Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
022591 PC Special Meeting Agenda
~ISSION FebrUary 25. 1991 6:00 PM :VAI,L::ELEMENTA:RY SCHOOL ' T uIa; 9Z 90 G:/~,IJ.: TO!.OR~ER:' Chairman Chiniaeff B' air. Fahey. F0rd~' Hoagland. Chiniaeff: A: ~0~a-J ',of, !~S mLq~t~eS:i:s prqvld~d so members of, the public can address the ~ :c~mi-ss~on~'S "~':~ it~s:'~h~t a~e: not liSt~ 0nt~e~ Agenda; Speakers are it~ited to;t~r~ (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners ; ab0u~n i~em not.lis~d on the Agend~. a pink "Rffiu~ ~Sp~k" form should ' b~;B~l'ed:,Ou~: ~,fil~'*,'with ,the Commissioner Secretary. gaHe~,,to: Speak. please come forward and State: your name and For all other acJenda items a "ReqUest to Speak" fo. rm must be f. iled with the Platl~iing SeCreterye!Commission gets to that ~tem:. There ~s a three (3) minQtetlme,,lii~t'f~r'inaivid~al speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. 'Minutes 1.1 Minu~e~::0f~January 28. 1991 1.2 Minut~S!of:February0u,. 1991 NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. ' Planning and Engineering Update Case Planner: Parcel Merger #1 ( Plot Plan #1 ) Advance Cardiovascular Systems. Inc. J'.F. Davlds0n ASSociates. Inc. West Side Ynez Rd.. So. of Winchester Rd. Stj~niti~iry Va~tii}n of Access/SeW~/'Easement Adopt Resolution 91 Doug Stewart. Deputy City Engineer c~."'!N6: . '**~...No. 2a371 '** ~ - A~li~bt':.~. , ::.. , '~::~F,~ita. Village Development Compah~ ~.:~ ~: Repres~fit~iV~ """'~t~h"Engineering Location: Generally located on the West side of Meadow Parkway (formerly Kaiser Parkway) East of Margarita:,Rd., South of South of South General Kearny Road (al~rnent)~;~ Proposal: Summary Vacation of Storm Drain. Drainagi~'t~W;ige~'~hd .... · Read Easements, ' Recommendd~f~?' Adopt Resolution 91 Case Planner: Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer Ap Locati.on:.: 'Pr~0~!~i: Recommendation: Location: Tentative Map 19872-~ (MInor Change No. 2) Kaufman and Broad Robert Bein. William Frost F, Associates Southerly of Pala Road. Westerly of Via Gilberto tectural Floor Plans, Elevations and Plotting R ep~esen{ative: Localjoe: 'Prbpesa'l: R~commendbtion :' Case Planner: - Revision No. 1 stro First Extension of Time Recommended Approval Richard Ayala |Ynez Rd, lic. Kearny Road. Case Location :' PrOposal: Case Planner: Eastwood Tech :Group, UNOCAL M~r~kh:am, S ASsociates Y N~r~.=h~S~t:Corner~ of Solana Way s nez Rd, ~:~ti~Ction. of 2~&2 Square Foot Service Ststien with =~:0~:.~dei~e, Foot CanOpy Area. :i~!~imm~'d'~Appr0val Steve ~jl~nnin0 Case Applicant: Lo.Cation: Proposal': Recommendation: Case Planner: · ~ ' :~" ' ' ' ' ' · .' ,'. ' · ': ',: : ' ' -:'. · '., ' .: ~., ~'... '-':. , - ..... ".' ,'. ~ : '..'.i ::, . .... ..... :... TentatiVe P. arcql. Map. 23335 Bedford.~Prql~.eFti~s NoFth efJ~JnCtion of Wfnchester Road and Ynez R'oad Approval Richard Ayala ,: ~ Case. No:. Applicant: Location; P roposa I: Ri~cornm~n.datiOn'~. Tenl~t..I.v.e Parcel ..Map .2666q .. ,. Coastline Equity. In'c. The Southeasterly corner of Business Park Drive and Rancho 'Way q.21 parcel Planned Industrial Land Divison on :the Site-of preViOu~l'y .,approved.. P lot: Plan 1.160~ cq0tinu'e' ,,olaf: .Calend~F.' ' case Planner: scott Wright 12;: -Ordinaae .Amendment 91 ~'ity :Wiid.e' .. · ' - o 'pr0~i~de.' 'a:"Time Extension Procedure for Plot PJan approvals to be consistent with Conditional Use Permits Recommended Approval Steve Jiannino !q. PlanMffit. Qimmission:Dis,,ussJon 15. ADJOURNMENT '6:00 p.m. . Vaiil :E!~m'e.~.tal;~.y~S~eol; Z99;!5 Mira Loma S J/ib' pclagn2/25 ITEM 11 NINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HELD JANUARY 28, 1991 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula was held Monday, January 28, 1991, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project Manager, Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, Kirk Williams, Traffic Engineer and Gail Zigler, Minute Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. MINUTES 1.1 Approve the minutes of January 7, 1991. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to approve the minutes of January 7, 1991 as presented, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission continued to the meeting of February 4, be continued off calendar. that Item No. 5 would be 1991 and Item No. 7 would PCMIN1/28/91 -1- 1/30/91 COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Item No. 5 to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held February 4, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER ROAGLAND. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Item No. 7 off calendar, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND abstained from voting due to a potential conflict of interest. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2 . VARIANCE NO. 3 Request for a variance to allow a 200 square foot temporary subdivision sign. Located at the northeast corner of Rancho Califonria Road and Margarita Road. Continued from the meeting of January 7, 1991. RICHARD AYALAprOVided the staff report. C~IRMAN ~INI~FF re-opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. MARK WILSON, representing the applicant,MSI, 1240 Railroad Street, Corona, addressed questions by the Commission. COMMISSIONER FAHEY suggested that the applicant move the temporary sign back approximately 20 feet, next to the chain link fencing. The applicant's representative concurred with this request. COMMISSIONER FORD asked for clarification of Conditions No. 3 and No. 4. GARY THORNHILL advised that Condition No. 4 could be deleted. PCMIN1/2S/91 -2- 1/30/91 PLKNNIN~ COMHISSION XlNUTE8 ~]~TUARY 28, 1991 COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked that the applicant be conditioned to set back the sign. GARY THORNHILL stated that since the applicant has concurred with this request, Condition No. 4 could require that the sign be moved back approximately 20 feet. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. and to adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Variance No. 3 based on the analysis and findings contained within the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Due to the applicant and their representative not being present the Commission moved on to Item No. 4 and placed Item No. 3 at the end of the Agenda. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24038~ PLOT PIa&N 76 Proposal to subdivide 4.99 acres into 3 parcels and construct a 92 unit motel and convert an existing building into a restaurant. Located at Moreno Drive, adjacent to Motel 6. Continued from the meeting of December 3, 1990. MARK RHOADE8 provided the staff report. Mr. Rhoades advised the Commission that Conditions of Approval No. 16, No. 25 and No. 30 had been amended by staff. A copy of those amendments were provided. CMAIItM~NCHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, addressed some of the questions the Commission had regarding the traffic issues. Mr. Markham stated that they had met extensively with staff and the Community Services District staff to address some of the issues brought up at the December 3, 1990 meeting. Mr. Markham added that they were in concurrence with the Conditions as presented by staff. PCMIN1/28/91 -3- 1/30/91 PLKNNING COMMISSION NINUTES JANUARY 28, 1991 MIKE GRAY, County Fire Department representative, addressed questions regarding the width of the internal drive aisles. GARY THORNHILL stated that when the applicant first came to talk he found that there was no provision for a time extension on a plot plan in the ordinance and he thought that it was an oversight in the ordinance and advised the applicant to file and they would take it ahead as a time extension. After accepting the application, the applicant began to develop their final plans. They have submitted for building permit and are ready to have a permit issued and it wasMr. Thornhill's opinion to go back and redesign at this point was senseless. He recommended that the Commission proceed with the issue at hand which was the extension of time. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the letter from Bedford disputing the public facilities fee. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that he had just received the objection from Bedford prior to the meeting. He stated that he was not in a position to make an opinion. He added that there was no extension provision in the ordinance. In reviewing all the land use provisions, C.U.P.'s, variances, etc., they all had extension provisions in them, it was an administrative interpretation as to whether or not this was omitted intentionally or omitted inadvertently, and therefore staff had to make an interpretation. He added that it was the City Attorney's opinion that the Commission could make a decision on an extension based on staff's recommendation. He also stated that staff will be looking at amending the ordinance to allow for the extension provision. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. LISA PETERSON, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, representing the applicant, clarified that Condition No. i was in lieu of Condition No. 2. SCOTT WRIGHT stated that "pursuant to" meant "in lieu of". MS. PETERSON stated that the letter stating their position on the public facility fees was a legally formality which requires that if they protest any condition they must do so at the time of the public hearing and in writing. She added that they did not intend to create any debate over the Condition. As to Condition No. 3 regarding the Kangaroo Rat fees, Ms. Peterson stated that this property had been graded long before the Kangaroo Rat issue came PCMIN1/28/9i -5- 1/30/91 PLANNING COMMI8HTON MXNUTEE JANUARY 28, 3.993. about and questioned whether it was necessary to impose those fees to this project. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the Commission continued this item would it pose a problem to them. MS. PETERSON stated that they were having on-going discussions with the City Attorney regarding the fee issue. She added that they were ready to pull their permits. JOHN CAVANAUGH recommended that the Commission go ahead and make a decision based on the analysis and findings in the staff report. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that in reviewing the River- side County Planning Department Conditions of Approval, they were clear that there was a two year, No Extension clause, and the applicant was well aware of all the Conditions of Approval. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to approve a one year extension of time for Plot Plan 10675 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached County Staff Report and the conditions added by staff. Motion failed for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER HOAeLANDmOved to deny a one year extension of time for Plot Plan 10675, due to the expiration of the time period and there was no provision for an extension of time, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed concern that the applicant should have been told that there was not a provision in the Ordinance for an extension of time when they applied. COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a concern for allowing an extension of time without having it approved and setting a precedent by allowing the extension. He thought there might be another alternative. GARY THORNHILL stated that it was staff's intention to come back with an ordinance allowing for extension of time for Plot Plan. He added that in discussing it with the County, they had conditioned the project correctly. He stated that he felt that all actions should have a provision for extension of time. CMZ l/ 8/91 -6- /30/9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1991 JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that by law the Planning Director is authorized to make an interpretation if there is an ambiguity and justify it through an analogy in other provisions of the ordinance, which they had found in other variances, C.U.P.'s, etc. CHAIRMAN CMINIAEFF indicated that he did not support the motion to deny the extension of time and called for the vote. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF entertained a motion to continue Item No. 6 and direct staff to bring it back and recommend an amendment to the ordinance for Plot Plan Time Extensions. GARY TMORNHILL suggested that it be continued off-calendar and re-notice. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Plot Plan 10675 Extension of Time off-calendar to allow for an ordinance amendment which allows for Time Extensions of Plot Plans, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: i COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a five minute recess at 7:30 P.M. 7. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21821 7.1 Proposal to subdivide 7.71 acres into five (5) single family residential lots. Item No. 7 continued off-calendar. Chairman Chlniaeff stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest on Item No. 8 and handed the gavel over to Vice Chairman Ford. 8. CHANGE OF ZONE S631 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 Proposal to change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-R to R-l; and subdivide the subject 56.6 acre parcel into 102 single family residential lots and PCMIN1/28/91 -7- 1/30/91 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES ~ANUARY 26, 1991 4 open space lots. Located on the North side of Pauba Road, East of Ynez Road. OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report. Mr. Mujica advised the Commission that staff had received a letter from the Lake Village Community Association expressing their concern with the drainage of this property and it's impact on the wildlife and migratory bird population and residents of Lake Village. He added that staff had contacted the Department of Fish and Wildlife and they indicated that the lake was in their jurisdiction and all developments that may impact this lake must be reviewed and approved by their agency. COMMISSIONER FORD opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. ROBERT KEMBLE, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with staff's recommendation. He stated that the applicant was not in concurrence with Condition No. 50 requiring approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, since the applicant felt it was unnecessary. Mr. Kemble also opposed Condition No. 83 regarding the public facilities fee, which was presented to staff and the Commission in letter form. MR. KO, Bedford Properties, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, provided a brief history about the project and answered questions presented by the Commission. The following individuals expressed their opposition to the development due to the negative impacts it would have on the environment. Also they expressed a desire to see a decrease in the density if the project were approved; however, their recommendation was for the City to utilize this as park land. MARCIA SLAVEN, 30110 La Primavera, Temecula. JAMES CONLEY, 30369 Veronda Place, Temecula. HARRY SACKIN, 43098 Corte Villa, Temecula. STANLEY MELAD, 9445 Aldabra Court, San Diego. NATE DIBIASI, 30445 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. NORMAN D~NN, 30434 Colina Verde, Temecula. PCMIN1/28/91 -8- 1/30/91 PLANNIN(3 COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1991 PHILLIP SAUM, 43209 Vista Del Rancho, Temecula. LETTIE BOGGS, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, expressed a concern for the potential flooding of the Vail School grounds which lies just beyond the Lake Village Lake MR. KO presented a brief history regarding the progression of the intended land uses from multi-family to single family and that the lake is line with soilcement. He also advised the residents that without this development, Pauba Road would not be improved. The Commission expressed a concern for speed control on Pauba Road, comments from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Regional Water Quality Control Board and the density of the project. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 8:50 P.M. and continue Change of Zone 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 in order to allow staff and the applicant the opportunity to address the environmental concerns expressed by the Commission and the residents, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER FORD asked that staff address the following issues as well: site distances approaching Pauba Road, effects of lighting from the Sports Park, landscaping, existing easements on the south side of Pauba Road and the quality of water that will flow into the storm drain. COMMISSIONER HOA~LAND amended his motion to include this direction to staff with the second's concurrence. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland NOES: i COMMISSIONERS: Fahey ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff 3. PARCEL MAP 25607 Proposal for a two lot residential subdivision. Located at the southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. PCMIN1/28/91 -9- 1/30/91 PLANNIN(~ COMMISSION MINUTE8 JANUARY 28, 1991 CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for the impact the increased density would have on traffic. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he felt that this was a blatant attempt to avoid the sub-division map act. COMMISSIONER FAREY questioned if the Assistant City Attorney had reviewed the findings for denial of this Parcel Map. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the Commission had the ability to make a decision on an environmental basis. He added that traffic circulation concerns was an environmental concern. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. MIKE BENEeH, Benesh Engineering, 28991 Front Street, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant cannot understand why he cannot do what another applicant was allowed to do in a previous request to the Commission for a subdivision. He added that the grading of the lots had been approved and permited by the County. Mr. Benesh also indicated the applicant's willingness to do the improvements to Ormshy Road. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 9:10 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 91-(next] denying Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff PCMIN1/28/91 -10- 1/30/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1991 ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission to be held Monday, February 4, 1991, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff ;J~ecretary PCMIN1/28/91 -11- 1/30/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was held Monday, February 4, 1991, 6:00, at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project Manager, Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, Kirk Williams, Traffic Engineer and Gail Zigler, Minute Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. SUMMARY VACATION OF SO. GENERAL KEARNY ROAD Proposal to vacate a portion of South General Kearny Road. Located on the west side of Meadow Parkway, east of La Serena Road. DOUG STEWART presented the staff report. COMMIBBIONEM HOAGLAND moved to adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) finding that the Summary Vacation of South General Kearny Road is consistent with the General Plan presently being developed by the City of Temecula, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS GARY THORNHILL advised that Item No. 3 would be continued to the meeting of February 25, 1991; however, the public hearing would be opened at this meeting on February 4, 1991. PCMN2/04/91 -1- FEBRUARY 6, 1991 PLANNING 2. PLOT COMMISSION MINUTE8 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 PLAN NO. 122 Proposal to construct a 21,700 square foot automotive dealership on 4.55 acres. Located on the west side of Ynez Road, South of Solano Way. MARK RHOADE8 presented the staff report. COMMISSION HOAGLAND questioned the requirements of Conditions of Approval No. 13 and No. 26, and referred to the recent standards set by the Rancho California Water District in regards to water usage. GARY THORNHILL indicated that the restrictions that were set apply mainly to water usage during daylight hours; however, there are some waivers in these rules. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated his concerns on the slowth growth of the Holly Oak Specimen Trees that were shown in the landscape planning. MARK RHOADES stated that staff had requested that the Holly Oak Trees be a minimum 24" box tree. COMMISSIONER FORD indicated that the requirement for 24" box trees was not reflected in the Conditions of Approval. MARK RHOADES stated that staff's recommendation would be to add that to the Conditions of Approval. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. JACK WESTON, Weston-Whitfield Architects, 1550 S. Coast Highway, #201, Laguna Beach, California, representing the applicant, addressed questions by the Commission. Mr. Weston clarified that Condition No. 29 was referring to an approval received at this meeting. GARY THORNHILL concurred. Mr. Weston advised staff that if they were to complete the improvements required of Condition No. 53 they would have a 8 - 10 foot high retainer wall between the proposed dealership and the existing Acura dealership and suggested that the applicant maintain the sloped bank in a landscaped mode. Mr. Weston added that they would be willing to work with staff on the requirement for a minimum of 24" box Holly Oak specimen tree. JOHN MIDDLETON stated that it would be in the best interest of both dealerships to keep a maintained landscaped slope and that Condition No. 53 should be deleted. PCMN2/04/91 -2- FEBRUARY 6, 1991 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1991 The Commission questioned the signage proposed for the dealershlp. GARY THORNHILL stated that the County has set a standard for some freeway signs which staff feels does not comply with the ordinance. He indicated that staff would like to get direction from the Commission of what they would like to see as standards for signage. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he would like to see the signage for freeways come back to the Commission for approval. MARK RHOADES advised that the Conditions of Approval would be modified with the addition of Condition No. 13A requiring the final landscape plans to state that all Holly Oak Trees will be a minimum 24" box tree. He also stated that Condition No. 18 should be modified to read "Planning Commission". COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 122 and adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 122; based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to Conditions of Approval amended by the addition of Condition No. 13A requiring a minimum 24" box Holly Oak tree, Condition No. 18 modified to read "Planning Commission" and Condition No. 53 deleted, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAREY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. PLOT PLAN NO. 10579 - REVISION NO. I Proposal for a restaurant in an existing hotel to be opened for general public use. Located at the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. GARY THORNHILL provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:40 P.M. PCMN2/04/91 -3- FEBRUARY 6, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1991 RICHARD AYALAprovided the staff report. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed a concern for setting a precedent. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the ordinance reads that the Commission is not bound to decide on these applications at this time, any subsequent applications would go through the same process. The Commission expressed a concern for the building being occupied by this time without the proper permits. GARY THORNHILL advised that this was a Building and Safety Official judgement and their decision was to allow them to occupy the facility while obtaining the required permits. COMMISSIONER FORD recommended setting a time limit on the improvements. GARY THORNHILL agreed that time constrictions would be appropriate. COMMISSIONER FORD added that there would be some improvements that could be done to the modular buildings to give them a more permanent appearance. RICHARD AYALAadvised that in a previous meeting with the Old Town Historical Review Committee they indicated they desire to see those type of improvements also. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned Condition No. 10. Staff advised that the wording beginning with "Decomposed granite" be deleted. Chairman Chiniaeff questioned the requirement of Condition No. 19. GARY THORNHILL advised that the Condition should read "Prior to issuance of Permit of Occupancy". COMMISSIONER FORD suggested getting the items required for the occupancy permit prioritized over the landscape items. GARY THORNHILL stated that he did not feel that this would be a problem. DOUG STEWART recommended that the Commission might condition the applicant to comply with the Old Town Historical Committee's street requirements for rolled asphalt burms. JOHN MIDDLETON advised that Condition No. 21 should read "relocated prior to occupancy". CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. PCMN2/04/91 -5- FEBRUARY 6, 1991 COI,~ISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1991 LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that the Old Town Historical Committee had approved the original buildings. He added that the applicant has tried to work with staff and the committee; however, based on their recent comments they do not feel they will be able to comply with their desires without changing the entire facility. He added that the applicant concurs with the Conditions of Approval and have no problem with time constrictions. He added that Condition No. 27 be modified to include the same last sentence as Condition No. 25 regarding mitigation fee, and Condition No. 29 be modified downward due to the minor changes that are being requested and the serious financial impact this would pose to the applicant. CHRISTINE MCCUSKER, applicant, 29710 Via Norte, Temecula, advised the Commission that she did have permits for the other modular units. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF advised that each of the Commissioner's had received letters in support of the facility. ALVA ALVAREZ, 25926 Summerhill Court, Temecula, expressed her satisfaction with the applicant's facility and indicated that she felt the business was an asset to the community. MIKE THESLING, 3021 Via Brisa, Temecula, stated that he felt that the applicant should abide by the rules and regulations as presented by the Old Town Architectural Committee and the Commission should not overrule their recommendations. COMMISSIONER ROAGLAND questioned if the Commission had the ability to reduce the deposit that is required in Condition No. 29. JOHN CAVANAUGR advised that the fee has been set by the City Council as an interim fee and the Commission does not have the ability to reduce the fee. He suggested that the applicant appeal to the City Council as to that particular Condition. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he felt staff need to look at the street improvement conditions and the timing of the improvements, which should be done in an orderly and timely manner. He added that the O.T.H.C. had some good comments and the applicant should comply with their PCMN2/04/91 -6- FEBRUARY 6, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1991 requests. Commissioner Ford also commented on the trash bins, and suggested that they should be located off-street with adequate access. He stated that staff should verify that all other units were properly permitted. commissioner Ford suggested that this item go back to staff to address these concerns and be brought back to the Commission as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF concurred with Commissioner Ford's comments and added that he felt the landscape improvements need to be completed. COMMISSIONER BLAIR also concurred with Commissioner Ford's comments and added that staff should look into a vacation of right-of-way and expressed a concern for approving this proposal without the approval of the O.T.H.C. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. and continue Plot Plan 138 to the meeting of February 25, 1991, seconded by Commissioner Blair. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission of the following: Requested three volunteers for a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the Traffic Commission. He would call the Commissioners once the meeting time and date was determined for volunteers to attend. Requested two volunteers for a Planning Institute seminar which the City Manager requested representatives from the Commission attend. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF and COMMISSIONER FAREY volunteered. * Review of the minute policy. PLANNING COMMISSION DIECU88ION * Approved the new floor plan for the meeting hall. * Discussion of the General Plan proposal. -7- FEBRUARY PCMN2/04/91 1991 PL]~'NING CO]OIIBSION XINUTE8 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 OTHER BU2INES8 COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to cancel the meeting of February 18, 1991, and moved to hold a special meeting of February 25, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ADJOURNMENT Next meeting of the Planning Commission will be hold Monday, February 25, 1991, 6:00 P.M. Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff /'~Secretary PCMN2/04/91 -8- FEBRUARY 6, 1991 ITEM #2 ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - ENGINEERING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1991 Case No.: Summary Vacation of Access and Sewer Easement Prepared By: Douglas Stewart ~ Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 91- APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Vacate Existing Access and Sewer Easement West side Ynez Road, south of Winchester Road SP (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan No. 180) North: SP South: SP East: C-1/C-P West: 1-15 Commercial North: South: East: West: ( General Commercial/ Restricted Commercial ) Commercial Center Auto Dealership Vacant/Auto Dealership 1-15 BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 65360 requires that before any planning action is taken, including a public service easement vacation, a finding of consistency with the future Ceneral Plan must be made. STAFFRPT\ENG-015 1 DISCUSSION: This vacation has been filed in conjunction with Parcel Merger No. 1 which merged Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Parcel Map No. 191l&5 in order that the developer might build across existing parcel lines. Parcel Merger No. 1 was recorded on November 30, 1990 (Instrument No. u,36726), creating one {1 ) lot. The existing sewer easement terminates at the 1-15 Freeway and, as such, cannot serve any adjoining properties. The access easement was dedicated to provide service to the sewer easement, as well as to provide additional access to Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 1910,5. The existing sewer and access easement alignment was required to provide access for a sewer line through an adjacent parcel and permit maintenance of the sewer line. With the parcel merger, no adjacent properties are affected. The parcel merger deleted adjoining lots, thus superseding the need for an easement through the adjacent properties and now places the easement within the same property. No other utility is within the easement. As stated in the Streets and Highway Code, Section 8333, a summary vacation may proceed if it is found that "The easement has been superseded by relocation and there are no other public facilities located within the easement." The easement is superseded by the parcel merger and relocation of the sewer improvements within the affected project boundary. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: The subject vacation and the proposed access is in conformance with both previously recorded Parcel Map No. 1910,5 and ensuing Parcel Merger No. 1 and the easement has been "superseded" by the merging of three (3) separate parcels into one parcel, eliminating the need of an easement. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 91- , finding the vacation of the existing sewer and access easement alignment, on the west side of Ynez Road, south of Winchester Road, to be consistent with the General Plan currently being developed by the City of Temecula, and will not be of substantial detriment to the General Plan if the vacation is found to be inconsistent when the General Plan is adopted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 91- finding that the summary vacation of the sewer and access easement is consistent with the General Plan presently being developed by the City of Temecula, and that there is no likelihood of substantial detriment to the General Plan if the vacation ultimately is inconsistent with the final plan adopted by the City. CH:ks Attachments: 2. 3. LI.. Vicinity Map Parcel Merger No. 1 Legal Description and Plat of Vacation Resolution STAFFRPT\ENG-015 2 VINEYARD ~ ~" AUTC CENTE' VII I Valley tflgh R~ Lrnheld School Project Area EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATE OF PARCEL MERGER NO.._~ ~ PAR. I PARCEL MAP 9'4=, PARCEL PAR. :3 t~, s ,~ p~ PAR. 2 ~ N ~ ~ MOTOR C~R '1 ROAD EPARED d, F. Davids0n ,a,,ssocia,~e$~ h~c. UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: .., :4.-':FT~q..__~ Date May 29, 1990 Revised June 18, J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE W.O, 9011524 1990 THE ACCESS AND SEWER EASEMENT AS DEDICATED ON PARCEL Fa%P 19145 Those portions of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 19145 as shown by map On file in Book 119 Of Parcel Maps, at pages 36 through 39 thereof, Records of Riverside County, California, described as followS: Commencing at the most Southerly corner of said Parcel 3; Thence N.25°51'15"W. along the Easterly line Of said Parcel 3, a distance of 107.36 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel of land to be described; Thence contfnuing N.25051'15"W. along said Easterly line, a distance of 14.91 feet; Thence N.41~53'lS"E., a distance of 71.57 feet; Thence N.43"ll'14"E., a distance of 52.11 feet; Thence N.42~48'33"E., a distance of 194.53 feet; Thence N.42°50'03"E., a distance of 159.92 feet; Thence N.0B°45'49"W., a distance of 648.88 feet; Thence N.79~46'43"E., a distance of 268.02 feet to the Northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; Thence S.10°13'17"E. along said Northeasterly line, a distance of 30.00 feet; Thence S.79°46' 43"W., Thence S. 07°06' 28"E., Thence S.08°45' 49"E., Thence S. 42043' 09"W., beginning. a distance of 248.78 feet; a distance of 172.82 feet; a distance of 452.41 feet; a distance of 491.70 feet, to the point of THE ACCESS & SEWER EASEMENT PARCEL MAP 19145 May 29, 1990 Revised June 18, 1990 Page 2 The above described easement as shown on attached Exhibit "A". L0/HAF/lb LEO:DN2 .~%~kiDESCRIPTION PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: 3307 ,/~.~ Homer A. Fountaine Date J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING VACATION OF A SEWER AND ACCESS EASEMENT. WHEREAS, the City is presently the owner of a sewer and access located within Parcel Map No. 191u,5 (i.e., Parcel Merger No. 1) (hereinafter, the "Easement"). The Easement is more particularly described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, AdvancedCardiovascularSystems, Inc., has petitionedthat the City vacate the Easement; and WHEREAS, before the City may vacate this easement, it must be determined whether the vacation is consistent with the General Plan the City is presently developing, pursuant to Government Code Section 65360; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. There is a reasonable probability that vacation of the Easement will be consistent with the General Plan the City is presently developing. SECTION 2. There is no likelihood of substantial detriment to or interference with the City's future General Plan if vacating the Easement ultimately is inconsistent with the Plan. SECTION 3. The vacation of the Easement complies with all other applicable requirements of State Law and City ordinances. SECTION o,. adoption of this Resolution. The Secretary to the Commission shall certify the SECTION 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula, does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution vacating sewer and access easement in conformance with Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 19 DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\ENG-015 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the __day of , 19 , by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: SECRETARY STAFFRPT\ENG-015 4 ITEM Case No.: STAFF REPORT - ENGINEERING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1991 Summary Vacation of Storm Drain Drainage Flowage, and Road Easements Prepared By: Douglas Stewart ~ Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 91- APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Margarita Village Development Company Rick Engineering Company Storm drain, drainage flowage and road easement. Generally located on the west side of Meadow Parkway (formerly Kaiser Parkway) east of Margarita Road, and south of South General Kearny Road (alignment). SP 199 (Specific Plan No. 199: Margarita Village) North: South: East: West: R-~ (Planned Residential) and R- R ( Rural Residential ) SP (Specific Plan) SP (Specific Plan) SP (Specific Plan) and R-1 {One-Family Dwelling) Graded/Unimproved Graded (unimproved) and Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: Governmental Code Section 65360 requires that before any planning action is taken, including a public services easement vacation, a finding of consistency with the future General Plan must be made. STAFFRPT\ENG-01~, 1 DISCUSSION: The storm drain, drainage flowage, and road easement to be vacated lies generally on the west side of Meadow Parkway (formerly Kaiser Parkway), east of Margarita Road and south of South General Kearny Road. This vacation is illustrated in Exhibit "B" and "C" of this report. This vacation is in conjunction with Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23371-6, 7 and 8, and per the Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23371. The vacation affects Tract Map No. 23371. The project site and property to the west, east, and south are within the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 and is graded. Land to the north is outside of the Specific Plan area and is developed as single family residential. The existing storm drain, drainage flowage, and road easements were intended to support development of the area, as originally projected by the County of Riverside. However, with adoption of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 and adoption of a revised street pattern and circulation network, as illustrated in Tract Map No. 23371, drainage, flowage and road easements suited to the area were adopted. This easement vacation is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan. As stated in the State of California Street and Highway Code, vacating of streets and public service easements (i.e., sewers, storm drains and drainage canals) is governed by Section 8300. Section 8333 stipulates that a summary vacation may proceed if it is found that "the easement has been superseded by relocation and there are no other public facilities located within the easement". SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Since the subject vacation and the revised storm drain, drainage flowage and road easement are in conformance with Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23371 and Specific Plan No. 199, and the easement has been "superseded" by the relocation of all utilities and other public uses, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 91 - , finding the vacation of the existing storm drain, drainage flowage, and road easements between Margarita Road and Meadow Parkway, south of South General Kearny Road is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and is expected to be consistent with the proposed General Plan currently being developed by the City of Temecula and will not be of substantial detriment to the General Plan if the vacation is found to be inconsistent when the General Plan is adopted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 91- finding that the SUMMARY VACATION of the Storm Drain, Drainage Flowage;'~nd Road Easements are CONSISTENT with the General Plan presently being developed by the City of Temecula, and that there is no likelihood of substantial detriment to the General Plan if the vacation is ultimately found to be inconsistent with the final plan adopted by the City. STAFFRPT\ENG-0111 2 CH:ks Attachments: Legal Description and Plat Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23371 Vicinity Map STAFFRPT\ENG-01~, 3 MW D. R/W PER PARCEL "C" OF INSTRUMENT NG 109720~ OR. (RECI2-13~67) PARCEL "A-I" (PER INSTRUMENT NO. 43269, 0 R REC. 2-18-88) / / M.V/D. SURVEY LINE PER RS. 70/85-95 19" 42' 50" W 67.62' A=09"52'~5' R'=3OG_q.O L=51.70 21°28'00" E 50.00' A= 78 '" 20' R= 15500' L= 211.93' PARCEL AMENDED RM. NO21884 P M. 152/22 6=69'"45'45" R=ISO.O0' L=182.64' PARCEL "A" INSTRU- MENT NO. 2~7271~0. R. REC, 9-26-86 NO. C033591 '~ /,-( ~ , I"-- Iod EXHIBIT "B" RICK eeNIIIN!IRINIi COMPANY CIVIL INIIINIIII;III,IIURVIyiSlalS-lelLANNIIIIB PROPOSED QUIT CLAIM EASEMENT BY: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO: MARGARITA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CO. ~:~_eCT NUVE=. 10588 9CALE I'= lOOm I (~ATE I--;5--90 0 SOUTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (PER PM. 6/39} PARCEL" ' I ' ~ ~ EXHIBIT "C" PROPOSED QUIT CLAIM EASEMENT BY:COUNFY OF RIVERSIDE TO:MARGARITA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CO. RICK INIIINIIFIINII COMPANY KICK ENGINI,ZI ;RING COMPANY J-10583 EXHIBIT "A"-STORM DRAIN, ROAD EASEMENT VACATIONS By: DW/jZ Date: October 18, 1990 DRAINAGE FLOWAGE AND Page 1 o| 6 Legal Description TC Rel. Co. Orde~ Date Oescr, Rev. By Those portions of the Rancho Temecula granted by the government of the United States of America to Luis Vignes by patent dated January 18, 1860 and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California, lying within the County of Riverside, State of california, described as follows: Parcel "A" A strip of land 60.00 feet wide as described in Parcel 1 of a document recorded September 26, 1986 as Instrument No. 237271 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, the centerline being described as follows: Commencing at tile Southerly terminus of a course in the centerline of Margarita Road shown as North 12° 53' 15" East 1038.72 feet on a map of Tract No. 21082-1 filed in Book 160, Pages 27 through 30 of Maps jn the office of the County Recorder of said county; thence along said centerline North 12° 53' 15" East 20.63 feet; thence South 77° 06' 45" East 55.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and a point in the Easterly right-of-way line of said Margarjta Road; theHce continuing South 77° 06' 45" East 245.00 feet; thence North 12~ 53' 15" East 432.47 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Southwesterly and having a radius of 150.00 feet; thence alrlng said curve Northwesterly 182.64'feet through a central anqle of I;9° 45' 45" to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave Northeasterly and having a radius of 155.00 feet, a radial line to ~;aid curve at said point bears South 33' 07' 30" West; thence along said curve Northwesterly 211.93 feet through a central angle of 78° 20' 30"; thence tangent from said curve North 21° 28' 00" East 50.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Southeasterly and having a radius of 300.00 feet; thence along said curve Northeasterly 51.70 feet through a central angle of 09° 52' 25"; thenl:e tailgent from said curve North 31° 20' 25" East 331.60 J-10583 EXHIBIT "A"-STORM DRAIN, ROAD EASEMENT VACATIONS By: DW/jz Date: October 18, 1990 Page 2 Of 6 I ICK ENGINI,;I,;I',IN(,; (;OMI'ANY Legal Description TC Fief. co. DRAINAGE FLOWAGE AND Order Degcr. to a point in tile Southeasterly line of the Metropolitan Water District right-of-way (80.00 feet wide) as described in Parcel "C" of a document recorded December 13, 1967 as Instrument No. 109720 of Official Records in said office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, The sidelines of said strip of land shall be lengthened or shortened so as to terminate Northerly in said Southeasterly line of Parcel "C". Parcel "A-i" A strip of land 20.00 feet wide as described in Parcel 1 of a document recorded February 18, 1988 as Instrument No. 43269 of Official Records of said Riverside County, the centerline being described as follows: Commencing at the centerline intersection of Yukon Road with Margarita Road as shown on a map of Tract No. 21082 filed in Book 164, Pages 21 through 24 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County; thence along said centerline of Margarita Road North 12 °53' 15" East 399.49 feet; thence South 77° 06' 45" East 55.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 19° 42' 50" East 67.62 to the Westerly line of Parcel 1 of a document recorded September 20, 1986 as Instrument No. 237271 of official Records in said Office of the Riverside County Recorder. TIle sidelines of said strip of land shall be lengthened or shortened so as to terminate Northwesterly in the Easterly line of said Margnrita Road (110.00 feet wide) and Southeasterly in said Westerly I~ne of said Parcel 1. J-10583 EXHIBIT "A"-STORM DRAIN, ROAD EASEMENT VACATIONS By: DW/iZ Date: October ].8, ].990 Page 3 of 6 RICK ENt;INEEI<ING ODM!'ANY DRAINAGE FLOWAGE AND Legal Description ['arcel "B" A strip of land of varying widths as described in Parcel 2 of a document recorded September 26, 1986 as Instrument No. 237271 of Official Records of said Riverside County, the centerline being described as follows: Commencing at the centerline intersection of Margarita Road with South General Kearny Road as shown on Parcel Map No. 4758, filed in Book 6, Page 39 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County; thence along said centerline of south General Kearny Road South 59° 45' 18" East 339.16 feet; thence South 30© 14' 42" West 44.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of said South General Kearny Road, said point being hereinafter referred to as Point "B"; thence continuing South 30° 14' 42" West 53.04 feet to a point being hereinafter referred to as Point "B-i"; thence continuing South 30' 14' 42" West 858.96 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Easterly and having a radius of 400.00 feet, said point hereinafter referred to as Point "B-2"; thence along said curve Southerly 258.20 feet through a central angle of 36° 59' 03" to a point hereinafter referred to as Point "C"; thence continuing along said curve Southerly 155.00 feet through a central angle of 22° 12' 08" to a point in the Northwesterly line of the Metropolitan Water District right-of-way (80.00 feet wide) as described in Parcel "C" of a document recorded December ]3, 1967 as Instrument No. 109720 of Official Records in said Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, said point hereinafter referred to as Point "D". Said strip of land shall be 20.00 feet wide between said Point "B" and said ]'oint "C" and 40.00 feet wide between said Point "C" and said Point "D". J-10583 EXHIBIT "A"-STORM DRAIN, ROAD EASEMENT VACATIONS By: DW/jZ Date: October 18, 1990 Page 4 of 6 I ICK I']N[;INI ;I,;I{INC COMI'ANY Legal Description TC DRAINAGE FLOWAGE AND co,_ Order 11o, Oescr, Rev. By The sidelines of said strip of land shall be lengthened or shorteneel so as to terminate Southerly in said Northwesterly line of Parcel "C". Parcel "l~-l" A strip of] land 10.00 feet wide as described in a document recorded February 18, 1988 as Instrument No. 43271 of Official Records of said Riverside County, the centerline being described as follows: Commenci~g at said Point "B-i" described in Parcel "B" above, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North O0° 14' 42" West 61.25 feet to the Southerly right-of-way line of said South General Kearny Road (88.00 feet wide). The sidelines of said strip of land shall be lengthened or shortened so as to terminate Northerly in said Southerly right-of- way line of [~outh General Kearny Road and Southerly in the Northwesterly line of Parcel "B", above. Parcel "l~-2" A strip of land 20.00 feet wide as described in Parcel 1 of a document recorded February 18, 1988 as Instrument No. 43270 of Official Records of said Riverside County, the centerline being described as follows: I ICK I']N( Legal Description J-10583 TcR~I , EXHIBIT "A"-STORM DRAIN, DRAINAGE FLOWAGE AND ROAD EASERENT VACATIONS Older No, __ By: DW/j z Descr. Date: October 18, 1990 Rev, ey Page 5 of 6 Beginning at said Point "B-2" described in Parcel "B" above; thence South 30' 14' 42" West 132.19 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point "B-3"; thence continuing South 30° 14' 42" West 446.78 feet to a point on a curve concave Southwesterly and having a radius of 1255.00 feet, said curve being concentric with and 55.00 feet Easterly from a curve in the centerline of Margarita Road having a radius of 1200.00 feet and a central angle of 37° 35' 44" a~ shown on a Map of Tract No. 21082 filed in Book 164, Pages 21 through 24 of maps in said Office of the Riverside County Recorder. Excepting therefrom that portion lying within the land described in said Parcel "B", above. The sidelines of said strip of land shall be lengthened or shortened so as to terminate Southerly in said concentric curve having a radius of 1255.00 feet. Parcel "B-3" A strip of land 20.00 feet wide as described in Parcel 2 of a document recorded February 18, 1988 as Instrument No. 43270 of Official Records of said Riverside County, the centerline being described as follows: J-10583 EXHIBIT "A"-STORM DRAIN, ROAD EASErlIF]NT VACATIONS By: DW/jz Date: October 18, 1990 Page 6 of 6 DRAINAGE Legal Description FLOWAGE AND TC Ref. Co. Order No, ' ROV. By Beginning at said Point "B-3" described in Parcel "B-2" above; thence North 32° 45' 30" West 344.28 feet to the Southeasterly line of La Serena Way (88.00 feet wide) as described in Parcel 3 of a document recorded July 25, 1986 as Instrument No. 176221 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County. The sidelines of said strip of land shall be lengthened or shortened so as to terminate Southeasterly in the Northwesterly line of snLd Parcel "B-2" and Northwesterly in said Southeasterly line of La Serena Way. See Exhibits "B" and "C" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. · .'. ,~j~ zr2~ ~ ~> Robert A. ,qtockton R.C.E. 33591 License Expires 6-30-94 RESOLUTION NO, 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING VACATION OF ASTORM DRAIN, DRAINAGE FLOWAGE, AND ROAD EASEMENTS. WHEREAS, the City is presently the owner of a storm drain, drainage flowage, and road easements located within Tentative Vesting Tract Map No. 23371 (hereinafter, the "Easement"). The Easement is more particularly described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; W H E R EAS, Margarita Vi II age Development Compan y, has petitioned that the City vacate the Easement; and WHEREAS, before the City may vacate this easement, it must be determined whether the vacation is consistent with the General Plan the City is presently developing, pursuant to Government Code Section 65360; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. There is a reasonable probability that vacation ofthe Easement will be consistent with the General Plan the City is presently developing. SECTION 2. There is no likelihood of substantial detriment to or interference with the CityIs future General Plan if vacating the Easement ultimately is inconsistent with the Plan. SECTION 3. The vacation of the Easement complies with all other applicable requirements of State Law and City ordinances. SECTION 4. adoption of this Resolution. The Secretary to the Commission shall certify the SECTION 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula, does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution vacating storm drain, drainage flowage, and road easements in conformance with Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 19 DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\ENG-014 4 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the __ day of , 19 , by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: SECRETARY STAFFRPT\ENG-01~, 5 ITEM 15 ITEM ~6 MEMORANDUM TO; FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director f32' February 25, 1991 Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683, based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PROPOSAL: Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683, proposes to allow an existing 2,160 square foot modular classroom, in conjunction with an existing day car center, for 24 students and one instructor on approximately 0.86 acres located on the southwest corner of Metcedes and Third Street. BACKGROUND: On February 4, 1991, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's proposal; and, continued this item in order to allow the Planning Department Staff the opportunity to: Set appropriate time limitations to the Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 183, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683, in regards to the following: Installation of landscape and right-of- way improvements. Completion of structural improvement to the subject modular structure in order to comply with the applicable building codes for seismic and safety measures. STAFFRPT\PP138 1 The applicant has revised the proposed landscape improvements for the southwest corner of Metcedes and Third Street and has extended drought tolerant landscaping treatment up to the right-of-way along Metcedes and Third Street. The edge of the pavement will be composed of roll A/C berm along Metcedes of Third Street. (See revised landscape plan. ) Both Staff and the applicant have compiled past approval documentation of the existing buildings and are attached. The modular that was not represented on the site plan was approved on March 25, 1985 by the County Planning Department through Plot Plan No. 26~,5, a copy of which is also attached. The Building and Safety Director has been in direct contact with the applicant regarding structural calculations for the subject modular structure. To date, the applicant has not submitted structural calculations to the Building and Safety Department for review. On February 11, 1991, the Old Town Temecula Architectural Control Committee held a special meeting and determined that the proposed design improvements were satisfactory for the subject modular classroom. However, the committee decided not to make a formal recommendation for the proposal in order not to set a precedent. Both the applicant and the committee agreed to allow the subject modular classroom to remain temporarily on the subject site for 5 years from the approval date. After the 5th year, the applicant will have the following options: Remove the modular. Replace modular with permanent structure. Seek approval from the committee to maintain the modular. ( The condition is attached. ) STAFFRPT\PP138 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683, based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RA:ks Attachments: 2. 3. 5. Resolution Conditions of Approval Attachments Staff Report (February 4, 1991 ) Minutes (February 4, 1991 ) STA FFR PT\PP138 q RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 138 REVISED PLOT PLAN NO. 9683 TO ALLOW FOR A 2,160 SQUARE FOOT MODULAR CLASSROOM IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING DAY CARE CENTER ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 0.86 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF MERGEDES AND THIRD STREET AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-040-014 AND 922-040- 015 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. John McCusker filed Plot Plan No. 138 Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 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 February 25, 1991, 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 Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: STAFFRPT\PP138 5 (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. 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 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. 138 Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 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. STAFFRPT\PP138 6 D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) 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 surroundin9 property. (2) ThePlanningCommission, inapprovingtheproposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 138 Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated architectural features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated commercial development standards. b) 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, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines and recommendations as discussed in the project analysis. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing C-1/C-P (General Commercial land use designation. STAFFRPT\PP138 7 d) e) f) g) h) 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, due to the fact that adequate area is provided for all proposed structures; area for adequate landscaping is provided along the projects public and private frontages; and the internal circulation/parking plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions include driveways and parking areas in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project as discussed in the above Findings, Facts, and body of the Staff Report. 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, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses. Commercial facilities are currently existing adjacent to the proposal. 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, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site iC-1/C-P; General Commercial), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan {SWAP) designation of commercial. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes a circular driveway accessing Metcedes Street which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\PP138 8 i) 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· due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. j) That said findings are supported by minutes· maps and exhibits referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site· and as compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. Pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for environmental review. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 to allow for a 2,160 square foot modular classroom in conjunction with an existing day-care center located on the south corner of Metcedes and Third Street and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-040-014 and 922-040-015 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 199 DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\PP138 9 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 25th day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNINC COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP138 10 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 138. Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 Project Description: 2,160 Square FootModularClassroom Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-0~0-01~, and 015 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this revised plot plan is for the placement of a 2.160 square foot portable classroom located on the south corner of Metcedes and Third Street. The permittee 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 Revised Plot Plan No. 138. 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 harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall 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 (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on March 8, 1993. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 marked Exhibit C, 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 herein. STAFFRPT\PP138 11 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. A certificate of Parcel Merger shall be recorded by the County Recorder through the Planning Department for Assessor~s Parcel Nos. 922-040-014 and 922-040-015 within 90 days of the approval date. (Amended per Planning Commission February ~,, 1991. ) Within 15 days of the approval date, 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. (Amended per Planning commission February 4, 1991. ) All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans within 60 days of the approval date. