels. u, 1872 Motor Car Parkway C-P ( Genera~ Commercial ) North: C - P South: C-P ' East: A-2-20 West: C - P General Commercial ) General Commercial ) Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minlmumY General Commercial) Not requested. Automotive Dealership - Cadillac North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Agricultural Uses West: Automotive Dealershlps Gross Acres: Proposed Lot Sizes: 4.31 acres gross Parcel I - 2.69 acres Parcel 2 - 1.62 acres STAF F R PT\ PM25599 1 BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25599 was originally submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on January 1, 1990. The proposed subdivision was originally part of Parcel Map No. 2335Ll and Plot Plan No. 112~0 which were approved by the County of Riverside Planning Commission on April 6, 1988: The approved plot plan indicated two automobile dealerships on the st~bject lot. Currently, there is an existing Cadillac/GMC dealership on the northern part of the lot which will be Parcel No. 1 in the new division. The southern part of the lot, proposed Parcel No. 2, is currently vacant and used for automobile storage. The site has been graded and street improvements are in. The application has been through the LDC process in the County and through the Preliminary and Formal Development Review Committee I DRC) process in the City of Temecula. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a ~,.31 acre commercial property on Motor Car Parkway in the auto center into 2 lots; Parcel No. 1 - 2.69 acres, and Parcel No. 2 - 1.52 acres. The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of Ordinance No. LffiO and the original Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map No. 2335~. The minimum lot size required by Parcel Map No. 233511 is .67 acres. In addition, the new parcels coincide with the proposed dealerShlp in the approved Plot Plan No. 1121ffi. The subdivision of the subject property is a logical extension of the development of an auto center in this area. Circulation Currently the property is acce~*~-d by Motor Car Parkway which is fully improved with curb and gutter and asphalt paving. The parcels each have adequate access for their development. The sub)ect parcel is located in the C-1)C-P zone which is designated as general retail. The zoning permits automobile daslerships and the development of this property is in conjunction with the general characteristic of the area which is an auto center. The Southwest Area Plan designates the area as commercial and the proposed use will likely be in conformance with the future General Plan. STAFFRPT\PM25599 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: The property has been graded and environmental issues were analyzed and mitigated in the original Parcel Map No. 23351L In accordance with CEQA, an initiat study has been completed for the project and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the proposal. Tentative Parcel Map No. 25599 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 future General Plan. 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 proposed 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. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably 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. STAFFRPT\PM25599 3 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 nec~-~=ry to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these appli~,~ions and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF R ECOMMENDAT ION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 25599. Adopt Resolution No. 90 - Approve Parcel Map No. 25599 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SP:ks Attachments 2. 3. Conditions of Approval Resolution Initial Study Exhibits $TAFFRPT\PM25599 ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No. 25599 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 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. 25599, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Cede Section 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdlvider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or held harmless the City of Temecula. The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 1~60, Schedule E unless modified by the conditions listed bdow. 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 All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City of Temecula. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City of Temecula. Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the parcel map boundary to a City maintained road. STAFFR PT~PM25599 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health reco,,,~endatlons outlined in the CoUnty Health Department's Transmittal dated September 11, 1990. The subdlvider 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 ~60, appropriate f=== for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to recordatlon 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 latter dated September 11, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated February 13, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated February 9, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, ~he applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee sat forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the prbvisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan pr;ior 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 devalopment standards of the C-1/C-P zone. An Environmental Constraints Sheet I ECS) shall be prepared with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. Prior to the recordation of the final map, a copy 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. "This property is located within thirty 130) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact oper~.~ons 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." STAFFRPT\PM25599 2 Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject property as of the date of recordation of the final map. The following note shall be placed on the final map: Constraints affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the City Engineer. These constraints affect all parcels. 16. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District Transmittai dated February 1, 1990, a copy of which is attached. 17. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the University of California - Archaeological Research Unit Transmittal dated February 6, 1990, a copy of which is attached. 18. Record a reciprocal acc-~ agreement for the 30s mutual ingress and egress easement and for maintenance of the common driveway. Enqineorinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be compiated 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. 19. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 20. 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. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL: 21. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; , Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. STAFFRPT\PM25599 3 22. CC~,R~s shall be provided or shown to exist to provide that if Motor Car Parkway is not maintained in the condition required by the CCSR'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 prc,,,p~ly reimbursed. 23. Reciprocal access easements ansuring ac~'~ to all parcels shall be provided by CC~,R~s or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADFNG PERMITS: A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shati 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: 25. 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 ElR/Nagative Declaration for the project. in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the proj_ect 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 righ~c to protest such increase.. STAFFRPT\PM25599 ~ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR, R~VERS~DE, CA. 92503 (M~ilinq Address - P.O, Box 7600 92513-7600) FAGS # (7~4) 358-4529 Seotember 11. 1990 CITY OF TEMECULA 43180 Business Park Drive. Temecula. CA 92390 Suite 200 AII~: Steve Padovan I~E: PARCEL MAR NO. 25599: BEING A DIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 23354. ON FILE IN BOOK 152 OF PARCEL MAPS. PAGES 74-76. IN THE OFFICE OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDER. ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THE I~_:MECULA RANCH0. (2 LOTS) Dear Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Parcel MaD No. 25599. and recommend that: A wate~ system shall be installed accordln~ to Plans and sOeclfication as aDDroved by the water comDanv and the Health Department. Permanent Drlnts of the Dlans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a mlnimum scale not less than one 1nch equals 200 feet, alon~ w~th the original drawln~ to the County Surveyor. The Drlnts shall show the lnterna~l DIDe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants: D1De and lolnt sDeclflcatlons, and the size of the main at the .1unction of the new system to the exlstlno system. The Dlans shall comDlv ~n all resDects with Div. 5, Part 1, ChaDter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, ChaDter 18, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when aDDlicable. The Dlans shall be si~ned bv a registered engineer and water comDanv with the followlno certification: "I certify that the desion of the water system ~n Parcel MaD No. 25599, ~s in accordance with the water system exDanslon Dlans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service, storage and dlstrlbutlon system w~ll be adequate to provide water service to such Parcel. City of Temecula PaQe Two ATTN: Steve Padovan September 11. 1990 This certification does not constitute a ~uarantee that it will sUDDIV water to such Parcel mad at any sDeclflc quantities. flows OF pressures for fire protection or anv other purpose". This certification shall be sianed by a responsible official of the water Th~s subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water DIstrict a~reein~ to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand Drovxdxn~ satisfactory financial arranoements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for fxnanclal arranoements to be made prior to the recordatxon of the final map. This subdivision is w;thin the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the D~strlct. The sewer system shall be installed accordlno to ,plans and sDecif~catlons as aDDroved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent Drlnts of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in tF1Dl~cate, alon0 with the oF;oInal drawlno, to the County surveyor. The prints shall show the internal D1De diameter. location of manholes. complete profiles, miDe and Joint specifications and the s%ze of the sewers at the ,junct%on of the new system to the exlstina system. A sinole plat indicatlno location of sewer lines and water lxnes shall be a portion of the sewage plans and water lines shall be a portion of the sewaoe plans and proflies. The plans shall be sl~ned by a registered enolneer and the sewer district with the followln~ certification: "I certify that the desiqn of the sewer system in Parcel MaD No. 25599 ls in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Munxc~Dal Water District and that the waste disposal system ls adequate at th~s time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed parcel maD. City of Temecula Paoe 3 ATTN: Steve Fadovan :September I1. lg90 It wlll be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely flnallzed prior to recordatlon Of the final maD. Sincerely, oam Martl~ez~ E vlronmental Health Specialist IV SM:dr KENNETH L. EDWARDS CHIEF ENGINEER 1995 MARKET STREET P,O, BOX 1033 TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015 FAX NO. {714) 78S-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 Riverside County P]anning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. .5' Re: F>/VI Z-< 5fl~ Planner ,TetC~2/kd~ / 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, 8 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 ~r;~t~a -/~rrte~- A DP · rea c drainage plan fees shall be paid in accord e wit he applicable rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of r~/l/~ 23 ~(y The project will be free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~ave been constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. ery aOHN H. KASHUBA ~r Civil Engineer DATE: PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 RECEIXF-v R E-DPE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF Sept. 11, 1990 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 TO: ATTN: RE: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT PARCEL MAP 25599 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department reconnnends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION The Riverside County Fire Department has no comments or conditions for fire protection requirements. All fire protection requirements were addressed on related Plot Plan 11240. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist ama COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT GRADING SECTION TO: PLANNING / JEFF ADAMS FROM: TONY HARMON DATE: February 13, 1990 RE: PM 25599 APN 921-680-002 The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site. The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends approval of this project if the following conditions are included. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. All grading shall conform to 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. Provide verification that any existing grading was permitted and than 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 vert'ical 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. Provide drainage facilities and terracing in conformance with Section 7012 of the Uniform Building Code. NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86, and 284-46. These forms are available at the Building and Safety Department offices. DATE: January 23, T0: Assessor Building and Safety - Building and Safety - Grading Surveyor - Ken Teich Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services County Superintendent of Schools Rancho California Water District Southern California Edison - Doug Davies Southern California Gas General Telephone City of Temecula Temecula Union School District Lake Elsinore Unified School DistHct :iiVE:I:NDE CO IJnCV 199o nin( DEPaRClTIEnC L..d Tur.er Municipal Water District-Sewer FEB 14 ]990 UCR - ARU San Bernardino-County Museum R~)~0(0$N1y Community Plans PLANNING DEPARTMENT PARCEL MAP 25599 - (Tm 5) - E.A. 34717 Tom Griffin Markham & Associates - Rancho California Area First Supervisorial District - N of Solana Way, E of Ynez Rd. - C-1 Zone 4.31 Acres into 2 Parcles- Schedule E - Mod 119 - A.P. 921-680-002 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meetlOg has been tentatively scheduled for February 8, lggO. If it clears, it ~ill then go to public hearing. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to February 8, 19g0 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Jeff Adams at 787-1363. Planner CG~MENTS: 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 processin for smaI1 vertebrate fossils; (3) curation of specimens into an established repo ' PLEASE print name and title Dr. Allan D GriP~PmPr, Mis~PHm~ DirPntnr gm Telephone 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 astern lV .unicipa[ V / ter[ is ric Riverside Co. Planning Dept. 4080 Lemon St., 9th Floor Riverside, Ca 92501 SUBJECT; ~.¢vl . ?_~ John M. Coudures, Ptesidem Richard C KelleJ,, Vice Prealdenl Wm. G. Aidrldge Chester C. Gil~tt R~ger D. Siems FEB 2 1990 RIVER61DE COUNTY PLANNI*NG DEPARTMENT L,b c o The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject project: Is not within EMWD's: -~ water service area sewer service area / Will be required to construct/provide the following facilities if to be'served by EMWD: Sewer Service Any and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers, treatment, and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD regulations will be allowed. .~,-~--.~.-,--a ~ ,a~_t.~ . EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Planning Department 2045 S. SanJacinto Street · Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 DATE: January 23, 1990 TO: Assessor Building and Safety - Building and Safety - Surveyor - Ken Teich Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services County Superintendent of Schools Rancho California Water District Southern California Edison - Doug Davies Southern California Gas General Telephone City of Temecula Temecula Union School District Lake Elsinore Unified School District :IiVE:DiDE coun;.u pLAnnin6 DEPA:IaTIEn 2ZCZi'/ZD ;N JAN 29 1990 PARCEL ~ 25599 - (Tm 5) - E.A. 34717 Tom Griffin - Harkham & Associates - Rancho California Area - First Supervlsortal District - N of Solana Way, E of Ynez Rd. - C-1 Zone - 4.31 Acres into 2 Parcles - Schedule E - Mod 119 - A.P. 921-680-002 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Februe~ B, 1990. If it clears, it will then go to' public hearing. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to February 8, 1990 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Jeff Adama at 787-1363. Planner COMMENTS: The project area has been surveyed for cultural resources as part of a larger project (see MF 991); no archaeological sites are located within the project boundaries. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, it is recommended that the area be reevaluated by a qualified archaeologist. DATE: 2/6/90 SIGNATURE PLEASE print name and title gm Telephone EASTERN iNFORMATiON CENTER Arehoooiogi~.m Research Unit UniversiitY of Catilornia i~,er~ido, CA 92571 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787'6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25599 TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.31 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS AT ~,1872 MOTOR CAR PARKWAY IN THE TEMECULA AUTO CENTER. WHEREAS, Tom Griffin filed Parcel Map No. 25599 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 November 5, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approval of said Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city 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: J l ) 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: Ja) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\PM25599 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. Ic) 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 9uidelines 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: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: There is reasonable probability that Parcel Map No. 25599 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. STAFFR PT\PM25599 2 D. Pursuant to Section 6.5. no Parcel Map may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any Parcel Map approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel Map No. 25599 for the subdivision of a LL31 acre parcel into two parcels located at ~1872 Motor Car Parkway subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 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 5th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PM25599 3 APPL)CANT'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. 