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