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty ~30) inches. (Amended per Planning Commission February ~,, 1991. ) A minimum of 5 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Five (5) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit C. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Health School District Fire Department Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibits A and B. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibits A and B (Color Elevations). No roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on any building within the project site. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity along Metcedes. All existing 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 Planning Director. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. STAFFRPT\PP138 12 18o After the 5th year from the Planning Commission approval date, the applicant shall do one of the following: Remove the modular classroom; Replace the modular classroom with a permanent structure; or Seek approval from the Old Town Temecula Architectural Control Committee to maintain the modular classroom. Enqineerinq Department The followin9 are the Engineerin9 Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 19. 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; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. 20. The developer shall submit four (Li) 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 2Li"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 21. The developer shall submit four {4) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 22. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. STAFFRPT\PP138 13 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 23. 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 compact{on and site conditions. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 25. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 26. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. 27. Provide documentation that alley has been vacated. Buildinq and Safety Department For submittal of plans for Plan Review, the following information will be required: 28. Conditions No. 28(a) through {e) shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for plan review within 30 days of the approval date. (Amended per Planning commission February ~,, 1991. ) a. Provide fully dimensioned plans for Plan Review (2 sets). Provide engineered wet stamped plans for permanent foundation with consideration to Seismic Zone No. 4. c. Provide reflected ceiling plan. d. Provide Manufacturers Specification Manual. e. Provide site grade differentials for handicapped. STAFFRPT\PP138 29. The applicant shall fill out an Application for Final Inspection, allow two weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final inspection. Riverside County Fire Department 30. The existing water mains and fire hydrants located along the property frontage will provide sufficient fire flow for the additional building. The existing fire alarm system shall be updated to provide manual pull stations in each room with alarm bells located so as to be audible from any space within all buildings. Periodic fire alarms will be conducted with records maintained for fire department review. 32. Within 30 days of the approval date, the applicant shall have received clearance for the increased occupant load and certification of a fire safety inspection for the facility. (Amended per Planning Commission February ~,, 1991. ) STAFFRPT\PP138 15 W OLD TOWN TEMECUL_A ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE September 10, 1990 Members present: Donald Cummins, Dallas Gray, Robert Morris. Tony robin, Bill Harker The meeting convened at 8:05 a.m. at 28465 Front Street, Suite 201. Bob Morris said that he had been approached by a party that is considering rebuilding the old Red Schoolhouse on Main Street that burned down. Morris also reported tl~at tlne people operating the horse drawn carriages in Old Town are interested jn converting the annex to the bank building, at the cornet of Fror, t and Main Streets, back into a blacksmith shop and livery stable for their horses and carriages. Doc Cummins questioned the mobile unit that has been erected at Kids World on 2nd Street and whether or not they had a city permit. The matter was never brought before the committee for consideration, Morris reported that the City Planning DepaT'trl,~nt ix ppw requiring Tomac to re-file on their planned r, eH building because of the changes suggested fly the committee. The committee unanimously feels this is an imposition and uncalled for since there are no structural changes volved, only some external appearance which the committee had approved. This again points. up the need to get with the Planning Department and educate them on what we are trying to accomplish in Old Town, m A discussion was held on the advantages of extending thn historic overlay to include Sam Hicks Park and the Fire Station. Also, at the opposite end of town to extend overlay to include the Butte'rfield Inn and Western Lumber. 6. It was suggested we get a list of all property owners in Old Town with names, addresses, and phone numbers. Meeting adjourned at 9 a.m. NEXT MEETING will be at Bob Morris' house, 44050 E1 Prado, off De Luz and Carrancho Roads on Monday, October 15st. We ~ill meet at the Swing Inn fo~ breakfast at 7 a.m. and ride to the meeting with Doc Cummins. OI [> TOWN TEHECUI,A ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE Special Meeting at Kids bJerld November 19, 1990 Members present: Donaid Cummins, Da]las Gray, Bob MOrTis, B~ll Harker This meeting at Kids World was called by Chaif'rf,a~ Cummins look at the mobile unit that was moved onto tile property without the consent of the committee and without a City permit, The committee found the building to be non-conforming and use without a permit for occupancy. The Edison Company has not hooked up the electric power and electricity ~s being provided by a temporary line run into the building by the owner. It ~as the committee's decision to turn the matter ov~ to the City Planning and Building Departments for enforcement oF the ordinance covering Old Town Temecula with the suggestion that the building be removed or modified to meet recommenda-- tions to be forthcoming from the committee after another discussion ~ith the owners, ~he subject building is located on the south side of Third " Sty-eeL near Metcedes Street, OLD TOWN TEMECULA ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE P.O. Box 435 Temecula, CA 92390 November 27, 1990 City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Temecula, CA 92390 Drive Attn: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman, Planning Commission Subj: Mobile Structure at Kids World As noted in the minutes of the September 10 and November 19 minutes of the Architectural Control Committee (copies enclosed) the committee has found that the mobile structure erecte~ at Kids World Preschool & Elementary School, 41956 3rd Street in Old Town Temecula, is in direct violation of the standards established for buildings in that portion of the Old Town area covered by the historical overlay. This structure was put in place on the above referenced property without prior contact with, or approval of, the committee and we understand, without a city permit. To allow this violation to remain will would severely handicap the committee assigned responsibilities. set a precedent that in carry out its Therefore, the Architectural Control Committee requests that the City of Temecula take immediate and appropriate action to remedy the situation. We suggest that a permit of occupancy be denied and that the building regulations in Old Town be enforced by requiring the structure to be removed. The committee will be pleased to meet with your body at any time to answer any questions you may have regarding this letter. Sincerely, Donalc~u~ins Chairman cc: Committee Members .~71:69547 t{ovez:xber 2~, 1976 File Hr. ~chard H. llansley P. O. l~ox 7 T~cula, Calt~oruia 92390 Ro: 18.30 (C-l) Plot P!rn I~o. 2645 Legal Doscription: Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 o£ TOk'D of TemaCul-~, ~iB 15/725 A~sessor~s Parcel Nos. 922~63~03 ~nd Dea,c lit. licerelay: This letter is to report approval of your application for establishment of a ~ay care center at 61956 3rd Street which is located in the C-1 Zon~ in the ~e~cula arfm of Riverside County. This approval is subject to the randstory requirements of the Riverside County Cod~s cad the follo~lu~ condittonsI - -:>. 1. The dayelopement of the preenlees shall conform substantially vlth that cs sho~n ~. on plo= pl~, marked Exhibit "A" on file uith 18.30 (6-1) Plot Pl&n No. 2643. A tinlinen of four parkin~ spaces shell be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. The parkin~ area shall be surfaced wi~h deco~osed are-its as per Section 18.12 (b)(1) b.2. 3. Any outside lighting shall be hooded sod directod so as not to shine directly upon adJoiuiu8 proper~y or public ri~hts-of-vay. 4. Thee. approve/shall becozas null sod void and of no effect ~hatsoever on July 1, 1977. Prior to occupanry or use, the applicant shall: a. C~ly with County Ordinance 5~6 and TItle 19 of California Administrsttv~ Code. b. ObEain clearance and/or permits from the foLiovisE agency: County Department of Fire Pro~ec~ion Written evidence of cou~lianc~ shall be presented to the Land Use Division of ~ Department of BulZding and Safety. Ploz Plan No. 2645 PaSo 2 This approval shall be ueed within one year from this date of approval; other- ~rlse it shall becoma null and void and o~ no effect vh~tooevcr. By uso is z'~ant the beginning of substantial construction cootc~latcd by thio tpprov~l ~:lthtn the one-year period ~hl~x is ~hereafCer dili~ently pursued to coterie-- Clot, or the beginning of subst~ntial utlli~ation conteu~latcd by this approval. In the e,~nt the use pen~ttted hereby consea operation for a period of one year or nore~ this approval shall beeohm null mxd void. A copy of the approved plot plan is enclosed for your files. Very.truly yours~ RIVERSIDE CO~a~/PLAI~ING DEPAErI.~fr A. ~. ~e~conb - PlaneinS DIrector Stove G./4cCutchan, Planner I S~l:ebr Enclosures cc~ Dept. of Building and Safety Dept. of ~lte Protection ~lrs. Chr$stinm HcCu~ker, 30380 Del Key Road, Tenecula CA 92390 '4 Y -- I I : :eiVE:t iDE counc.u PL, nninG DEi , :ICliIEnT'' March 25, 1985 Malinda Diaz Kids World Day Care Center 41956 3rd Street Temecula, CA 92390 Re: REVISED LETTER 18.30 (C-I/C-P) Plot Plan No. 2645 Legal Description: Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Town of Temecula, MB 15/726 Assessor's Parcel Nos. 922-043-003 and 004 Temecula Area Dear Ms. Di az: This is to report approval of your application for expansion and an existing day care center at 41956 3rd Street which is located in the C-1/C-P 2one in the Temecula area of Riverside County. This approval is subject to the mandatory requirements of the Riverside County Codes and the following conditions: The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Revised Exhibit "A" on file with 18.30 (C-I/C-P) Plot Plan No. 2645. A minimum of three parking spaces shall be provided on site in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be surfaced with decomposed granite as per Section 18.12 (b) (1) b.2. An additional twelve parking spaces shall be provided within the "Butterfield Square? parking facilities. 3. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 4. This approval shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever on July 1, 1997. 5. Prior to occupancy or use, the applicant shall: a. Comply with County Ordinance 546 and Title 19 of California Administrative Code. b. Obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agency: County Dept. of Building & Safety County Dept. of Fire Protection County Plaffning Dept. County Health Dept. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 Malinda Diaz March 25, 1985 Page - 2 - Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. This approval shall be used within one year from this date of approval; other- wise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the one-year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. In the event the use permitted hereby ceases operation for a period of one year or more, this approval shall become null and void. A copy of the approved revised plot plan is enclosed for your files. All landscaped areas shown on the approved plan shall be planted as indicated. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Any on-site advertising (signs) shall be submitted to the County Planning Depart- ment for review of conformance with the provisions of Section 19.4, Riverside County Ordinance 348. Very truly yours, Riverside County Planning Department Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director FAD:nl cc: Dept. of Building & Safety Dept. of Fire Protection Heal ty Dept. Eric. Supervising Plan~r RiVERSiDE COU~ PLanflinG DEP, ARDTL REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE MAILING ADDRESS ~\\c~5(~ ~'T~'~L ~<'~' DATE STANP: : b E TF2,( ,P ~ JAN Li: R~VE'RS!~E COU?;TY ~LP, N~H'~C COMM~SSIOV, PHONE NO. REPRESENTATIVE MAILING ADDRESS PHONE HO. Case .o: p ~e~'S ?,?. Assessor' s 'Parcel NO. r~Zi'~C~IL'sL-'~'S' ,~ q~c)~\~<~\- (0 Have there been any prior requests for Substantial Conformance? YES__ NO__ If yes, when, and of what nature? Nature and Extent of Current Revision Request: ~? :, :/,;:,.,. ~,, ,,.,, . d,..,- ~/~-,,,,~ , .(~ :.~',/~-, ~,/ .....,, _ Signature of Applicant %.~r~,'.~ ~.~,. ~ Date ' Signature of Representative Date I certify that the above request for Substantial Conformance is acceptable to the Riverside County P1 arming Department and meets and does not exceed the nature and extent of based on the following reasons: Case No. By: Date p? ~3-4° 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROE. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA (714) 787-6181 (619) 34_ TO: :liVF,:l~iDC- COUrl~,u ~,,n,.~.. PLAnrlinG DEPA=I;rilEF -', ~,, DATE: Hay 5, 1987 a,t,~-~_ EG .. Hem~ RL . SURVEYOR Pams BB ROAD BUILDING AND S}~FETY 'Ranchn / JT FLOOD CONTROL OTHER RS _ HEALTH Ft! F SM FIRE PROTECTION ~/2,~e'~ DB .. SG ys~E:,L Plot Plan No. 9683 Environmental Assessment No. · Regional Team No. One ROUTE TO On May 5, 1987 the Riverside County~'t Plannihg Director/[] Planning ~i;i,~.o?,n Board of su.erv~sors'took the following action on the above referenced XX APPROVED the Plot Plan, Exhibit A , subject to the attached conditions. APPROVED the Plot Plan, Exhibit , subject to the attached amended conditions. APPROVED the Plot Plan, Revised Exhibit , subject to the attached conditions. APPROVED the Plot Plain, Revised Exhibit , subject to the attached amenc ' ', , DENIED the appeal. is filed within that period. Very truly yours, SURVEYOR - WHITE KK:bc 295-42 REVISED ROAD - BLUE HEALTH - PINK RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT R9ger S. Streeter, Planning Director Kevin Ktsh, Planner BUILDING AND SAFETY - GREEN FIRE PROTECTION - GOLDENROD FLOOD - CANARY PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL DATE: 5-5-87 RIVERSIDE COURTY PLAMNI!IG DEPAJrI'!qENT CORDITIONS OF APPROVAL Mr. and Mrs, Cusker 41956 Third Street Temecula. CA 92390 PLOT PLAN NO. 9683 Project Description: Add buildinq to exis~in Day Care Center Assessor s gParcel No.: r a The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against .the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning P~yP1 9683 The County of Riverside will promptly no t~ permittee 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 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 County of Riverside. This approval shall be used within twn (!) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever· By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2} year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to compel~{io~ or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A , or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (3} year or more, this approval shall become null and void. 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 street improvement recommendations outlined in the County Road Department transmittal dated 4-28-87 , a copy of which is attached. PLOT PLAN NO. '9683 Conditions of Approval Page -2- 10. 11. 12. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittal dated 3-31-87, a copy of which is attached. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District transmittal dated 4-24-87, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 4-27-87, a copy of which is attached. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscaped, irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic spinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) than i inches. A minimum of ten (10) parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be surfaced with decomposed granite compacted to a minimum thickness of three (3} inches treated with not less than ½ gellon per square yard of penetration coat oil, followed within six months by an application of ~ gallon per square yard of seal coat oil. A minimum of one {1) handicapped parking space shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 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 of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign'to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than I inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or bytelephoning PLOT PLAN NO. 9683 Conditions of Approval Page -3- 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of a building permits the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Environmental Health Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits a certificate of Parcel Merger, shall be recorded by the County Recorder through the Planning Department. All existing 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 Planning Director. The property is located within thirty {30} miles of Mount Palomar Ob- servatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be minimized, especially during the late night and early morning hours. All 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 luminaire. All existing structures on the subject property shall conform to all of the applicable requirements of Ordinance 348. 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 Exhibit A, a land division shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance. PLOT PLAN NO. 9683 Conditions of Approval Page -4- Prior to any use allowed by this Plot Plan, the applicant shall obtain clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordinance No. 348. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, 6 copies of a Shading, Parking, Landscaping and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance 348, Section 18.12. KK:bc 5/11/87 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER ~, COUNTY SURVEYOR April 28, 1987 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92051 (Day Care) Re: Plot Plan 9683 Team 1 - SMD ~9 Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced item, the Road Department has the fol..lowing recommendations: Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall complete the following conditions at no cost to any government agency: No additional right of way shall be required on 3rd Street since adequate right of way exists. Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permi t, the applicant shall construct the following at no cost to any government agency: 3rd Street shall be improved with asphalt concrete dikes located 20 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; reconstruction or resurfacing of existing paving as determined by the Road Commissioner within a 30 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section 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 Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. ~n:9683 1987 5. Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section 11.1. 6. work done within County right of way shall have an 7. A1 driveway shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans· Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with PP 9637. Lj:lh Principal Eng. Technician of Riverside County Plannin~ Department - Tm 1 Attn: Kevin Kish ~-noM, Jim Gillis, R.S,, St. Sanitarian, PLOT PLAN 9683. March 31, 1987 Environmental Health Services Division The Environmental Health Services Division has reviewed Plot Plan 9683 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to any building plan submittals. the followin.~ will be required: 1. ~'W~ill-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies./' 4~to 2. If there Ks be a f6od facility/establishment, three complete sets of plans will be submitted showing a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to insure compliance with the California Health and Safety Code. April. 24, ]987 Riverside County Pl~nf~ing Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. Kevin Kish 1 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re~ Plot Plan 9683 Plot Plan 9603 i~ a proposal to add a building to an existing day care center in Temecula, southeast of Third Street and approxi- mately 150 northeast of Front Street. Storm runoff from above Interstate 15 is discharged from a cul- vert beneath the freeway and these flows are conveyed in a drainage swale to the intersection of Hercedes Street and Third Street. At this point, stormwater can flow in either direction do~ Mercedes Street or down Third Street. The submitted plans indicate a finished pad elevation thst, alon~ with the asphalt berm along Third Street, will provide adequate flood protection. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS C~ief Engineer JOHN M. ]~SHUBA Senior Civil Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT ..cooPE.A,.o.w.,.,HE RAY HEBRARD FIRE CHIEF 4-27-87 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: TEAM I 'RE: PP 9683 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow of 1250 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. The required fire flow shall be available from a super hydrant, (6"x4"x2½x2½), located not less than 25 ft- or more than 165 ft. from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The applicant/developer shall provide written certification from the appropriate water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing or that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. Install a fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code, Prior ~o the issuance of a building permit at w~Lh the Riverside County F~re Department, foot as mitigation for f~y~ Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set forth by the Fire Department- 9. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in Building and Safety. All questions'regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. RiV R3iD - COU ,u PLi RRiR , Date: January 30, 1988 To: Engineer/Applicant Riv. Co. ROad Dept. Riv. Co. Health Dept. Riv. Co. Dept. of Bldg. & Safety Riv. Co. Flood Control Riv. Co. Fire Department File SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE CASE NO. Plot Plan 9683 The attached copy of the above referenced case has been reviewed by the Riverside County Planning Department and is considered to be substantially in conformance with the officially approved case. The Planning Department will consider this action final unless advised to the contrary by an affected County Department or other agency. Requested change: Elimination of the 5' setback of the new classroom building. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director Deb Ubnoske, Supervising Planner OlD TONN TEMEC:Ui (~ IIISTDP]C:~L PRESERVATION [dSIR]C1 LOC:(~L REVIEN BO(~RD Specj a] Heetj FeLruary 1. 1. 10'41 Members Present.: Donald C~Hnmins. Rot,el t I, Iorris. Dallas GIaV. B.tll Harkef. lonv fobin Guests P{esent: Richaid Ayala. Johll blc:kusl, el . Robert Blotherr. on The meeting convened at 8:30 .~.m. at 28465 F~c.~n~ St;eet. Suite 201 for the pLlrpose of revjewjr, g the p~oposed aicldteotu~al treatment or~ the non*conforming modular building erect, ed at Kid's World on Third Stleet in Did Town ~emecula. While the pr'opose,] additions to the structure did help to make it look more like the other buildinOs on the property they did not comp]etely conceal the fact that it is a rnodular building, ~hjc:h ~ype ~,Ll~]d~l'lq js not pelmjit:ed jn Ll-te Old To~n Historic District as seL fot Lh in Ordinance 578. In view of the fact the building is already ~n place and may. by CiLV code. ~equise a perlnanent foundation whioh does not exist at the present Lime. the Loc:al Rex, jew Boa~d suqgested a compromise that would call fo~ removal of U~e building at the end of five (5) years. This suggestjcH~ was made out of deference t.o the applicant and would p~ovlde him with an opportunity to recover some of his investment. The applicant. John Mckusker indicated this was acueptable to bin,. On the basis of the foregoing. the Board l, ook no action, neither approving nor denying the proposed additions to the structure. prefe, rinq to leave the matter up to I. he C'iI.y Building and Planning Departments to determine if the build- ing meets current codes and Nhether om not the requirement of foundations might be waived in 'view of Lhe at,c~ve fecommended flve year morato~ Lure. In the event the building is t.o remain in place for' five years, the Board would want to see the r;i oposed exterior- architectural additions made as submitted at this meeting, The Board then moved on to reviewing the ~,chitect.tlral GuideJ~nes and incorporated some chanaes to make then~ more effective and acceptable wlthin the nleanjng and lntent of the Histor'ic PreservaL[on Dlstrlct Ordinance No. 578. The meeting adiouned at ~:45 a.m. WjlLiam (~. Hal ket STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February ~,, 1991 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: John and Christine McCusker John and Christine McCusker Revised permit to allow for a modular classroom. Southwest corner of Metcedes and Third Street C-1/C-P (General Commercial) North: C-P-S South: C- 1 / C-P East: C-P-S West: C-1/C-P (Scenic Highway Commercial ) ( General Commercial ) (Scenic Hi9hway Commercial ) ( General Commercial ) Not requested. Day Care Center North: South: East: West: Vacant and Commercial Vacant and Commercial Vacant Commercial STAFFRPT\PP138 16 PROJECT STATISTICS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND: Total Acreage: Building Sites: No. I 0,8~x20' (Existing) No. 2 35'x0,0' (Existing) No. 3 19'x26' (Existing) No. u, 27'x781 (Existing) No. 5 36'x60' ( Proposed ) Total Building Area: 0.86 960 sq.ft. 1 ,u,00 sq.ft. q90, sq.ft. 2,1u,6 sq.ft. Z, 160 sq. ft. 7,160 sq.ft. The applicant is seeking approval to allow for a 2,160 square foot modular classroom, in conjunction with an existing day-car center, for 2Li students and one instructor on 0.86 acres located on the southwest corner of Metcedes and Third Street. Currently there are four (u,) permitted buildings on-site and range from 0,9q to 2,10,6 square feet, totaling approximately 5,000 square feet of building area. With the existing non-permitted building, the building area is 7,160 square feet. The subject modular classroom was installed without prior contact or approval from the Architectural Control Committee for Old Town Temecula and without a City building permit, which includes a clearance from the Planning Department. An application was subsequently submitted to the City of Temecula on August 23, 1990 for the subject modular classroom and presented to the Formal Development Review Committee { DRC ) on January 3, 1991. Since the submittal date, Staff has been in direct contact with the applicant and has recommended they contact the Old Town Temecula Architectural Control Committee to discuss their project. On November 19, 1990, the Committee held a special meeting at KidIs World (subject site) to review the existing modular. The Committee found the modular to be non-conforming in terms of architectural appropriateness; and in use without a Permit of Occupancy. The Committee also suggested that the modular be removed or modified to meet architectural recommendations that were to be suggested from the Committee after another discussion with the applicants, which was never scheduled. STAFFRPT\PP138 17 ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff held a meeting with the Committee on January 15, 1991 to discuss their major concerns regarding the proposal. At the meeting, it was determined that the Committee had concerns regarding modular structures within the Old Town Temecula Historic District. They prefer permanent structures with old western themes to enhance the character of the Old Town Historic District. Nevertheless, the Committee was willing to meet with the applicant's architect to recommend architectural alternatives to enhance the modular in order to have it represent the character of the Old Town in conformance with the Old Town Historic District. The applicant since then has met with the Committee and has incorporated modification per the recommendations of the Committee and Planning Staff in order to address the Committee's concerns regarding architectural appropriateness and permanent status of the structure. Desiqn Consideration Staff has reviewed the architectural design of the other existing structures within the day-care center and has determined that the existing modular is consistent with the established architectural design of the day-care center, which is traditional in design and consists of grayish-bluish wood siding, white wood window trims and dark grey asphalt roof shingles. The applicant has proposed to modify the subject structure by extending roof overhangs with white 12" fascias and attaching a wood trellis supported by white columns to be placed along the east and north side of the structure, in order to enhance the visual appearance from Third Street and Metcedes Street. Furthermore, the applicant is willing to incorporate shutters or similar fixtures around windows of the structure and is open to any further design suggestions from both Planning Staff and the Old Town Temecula Architectural Committee, The Building and Safety Department has reviewed the proposal, and has determined that the existing temporary foundation is inadequate for a classroom. Therefore, a Condition has been formulated to address plans for permanent foundation with consideration to Seismic Zone No. 4, which are STAFFRPT\PP138 18 attached in the Conditions of Approval. In addition, the modular structure has been Conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Certificate of Historic Appropriateness According to Ordinance 578, a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness, authorizing the construction of alteration of a building or structure within the Historic Preservation District must be issued by the Planning Director or, on appeal by the Planning Commission, prior to the issuance of building permits. Under Ordinance 578, any owner, or person authorized by the owner of a parcel of property within the Historic Preservation District must have their proposed plans reviewed by the Historic Commission, which in this case is the Old Town Temecula Architectural Control Committee. Subsequently the recommendations of the Committee are forwarded to the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness. At this time the Planning Director has not issued a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness, since the recommendation from the Committee is for denial (See attached letter dated November 27, 1990). However, under Ordinance 578, the applicant may request the approval by the Planning Commission for the issuance of the Certificate of Historic Appropriateness. Therefore, an approval of Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683, by the Planning Commission will authorize the Planning Director to issue a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness for the subject modular classroom. It should be noted that a Condition of Approval (See Condition No. 20) has been included to require the applicant to file a separate application and fee, to the Planning Department, for the Certificate of Historic Appropriateness. STAFFRPT\PP138 19 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: Parkin9 The existing day-care center is designed with seven ~7) parking spaces. Six (6) standard parking spaces and one handicap space are provided adjacent to Third Street. The project is proposing an additional five [5 ) off-street parking spaces with access from Metcedes Street (see Exhibit C) . Staff has reviewed the proposed parking layout and has found the circulation pattern to be adequate for the project. Landscapinq The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscape plan to compliment the existing modular classroom, consisting of various vegetation and trees, ranging from 1 to 15 gallons {See landscape plan). Most of the landscaping is found along Third Street and Mercedes Street aiding as a buffer. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing three (3) 24" box Morus Alba {fruitless) trees adjacent to Third Street. The center portion of the subject site will be composed of rescue type Marathon II lawn. Staff has determined that the proposed landscape design is acceptable. A detailed landscape plan will be submitted for approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. The intended use of the existing modular, which in this case is a classroom in conjunction with an existing day-care center, is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of Commercial, which includes schools. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. However, although the Old Town Temecula Architectural Control Committee, which is an advisory committee, requests that a permit of occupancy be denied and that the structure be removed, based on the building regulations set forth in Old Town. Staff has reviewed the architectural design and use of the existing structures and has determined that the project is consistent with the existing approved school. STAFFRPT\PP138 20 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Act, the existing modular classroom is categorically exempt from the requirement for environmental review due to the size and proposed USe. There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 138 Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated architectural features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated commercial development standards. 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, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines and recommendations as discussed in the project analysis. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing C-1/C-P (General Commercial land use designation. 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, due to the fact that adequate area is provided for all proposed structures; area for adequate landscaping is provided along the projects public and private frontages; and the internal circulation/parking plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions include driveways and parking areas in conformance with adopted City standards. STAFFRPT\PP138 21 The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project as discussed in the above Findings, Facts, and body of the Staff Report. 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, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses. Commercial facilities are currently existing adjacent to the proposal. 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, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site (C-I/C-P; General Commercial), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan { SWAP ) designation of commercial. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes a circular driveway accessing Metcedes Street which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. 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, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. STAFFRPT\PP138 22 10. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps and exhibits referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 91 - approving Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RA:ks Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Exhibits A. Location Map B. Zoning Map C. SWAP Map D. Exterior Elevations 4. Architectural Review Committee Correspondence 5. Large Scale Plans STAFFRPT\PP138 23 CITY OF TEMECULA ) LOCATION 'MAP CASE NO-~'#' P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ SP ZONE CZ 5105 ( SPECIFIC ZONE MAP CASE NO. P.C. CITY OF TEMECULA ~ SWAP MAP ) CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ELEVATION r CASE NO. 2~ EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ELEVATION r CASE NO. r~'/S~ EXHIBIT NO. 8., ~P.C. DATE/re"8. PLANNING 5 · PLOT COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1991 PLAN 138 Proposal for a revised permit for a portable classroom. Located at the south corner of Mercedes and Third Street. RICHARD AYALA provided the staff report. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed a concern for setting a precedent. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the ordinance reads that the Commission is not bound to decide on these applications at this time, any subsequent applications would go through the same process. The Commission expressed a concern for the building being occupied by this time without the proper permits. GARY THORNHILL advised that this was a Building and Safety Official judgement and their decision was to allow them to occupy the facility while obtaining the required permits. COMMISSIONER FORD recommended setting a time limit on the improvements. GARY THORNHILL agreed that time constrictions would be appropriate. COMMISSIONER FORD added that there would be some improvements that could be done to the modular buildings to give them a more permanent appearance. RICHARD AYALA advised that in a previous meeting with the Old Town Historical Review Committee they indicated they desire to see those type of improvements also. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned Condition No. 10. Staff advised that the wording beginning with "Decomposed granite" be deleted. Chairman Chiniaeff questioned the requirement of Condition No. 19. GARY THORNHILL advised that the Condition should read "Prior to issuance of Permit of Occupancy". COMMISSIONER PORD suggested getting the items required for the occupancy permit prioritized over the landscape items. GARY THORNHILL stated that he did not feel that this would be a problem. DOUG STEWART recommended that the Commission might condition the applicant to comply with the Old Town Historical Committee's street requirements for rolled asphalt burms. PCMN2/04/91 -5- FEBRUARY 6, 1991 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1991 JOHN MIDDLETON advised that Condition No. 21 should read "relocated prior to occupancy". CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that the Old Town Historical Committee had approved the original buildings. He added that the applicant has tried to work with staff and the committee; however, based on their recent comments they do not feel they will be able to comply with their desires without changing the entire facility. He added that the applicant concurs with the Conditions of Approval and have no problem with time constrictions. He added that Condition No. 27 be modified to include the same last sentence as Condition No. 25 regarding mitigation fee, and Condition No. 29 be modified downward due to the minor changes that are being requested and the serious financial impact this would pose to the applicant. CHRISTINE MCCUSKER, applicant, 29710 Via Norte, Temecula, advised the Commission that she did have permits for the other modular units. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF advised that each of the Commissioner's had received letters in support of the facility. ALVA ALVAREZ, 25926 Summerhill Court, Temecula, expressed her satisfaction with the applicant's facility and indicated that she felt the business was an asset to the community. MIKE THESLING, 3021 Via Brisa, Temecula, stated that he felt that the applicant should abide by the rules and regulations as presented by the Old Town Architectural Committee and the Commission should not overrule their recommendations. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned if the Commission had the ability to reduce the deposit that is required in Condition No. 29. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the fee has been set by the City Council as an interim fee and the Commission does not have the ability to reduce the fee. He suggested that the applicant appeal to the City Council as to that particular Condition. PCMN2/04/91 -6- FEBRUARY 6, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1991 COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he felt staff need to look at the street improvement conditions and the timing of the improvements, which should be done in an orderly and timely manner. He added that the O.T.H.C. had some good comments and the applicant should comply with their requests. Commissioner Ford also commented on the trash bins, and suggested that they should be located off-street with adequate access. He stated that staff should verify that all other units were properly permitted. Commissioner Ford suggested that this item go back to staff to address these concerns and be brought back to the Commission as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF concurred with Commissioner Ford's comments and added that he felt the landscape improvements need to be completed. COMMISSIONER BLAIR also concurred with Commissioner Ford's comments and added that staff should look into a vacation of right-of-way and expressed a concern for approving this proposal without the approval of the O.T.H.C. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. and continue Plot Plan 138 to the meeting of February 25, 1991, seconded by Commissioner Blair. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6. PLANNINO DIRECTOR REPORT OARY THORNHILL advised the Commission of the following: Requested three volunteers for a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the Traffic Commission. He would call the Commissioners once the meeting time and date was determined for volunteers to attend. Requested two volunteers for a Planning Institute seminar which the City Manager requested representatives from the Commission attend. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF and COMMI8SIONER FAHEY volunteered. * Review of the minute policy. PCMN2/04/91 -7- FEBRUARY 6, 1991 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1991 Prepared By: Oliver Mujica Case No.: Tract Map No. 19872-4, Minor Change No. 2 Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tract Map No. 19872-4, Minor Change No. 2 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Kaufman and Broad Robert Bein, William Frost 8 Associates Revise architectural floor plans, elevations, and plotting of housing. Southerly of Pala Road, westerly of Via Gilberto R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) North: R~2 South: R-2 East: R-2 West: R - 2 Not requested. Vacant North: South: East: West: (Multiple Family Dwellings) (Multiple Family Dwellings) (Multiple Family Dwellings) (Multiple Family Dwellings) Single Family Residential Vacant Single Family Residential Single Family Residential STAFFRPT\TM19872 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Gross Area: 13.12 acres Net Lot Area: 7.53 acres Net Open Space Area: 1.84 acres Proposed Lots: 72 Residential: 58 Open Space: 14 Average Front Setback: 22 Feet Average Rear Setback: 35 Feet SWAP Allowed Density: 2-5 DU/AC Proposed Density: 4.27 DU/AC BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract Map No. 19872, Amended No. 2, was originally approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on April 9, 1985. The previous property owner (Silverwood Development, Inc.) filed Tract Map No. 19872, Phase 3 and 4, Minor Change No. 1 to the City of Temecula Planning Department, in order to revise the architectural floor plans, elevations and plotting of housing. On September 17, 1990, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Subsequently, on October 9, 1990, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 19872, Phases 3 and 4, Minor Change No. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Due to a change in ownership and market/design considerations, the current applicant/owner {Kaufman and Broad) is proposing to revise the architectural floor plans, elevations, and plotting of housing for Phase No. 4 of Tract No. 19872. ANALYSIS: Architectural Floor Plans The applicant is proposing two (2) different floor plans, one consisting of a single story three bedroom, two bath residence with approximately 1,185 square feet of living space. The other floor plan is a two story three bedroom, two and one-half bath residence with approximately 1,289 square feet of living space. Both floor plans provide two-car garage with laundry facilities. The previous design proposed single family residences ranging from 1,462 to 2,367 square feet. STAFFRPT\TM19872 2 Exterior Elevations The applicant is proposing a variety of elevations consisting of a "traditional" theme. All elevations proposed consist of wood siding, stucco and asphalt shingles, each floor plan has been designed to utilize three (3) different building elevations. The previous elevations utilized varieties of a "Spanish" theme. Previous architectural treatment consisted of either red or grayish mission roof tile, and an array of off-white and cream stucco. Plottinq The revised plotting of housing for the subject fifty-eight (58) single family residences is also proposed by the applicant, due to the reconfiguration of the floor plans in order to meet setback requirements. The two (2) floor plans, as well as the various elevations, will be intermixed throughout the project in order to provide a variety of front yard setbacks and non-repetitive street scene, Open Space As noted above and illustrated on the site plan, the applicant is proposing fourteen (14) lots as open space, due to the fact that these lots have been determined to be within the "Fault Hazard Area" (by Douglas E. Moran, Inc., Engineering Geology and Soil Engineering Report dated March 10, 1989 and approved by Riverside County Engineering Geologist on September 12, 1989). The proposed open space area contains approximately 1.84 acres and will be improved with park landscaping, in which the applicant is currently in the process of discussing this matter with the Community Services Department. Conditions of Approval The Planning Commission should note that Tract Map No. 19872-4, Minor Change No. 2 is subject to the original Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 19872, Amended No. 2 (see attached); and that new Conditions have not been added by the City Staff for this project. STAFFRPT\TM19872 3 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The proposed project with a density of 4.27 DU/AC is consistent with the Goals contained in SWAP which allow for 2-5 DU/AC. Tract No. 19872-4, Minor Change No. 2 has been previously approved, and the site is most appropriately utilized in a residential capacity. Staff finds that the proposed revisions to the architectural floor plans, elevations and plotting of housing for Tract No. 19872-4, Minor Change No. 2 are likely to be consistent with the City's future General Plan when it is adopted by the City of Temecula. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the County of Riverside prepared an Initial Study for this project during the original review of Tentative Tract Map No. 19872, Amended No. 2. It was determined at that time by the County that possible negative impacts to the environment could occur as a result of project implementation. However, adherence to conditions of approval, policies, and development standards would mitigate those concerns. As such, a Negative Declaration was recommended and adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on April 9, 1985. After reviewing the applicant's current proposal, Staff has determined that the previous environmental determination (Adoption of Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 19105) still applies to this request since this application is for the revision of building design and plotting only. Therefore, an additional initial study was not prepared nor is an environmental determination recommended to the Planning Commission. FINDINGS: The proposed use of action complies with State Planning and Zoning Laws. Reference Local Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460; and California Government Code Sections 65000- 66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). STAFFRPT\TM19872 4 The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the architectural floor plans, elevations and plotting of housing, due to the fact that the project complies with the development standards as outlined in Ordinance No. 3u,8. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare nor affect the built or natural environment as determined in the previously adopted Negative Declaration for this project. Tract No. 19872-~,, Minor Change No. 2, is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposed single family residences are consistent with the development of the subject R-2 zone. 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 design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to 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 projects. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFFRPT\TM19872 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tract Map No. 19872-q, Minor Change No. 2 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RA:ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Exhibits A. Site Plan B. Floor Plans C. Elevations D. Previously Approved Elevations STAFFRPT\TM19872 6 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVI NG TRACT MAP NO. 19872- ~,, MINOR CHANGE NO. 2 TO REVISE THE ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND PLOTTING OF HOUSING LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF PALA ROAD, WESTERLY OF VIA GILBERTO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NOS. 918-293-007-012; 918-293-027- 030; 918-362-030-0L18; AND 918~363-001-0q-3. WHEREAS, Kaufman and Broad filed Tract Map No. 19872-~,, Minor Change No. 2 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tract Map (Minor Change) application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tract Map (Minor Change) on February 25, 1991, 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 approved of said Tract Map (Minor Change); NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: STAFFRPT\TM19872 7 (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (bl 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 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 Tract Map (Minor Change) 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 of 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 Tract Map No. 19872-~,, Minor Change No. 2 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. STAFFRPT\TM19872 8 (c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. ( 1 ) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. ~,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Planning Commission in approving of the proposed Tract Map (Minor Change), makes the following findings, to wit: STAFFRPT\TM19872 9 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) The proposed use of action complies with State Planning and Zoning Laws. Reference Local Ordinance Nos. 3~,8 and 460; and California Government Code Sections 65000- 66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the architectural floor plans, elevations and plotting of housing, due to the fact that the project complies with the development standards as outlined in Ordinance No. 3~,8. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare nor affect the built or natural environment as determined in the previously adopted Negative Declaration for this project. Tract No. 19872-L), Minor Change No. 2, is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposed single family residences are consistent with the development of the subject R-2 zone. 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 design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to 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 projects. STAFFRPT\TM19872 10 h) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tract Map (Minor Change) is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous environmental determination (Adoption of Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 19105) still applies to said Tract Map (Minor Change). SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Tract Map No. 19872-q, Minor Change No. 2 for the revision of the architectural floor plans, elevations and plotting of housing located southerly of Pala Road, westerly of Via Gilberto and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 918-293-007-012; 918-293-027- 030; 918-362-030-048; and 918-363-001-043 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25 day of February, 1991. 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 25 day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\TM19872 11 Afi:IiVE::I)iDE COUI1Eu. PL fiirlo DEPA:IUilEI'--- / RE: TENTATIVE~I'RACT}4AP NO. 1~,7Z E. A. NLfiBER: 19105 REGIOfiAL TEAH NO. T~vo Dear Applicant: The RiverSide County Board of Supervisors has taken the following action m the above referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of Aortl 9, 1985 x APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions. · DENIED tentative up based on attached findings. ___ APPROVED withdrawal of tentative rap. The tract map has been found tO be consistent with all pertinent elements of the Riverside County General Plan and is in c~mpltance with the California Environmental quality Act of 1970. ct will not have I significant effect on the environment and a r4egattve Declarai~ha~)Deto, adopted. ,no Board of SuperviSor Ne&r4n~,._t -dlte--eL-wh4teh~xP$~t~."~tnw~, Unless within t period of time a fina~.~N)- .shal~e~'' . lien approved and.f.~ : tth the County Record~.. Prtor to the expiration d ~l~-Ute,]ii~)vtrderC/~Y]'all~pl, y l~'{G~rf,~n~ for an extension of time. Application sha11~ l~.!jfTaFdf'lJ)-the Planning .Ottt~o~.>~i)ty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the tent fl~)~)~>,' )l)(rl~'W,)fJbj~eFi;~im~,~.y extend the period or .. ,......,o. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING OEPARTHENT Roger S. Seregear, Planning Director CJC:g~ FILE - WHITE Cynthia J, CrorlnOer, Deputy P)ann4~g Director APPtlCANT- CANARY ENGINEER - PINK 4080 LEMON STREET. 9'" FLOOR nlVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 46-209 OASIS S' INDIO.' .FROM~ P1 ann tng Departant SUBMITTAL DATF.: SUB~ECT: CHAJ~GE OF ZONE N0. 4290 and TRACT N0. 19872, A~4ENDED NO. 2 - "'.'~,"' Collins Land Company - First Supervisorial District - Rancho California Area - 90.01 Acres - 443 Lots - Schedule A - R-Z to R-2 RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Caautsston end Staff recomend: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration.for Envtrorrnental Assessment 1T~5, based on the findings .incorporated in the environmental asSeSghent and the conclusion that the proDosed project will not have · significant effect on the envtro~ent; and, APPROVAL of Change of Zone Case No, 4290 from R-Z to R-2 in ~ce vtth Exhibit 23 and, .. ' ' (Continued on nut page) APPROVA of Tentative Tract No. 19872, Amd. No. sub3ect · condition,. ,nd a,,d ... ~a;gm 4 fie,~l~ ('rimmerits AGENO, TILACT NO. 19872, Arnd, 12 Page 2 Form 11A FINDINGS: 1. The subdivider proposes ta divide gO.O1 acres tnto 443 stngle-fa;ntly lotS, .. 2, The subdivider proposes to change the zone of the subject parcel from R-1 to R-2 and to develop the property in conformante with the Restricted Single Family Zone, General Plan 3, General Plan policies call for Category I and I.l land uses, 4. Two specific plans havq been approved both north and east of the subject property. 5. The Pale Road corridor is general planned for urban development. Tract Design " · The subdivider proposes to build two product, lines of single family houses. The street design consists of curvtltnear sirWets, short cul-de-sacs end long, blind cul-de-sacs. 8,' The R-2 Restricted ~tngle Family Zone sets no~ntmum lot size requirement. g. Lots tn the tract range frcm 4,160 square feet to 24~260 square feet th size. 10, Twenty-t~o percent of.the lots have rear yard Ireas which are less than 1600 Square feet in size; the R-Z suggested mintBum is 1000 square feet. 11. The larger 1'ors ere located adjacent to the ~reek and at the end of the cul-de-sec. · House Design 12. The subd4vtder proposes six floorplans for the *first product l~ne and four floor plens for the second. 13. Each floorplan is provided w~th three different elevattons.~ 14. Spanish Oaks offers houses which range in size from 1,0~0 to 1,845 square feet. TIme architecture features timbered, shingled and stonework front treatments and conventional gerages. TRACT N0. 19872, Amd. 12 Page 3 Form 1)A C) Spanish Oaks IX offers houses which range in size from gl4 to 1,432 square feet· The architecture features stuccoed and sparsely timbered front treatments and tandem garages. 16, Product 11nes are clustered into similar netghborhooa groups. 17.' 'House .plotting avoTds'repetttton. Environmental Concerns 18. Environmental concerns include erosion, noise, Pale~tr Observatory, school impactton, and biological end historical resource impactton. 19. Oak trees line the banks of Pechanga C~eek. 20. The sarcophagus of Louis Wolf, an tm~ortsnt Te~cule settler, iS located onstte and ts shown on proposed lot 349. 21, The Sam Hicks Nemortal Foundation is interested in rllocattng the .tomb- stone to a more appropriate Site. The proposed 443 lot subdivision points out the need for park facilities in Rancho California.. CONCLUSIONS General Plan The proposed R-2 subdivision ts c~nslstent wtth the growth patterns and developm. nt densities suggested by the General Plan. , The Proposed R-2 subdivision ls c~pattble ~th b~th existing and proposed e~acent residential develomnts, 3. The proposed R-2 subdivision meets the requirements of the R-2 Restricted Single Fmmtly Ze6e. Tract I)fis1~n The Froposed R-2 subdhtston meets the intent of the zone and the develop- merit standards. The roadway deslgn, although not Optlmally functional tn that it tnhib(ts pedestrian mvements, provides an Interesting sulxlivtsion layout and helps to create a varied streetscape. In the tabulation of overall tract open space provisions, the larger lot rear yards compensate for the smoll yards of the smaller lots. The various floorplans and elevations would offer an assortment of home- huvtnn onnnrtunities. TP~CT NO. 19872, Amd. 12 Page 4 FOrm 11A Environmental Concerns 8. The Louts Wolf grave should be moved to etther a parks~te or a teeterS, or any such localton which would preserve thts historical resource. g, Oak trees shell not be remved~ and development shall be restricted along Pechanga Creek, 10. ConsTderatton should be gtven to the dedication of · parkstte wtthtn · the .subdivision. 11. All 'other environmental' concerns un be mtMgatedthrough the conditions Of approval. · Jle -% EXCERPTS FRCXI THE FEBRUARY 20, 1985 PLANNINn CC~'.:~]5SIO;I HZNUTES (REEL 842 - SIDE 1 - 535-1151) CHANGE OF ZONE CASE 4290 - EA 19105 - Collins Land Conpany - Rancho California Area - First SupervisorSol District - 90.01'- acres, southwesterly of Pale westerly of Via Gilberto - REQUEST: R-1 to R-Z, etc. TRACT 19872 NIENOED N0. 