25599. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\PM25599 4 :IiVE:DiDE count-u p!. nninG DEiM:l nlEn ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: ENv,RoNMENTAL ASSESSMENT <E.A.I NUMBER: 7/7 PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(S): 'P'~E:~ ~ APPLICANT'S NAME: '"F'C::)M ~P~|PI~II~L NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E.A.: , I, ~~ I. PROJECT INFORMATION A. DESCRIPTION (include pro~ minimum lot size and u~s as appl~ble): STANDARD EVALUATION MODULE NUMBER(S): / / B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES a:~...~/ ; Or SQUARE FEET C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s): D. EXISTING ZONING: ~ °//~/*"P IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? E. PROPOSED ZONING: IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? __ F. STREET REFERENCES: I,J/~-.q'l,4 ~ ~L.,'~--,'' I/-4/'~,,,'~) P'*'--- $ YNII")''- ~. G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: H. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS II. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly. [] All or part of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VI. · All or part of the project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections Ill, IV (A, B and D only), V and VI. [] All or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned above. Complete Sections Ill, IV (A, B, and E only), V and VI. 295-70 (New 12/87) I III. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT A. Indicate the nature of the proposed land use as determined from the descriptions as found in COmprehensive General Plan Figure VI.3 (Circle One). This information is necessary to determine the appropriate land use suitability ratings in Section III.B. NA - Not Applicable Critical Essential Normal-High Risk _L,,,-"T'~o~'maI-Low Risk~ B. ~ndicatewithayes(Y)~rn~(N)whetheranyenvir~nmenta~h~zardand/~rres~urceissues~maysignific~nt~ya~ect~rbea~ected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the COmprehensive General Ran. For any issue marked yes (Y) write add itional data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact end any mitigation measures under Section V. Also, where indicated, circle the appropriate land usa suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of this page). HAZARDS 7... ' 8.. 9.. 10.__ 11... Alquist-Pdolo Special Studies or County Fault Hazard Zones (Fig. VI.1 ) NA PS U R (Fig. VI.3) 2. H Liquefaction Potential Zone (Fig. VI.1) 13./~ NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.4) 3. ~ Groundshaking Zone (Fig VI.1) ~ 14, I~ NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5) 4. ~ Slopes (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slope Maps) 15. r~J 5-/*j Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16./'~ NA S PS U R (Fig, VI,6) r'4 Rockfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) 17. ~ /'4 Expansive Soils (U.S,D,A. Soil '~et1. 18. 4%{ Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19. T~ ~ Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation w,40, 20. ~ Service Soil Surveys) 21. N N Wind Ersosion & BlowsaNd (Fig. VI.1, 22, ~J Ord. 460, Sec. 14.2 & Ord. 484) 23. t~ t~ Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI.7) 24. ~ Floodplains (Fig. VI.7) 25. NA U R (Fig. VL8) Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18.11 & Vl.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.) NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) Railroad Noise (Fig. V1.13 - V1.16) NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) Highway Noise (Fig. VI.17 - VI.29) NA A B C D (Fig, Vi.11) Other Noise NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) Project Generated Noise Affecting NOise Sensitive Uses (Fig, VI,11 ) · _ Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VI.11 ) . Air Quality Impacts From Project . Project Sensitive to Air Quality. . _ Water Quality Impacts From Project . _ Project Sensitive to Water Quality . Hazardous Materials and Wastes _. Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30 - VI.31 ) Other Other 26._J~ 27.._.H_ 28. '1/ 29. ~'{ 30. 31. RESOURCES Agriculture (Fig. VI.34 - VI.35) In or Near an Agricultural Preserve (Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conversation Contract Maps) Wildlife (Fig. VI.36 - VI.37) ~,- I~, Vegetation (Fig. VI.38 - VI,40) Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 - VI.42) Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 - VI.44) 32. J~ Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45) 33 ~'J Historic Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33) 34. Archaeological Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33 & VL46 - VI.48) 35. Paloontological Resources (Paleontoiogical Resources Map) 36. Other 37. Other Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged 395*70 (New 12/87) 2 IV. LAND USE DETERMINATION A. Complete this part unless the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Communit-/Policy Areas." 1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(S): ~/m}B;ia'~ NOr IDlr,~ml ifN~q"!~l~ 2. ~ND USE P~NNING AR~: ~ ~~ ~~ 3. SUBAREA, IF ANY: 4. COMMUNI~ POLICY AR~, IF ANY: 5. COMMUNITY PLAN, IFANY: 6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY: 7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL: B. F~ra~~pr~jects~inid~atewithayes(Y)~rn~(N)whetheranypub~i~fa~i~itiesand/~rservicesissuesmaysignificant~ya~ect or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan, For any issue marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Section V. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1. Y Circulation (Fig. IV. 1 -IV.11. Discuss in 10, ~ Sec. V Existing, Ranned & Required Roads) 2. IJ Bike Trails (Fig. IV. 12 - IV. 13) 3. ~ Water (Agency Letters) 4. ~' Sewer (Agency Letters) 5. AJ Fire Services (Fig. IV. 16 - IV.18) 6._~._ Shedff Services (Fig IV.17 - IV. 18) 7. ~ SChools (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18) 8. ~J Solid Waste (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18) 9. ~J Parks and Recreation (Fig. IV. 19 - IV.20) 11.tJ 121~J 13.'~ 14.~j' 15.~,~ 16. jkJ 17. Equestrian Trails (Fig. IV. 19 - IV.24/ Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps) Utilities (Fig. IV.25 - IV.26) I. jbrsdes (Fig. IV.17 - IV. 18) Health Services (Fig. IV. 17 - IV. 18) Airports (Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4, 11,18.8 - 11.18.10 & IV.27 - IV.36) Disaster Preparedness City Sphere of influence Other Ce If all or pad of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Rans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas", review in detail the specific policies applying to the proposal, and COmplete the following: 1, State the relevant land use designation(s): 2. Based~nthisinitia~study~isthepr~p~sa~c~nsistentwiththepo~iolesanddesignati~ns~ftheappr~priated~cument and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, explain: 295-70 (New 12/87) IV. LAND USE DETERMINATION (continued) or ls " questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 s 1. Land usa category(ies) necessary to support the proposed project. Also indicate land use type (i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) Current land usa category(ies) for the site based on existing cOnditions. Also indicate land use tyDe (i.e. residential, cOmmercial, etc.) If D.1 differs from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the development stage? Explain: ~ 4. Community Plan designation(s): ~ 5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies end designations of the Community Plan? If not, explain: 6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land usas? If not, explain: y~,e~ 7. Based on this initial study, iS the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identifying incOnsistencies: If all or part of the project site is in an Opefi Space and Consarvation designation, complete the following: 1. State the designation(s): 2. Is the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain: 3. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consisent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies: 295-70 (New 12/87) V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED: DATE DATE ADEQUACY SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION DbW, HMINATION ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO,DATE) B. For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B end IV.B, identify the Sealion end issue number and do the following, in the format as shown below: 1. List all additional relevent data sources, including agencies consulted, 2. State all findings of fact regarding environmental concerns. 3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable without requiring an environmental impact repod (E.I.R.) 4. If additional information is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to Subsection A. 5. If additional sheets are needed to complete this section, check the box at the end of the section and attach the necessary sheets. SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: 295-70 (New 12/87) V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued) SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: D See attached pages. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION: [] The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be prepared. (or) [] The project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the project and a Negative Declaration may be prepared. (or) [] The project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report is required. Name: Date: Prepared by 295-70 (New 12/87) ~/IC. ltqtTY' ! ! // Me M CZ 195zl' C-I/C,-P CZ 5008 / / / / M-SC I~'~ CZ :517:~\ C-P-S CZ 4.070 CZ M CZ 915 CZ 915 CZ CZ 1706 7C>NING rrl 0 --( m rn C) C f- (:~ -J CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: ?~rc~( t¼~p The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation ( Quimby ) Public Facility ( Traffic Mitigation ) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility { Library ) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. / ~ Condition No. Condition No. ~- 5 Condition No. Condition No. Condition No. Condition No. 2- L~ Forms/PIn9-M9 HIGGS, FLETCHER & 4ACK 613 WEST VAM,EY PARKY,/AY SUITE 345 ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025-2552 (819) 143-1201 TELECOPIER (619) 743-9926 26 October 1990 MR GARY THORNHILL DIRECTOR OF PLANNING POST OFFICE BOX 3000 TEMECULA CA 92390 RE: Parcel Map 25599 Hearing Date - Nov. 5, 1990 Dear Mr. Thornhill: Please be advised that the proposed subdivision of the 4.31 acre commercial parcel is prohibited by the terms and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the Rancho Temecula Auto Park. The proposed subdivision should not be approved. Very truly yours, HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK /GALL ~ L~PTE~RE GLL/dyc cc: Mr. Jack Raymond City of Temecula ~""" Gary Thornhill '.1~]...~ Planning Director'?. 43180 Business-Park~D~j':~ Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Gary, I am requesting a !'in'.t~e matter of PM 25599. It is scheduled for Plannin~Z~Commisskon tonight- item 3. There are items of clarifiCa~ionWithin the Staff Report along with an unresolved.engineering issue to be clarified prior to public hear.~ng=.~.~y~.~' ~.. ~=~. =~- We feel the situation will.r'y~7~r&sOlv~d ~th~n 2 weeks time and we would appreciate befng/res~heduled prior to December 3rd. Thank you for your assistance;-, Sincerely, .~?~:i~i -,'. - Sandy Finn SF/ws co: Steve Kirk Willjams ~.+ .. 41750 W'mchester Road, Suit~ N · Temecula; 6?6-66?2 · FAX ~4) 699-~48