2 - EA 19105 - Collins tend Compan)- Rancho California Area - First SupervisorSol District - southwesterly of Pale Rd, westerly of Via Gilberto - 443 lots - 90.01~ acres - R-1 Zone. Schedule "A" Subdivision The hearing was opened at 10:20 a.m. and closed at 11:O7 a.m. STAFF REC01iHENOATI0t(: Adoption of the negative declaration for EA 19105, approval of Change of Zone Case 4290 from R-1 to R-; in accordance with Exhib- it 2, and approval of Tract 19872/mnded No. 2 subject to the proposed condi- tions. Staff felt the proposal met the letter and the intent of the R-2 ordinance, would be compatible wrtth area development (both existing and approved land uses); and Consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan. The project would impact sensitive historical and biological resources, as it contained the grave site of Louis Wolf who was a prominent Te~cula merchant end citizen in the late 1800's. After a thorough investigation, staff felt the best protection would be to have the grave site reiDcaSed, and Condition S3 had been imposed to require that this be done prior to,he recordarSon of the final map. There ware also oak trees and other sensitive vegetation groov- ing along the creek bed, hut staff felt the conditions provided for ample pro- tection of these biological resources. r~x~misstOner Beadling expressed concerns about flooding problems, and Dartfo~- larly the effect of having a portion of some of the lots tn the creek bed. Hr. Greywood briefly discussed this issue end the proposed mitigation which he felt would be adequate; he advised that riprap would he .required where neces- sa~ along the banks, and that the creek bed was in the rear of larger lots. Because of the size of these large lots, Hr. Greywood did not think this would be a problem. Don Lohr, representing the applicant, advised they did not object to moving C in finding a ste for its the grave but would like to have the ounty's help i reIDca,ton. Included in Condition S3 was a state~nt referring to mainte- nance, end the developer did not think he should have this responsibility in perpetutty~ he would be wtlltng to establish some type of funding which could be turned over to the agency which would accept the responsibility for the grave site. The condition required that the grlvo site be reiDcaSed prior to the recordorion of the ftnal map. They planned to unittze the project. and the grave site was locate in an area covered by a later phase; he requested that the condition be amended to clarify that the reIDca,ion of the grave site would be required prior to the recordarSon of the phase covering the area where it was currently located, 9 EXCERPTS FR~ THE FEBRUARY 20, 1985 PLANNII~G CO~JISS[OPI H[NUTES In ans~er to a question by Coatssigner Beadling, tlr. Lohr explained the flood- ing problem in this area and how it affected the subject property. He advnsed only one tier of lots on the easterly side of one cul-de-sac was affected. Commssloner Beadling also expressed concern about the slopes and ~tr. Lohr advised that area contained dense oak trees, and they had therefore designed exceptionally large lots to maintain 'the area in its natural state as much as possible. The bank protection they were providing for the subject property would also be provided for the adjacent property as required by the conditions for an approved tentative tract map; the floodtng protection for these two projects would be coordinated. Gabriel rico, Chairman of the Pechan a indian Reservation, Post Office Box 1014, Temecul a, and his two sisters IHrs. F~rie Russell and tIPs. Gemaine Are- nas) advised they were grandchildren of Louis ~/olf end requested that the grave site not be rolecat,d. They advised they w~uld be willing to maintain the grave site if left in its present location. Hrs. Russell advised her moth- er was the granddaughter of Louis Wolf but could not attend the ~eeting that day because of illness. Her ~other was strongly opposed to rolecaSing the grave site. Hr. Lohr advised they had agreed to relocate because staff had indicated they felt this would be the best ray to protect it, However, the ovmer of the prop- erty would be more than ut111ng to leave the grave'site at its present loca- tion. ~rtin Collins, 40825 Sierra I~rta, Rancho California, the property ~./ner, advised he would be willing to fence the lot and donate it to the family. tips. Russell advised she was also on the Counctl of the Indian Reservation, end was very concerned about the impact of this development, They used their adjacent land for agricultural purposes, and wanted to be sure the developer understood they did not plan any type of improvements in order to provide flooding protection. She stressed there were existing serious flooding prob- hms on the subject site, Hr, Gre3n¢od brtefly revteded the Flood Control conditions, which he thought would provide adequate protection for both the subject site end the adjacent Indten hnds. Hrs. Russell else expressed concern about the tmpact of septic systems on their domesttc wells,' She ~as tnfomed water Ind satyr service ffould he fur- hishad by the water dtstr~ct~ end therefore her wells would not he affected. Commissioner Steffey asked about the brtdge, end Nr, Johnson read trite the record Condition 28 of the ned Road Department letter dated February 20, t985 which set forth the responsibilities of the subject developer with regard to this bridge. He advised this condition would be imposed on every tract or parcel mp considered for this area. Coe, qissioner Steffey thought the bridge was critical, as the existing bridge was narrow, had e high crown, and was. 10 EXCEP, PTS FRD'I THE FEBRUARY ZO, lgB5 PLA,~Zt~I~i.S C0~IfISS]0N lllNLITES very dangerous. Commissioner Sullivan convnented he felt that without the bridge improvementm the project wnuld be premature. Mr. Johnson advised the State of California was considering making the existing bridge an historical monument, which would create d~fficulties. lhe Road Department v~as therefore considering a new road alignment, with a new bridge, and ~ir. Johnson briefly discussed this alternative. Co~nissioner aresson asked whether the new Road Oepartment conditions would take care of the problem. t~r. Johnson thought they vmuld, and advised he anticShated a County Initiated minor change for the tract Lqap tO stipulate the dollar artaunt per lot which would be required; this change would be processed after the 'total amount necessary for the bridge has been datemined. Ha. Rtnes suggested that Condition 53 be deleted and replaced ~th a condition to read: 'Concurrent with the recordarSon of the final map, Lot No. 349 will he deeded to the Louis Wolf family, as represented by Gabriel Pace or any oth- er authorized family member. The subdivider or any subsequent property o~mer shall. erect a fence around Lot 349 as directed by the family representative. The Wolf family shall be responsible for maintenance of the atte. Commissioner Purrlance suggested that the wording be changed to read agreed upon by the family representative" rathe~ than "as directed", Hrs. Russell suggested that the condition refer to her mother rather than Gabriel rico. Her mother's name was Eyelyn C, Pace, Post Office Box 972, lemecula. Hrs. Arenas asked about an easement to provide access to the site, and w~s informed access would be provided by an adjacent cul-de-sac street. Hr. Lohr agreed to the conditions as L~cnded, including the n6~ Road Dcpart- mat conditions, There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 11:07 a.m. FIfiDTNG$ AND COHCLUSTONS: The subdivider proposes to divide 90.01 acres into 443 single family lots, iN proposes to change the zone from Re1 to R-2 and develop the property t6 conferrange with the R-Z Restricted Single Fatally Zone; General Plan policies cell for Category I end [[ land if uses; ~ spec tc lens have been epprovmd both north and east of the subject property~ the Pala ~ad corridor is general planned for urban development; the subdivider propos- e to build tm product lines of single family houses; the Street design ConSistS Of curvtlinear streets, short cul-de-sac streets, end long, blind cul-de-sec streets; the R-2 Restricted Single Fmmily Zone sets no minimum lot size requirement; lots in the tract range from 4160 square feet to 24,260 square feet in size; twenty-t~m percent of the lots have rear yard areas which ere less than 1600 square feet in size and the R-2 suggested ~inimum is 1000 square feet; larger lots are located adjacent to the creek and at the end of cul-de-sac streets; the suhdtvtder proposes six floor plans for the first prod- uct line and four floor plans for the seconH; each floor plan is provided vnth three different elevations; Spanish Oaks offers houses which range in size' 11 EXCERPTS FRC)~ THE FEBRUARY 20, lg~35 PLANItING CCX".tlZSSION III~IUTES from 1080 to 1845 square feet; the architecture features timbered. shineled and Stonework front treathones and conventional garages; Spanish Oaks II Offers houses which range in size from 914 to 1432 square feet; the architec. ture features stuccoed and sparsely timbered front treabnents and tande~ Oarag- es; product lines are clustered into similar neighborhood groups; house plotting avoids repetition; environmental concerns include )resign, noise, Polecat Observatory, school impaction, and historic resource P h and the sarcophagus of impaction; oak trees line the banks of ec Louis Wolf. an important Te~ecula settler, is located on site and is shown on proposed Lot 349, and the Sam Wicks'Memorial Foundation is interested in role- citing the to~stone to a mre appropriate site. The proposed R-2 subdivision is consistent with the growth patterns and development densities suggested by the General Plan; compatible with both existing and proposed adjacent develop- manes; meets the requirements of the the intent of the R-2 zone and development standards; the roadway design. although not optimally functional in that it inhibits pedestrian movements. provides an interesting subdivision layout and helps to create a varied streetscape; in the tabulation of overall tract open space provisions, the lar?)er lot rear yards compensate for the mall yaNs of the Saeller lotS; the various floor plans and elevations would offer an assortment of homebuying opportunities; protection of the Louis Wol.f drive is provided through the'con- ditions of approval; oak trees shall not be removed and development a end Pechanga Creek shall be restricted; and all environmental concerns can he miti- gated throu h the conditions of approval for the tentative map. The proposed project wou?d not have a significant effect on the environment. KOTIOt|: Upon motion by Co.~mtsstoner grasson, seconded by Conmqissioner Star'ray and unr. ntmously carried, the Conm~fssion recmnded to the Board of Suponi- sors adoption of the negative declaration f~r EA 19105, approval of Change of Zone Case No, 42g0 from R-X to R-2 in accordance t~th Exhibit 2, and approval of Tract No, 19672 Amended No, ~ subject to the proposed conditions, amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions ind the rec~enda- tions of stiff. Mend Condition 6 to ~eflect the Road Dmpartmnt letter dated February 20, 1985 Delete Condition 53 is currtntlym'ttten ind replica with the following: will be dee e concurrent with the recorderton of the ftnal map, Lot No. 349 d d to the Louis IMlf famtly, es represented by Evely~ C. Pica, Post Office Box Th or 972, Temcula, or Iny authorized family meber. e subdivider any subse- quent property Nner shall erect e fence around tot 349 as agreed ,pan by the famtl representative I~d the subdivider. The Wolf family shell be responsible for maintenance of the site. t2 [XCERPTS FRG~! THE FEBRUARY 20, |985 PLA,~rZZflG CC~UIZSSZON I(IrlUTES ROLL CA~L VOTE RESULTED AS FOLLOHS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cae~ss~oners Bresson, Steffey, Oeadl~ng, Sullivan, HacGregor and Purv~ance None None 13 ~/V~I~IDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TFa'rATIVE TRACT NO. ~9872 A~D, NO. The tentative subdivision s~aX1 caply w~th the State of .lubdtvision 14sp Act and to lll tM ze~lr~n~s "of lhe ~verside ~d[Mn~e &60, Schedul~A , unless ~dified ~y ~e ~ondiEions. listed klw. ~il Ipproved st ~onditional~y apWoved tentative up v~l. up~re tvo ~s afce~ the kacd of ~e~$so~s approval ' ~tl, unless ~tended is ~tov~ded ~ ~d~ulnce &60. The final asp sJmlI be prepared by · t~14ste~ed civSl ·nilnear subject to all the requiresshin of the State of ~lifonie Su~e~on ~p ~t rid. ~vetside ~unt7 Su~%v~etou ~diuuce ~60. The subdivider shsll subsit sue copy of · soils report to the P. tve:s~de Cotrot7 Surveyor's Office sad t~o c~ies to the hpert~ent of Bulld~uI end &starT. b sport shell address the soils stablilt7 and leninlice1 condition, of the site. sad bfety. The plan shall cosply~'with tbs lhifo~s Build~nS Code, Chapter 70, is sssudsd by Ordinance 457 or nines otbstv~se stipulated b7 the C~unty*s Rillside Devilslinear S~sudsrds, . 4, A Irsdinl' per=Lt shsll be obts~ued fros the Dsps=uuent of Bu~ld~nSsnd Ss sty prior ~o m~mn~ of e~ IrainS outside of c ~uta~ned ~mut, b ~lsr ~ of tM ~pr~sd ~ad~nl plan shsll be S, AIX dellsquat propslYly tans sbsX1 W ~id )~ to ncordsE~ of the f~l rap, ; b ~iv~4er s~ll' ~ly ~th ~ street ~r~mut uco~ndat~oue t~ ~ y (a bpl sues' as ~ized. ~ ~l~n~e 460 shll h pvovided fr~ t~ %zsct mp ~uda~ to · ~nty m~tsiHd ~d, 8. ~1 road casuists s~ll ~ offearl bz edfcstt~ to th public snd shslt ~outinuQ In force until t~ S~e~iuS ~y sacapes or sbando,s such offers. All dediutions shell ~ free frm sIX eacusbronces ss s~prov~d b7 tho ~nt7 ~d ~issioM~. Stuet Some shstl k sub3ect to sppt'~sl of t~ bd Cm~ssi~r, Cona:tions Of Approval Page -Z- 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 and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded aS directed by the Riverside County Surveyor. 2, Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health DePartment's letter d~ted 1/18/85 and 8/20/84, (copies of'which are s. ttached). The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recmndations outlined the Riverside County Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter dated 01-03-85, b{~ copy of which ts attached). If the lend division 1tea within in adopted flood control drainage eras pursuant tO Section 10.25 of Riverside County Land Division Ordinance 460, IDproprilte fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Cemtsstoner. The su'bdtvlder shall comply with the .fin tmproven~nt r~conmnendations outlined in the County Fire Marshall's letter dated 1/15/8S (a copy Of which is attached). In accordance with the written request of the landdivider to the County of Riverside, a copy of whtch is on file, end in furtherance of the agreement between the lenddhtder and the Elstnore Union Htgh $clml and TeNcute Union School DIstricts, no building porelie shall be tssued by the County of River- stde for any parcels wtthtn the subJecttract mmp until the landdivider, or the landdivtder's successors or assignees, provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement between the landdivider and the school districts ~rtor to the filing of the final mmp, the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey DepartJnent that all patti- nent requirements outlined in the litached Ipproval letters from the following Igenctes have been mat. Fire Departsmerit Flood Control Health Department · Planning Departs,at ~/~ Pr4odto the recordaUon of the final asp, Change of Zone No. 4290 shall be S.~ approved by the hard of Supervisors and shell be effective. Lots created by this lend division sbe11 be in conformnce with the deVelobment standards of the zone ultteately applied to the property. standards of ~ S - ,u17. Construction of the development permitted beNby may be done progressively in phases, provided adequate vehicular access ts constructed for all dwelling units in each phase and further provided that such development conforms sub- stantlally with the tntent and purpose of the approved Tract Rap No. 19872° ~bnd. No. 2. Should the developer choose to construct the development in phases, a phastng plan must be submitted for Planning Department approval. 18. Corner lots shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.88 of Ordinance 460. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 19872, Amd. 12 Con'dittons of Approval Page -3- 21. 22. 23. When lots ire crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have e net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility easement. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in )his subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461. . Yell end/or fence locations shall conform to the fencing exhibit, on file at the Planning Department with Tentative Tract No. 19872. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of specimen trees along streets tn conjunction with street tree planting. Hhere street trees cannot be planted within the right-of-way of interior streets end project parkways, due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shell be planted outside of the road right-of-way. All extsttng specimen trees end significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall he sho~n on road improvement end grading plans and shall note those to he removed, relocated and/or retained. All extstlng spectmen trees on the subject property shell he preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot he preserved, they shell he relocated or replaced with specimen.trees is approved by the Planning Dtrlctor. Rap' 'e- mmnt trees shell be noted on approved landscaping plans. Any oak trees removed with four (4) tnch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on I ton (10) to one (1) basis Is epproved by the Planning Director· Replacement trees shall be noted on epproved landscaping plans. PHor to the timeanti ef Imildiag ~emtts er dtng pemtts, whichever ,,,.t. the ,ol,.,.g t.. pre.r,.tton g.".l.P. s,.ll be t.corporat., epproved grading, butldtng and landscaping plans is necessary: a) Every effort shah be made to prevent encroachment of structures, *gradtrig or trenthtng within the drtpltne or twenty-five (2g) feet of the trunk of any tree, vhtchever is greater. b) If encroachment within the'drtpltne ts unavoidable, no more than one thtrd of the Coot Irea shell he disturbed, graded or covered with impervious mterllll. The root area fs considered to extend beyond the drtpllne I dtstence equal to one half the redtug. c); Building, gridtrig or improvements shell not occur within ten (10) feet of any tree trunk. d) Retaining mlls shell be constructed where necessary to preserve nature1 grade to It least one-half the distance between the trunk end the dripline. Wells shall be designed with I post or caisson ** footing rather than e continuous footing to minimize root damage. TL.,,ATIvE TRyACT NO. 19872, Conditions of Approval Page'-4- f~ e) Alteration of natural drainage shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Rudolf channelled near trees shall not substantially change nor~,al soil moisture characteristics on a seasonal basis. g) Runoff shall not be directed towards the'base of trees so that the base of the trees remain in wet soil for an extended period.. Where natural topography has been altered, drainage away from trunks shall be provided where necessary to ensure that water will not stand at the crown. h) Sedimentorion and slitorion tn the dratnage ways shall be controlled where necessary to avoid filling.around .the base of the.trees. t) Land uses that would cause excessive solid c~opactton within the drip- line of trees shall be avoided. 1f the areas Ire planned for recreation, provide trails to restrtct compactton to m small area. Heavy use under trees shall be avoided unless measure; to minimize compactton are under- taken. J) Landscaping or irrigation shall not be t~stelled within ten (10) feet of any tree. k) Careful consideration shall be given to the planning of structures near trees to avoid unnecessary or excessive pruning. Grading plans shill conform to Board adopted Htilstdl Development Standards: All Cut end/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet In vertical height shall be modified by In appropriate combination of m special terracing (benchin) plan, increased slope ratio (e.g. 3:1), retaining walls, end/or slope pVlnting combined with Irrigation. All drive- ways shall not exceed I fifteen percent grade. Prior to the lpprovll of gridin permits, in overall conceptual radtng plan Shall be submitted tm~ the Planning Director for apprevll, ll~l pVan shall be used as I guideline for subsequent detetled riding plies for individual phases of development and Shell tnclude the felTowing: e) Techniques which will be uttlizmd to prevent erosion end sedtmen- tation during Jnd after the grading process. b) Approxtmte tim frames for grading end Identification of areas whtch my be graded durtng the higher prebebtlity retn months of January through Ibrch. c) Preliminary pad end roadway elevations. All manufactured slopes exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical hetght shall .be contour-graded Incorporating the following grading techniques: e) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 19872, .nd. e2 Conditions of Approval Page -5- b) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. c) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slope where drainage and stability permit such rounding. d) Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in'horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous undulattng fashion. 31. Natural features such as water courses, spedmen trees end significant rock outcrops shall be protected in the siting of individual building pads on final grading plans. 32. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shill be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with ether erosion control measures as epproved by the Director of Building end Safety. 33. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shell provide !vtdence to the Director of lutlding end Safety that all adjacent off-stem manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope. maintenance responstbtlttie have been assigned Is ipproved by the Director of Building end Safety. 34. An Environmental COnstraints $hee~ (EC$) shell be prepared with the final tO delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordation of the final mmp, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approve1. The epproved EC$ shell be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department end the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environments1 Constraints Sheet: · mCounty BIol teal limpart ho. 96 was prepared for this property and is on file at the ~verslde County Planning Department. The specific ttam of concern in the relxlrt 1l oak tree .preservation." The folioring note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: · lio pemtte ellowing any surface siteration sholl be ellawed tn the delineated constraint ereas without further Investigation end/or mitt tton as directed by the Riverside County Planning Department. Thts constrelmnt affects lots// parcels, is shoe on the Environmental COnstraints Sheet complies with the ftnll map end ftlld tn the office of the Rherstde County $~rveyor." The following note shell be placed on the Envtrnnmentei Constraints Sheet: · This property is located withtn thirty (30) miles of Mount PileSmr Obs~ vetory. Light and glare my adversely tmpact observatory {)perattons. ' door ltghting shell be from low pressure sodt~mm limps that Ire oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane · passing through the laminaire." q:[NTATIVE TRACT NO. 19872, Ama. 12 Conditions of Approval Page -6- Street 11ghts shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance wtth the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: a) Co~currently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed street 11ghttng layout from first the appropriate uttltty purveyor and then the Road Oepertment's trefftc engineer. b) Following approve1 of the street 11ght(ng layout by the Road Oepartment's traffic engineer, the developer shill Ilso file end lppltcet~on wtth LAFC0 for the fumeton of a street 11ghttng district, or annexation to an existing lighting district, unless the slte ts vtthtn an extsttng lighttrig dtstr~ct. c) Prior to recordsStun of the final map, the developer shall secure condt- tional approval of the street 11ghtJng application from LAFC0, unless the Site Js within an existeug lighting dtstrJct. 39. One canter identification monument stgn, tn accordance wtth Ordinance 348, shell be allowd for the housing area. Other stgna e shell be allofftd in conformsrice ~th 0rdtnence 348. No btllboards she1? be pemttted. 40. Roof-mounted equipment shell not be permitted ~tth~n the subdivision. / All butldtng permlts end/or plans for all new structures shell (ncorporate/ ttle or other ftre retardant rooftrig Ind std(ng materials, el approved by the County Fire Flarehell, PPlor ta the hsuance of butldtng pemtts for.any phase of development, the .developer shell submtt ftnal develol~ent plans to the Planning Department for approve1, puPsuent to $ectto~ 7,11g of 0rdtnence 348. v' 43, 'Pe~ee to the lssuenco of grodtng _-//tee.Ill I die, the subject property shell be successfully annexed to the Itancho C<forola Nuntclpal ~ater Dtstrect 44, lutldtng sel~retton bet~Mn the nearest structure1 portions of d~ll?ngs / shell be no lexs th~n 10 fat. My Itdl .yard erll ~htch has wlk~tys, mchantcal ecNtpmnt or stm41ar ~ n obstructions, except feces, located vlthtn five feet of I side lot line shell be provided with drltnege ptbes tO de-Mater mr yards or such other 6Y the Department of 8011dlng a d $a Ity. mane as appr~ved n f All drhmm~s shell be concrete paved or eciutvtlent as approved by the Planntng Departant. "% 47 ..~,.. Fencing the11 be provided throughout the subdivision tn accordance with the ~ approvad plan of devllolaent. (~/~ Prior to the 1stunrice of grading permits, the applicant shell submit s fendn~ plan for Pllnntng Department approval. cond!t~ons of APProval Page -7- Prior to rlc~rdatt&n of any ftnal map, a ftnal plan of development shall b submitted for Planning Department approval, pursuant to Section 7.11g of Ordinaqce 348. The a) b) final plan of development shall contain the following elements: The slte's final gradtng plan. A final site plan showing the'lots, ~ulldtng footprints, all' setbacks, yard spaces and floor plan end elevation assignments to individual lots. c) d) Working drawings of the floor plans and elevations for the dwellings to be constructed in tM subdivision. Elevations shall be provided for all stdes of all buildings. A typical mechanical plan shoving the locetlon end placement of mecbenical equipment for individual dwellings, The required final plan of development shill.be tn substantial conformante with the proJect's epprovmd grading plan, site plan, floor plans end eleva- tions except ms provided for in Section 7.11g(2). '.. i), Prtor to the 1sivarice of Imildtq lierafts final clearance shall be obtained fro~ the Planning Department stipulating that tM subeitted butldtng plans conform to the epproved plan of development for the property. Prior to the issuance of occupancy 'permits, a decorative block w~ll or comb,n-v eaton landscaped earthen hem end decorative block kell shell be constructed along Pale Road end Via Gtlherto. All lots shell be provided with sid_L.vlCd I and rear yard fencing, end satd fencing shell be ShOM~ on the fencing p an.' All block walls or combination earthen benl/decorattve block waITs'abeT1 also be shown on the fencing plan. All fences shall be constructed prior to the issuance of ocCapancy permitS, 52. This aulxltvt~ton may I~ recorded ffi phisea Sv~oct to the foilrating: v/ 1) Proposed phastn~, Including phase boundaries, sequencing and floor plan sellcttonm shell be subject to Planning Otrector's approval. Z) Each proposed phase shall cem~lywith the provisions of Section 7.11 9f OPIllnlf~cl 31,8. 3) ~f any phase of the subdivision will be developed wi~h fewer than the epprOved number of floor plans, the cmmllttve mtx of floor plans rosalUng from the sequential rlcordatton of phases shell comply with the provisions of Section 7.11f(3) of Ordinance 348. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 19872, Ama. 12 Condit(ons of Approval Page -8- *53. P~eP~te~aRy~p~e14m~aPy~§rad~Rg~Pe~Pdat~R~f~the~f~n~map~wh~heve~-~e~ f4P~t;-~he°E~a~w~}f-g~a~e~ite~h~be-Pe1~ated~s~d4Fecte~-by~the~P1~nn~n~-~- ~iPee~8P=~A}~exhw~at~-~e1ee~t~eR~a~-~P~haee~g~1~xpen~es-$h~be~t~e-~ respeRsJbalJt~-ef-the-deve~epeP:--~he-Peteeatien-$ha~t-fottow-the-fo~ow~g-- pPeeeedJnls;-ep-etheP-pPeeeedj^i$-al-ap~eved-b~-the-Pian~P4-BjPectoP~ a~--;ke-devehWeP-ska1~-ebta4s-e-eeuP~-ePdePt-aethoP4~ed-~7-a-membeP-of-the- ~01J-~Iml~y-eP-iRy-atheP-PlspoR1461e-paP~71-te-remoye-aRd-retocate-aRT-re~Aa~s ind*ihe-tlmbstaRe-io-1-1ite-desJg^ated-bl-theoP1aR^4Rg-eepaPt~eRt. *l),leted it Planntng Cmmtsston 2-20-85. fatally Beer. The aubdhtder shall erect a fence around Lot No. 349 is ag eed upon b~ the faadly wepreslntattve and the seulxltvtder. The Idolf fam41y shal~ be responsible for mtnteeance of the stte. Added it Planning Coentss~on 2-20-85. LRR:Jle;gm;aea OFFICE OF ROAD COId~U~$1ON~R & COUNTY $L/RI/~Y(~R RIverside County Planntng Coaa~tsslon 4080 Lemon Street Riverside. CA 9ZSOt February 20, Z985 Tract Map 29872 - Amend Schedule A - Team Z Ladies and Gentlemen: Vlth respect to the conditions of approvaT for the referenced tentative land division map. the Road Oepartr~ent reco~nends that the Idnddivtder provide the followin~ street I~prove,a~ntS and/Or rode dedications in aCCOrdance with Ordinance 460 and RiverSide County Rudd I~prov~:t~nt "' Standards (Ordinance 461). It iS underSign4 that the Tentative HJp COrrectly shows a11 existin0 easements, traveled ways. 4rid draina~le courses with appropriate O's, and that their ~lission ~ay rvqutr~ the map to be resub~ttted rot further consideration. Thes, Ordinance~ and the foTlovha~ tend tttons are essential Darts and d requirement uc~uring ..in O;t[ is as bt,.Jing d~ though OCCurring in all. They are inte~,..d tu be compTementary and tO describe the conditions for d complCte 4~s i,Jn of the Improve~.~ent. AI1 questions regarding thu true m~aning of thu COnditionS s~all be referred ~o the Road Can~sstoner's Office. The !anddivider Shall proteCt do~mstredm prOINrtleS damages caused by alteration of the dratnage patterns, i.e., concentration of divereign of flow. ProteCtion she11 ~e ~rovlded by constructing adequate drainage facilities ncludlng enlarging existtng facilities or by securing a dretnage easegent or by both. All drainage easements shell be shorn on the final map and noted aS foileta: eOrafnage Easement'- no buildingS. obstructions, or enCroaclaentS by 3and fills are allwed'. The protOCtlon shall be as approved by the Road Department. The landdivider shell accept and properlJr dtspose of ell OffStta dralnag floetrig onto or through the site: in the 'wvent the Road ~cl~lsstoner peaira the_gJL.O~_Ltreets for drofna e purposes, the provtstons of Article X! of OKItnance llo. 46F),tli appl},. Should the quan'Tftfes 'exCeed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shot1 provtde adequate drainage facilities as approved by the had Department. $cf, e~dle A - Teen February 20, 1985 3. Hajor dratnage ts involved on thts landd~v~s$on and its ~solut$on she1| be as approved by the Road Department. cA", 'O", 'H" and 'J" Streets (between Via Gilberto,dnd cA" s,...t) ...,, .. ,.,r..d w,,.,.o, .a, ,. 'lccordance with. County Standard tlO.O (40'/60'). "8", "C", °(", 'G", "I", 'J', (teesterly of man Street) "L", "He, "N", "0", 'P", 'Q", "R', °S' and "T" Streets $hdll be Improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance County Standard tie. 105, Sect$on A. (36'160'). Via Gllberto shall be tmprov~d with 28 feet Of asphalt concrete pavement within e 40 foot part width d~dtcated rt~ht ~f way tn IcCordance with County Standard No. 110, Section A. (Z0'/30'). 7. COncrete $id~vaTk$ shell be constructed throughout ttt~ landdivision $n accordanc.e with County Standard Ha. 400 and 40] (curb side.elk).' The einlmu~ centerline irediner shall be 0.3St. Pile Road shall be Improved with concrete ~urb and ~utter located 43 feet frem centerline and hatch up aSphdlL COncrete Nvinq; reCOnStruCtion Or reSurfdCtng of existing paving as datemined by the Road tomlistener within I SS foot hotf width dadlOdged / r(ght of way in accordance with Count~ Standard fie. 10O. Prior to the recordalton of the final map, the developer shall deposit vtth the RIverSIde County Road Department, acas sum · h Td S150.00 per lot el mitigation for traffic signal ImpdOtS. Shoe the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter Into s written agreeeint vtth the County defertin said payment tO the time of ISsuance of a bulldlq Nmlt. ~ 19 tli)revlmenl plans Shall be bash upon a centerline profile extending · minimum. of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries et I grade · led oll nmnt at approved by the RIverside County Reed ~Oenissfoner. Ceml)letTOn Of reed Improvements des not Imply acceptance for latefinance by County. Electrical ·ml comuntcatlons trenches shall be provided In ~- Iccordence with Ordinance 46Z, Stjndard 8~7. $~c~vle A - Te4~ Fe'orudry 20, 1985 Conditions Page 3 IS. 16. 17. Asphaltfc e~ulsfon (fog seal) shall be applied not hss than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at i rate of 0,05 galipn per square yar4. Asphalt emulSIon shall confOm to Sections 37, 39 and 94 oF the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the ldnddlvtston. Comer cutbacks In conromance vtth County Standard r~. 805 shall be Sho~n on the final mp and offered for dedication. Lot access shall be restricted on Pals Road and VIa Gllbertu lad so noted on the final map. Linddivisions creating cut or f111 slopes adjacent to the sirouts Shall provide erosion control. Sight diStanCe co, trol and slope easements as approved by the Road Oepartjaent. The landdivider Shall provide utility clearance from prior to the recordalien of The mxtmun centerline gradient Shill not exceed IS:. The mlntmm centerline redtI shall be 300' or as approvod by the Road Department. Street trees she11 be planted in conromance vtth the provisions Of Article 13a of Ordinance 460. S3 end tJ~etr location(s) snell be Shown on street improvemat plans. AI1 driveways shall contom to the applicable Riverside County Standards and Shall be shown on the strut Improvemet plans. The mlnfmm garage setback shell be 30 feet assured from the firdOt Curb. The mintnun lot frontage shall be H fat assure along the face of curb. . IS. All centerline late/sections shall be at 90* or radio1 or as · lpproved b~ the Road Department. Pail 4 Th~ street design and improvement concept of this project shall coordinated Nith P.N. ZO[7[,Trlct ~g93g. IT. Prior to or concurrently to the recordaUon of the Final map, the applicant shall complete · smry vaCation.of'the superseded txfsttng dedication shall he appTild fur and prucessed for COncurrent action ·~ the time of the adoption Of the final map. If Said excess or superseded right of way IS aTso County owned land, it may be necessary to enter into an agrle~ent with the County fGr Its purchase or exchange. 28.; Prior to recorditton of any phase of Trlct Zg872, p~ocewcltngs for In.lssessment distrtct for thl construction of Ifo, r line bridge on Pile Ro~d it the Temecula Cmk shell be luccessfully camplet·l, GH:lh Vef7 trvly yours Engineer RIVERSIDE: COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATI='R CONSERVATION DISTRIC"r JAN 8 1985. RIVERSIDE C~OUNTy PLANNING COMMISSION R~verside County Plannine Department County Adm~n~strative Center R~versidee CaZiforn~a Attention: Railanal Team No. 2 LadLes and Gentlemen= Re: Traot 19872 (Amended No. 1) Reference Is made to tentative Tract 19872 Zooated on the southwest side of PIll Road between Tamsouls Lane and Via .Gliberie ~n the Ranshe CslLforn~a area, Our rev%ew ladlenten the main Itreambed of Peohanla Creek Z~es adjacent to the southwest tract boundary. The 100 year Pethangs Creek rZow has been determined to be 7250 cfs. Under exist%mS oond~ttona Zt appears the l%m~ta of the 100 year fZood pZaLn extend outside of the entrenched wash onto the southern portion or the tract (inoludinl lots adJsoent to eL" Street), Tentative Treat 19939 Zetated to the southeast has proposed sonsituation of the northeast bank of PoehanKs Creek, Any proposed bank protection along Poohmale Creek should be ooordinated wtth tentative Treat 19939, The sppltcant*s engineer his subelated s sensepanel drainage plan to the D~striot. This'plan sells for the oonstruotion of hardened bank proteotion alerts the existSuS entrenched portion or Poohmale Creek. Thai protestion would provide oralSart proteot~on for Lots 18a thru BOO, Other lots loomted edlaoent to PoohariSe Creek would he or surfLatent size to provide adequate setbask to the buSZdahle area, Zt is noted that 8 portion or the proposed hardened bank protestton end perhaps some rLll would be Zoosted offaLto or the tract boundary, This offsite oonatruotSon should Riverside County Planning Department Tract 19872 (Amended No. 1) -2- January 3, 1985 Following ere the DSstriot's recommendations: A study should be made to determine the 100 year flood plain limits and flow. velocities of Peehangs Creek. The study should include · detailed topolrlphic survey glens w~th supporting water surface profile calculations. Zf realignment or alteration of the existing flood plain lSm~ts is proposed, the study should Lnclude a "before" and "after" flood plain limit definition to determine the effects on adjacent property. Any change in the flood plain on adjacent properSy should not raise the water surface more than six ~nohes. Hardened erosion protection as conceptemily shown on the tentative mlp should be construeted along the banks of Poehangs Creek to protect f~ll slopes and other areas subject to erosion as determined by the study referenced in Condition Me. 1. This hardened aresion protection should be extended below the flow line of Peohsnla Creak a suitable distance (based on flow velooSty) to prevent undermining. The hardened banks should be Zoosted within the tract boundary. The Feehangs Creek 100 year flood plain limits through the property should be delineated and labeled on an associated environmental oonstra~nt sheet to accompany the final map. The area within the delineated flood plain limits should be labeled "flood plain" on the masseLated environmental constraint sheet. & note should be placed on the simselated environments1 constraint sheet ststLnl, "Floo4 pisSas shall be kept free of buildisis sad obstructions, inoZudSog fencing that would obstruct flova," &u erosion setback line should he delineated and labeled on the associated environmental oonstrslnt sheet, The erosion setback Xtne should be established at a minimum of 50 flee ~aok from the top of the existing bunk of Poehangs Creek or as determined by the flood plain study per recommendation no. 1. ldhere hardened banW protection iS provided, the minimum setback distance san be reduced to 25 foot. Drainage facilities that outlet sump oonditions should be designed to convey the tributary I00 year peak storm flow. Riverside County -3- January 3, 1985 Planning Department Re: Tract 19872 (Amende~ No. 1) Drainage facilities loos~ed along side lot lines should be located on one 1o~ only. Drainage facilities 1coated along side ~ot llnes should be concrete 11ned to s point beyond the buildable por~lon of the lot. Al1 lots should drain tO the adjacent street or an adequate outlet, 6. The traot'a drainage system should be des%Shed to · perpetuate the existing drainage patterns. Storm drsln facilities leested outside of road r~iht of way should be sonrained vl%h$n drainale easements shorn on the fins/map. Drainage easesouts should not straddle lot llnes. A note should be added to the final map Itat$nl, "Drainage easements shall he kept clear of buildIsis and obatruotlons." Buildlain loonted adJsoent to Feehauls Creek should have the flnlahed floors elevated a minimum of 1 foot above the 100 year Poohasia Creek vator surface. eZsvaUon, i copy of the IredinS plans, improvement plans, flnaZ map and the assoo~eted environmental constraint ahee~ along with supportlug hydralogic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for review prior to recordeaSes. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARD8 Chief [nilnear DAVZD T. SHELDON PZannlnl gnllneer as: Reed Dept. Dept. of Building & Safety Attn: Erie Trsboulay Shallot & Lohr Drb:bl DEPARllIENI' OF HEALTH ~r{~m Plannina Department - Team 2 "&~m-m January 1B. 19~5 ~,.m{mJ//~H. Raloh Luchs. R.S.. Admtn. Supervisor - Envtromental Health Services mute T~act No, 19872 The Environmental Health Senftces Division has reviewed Amended Map No. 2 dated January 14, 1985. Our current coaments wtll remain ms stated in our previous letter dated August 20, 1984. mL:cg e RIVERSIDE COUNTY, PLANNING COMMISSION Slit. FOIII 4, I/el · / ~OUNTY OF RIVERSIDE- DEPARTMENT" OF HEALTH August 20. 1984 AUG 22 1984 , RiVerside County Planning Departant - Team 4080 Lemon St. RIverside, CA 92501 2 RIvERS,'~)r· CCUNT'f RE: Tract No. 19872; Being Parcels I through 4 of PH 7784 as shovm in 8k. 30, pg. 96 of Parcel IMps, Records of RIverside County. (514 Lots - R-6) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has rev(ewed Tentative IMp No. 19872 and recmnds that: A water system shall be Installed according to plans and specifications Is epproved by the water cm;any and the Health I)epart~ent. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, ~!th a mtntmum scale not less then one inch equals 200 feet, along wtth the Oft trial drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the 'interat pipe diameter, location of valves and fire IWdrants; p pe and I joint specifications, and the size of the mtn at the Junctton of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall coRely in ali PeaHeSs with Otv. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the CIllfornil Health and Safety Code, Califorota Administrative Code, Tttle 22, Chapter 16, and General Order llo. 103 of the Public Utilities Camlesion of the State of California, when applicable. The plans the11 be s~gned by a registered engtneer and mter comparLV dth the following certification: "X certify that the design of the v~ter system !n Tract No. 1HTi ts In accordance with the'water srstem expansion plans of the bnchoClltfornll Mater OtiSriot and that the 'alter slrvtce, storage lid dhtrttmtloe Itstea wtll be adequate to provtde wiser ServiCe te, lUCll treCt,..TMI cerMftcatton does net con- sitlute e gearshilt. tat it dll $ lyretar to such tract at e~Y' specific antities, flM Or prilll/rll ~m'Su~fqr'Pretecttoll or 'a~y other purpose." ~!~ts certification Shill be stgnld by I responsible offtctel of the ~ter . ~Ms 0epartmnt has I statement frm the Rancho Cal¶for~ia Mater Otstrtct agreeing to serve domestic water to each aN ever/lot in the sutxltvtsion on demand providing saltsfactor/financial arrangements ire completed with the subdivider. It w111 be necessary for the financial erreagletS'to be made prior to the recordslion' of the ftM1 map. H. Ralph Luchs, R.S. Administrative Supervisor EnvSronmental Health }~]ann;ng Oepart~nt -2- August 20, 1984 TRJ~CT NO. 19872 Thts Oeparment has s statement from Eastern Municipal Water Dtstrtct sgreetng to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers of the dlstr~ct. The sewer system Shall be 1natalled Iccord~ng to plans and spedf~cattons as approved by the d~strtct, the County $ur~or ins the Health Oepar~nt. Pennant Prints of the plans of the $e~er system shall be sum$t~d tn triplicate, along Nlth ~e original dra~lng, to ~e County $u~eyor. The prints Shall Sho~ ~e internal p{pe diameter, location of mnholes, c~lete profiles, ptpe and Jotnt S~df~cat(ons. and the stzl o~ t~ Sewers I~ ~l ~unCtfon of ~ m system te ~e extsttng sys~m. A stngl, plat 1ridluring location of swer 11nes and water It~s Shall ~ , portion of ~e swage plans and p~ftl~s. ~e plans shall ~ stgned by a registered engtnnr and ~e sNr dtstrtct ~t~ ~e follwtng certification "l certify that ~e ~,stgn of ~e swr syst~ in Tract No. lg872 ts tn accordance v$th the sewer sysm expansion pl,~ of ~, E,te~ Municipal Water Otstrtct · a~ ~at ~e was~ dtsposal sys~m ts adequate it ~ts t$~ te treat t~ anticipated wastes from the proposed tract."' The olens must be submitted to the County SuPvel, or'l Offtce to ~ev~ew It least two ~eeks PriOr to the recluest for the recordatton of the ftnal map. It ~11 be necessar7 for the f$nanctal irringements to be made prior to the ~cordatlon of t~e fInll m~p, It wtll be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely ftnaltzed .prior to the recordatlon of the ftn, 1 mep. Water and sewer availability ta contingent upon &nnexatton Into ItCWO, Thts land dtvtston could not be epproved as an R-6 development !f senttAry se~er servlce was not forthcoming. SIncerely, It. ~RIl~L~ch$, Amtntstrettve Supervisor RIVERSIDECOUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WIT~ THi: CALIFORNIA DEP&RTIvtENT OF FORESTRT RAY HEBKARD RRa CHIEF ~anuary 15, 1985 I I0 WF.$T SAN JACINTO AVENUE PERR|S, CALIFORNIA 92370 TEJ~PHONE~(714)6S?.3ji3 ~0 1 Re ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Tl~m IX Tentative Ttact No. 19872 - Amenbent Gentlemen: With respect to ~he conditions of approval for ~he above referenced land division, the Fits Depar~nent tenonmends ~he following fire protection measures be provided in accordance vl~h Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards~ Schedule *An fire protection approve~ Standard fire hydrants (6' x 4e X 2~e] located one at each street intersection and sliced not m~re than S00 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more ~han 250 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 500 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. M~TZGATZON Prior to ~he te~rdation of ~he final map, the developer shell deposit with the ELvetside C~ty Fire ~r~ent a ~a~ s~ of 1300.00~z ~t/~t as mitigation lot fire p~tection ~cts.' ~ld ~e developer ch~se to defer the t~ of paint, ~ my uter in~ a eatten agreeeat vith ~e ~uty defetr~g enid pa~ent to ~e t~ of lessace of a buildi~ p~t. All questions regard~ ~hs meaning of ~he conditions shall be referred to the Pits perUeat Planning S Ingineering staff. 'lancerely, lAY HElltARO County Fire Chief MEG/Ih Plannine Officer February ZZ, Z985 14s. Kant) Haurtce Sam Hicks Honment Foundation P.O.Box 539 Temecula, CAg2390 RE: LUZ$ WOLF GRAVESITE TF. KTATIVE TRACT NO. 19872 Dear Ks. Haulice: ! am writing as a follow-up toour conversation on February 7, Z965, regarding the Wolf 6rave,. As !-indicated to 3mu, the Planntng Deparlaent has fomulated a set of conditions hc Conditions prior to any prel~m- The developer IMry grading of the site or prt~r to recordatton of the ftnal gap. l.hsve enclosed a copy of these conditions." At this time, the c~ndtttons are.tentative 'end my 'be altered or amended It the February 20, ~965 Pllnntng _Ce~m_.__tsslon Heartrig. You are encouraged to attend the hearing ned offer Jmur co~nents on the ray·site aM the tract. lf3mu are unable to attend, plense feel T~to ~rltea letter to mlNhichoutltnesyour con~ents and saggas- lions, and I vtll 'present 3mar concerns to the Plsnntng Cemtsston. Since Z last stake vlth Flu, a fir. Subfie1 Pico Ms contacted me Ms Sitformed Im that he tS the great grandson of fir. Louis Wolf. Ftco'l rother, · firs. Evely~ You , its the randdaughter of fir. Wolf, end she presently !ves tn Tlmecun~e. Ve v1~1 be ~orktng closely v4th fir. ,,..nd ."',aN'.',..,;.., th.....ate re,..,io.. eee/ 4e-~og OASIS STREET, ,,,,,,,-, ,-,, Ns. Nancy Naurtce' February 11, 1985 Page -2- thank you for your cooperation and IDPrectate the help you have offere~ tO preserve this valuable historic resource. Z look forward to tmrking ~tth ~ou and your organization over .the aext fw BOnthS. · SIncetel,y, LI'U~'I R. Ittnes'~ Plenner ¢~: Steve Becket, County Parks-Oel~r~ent '... Nr. I~Coy, County Cotone J~ Office r IMn/ld Lohr, $Mller and Lohr ~brlel Ptco Z / LU 5 / / 'y ] V ITEM #8 ITEM #7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1991 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 10579, Revised Permit No. 2 and Administrative Plot Plan No. 24 Prepared By: Karen Castro Recommendation: Approve Administrative Plot Plan No. 20, with deletion of Sign "C" and one Sign "B" . Adopt Resolution 91- approving Revision No. 2 to Plot Plan No. 10579 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on the findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Bedford Properties Herron and Rumansoff Architects, Inc. To allow a previously approved "Guest Use" only restaurant in an existing hotel to be opened to the public and approval of the associated sign program. Southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. SP 180, Rancho Highlands Specific Plan Office/Professional North: South: East: West: Hotel North: South: East: West: CP - General Commercial SP 180 - Residential, very high density SP 180 - Office/Professional Interstate 15 "Tower Plaza", Office/Retail Condominums Existing information center, proposed restaurant. Interstate 15 STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: No. of Acres: Site Square Footage: Structures: 8.7 378,972 Site is developed with a 136-room hotel. The site was originally approved by the Riverside County Planning Department for a 179-unit, 118,230 square foot hotel under Plot Plan No. 10579 on June 25, 1988. Revision No. 1, which increased the number of hotel suites from 179 to 185, was approved on March 13, 1989. Condition No. 20 of that approval stated: "The proposed dining rooms and cocktail lounge areas shall be restricted for the exclusive use of bonafide, registered motel guests and employees, and shall not be opened to, or advertised to, the general public. No onsite or offsite identification or advertising signs shall be erected advertising such uses. Should the applicant intend to open such uses to the general public in the future, prior approval of a Revised Permit or a new Plot Plan application, as determined by the Planning Director, shall first be obtained". On December ~,, 1990 an application for Revision No. 2 was made to the City of Temecula Planning Department proposing to allow the previously approved "Guest Use" only restaurant to be opened and advertised to the public. The applicant is now proposing to construct 136 units in lieu of the 185 approved under Revision No. 1, in order to allow adequate onsite parking for the public resaurant use. Any future development on the subject site will requ ire additional Planning Commission approval as set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval. Administrative Plot Plan No. 2~, is the proposed sign program for the Doubletree Inn site. It proposes a 39 foot freeway oriented monolith sign (sign "D") located at the northwest corner of the site. A highway line-of-sight Analysis was performed on January 16, 1991 by Planning Staff. It was determined that the proposed height is necessary for visibility of the sign by passing motorists. Three monument signs (signs "B" and "C") are included in the sign program. One is located at the corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road and one at each driveway entrance on Rancho Highlands Drive ("A"Street). STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 2 ANALYSIS: Ordinance 3~,8, as adopted states that: "Not more than one freestanding sign shall be permitted on a parcel of land". Staff is recommending that Sign "C" and one driveway entrance sign "B" be removed from the sign program. Two wall-mounted signs (Signs "A" ) are proposed. One at the hotel lobby entrance and one mounted on the northwesterly face of the hotel structure which will provide freeway visibility. The wall-mounted signs are in compliance with Ordinance 3~8 advertising regulations and Staff recommends approval of these signs as proposed. The project was presented to City of Temecula Development Review Committee on January 3, 1991. There were no agency concerns at that time. Area Settinq The proposed resaurant is located in the previously approved Double Tree Inn structure on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. The surrounding properties are developed with commercial office and retail uses and high density residential. The restaurant consists of 1,77~ square feet of dining area with 120 seats and a cocktail lounge. Circulation/Traffic/Parkinq Access is provided by two 30 foot driveway entrances off Rancho Highlands Drive. The internal site circulation as originally approved provides adequate space for users to drive through the site. There are no proposed changes to the parking plan. The reduction in the number of suites proposed will allow for adequate parking for the public resaurant use with parking calculated as follows: Hotel: 136 Suites 1 space per unit + 2 spacesfor resident manager = 138 spaces. Restaurant: 120 Seats Total Parking Required: Total Parking Provided: 1 space per every three seats = ~0 spaces. 1 space per every two employees = 3 180 spaces 188 spaces STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Compatibility with Surroundinq Properties The proposed restaurant is located in an existing hotel. The project site is located in a developed commercial area and is surrounded by general commercial and high density residential uses. The proposed restaurant is compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses. The project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15061, Subsection B{3). FINDINGS: There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State Law due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated commercial land use and design guideline standards. 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, due to the fact that it conforms with present or planned land use of the area and is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Specific Plan 180. The proposed use or action complies with State Planning and Zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the existing Specific Plan Designation of Office/Professional. The site is suitable to accomodate the proposed land use in terms of size and shape of lot configuration,parking circulation and access due to the fact that adequate area is provided for the proposed use and parkin. g and circulation as designed are ~n conformance with City Standards, also internal circulation, traffic conflicts and landscaping were addressed in the original Conditions of Approval of Plot Plan No. 10579. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health, safety STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: or welfare due to the fact that the proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses and conditions stated in the approval are based on measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the original approval or the present or planned land use. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and documents associated with this application and are herein incorporated by reference due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibit and Conditions of Approval. Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: APPROVE Administrative Plot Plan No. 2~, with the deletion of Sign "C" and one Sign ADOPT Resolution 91 - approving Revision No. 2 to Plot Plan No. 10579 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on the findings contained in the Staff Report. KC:mb Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Exhibits STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 5 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING OF REVISION NO. 2 TO PLOT PLAN NO. 10579 TO OPEN A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED "GUEST USE" ONLY RESTAURANT TO THE PUBLIC ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 8.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFONIA ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 9~A-020-001 WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Revision No. 2 to Plot Plan No. 10579 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Revised 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 Revised Plot Plan on February 25, 1991, 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 Revised Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the ger)eral plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 6 (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use oF action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (C) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Revised 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. 10579 Revision No. 2 as 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. (1) Pursuant to Section 18,30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 7 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. ~2) ThePlanningCommission, in approvingthe proposed Revised Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State Law due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated commercial land use and design guideline standards. 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, due to the fact that it conforms with present or planned land use of the area and is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Specific Plan 180. The proposed use or action complies with State Planning and Zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the existing Specific Plan Designation of Office/Professional. The site is suitable to accomodate the proposed land use in terms of size and shape of lot configuration,parking circulation and access due to the fact that adequate area is provided for the proposed use and parking and circulation as designed are in conformance with City Standards, also internal circulation, traffic conflicts and landscaping were addressed in the original Conditions of Approval of Plot Plan No. 10579. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare due to the fact that the proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses and conditions stated in the approval are based on measures necessary to reduce or STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 8 eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the original approval or the present or planned land use. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and documents associated with this application and are herein incorporated by reference due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibit and Conditions of Approval. 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. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Revision No. 2 to Plot Plan No. 10579 to open a previously approved "guest use" only restaurant to the public located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road and known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 94~-020-001 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 9 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 25th day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 10 CITY OF TEMECULA PLOT PLAN NO. 10579 REVISED PERMIT NO. 2 Project Description: 136-room hotel with public restaurant. Additional Conditions of Approval Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is to allow a previously approved "Guest Use" only restaurant in an existing hotel consisting of 136 rooms to be opened to the public. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and emoployees 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 Revision No. 2 Plot Plan No. 10579 the City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 10579, Revision No. 2 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. Any proposed development in addition to that shown on the approved site plan for Plot Plan No. 10579, Revised No. 2 {Exhibit A, attached) must first obtain prior approval of a Revised Permit or Plot Plan application as determined by the City Planning Director. Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted to the Riverside County Department of Health, including a fixture schedule, finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. 7. 8. 9. Prior to issuance of any permits, updated will-serve letters shall be provided from appropriate water and sewering agencies. Provide two completed sets of plans to the City Building and Safety Deptartment for review and obtain required permits. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Inspection to the City Building Department two weeks prior to the final inspection. The project shall comply with all the Conditions of Approval adopted for Plot Plan No. 10579 Revised No. 1 except for Conditions Nos. 3 and 20 STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 11 CITY OF TEMECULA ADMINISTRATIVE PLOT PLAN NO. 2u, Conditions of Approval The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a sign program for the Doubletree Inn site and includes signs "A" - two (2) wall-mounted signs, one monument sign "B", and the freeway oriented sign "D" as shown on the site plan. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 10579, Revision No. 2 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions, The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and emoployees 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 Administrative Plot Plan No. 2~ the City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify. or hold harmless the City of Temecula. Obtain required Building and Safety permits. STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 12 RIVERSIDE COIJNTY RAIINIIIG DEPARTNENT COf~ITIONS OF APPROVAL Kaiser Development P.O. Box 755 Rancho California, CA 923g0 PLOT PLAN NO. 10579, Revised Permit No. 1 Project Description: Increase approved motel units from 179 to 185, increase building height. Assessor's Parcel No.: 944-020-001 Area: Rancho California The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan 10579, Revised Permit No. 1. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense· If the County fail s to promptly notify the permi ttee 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 County of Riverside. This approval shall be used within 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 substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Plot Plan No. 10579, Revised Permit No. 1, or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way, and shallshall comply with Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Area}. The applicant shall comply with the street improvement reco~nendations ou~ ined in the County Road Department transmittal dated 2-22-1989, a copy of which is attached. PLOT PLAN NO. 10579 Revised Permit No. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 2 g $ 10. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittal dated 1-17-1989, a copy of which is attached. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District transmittal dated 7-18-1988, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 1-10-1989, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety transmlttal dated 1-18-1989, a copy of which is attached. 11. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy pennlts. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Pla.ti.g withi. te. C10> feetor e it driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than iinches. 12. PRIORTO lllE ISSUANCE OF GRAOIMO BR* BUILDING PERMITS, six (6} c ie~ ~f~a Shading, Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation and Signing Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance 348, Sections 18.12 and/or 18.30. (DELETEO BY MMIMGOIRECTOR 3-13-89) 13. Required landscaping plans shall include the following: 14. Minimum 48 inch box size specimen trees along each building facade at an interval sufficient to provide for softening the structure's visual effect. Minimum 24 inch box size specimen trees along the perimeter of parking areas and the developed portion of the site, sufficient in number and intervals to screen the proJect's visual impacts along Interstate 15 and the adjacent streets. (ADDEO BY PI.A!INIMG DIRECTOR 3-13-89) A minimum of 188 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 and as shown on Exhibit A, Revised Permit No. 1, prior to final building inspection approval for this plot plan. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A maximum of 37 of the required Varking spaces shall be sized for compact vehicles (8~' by 16' stall size . PLOT PLAN NO. 10579 Revised Permit No. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 3 16. A minimum of five (5) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than I inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning " In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDIRG PERMIT, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Environmental Health Rancho Calif. Water Co. Riverside County Flood Control Fi re Department Caltrans-Distrtct 8 Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. Building elevations shall be in substantial confonnance with that shown on Exhibit B-1 and B-2, Revised Permit No. 1. Haterials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibits B-1 and B-2, Revised Permit No. 1. (Color Elevations} and Exhibit C, Revised Permit No. 1, (Haterial Board). These are as follows: PLOT PLAN N0. 10579 Revised Permit No. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 4 Material Walls Stucco Rails and Caps Metal Awnings Canvas Roof Tile Color Benjamin Moore ~876 Off White and ~066 Peach B.M. #671 Teal Green Teal Green and White Terra Cotta 19. 20. 22. 23. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Screening The proposed dining rooms and cocktail lounge areas shall be restricted for the exclusive use of bona fide, registered motel guests and employees, and shall not be open to, or advertised to, the general public. No onsite or offsite identification or advertising signs shall be erected advertising such uses. Should the applicant intend to open such uses to the general public in the future, prior approval of a Revised Permit or new Plot Plan application, as determined by the Planning Director, shall first be obtained. (MDDLrD BY PL,R/INIMG DIRECTOR 3-13-89) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, final building elevation drawings shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director. The revised elevations shall be in substantial conformance with the approved exhibits for Plot Plan No. 10579, Revised No. 1. as determined by the Planning Director. (ADD BY Iml_A/IMIle~ DIRECll)R 3-13-89) The rear (easterly side) setback of the motel building shall be a minimum of twenty five {25} feet from the adjacent lot line, as reflected in Tentative Parcel Hap No. 23624. Should the final building configuration fail to meet the minimum setback standard, the applicant shall file a Lot Line Adjustment application, with the required fees, to the Planning Department, reflecting compliance with the setback requirement. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDIMG PERt~ITSo the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Planning Director of meeting the required 25 foot rear yard setback, or shall have obtained approval of and recorded a Lot Line Adjustment as required. (MDOED BY PLAMMIRG DIRECTOR 3-13-89) PRIOR 11) FILIAL BUILDIMG IMSPECTION APPROVAL BY THE BIJILDIMG AND SA~biY DEPARIMEMT, a three foot high landscaped earthen berm shall be constructed along the property lines adjacent to 1-15, Rancho California Road and "A" Street. The required berm shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. One trash enclosure which is adequate to enclose a total of four bins shall be located as sho~wn on Exhibit A, Revised Permit No. 1, and on approved landscaping plans, and shall be constructed prior to final occupancy approval. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens the bins from external view. PLOT PLAN NO. 10579 Revised Permit No. 1 Conditions of Approval Page S 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Landscape screening shall be planted along the 1-15 right-of-way and shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six {6 feet at maturity. All plantings and other encroachments into the State right-of-way shall require approval of Caltrans, District 8 office. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All existing 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 Planning Director. 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 Ordinancy No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. One Class II bicycle rack shall be provided in a convenient location to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. Bicycle rack locations shall be shown on required parking and landscaping plans. (REVISED BY PLANNING DIRECTOR 3-13-89) PRIOR TO ISSUAJ~CE OF BUILDIn PERMITS, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year, shall be filed with the Director of Building and Safety. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FIMAL OCCUPANCY PERMITS,the Planning Department shall inspect and certify the acceptability of all landscape planting and irrigation as to its substantial conformance with approved shading, parking, landscaping and irrigation plans. All plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease or pests. The trrilation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. REVISED BY PLANNING DIREC11)R 3-13-89) All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be installed underground. A minimum of 20 feet of landscaping shall be provided adjacent to all streets. Mitigation for seismic and liquefaction hazard found in County Geologic Report 476 and 476L shall be adhered to. PLOT PLAN NO. 10579 Revtsed Permit No. 1 CondtUons of Approval Page 6 35. Prior to the issuance of any perml ts, Change of Zone 5105 shall be adopted by the Board of Supervisors and be in effect. 36. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. MJM:mcb:cj RiV,..=I3iDE COUrE.u PLArlrlirlG DEP :I I ErE March 24, 1988 (Revised June 29, 1988) Converse Consultants Pasadena 67 West Bellevue Drive, Suite A Pasadena, CA 91105-2501 Attention: Mr. Leonard T. Evans, Jr. Mr. Howard A. Spellman, Jr. SUBJECT: Eiquefaction Hazard CCP Project No. 87-31-344-01 Tentative Parcel Map 23624 Plot Plan No. 10579 County Geologic Report No. 476L Rancho California Area Gentlemen: We have reviewed your report entitled "Liquefaction Investigation, West Twin Lakes Area "C-11,".Rancho.California, CA," dated November 23, 1987. Your report determined~ that the .soils at this site are not considered liquefiable. This'is'primarily because of the moderately high clay content of the clayey sand soils on the site. This determination Was based upon your analysis of SPT and'CPT data accumulated on the site, (wo levels of peak ground acceleration (a. o.63for the maximum,c~edible earthquake on the Wildomar branch of the Elsinore faOlt,'b~;O.299 'f6r ~ 'lO0-year design life) and groundwater levels at both exist~ng.]evels'~nd.a projected-rise to the learby lake level. No mitigation measures were recommended; It is our opinion that the report was-prepared in a competent manner and satisfies the requirement for a geologic report assessing liquefaction hazards as required *in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval of your report.is hereby given. SAK:pa c.c. Herron & Rumansoff - Architects Csaba Ko - Rancho Ca. Dev. Co. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE/(~bNTY LA NING EPARTMENT gD~ rector Rog treete ann~ Stevan A. K - Eng i neeri ng Geo 1 e ' CEG-1205 Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety (2) ~rPn T~al - TP~m 1 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 =IiV=:I: iDE counc.u PLAnninG DEP, :IC!TIEnC March 24, 1988 (Revised June 30, 1988) Converse Consultants Pasadena 67 west Bellevue Drive. Suite A Pasadena, CA 91105-2501 Attention: Mr. David B. Simon Mr. Howard A. Spellman, Gent1 emen: .~ SUBJECT: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone CCP Project No. 87-31-344-01 Tentative Parcel Map 23624 Plot Plan No. 10579 County Geologic Report No. 476 Rancho California Area We have reviewed your report: eni~ltled. "Fault Investiga~t.ton. County Assessors Parcel No. g23-020-038. West Twin Lakes Area. "C-11o" .Po'rtion of Tentative Parcel Map 22708. "Rancho Highland_"< Tentative Tract 21760.t:Ra~cho California. CA". dated December 2B.'lgB7...and,~.our(.,r,e.sp.o.n,se;.letter'dat,ed Hatch 15. lg8B. Your report determined ,~hatLi ~'~/~/~./~,/:/';l/)/..' ,, ,~ ~',,,:, ' 1. No, active faults '.or extensions of active faults are known to pass through the property; however, "the extension of the active trace of the Wildmar fault is projected to~within five feet of the easterly property line. as shown On'l~F~ Site Plan and Geologic Hap. Drawing 1. e Seven northwest-trending aerial photographic lineaments were observed within the central an4 southern portions of the Rancho Highlands area. These lineaments were not observed projecting through the site. 3. The seismic characteristics of the Wtldomar branch of the Elsinore fault are as follows: Maximum Credible Earthquake - 7.5 Richter magnitude Naximum Peak Ground Acceleration - 0.63g Duration of Strong Shaking - 25-35 seconds The potential for the seconda~ seismic hazards of liquefaction. differential compactton. landsliding. earthquake-induced flooding. seiches. tsunamis and ground lurching are Judged low to nil for the subject site. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 Converse Consultants Pasadena March 25, 1988 Your report recommended that: A 50 foot building setback be established to the west of the projected active tract of the Wildomar fault as shown on Drawings 1 and 2 in your report. 2o A soil and foundation engineering investigation should be conducted prior to ftnaltzation of the development plans. It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a !competent manner consistent with the present "state-of-the-art' and satisfies the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and the associated Riverside County Ordinance No. 547. Final approval of this report is hereby given. We reconmnend that the following conditions be satisfied before recordatton of the final map or issuance of any permits associated with this project: The "Fault Setback Zone" shown on Drawing 1, Geologic Map of your report-shall be delineated on the Environmental Constraints Sheet (E.C.S.}, and the area in between the setback zone shall be labeled "Fault Hazard Area." 2. A note shall be placed on the E.C.S. stating: 'This property is affected by earthquake faulting. Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in the Fault Hazard Area. This constraint affects parcels I and 2." 3. Notes shall be placed on the final land division map stating: (a) "This property is affected by earthquake faulting. Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in the Fault Hazard Area." (b) "County Geologic Report No. 476 was prepared for this property on December 28, 1987 by Converse Consultants, and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific item of concern are as follows: earthquake faulting, seismic design of structures, and uncompacted trench backfill.' A copy of the Final Map and Environmental Constraints Sheet shall be submitted to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review and approval. Converse Consultants Pasadena -3- March 25, 1988 The recommendations made in this report shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this projqct. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY L/MiNING O ARTHENT Roger~.eete - 1 a?~i ~i rector Steven A. Kup SAK:sa c,c. Herron & Rumonsoff - Architects Csaba Ko, Rancho Calif. Oev. Co. Roy Schlemon Earl Hart, CDNG Norm Lostbom, Building and Safety {2) Greg Neal - Team I Ri" ';RbiDE counc,u PLAnninG DEP RClTIEIlC BATE: April 24, 1989 Kaiser Development Company P.O. Box 755 Rancho California, CA 92390 Dear A~Hcant: Revised Permit No. E: Plot Plan No. 10579 Eavtro~ntal Assessaent No. 32860 R tonal Tea No. Specific Plans ~pe~: 944-020-00f On March 13, 1989 Plannlng Cmnlssmon above referenced Mot plan: APPROVED the Plot conditions. XX APPROVED the Plot amended conditions. APPROYED the Plot the Riverside County DO Planning Director [] L] Board of Supervisors took the following action on the Plan, Exhibit , subject to the attached Plan, Exhibits A,B-h subdect to the attached B-2, B-3, C C-1 C-2 C-3, P1 . Revised ~xhtbtt ' C~6j~~ a~ C-6. an , the attached conditions. APPROVED the Plot Plan, Revised Exhibtt attached mended condi ti ons. UPHELD the appea3. DENIED the appeal. APPROYED the WITHDRAWAL of the appea3 request. APPROVED the WITHDRAWAL of the Plot Plan. DENIED the Plot Plan based on the attached findings. ADOPTED the Negative Declaration on the Environmental noted above. , subject to the Assessment CC: IECE VED APR 2 6 198~ HERRON + RUMANSOFF ARCHITECT~ INC. Herron & Rumansoff Architects, Inc. 530 Street John's Place Hemet, CA 92343 cc: Representative File 2-89 Very tru]y yours, , RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter. Planning Director Ron Goldman, Principal Planner 4080 LEMON STREW, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 CITY OF TEMECULA )' LOCATION .MAP CAEE NO. P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ VICINITY MAP CASE NO. P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~, -. CZ SP ZONE CZ. 44Z0 ',7 R-A-5 7.ONE CZ 5t05 ~5pF.,CtFtC PLAN ZONE MAP r CASE NO. P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ SP 180 SWAP MAP CASE NO. P.C. DATE Ji \ iii I: ! ,% STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1991 Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627, First Extension of Time Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: Recommend APPROVAL of the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Van Daele Rancho 126, Ltd. RanPac Engineering Corporation First Extension of Time North of Nicolas Road and east of General Kearny Road. R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) R-5 (Open Area Combining Zoning-Residential Developments ) North: R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) South: R-R (Rural Residential) East: Specific Plan No. 213 (Winchester Properties ) West: Specific Plan No. 213 (Winchester Properties ) Not requested. Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Vacant Single Family Residential STAFFRPT\VTM22627 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Acreage: Total Lots Proposed: Proposed Density: Proposed Minimum Lot Size: SWAP Allowed Density: 53 acres 220 lots 4.2 DU/AC 4,630 sq.ft. 2-5 DU/AC BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627 was recommended for approval on September 14, 1988 by the Riverside County Planning Commission in conjunction with Change of Zone No. 5119. Change of Zone No. 5119 was a request to change the zoning on 53 acres from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone - Residential Developments ). Both Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627 and Change of Zone No. 5119 were approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1988. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22627 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 53 acres into 220 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 4,630 square feet. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22627 is made up of two phases which are independently owned. Phase No. I is owned by Lyon Communities, Inc., and is composed of 93 lots. Phase 2 is owned by Van Daele Rancho 126, ltd., and consists of 127 lots. The subject site is located north of Nicolas Road and east of General Kearny Road. Design Considerations The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R-2 ( Restricted Single Family) zone and Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460. The main access to the project is provided by North General Kearny Road. Density The proposed subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627) has a density of 4.2 DU/AC. The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) calls for 2- 5 DU/AC. Thus, meeting the SWAP residential density requirement. STAFFRPT\VTM22627 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: The proposed density of 4.2 DU/AC is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 2-5 DU/AC. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. On October 25, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32361. Environmental Assessment No. 32361 indicated that the site may impact or be impacted by liquefaction, dam inundation, agriculture, Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat habitat, archaeological resourceS, schools, libraries, and Mt. Palomar Observatory. However, these impacts will be mitigated through the Conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22627. Therefore, Staff is not requesting any further environmental determination. 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, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. 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, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) land use designation. STAFFRPT\VTM22627 3 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, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. 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, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site ( R-2; Multiple Family Residential ), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan | SWAP ) designation of commercial. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. STAFFRPT\VTM22627 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes two independent access points from Nicolas Road and North General kearny Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. 10. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. 11. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: APPROVAL of the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on findings contained in the Staff Report. RA:ks Attachments: Conditions of Approval Exhibits STAFFRPT\VTM22627 5 CITY OF TEMECULA ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627 Commission Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planninq Department 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 Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director verification that Section 10. 35 of Ordinance No. ~,60 has been previously satisfied or an agreement with CSA 1~,3 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s successorbs-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627 will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~,60. The expiration date is September 14, 1991. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the Community Services District which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has satisfied Quimby Act requirements in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~,60. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. STAFFRPT\VTM22627 6 Enqineering Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. it is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. The 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 RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 8. 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; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. 10. 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 66L~62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 11. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. STAFFR PT\VTM22627 7 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. Sewer and domestic water systems. 12. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 15. 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. 16. 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 GRADING PERMITS: 17. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 18o The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. STAFFRPT\VTM22627 8 19. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineerin9 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 20. 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. 21. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 22. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for North General Kearny Road, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 23. A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Sierra Moore Drive, Silver Ridge Court, Bogart Place, Cross Creek Court, and Pauma Valley Road and can be shown on the street improvements or as a separate plan. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 25. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil 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: 26. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. STAFFRPT\VTM22627 9 27. 28. All Conditions of approval stated in the County Road Department letter dated July 27, 1988 shall still apply to this project. The Secondary access point shall not utilize the temporary construction intersection at Joseph Road and Nicolas Road as the secondary point of ingress/egress. STAFFRPT\VTM22627 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22627 DATE: AMENDED NO. 2 EXPIRES: STANDARD CONDITIONS The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold hamless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, a~tion, or proceeding 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, 1is advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22627, 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 fail's to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. provided by Ordinance 460. 4. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety, The report shall address the sotls stability and geological conditions of the site. if an~ grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Butldtng and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Butldtng Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. VEST[I; TENTATZVE TRACT N0. 22627, kBd. #2 Cemd¶ttons of Approval Page 2 A grading pemit shall be obtained from the Department of B~tldlng and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. 8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 9. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 7-27-88, a copy of which is attached. 17, Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundeN to a County maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force unttl the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of h t 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 Riverside County ~alth Department's letter dated 7-25-B8, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control Otstrict's letter dated 7-27-88, a co~ of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460 appro rtate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shah b~ coVlected by the Road Commissioner, The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement reco~nendations outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 7-26-88, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recoanendattonS set forth in the Department of Building and Safety transmittel dated 7-26-88, a copy of which is attached. Subdivision phasing, Including any proposed con~on open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate lIESllNG TE)ITATIVE TRACT II0. 22627, ~md. #2 COndtttOItS Of Approval Page 3 vehicular access to all lots tn each phase, and shall substantially confom to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval, 18. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 4630 square feet net. b. All lot len th to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of OrdVnance 460. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with )dditional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. d. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conromance with the development standards of the R-2 zone. When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have a net usable are of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility easement. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained condition and shall be either planted with interim provided with other erosion' control measures as Director of Building and Safety. in a weed-free landscaping or approved by the All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on lectrical plans submitted to the De artment of Building and S~fety )or plan check approval and shall compV~ with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. 19. Upon approval of this vesting tentative tract map, Tentative Tract Map No. and Ckz e ef Zene fi~.-~622, as they pertain to the subject site, be null ~n~ void and of no further force or effect. Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be sattsfte~: Prior to the recordatton of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road d e an Sun ) Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been mat: County Fire Department County Rood Control County Parks Department County Health Department County Planning Department YESTIE TE)ITATTVE TItACT ~0. 22627, lkld. #2 Conditions of/~proval Page 4 Prior to the record~tton of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5119 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in confonnance wtth the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. Prior to recordatton of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to the County fee stmple tttle, to all cbmIK)n Or c(xrmlon open space areas, free and clear of all ltens, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and unrecorded) and easements, except those easements ~ntch In the sole discretion of the County are acceptable. As a condition precedent to the County accepting ttt]e to such areas, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planntng Deparment for revtew, ~tch documents shall be sub~lect to the approval of that department and the Office of the County Counsel: 1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and 2) A sample document conveying tttle to the purchaser of an individual lot or untt ~htch provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is Incorporated therein by reference. The declaration of covenants, .conditions and restrictions submitted for revtew shall (a) provide for a tem of 60 years, (b) provtde for the estaMtsbment of a property o~ners' association comprised of the o~ers of each Individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following provisions verbatim: "Notwithstanding any provision In thls Declaration -to contrary, the following p~ovtston shall apply: the The property owners' association established hereln shall, if dormant, be activated, by tncorporetton or othendse, at the request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners' association shall unconditionally accept from the County of Riverside, upon the County's denand, tttle to all or any part of the 'common area', more particularly described on £xhtbtt'E' attached hereto. The dectston to require activation of the property owners' association and the decision to require that the association unconditionally accept tttle to the 'common area' shall be at the soTe discretion of the County of Riverside. In the event that the c~,.,en area, or any part thereof, is conveyed to the property owners' association, the association, thereafter shall own such 'consnon area', shall manage and continuously maintain such 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior mitten consent of the Planntng Director of the VESTIRG TDfTAKiVE TRACT liO. 22627,/~md. #2 Conditions of Approval Page 5 County of RIverside or the County's successor-In-Interest. The property ownerg' association shall have the r~ght to assess the o~ners of each ~ndtvtdual lot or untt for the reasonable cost of mlntatn~ng such 'cb,~on area', and shall have the rtght to 1ten the property of any such owner who defaults tn the pa~nnent of a maintenance assessment. An assessment 1ten, once created, shall be prlor to all other 1tens recorded subsequent to the nottce of assessment or other document creating the assessment 1ten. Thts Declaration shall not be temtnated, 'substant4ally' amended or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning Dtrector of the County of R~verstde or the County's successor-tn-(nterest. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' ff ~t affects the extent, usage or ralntenance of the 'common area'. In the event of any confltct between thfs Declaration and the Articles of Incorperatton, the Bylaws, or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, ~f any, thh Declaration ~ha11 con fro1. · Once approved, the declarat4on of covenants, conditions and restrlcttons shall be recorded at the same t(me that the final map ~s recorded. The developer shaql be responslble for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes. landscaped areas and trr(gat~on systems unttl such ttme as those operations are the responsibilities of other parttes as approved by the Planning D~rector. A ftnal plan of development shall be submitted for Planntng Deper~nent ..pro.., rsu.nt ,o cttonof .,v.rs,d. .ty Ord,n. nce .o. 348. The final plan ofoment shall conta(n the following el ements: a. The stte's ftnal gradtng plan b. A ftnal stte plan showtng the lots, butlding footprints, all setbacks, yard spaces and floor plan and elevation assignments to Individual lots. Ce Construction plans of the ;dwellings to be constructed tn the subdivision. The plans shall be tn a fom suttable for submission to the Oepertment of Butldtng and Safety for plan checking. d. Atyptcal mechanical plan sho~ng the locatton and placement of mechanical equipment for lndhtdual o~ffelltngs. VESTZRG TEXTATXVE TILI~T llO. 22627, kid. 12 Conditions of Approval Page 6 The requtred final plan of development shall be in substantial conformance with the proJect's approved grading plan, site plan, floor plans and elevations except as provtded for tn Sectton 7,11g(2). f, Thts subdivision my be recorded tn phases subject to the following: Proposed phasing, Including phase boundaries, sequencing and floor plan selection, shall be subject to Planntng Dtrector's approval. Each proposal phase shall comply with the provisions ~f Sectton 7.11 of Rherstde County Ordinance No. 348. If any phase of the subdivision will be developed with fewer than the approved number of floor plans, the cumulative mix of floor plans resulting from the sequential recordatton of phases shall comply with Section 7.11f(3) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. gt 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 pennanenUy ftled with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the P1anntng Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded ftnal map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. he The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: 'County Geological Report No. 352 ms prepared for this property and is on ftle at the Riverside County Planning Oepartment." 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 Planntng Department approval for the phase of development tn process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following. 1. Permanent- automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation, 2. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque t up to a minimum height of six (6) feet a maturity. 3. All uttltty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle VESTTNG TERTATZVE TRACT I10. 22627,/ed. #2 Conditions of Approval Page 7 treatments, as approved by the Planntng Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways and landscaped bulldtng setbacks shall be landscaped to provide vtsual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the stte, Landscape elements shall Include earth beming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in con.tunctton with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amentries where appropriate as approved by the Planning Department, 5. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specfmen accent trees at key visual focal potnts within the project. Where street trees cannot be interior streets and project right-of-way, they shall be right-of-my. planted within right-of-way of parkways due to insufficient road planted outside of the road 7. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the proJect's grading plans and shall note those to be moved, relocated and/or retained. 9. All trees shall be minimum double staked. growing trees shall be steel staked. Weaker and/or slow b. Any oak trees removed with four (4) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans, Xf the project ts to be phased, prior to the approval of grading pemtts, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: 1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion sedtmentatton during and after the grading process. 2) and Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which my be graded during the higher probability rain months of January throu,gh March 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT RO. 22627, ~md, t2 Conditions of Approval Page 8 4) Areas of temporary grading outstde of a particular phase All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (lO) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded Incorporating the follovring grading techniques: l) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain, 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves wtth redtt designed tn proportion to the total hetght of the slopes where dratnage and stability permlt such rounding. 4) Nhere cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continHous, 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-stte manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been asstgned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. 22. Prtor to the lssuance of BUILDXNG PERNITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No butldtng permtts shall be tssued by the County of RIverside for any residential lot/unit wfthtn the project boundary unit1 the developer's successor's-In-Interest provtdes evidence of compliance wtth publtc factllty ftnanctn measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/untt shall be deposited vrtth the RIverside County Department of Butldlng and Safety as mitigation for public library development. M1 belldtng plans for all new structures shall tncorpurate, all required elements from the subdhtslon's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire 14arshal. c. Butlding elevatt'ons shall be tn substantial conformnce wtth that shown on Exhibtt 0 (Design Manual). 14atertals used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown in Exhibit O (Color Elevations) and Exhtbit O (Hatertals Board), VESTSleG TENTAtiVE TRACT NO. 22627,/lid. #2 Conditions of Approval Page 9 Prtor to the issuance of butldtng permits, landscaping and Irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planntng Oepartment approval. The plans shall address all ireas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and Irrigation to be Installed Including, but not ltmtted to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and Individual front yard landscaping. f. All dwellings to be constructed wtthtn thts subdivision shall be deslgned and constructed wtth fire retardant (Class A) roofs as approved by the County Ftre Marshal. g. Roof-mounted mochantcal equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planntng Oeparbnent approval. h. Building separation between all buildings including4ftreplace~ shal?~r not be less than ten (10) feet. i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a six foot high wall shall be constructed along the south lot lines of lots 165 through 219. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety a~d the Planning Director. Prior to the ~lnal building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department a six foot high chatn link fence shall be constructed along the south boundary of the Santa Gertrudts Creek Flood Channel. The required fence shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety. Wall and fence locations shall conform to attached Exhibit F. Wall and fence metefinis and design shall conform to those shown in Exhibit 0 (Design Manual). All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planntng Director and the Director of Butldtng and Safety. n::_.ss:, ' O~ ~ 0 ~ ,i >' , ~"' C'~ Z .T. ~ :Z LU I-- ; -- ,~: ', '~"': :11 I -.,~i ¢"¢~ i u ¢~1~: "~;" ',~ ~' "' I. 4:0 n- tu 5: N VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT RO.. 22627, AId. #2 Conditions of Approval Page 10 D~:sc 8/23/88 e. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, 3andscape screening, designed to be opaque up toa minimum height of six feet at maturity, shall be Installed along the south boundary of the Santa Gertrudts Creek adjacent to the chain link fence. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 460. 13. a ~ w o~ w OFFICE OF ROAD COMMIS31ONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR , auly 27, 1988 Riverside County Planning Comission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA92501 Re: Tract Hap 22627 - Amend #2 Schedule A - Team 1 Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Zmprovement Standards (Ordinance 461). Zt ts understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profileso all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate O's, and that their mission or unacceptabilltv my require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances end the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in a11. 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 ComissJoner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties free damages caused by alteration of the dratnage patterns, i.e., concentra- tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities Including enlarging extsting facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by both. All drainage easements 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. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowtrig onto or through the site. Zn the event the Road Commissioner pemtts the use of streets for dratnage purposes, the provisions of Article X! of Ordinance No.-460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage perposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate dralna9e facilities as approved by the Road Department. ~Uly .ZTt 1988 Page 2 3. HaJor drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. 4. Sierra Hoore Drtve, Silver Rtdge Ct., Cross Creek Ct., Bogart P1. 01 and Pauma Valley Road shall be improved within the of., ,..ccord.nc. with count, 5t. ndard (40'/60') The landdivider shall provtde utility clearance from Eastern !~ntclpal Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. The mintmum centeNine radti shall be 250' or as approved'by the Road Department. Ntcolas Road shall be Improved with concrete curb and gutter located 43 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; reconstruction; or resurfactng of existing paving as determined by the Road Comisstoner within a 55 f~t half width dedicated right of may in accordance with County Standard No. 100. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sac shall be 35 feet. Ali driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside county Standards and shall be sho~n on the street improvement plans. minimum of four feet of full height curb shall be constructed between driveways. A lhen blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention mall shall be constructed at the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by ~he Road C~missfoner. The minimum garage setbeck shall be 30feet measured from the face of curb. North General Kearny Road shall be improved with 34 feet of asphalt concrete pavemnt within a 45 foot part width dedicated right of way in accordance with county Standard No. 103, Section A. (22'/ 33'). Tract Map 22627 - Amend #2 July' 27, 1988 Page 3 3, 20. 21. 22. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). Primary and secondary access roads to the nearest paved road main- ' rained by the County shall be constructed within the pobl ic right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B. (32' /60') at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Commissioner. This is necessary for circulation purposes. Prior to the rocordation of the final mp, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 er lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the deveVoper choose to defer enter time of payment, he may the into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. ~mprovement 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 Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Asphalttc emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall confom to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul;de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the land division. Corner cutbacks in conromance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final rap and offered for dedication. Lot access shall be restricted on Ntcolas Road and so noted on the final map. Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent t~ the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. All centerline intersections shall be at 90® with a minimum 50' tangent measured from flow line. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with TR 21430, TR 23280 and TR 23428. Tract,Nap 22627 - Amend #2 July 27, 1988 Pa9e 4 25. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Servtce Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an extsting assessment district or not. if not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation Into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental Code Sactton 56000. All private and public entrances and/or Intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street Improvement plans. A striping plan ts required for Nlcolas Road. The removal of the existing striping shall be the responsibility of the applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all Incurred costs berne by the applicant. The crossing over the Santa Gertrudts Creek at North General Kearn~ Road shall be as approved by the Road Deportment and Flood Control. GH:lh Very truly yours, Gus Hughes Road Dtvtston Engineer County oI l lversIc e TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT DATE: July 25, 1988 FROM: RE: Tract Hap 22627 J The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Tract Hap 22627, Amended No. 2 dated July 14, |988, Our current comments wlll remain as previously stated in our latter dated February IS, 1988, SH:bo GBN. FOPJd 4. fray. 8/~7) RI~SIDECOUNTY PLANNING'DEPT. 4060 Lemon Street Riverside. CA 92502 David Wahlgren aVERSiDE COUNTv pL~;HiNG DEpART~,'IEN" !~; Tract Map 22627: Being a division of Parcel I through 4 of Parcel Map 7384 as shown by map on file in Book 50, Pages 20 and 21 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder, County of Riverside, State of California. (224 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map No. 2262? and recommends that: A water system shall be installed according to plans and 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 junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Day. 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. The 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 Map 22627 is in accordance with the water 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. Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two Attn: David Wahlgren .February 5, 1988 This Dep,rtment h,s a st,tement from the R,ncho 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 viII be necessary for the financial · rrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to alIov the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the severs of the District. The sewer system shall be insrelied according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans or the sever 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 sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single pIat indicating Iocation of sewer lines and water lines shalI be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Nap 2262? is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract." .Riverside County Planning Dept. Attn David Wahlgren Page Three February 5, 1988 It will bi necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. It will'be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely finalized prior to the recordation of the final aap. Sincerely, a~mMa~.~S~nitarian Environmental Health Services SM:tac .KENNETH L.. EDWARDS ~ees MA,Krr ITRITT RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Me have revtewed thts 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, · 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 ~f the natural watercourses for bufidtng 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.' Thts project is tn the drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea and regulations. The proposed Zoning ts consistent with extsttng flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The Dtstrict's report dated Afar. f, Ifa'l ts sift1 current for- this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached comments apply, Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~HN H. KASHUBA ~nlor Civil Engineer DATE: J ,Ir 'L 7~ 1~8~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT March 9, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Riverside, California Center Attention: Regional Team No. 1 David Wahlgren Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Vesting Tract 2262? This ls a proposal to divide about 56 acres in the Santa Gertrudls Valley area. The site ls between Ntcolas Road and North General Kearny Road and along the north side of Santa Gertrudts Creek. Our review indicates that almost the entire property is located within the Santa Gertrudts Creek 100 year flood plain as delin- eated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The developer proposes to construct a flood control channel along the stte's south boundary to convey the flows from Santa Gertrudis Creek and drain all the onsite and offsite storm runoff into this channel through street or storm drain systems. Local offsite storm flows are tributary to the east property boundary, no indication is shown how the flows would be handled. Following are the Dtstrict's recommendations: This tract is located within the limits of the Nurrteta Creek/Santa Gertrudls Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the "Rule8 and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans", amended July 3, 198~: Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner as part of the riling for record or the subdivision final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a final parcel map Is waived, drainage fees shall be paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map; or At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees shall be paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grad- lng permit or building permit for each approved par- cel, whichever may be first obtained after the recording of the subdivision final map or parcel map; however, Riverside County Planning Department Re: Vesting Tract 22627 -2- March 9, 1988 Drainage fees shatZ be paid to the Road Commissioner as a part of the flllng for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map, or before receiving a waiver to record a land division, for each lot within the land dlvlston where construction activity as evi- denced by one of the following actions has occurred since May 26, 1981: (a) A grading perml~ or buildlag permit has been obtained. (b) Grading or structures have been initiated. The proposed channel should be constructed to the Dtstrict's standards, The design of the proposed flood control channel should utilize the following assumptions: a. Design discharge = 7800 cfs b. Freeboard = 2 feet c. Effects of transitions, curves and bridge piers should be included in the hydraulic analysis. The following should be lncluded in the design: a. The channel should be soft bottomed. b. Invert should be maintained at natural grade to pre- vent headward erosion or downstream silterich, Side banks should be hardened with concrete or riprap, which should extend from the top of bank to a depth below flow llne based on design velocities. No levees will be permitted. All building sites ad- Jacent to the channel should be constructed above the adjacent top of channel. e. Access roads should be provided along each side of the channel. Offsite training dikes may be necessary to guide flows toward the channellied section· Offsite ease- ments should be secured from the affected property owners. Alternatively, facilities should be "pulled back" onslte. Riverside County Planning Department Re: Vesting Tract 22627 March 9, 1988 Prior 'to initiation of the final construction drawings for those facilities required to be built as part of the Hurtlets Creek/Santa 6ertrudis Valley Area Drainage Plan, the developer should contact the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to ascertain the terms and conditions of design, construction, inspection, transfer of rights of way, project credit in lieu of fees and reimbursement schedules which may apply. Title ports and title insurance must be provided for all right of way to be transferred to the District. The developer should note that if the estimated cost for required area drainage plan facilities exceeds the required drainage fees and the developer wishes to receive credit for reim- bursement in excess of his fees, the facilities will be constructed as a public works contract· Scheduling for construction of these facilities will be at the discre- tion of the District. Permission should be secured from the upstream property owner if any increase in water depths greater than 6 inches is proposed and from the downstream property owner for the concentration of flows. Copies of these docu- ments should be submitted to the District for review prior to recorderich of the final map. All lots abutting the proposed flood control channel should be elevated above 100 year flood water surface. Offsite storm flows tributary to the property form the east should be collected and safely conveyed through the property to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Onslte dralnage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained wtthln drainage easements shown on the flnal map. A note should be added to the final map stating, eDratnage 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 ouner(s). The document(s) should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to recordation of the final map. 9- All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet. Riverside County Planning Department Re: Vesting Tract 22627 -~- March 9, 1988 The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. Nhen either or these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities should be installed. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape should also be provided. 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 recordation of the final map. Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be sub- mitted to the District and County for review and approval prior to recordatton or the final map. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition or debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologtc and hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda- tton of the final map. Grading plans 'should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chtang of this office at 71~/787-2333. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS '~e~~nKine~ /OHN H r'Civil Engineer co: Ranaho Pacific Engineering RC:bab RIVBRSIDE COUNTY RRE DEP~.T]~ENT IN ~PE~ ~H THE ~UFMNIA DEPA~ME~ ~ FO~TRY 7-26-88 PLANNING ATTN: TEaM I, DAVID WAHI,GP, EN RE: TR 22627 - AI~IqDED #2 PianninZ & FaSineedns Office 40~0LemonSeree. Suite Xl Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 787,.6(K)6 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced ~and division, the Fire Department rec_-~_ends the following fire protect/on measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection stand&r~s: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule 'A' fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6ex4'xSJ') located one at each street intersection and spaced no more tha~ 330 feet apart inkany direction, with no l~Lv~ton of eny lot frontage more than 165 feet frown a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water s~stem plens to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location end spacing, end, 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: el certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. e The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, · cash su~of $400.O0per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection im,~acts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into · w=itten agreement with the County deferring said pal~ent to the time of issuance of a buildingpermit. Allquestions regard/ng the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning andEngineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner July 26, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department Attentions David Wahlgren County Administrative Center Riverside. CA 92501 Vesting Tract 22627, Amend #2 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following co~ents and conditions: Prior to 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. Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback, Very truly yours, Thomas H.-Ingram, Director DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY La~ Div i s ion 8uilding Inspection (714) 787~480 · Administration ('/14) 787-2020 Land Use Enforcement (714) 787-4079 · Engineering Pin Service (714) 787-2011 DEPARTNENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY John B~schoff, Supervising Planner DA,X,.m,t June 11, 1986 FB%OM, Eric Traboulay, Deputy Director Review of Liquefaction Rdport for Tract 21430 We have reviewet the reports entitled: Liquefaction Evaluation, Tentative Tract No. 21430 Rancho California Area, Riverside County, California, date~ Peb- ruary 5, 1986; prepared by Pioneer Consultants, J.N. 3686-003 Adden~um to Report Dated February 5, 1986, dated March 24, 1986; prepared by Pioneer Consultants, J.N. 3686-003 and reviewed the information with Pioneer Consultants in a meeting June 6, 1986. In addition, additional information was sent to Pioneer Consultants in a registered letter dated June 9, 1986, regarding reported historic high groundwater elevations in Nicholas~alley. Pioneer Consultants has concluded that although they expect liquefaction at depth, they do not e~poct a detrhnental effect to the proposed devel- ol~nent and no special mltigat~on rec~m.enda~ions were made. -284-143 1/80 Ri ';:t iDE COUntY PLAnninG DEPARCI EnC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A,) NUMBER: NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING STANDARD EVALUATION MODULE NUMBER(s): ~A°t L PROJECT INFORMATION A. DESCRIPliON (include pro.~':,~-~d minimum lot size ~nd uses as appficable): Tt~ e V'v, fy~ · B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES '~'0'~% · or SQUARE FEET C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s): D. EXISTING ZONING: ¢~-'P-' IS THE PROPOSAL IN ODNFCRMANCE? t3~ . E. PROPOSED ZgNING: ~y~.T~ b,,'~ ~,-'~-~ IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFCRMANCE? F. STREET REFERENCES: k~Qr.tr~-, O~'' JJte*t~(~/~ {~..C'L (,t"~:~ 6O/~,~-~,S~' G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: H. BRIEF DESCRIF1]ON OF 1HE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL ~rl'rlNG OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS: B. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Check the appropriate option(s) below end proceed accordingly. [] All or pad of the project Site is in "Adopted Specffic Pins," "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas". Complete Sections Ill, N (B end C o~ly), V end VI. I! All or pad of the project site Is In 'Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV (A, B and D only), V end [] All or part of the projed site'has an Open Space end Conservation designation Other than those mentioned rL * ' ..... · ^'-. t IlL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT A, Indic~tethen~ture~epr~d~anduse~sdetermi~dM:~m1~hedes~ripti~ns~sf~undin~mhe~i~i~nF~ VL3 (C, tmk One), This ;,~;,,, marion iS ~--~_ry to determine ~e appropriate land use lullability ratings in Section lit. B. ~ Eslential Normal-High Risk NoffaI-Low Risk B, Incrscste with a ~s if) cf ~ (NI whether Iny environmeNal hazard end/or rseource issues may ~ignlfican~y affect of be affected by the Wot>oeaL Ni referenced fq]ures Ire Contained in Ine ~nstve General Rsn. Foe' any issue ma~e~ ye~ (Y} write iddl6o~l] det~ Iource~ Igeficte~ oo~suited, red ing$ of fact Ind any mitigation measures under Section V, Also, where indicated, circle N 8pCxopriste land use suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). fSee definitions at bottom of.this page). HAZARDS Heard Zones F~g. v1.1 ) NA PS U R (Fig. Vt,3) S NA PS U R (Fig. G d idnO Zo.e (F,O W..:) ':4. NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.S) S4opes(Riv. Co. 8(X) Scale Slope Maps) 15. Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) NA S PS U R Rockfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) Expensive Soils (U.S/:)A Soil Consentslion Sewice Soil Sunmy's) Emalon (U.S,D~. Sell Conservation Service Soil ~ffveys) Wind Erm~on & Blowsand (tl. VL1, Ord. 460, ~ec__, 14,2 &Ord. 484) (Fig. VL6) 11 1o_,~ Dem Inundation Area (r~g. VI,T)~e-~.~ Fioodpbdns (Fig. NA u .R (Rg, 'VI,8) 16. l~ 17. k/ 23, J_ Airport Noise (Fig, 11.18.5, I1,I(~.11 & V1.12 & 1964 AICUZ Re. port, M.A,F,B.) NA A B C D (Fig, %/I,11 ) · _ Railroad Noise (Fig, V/.13 - V1.16) NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) Highway Noise (Fig. %/I,17 ~ Vl,29) NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) Other Noise NA A B C D (Fig, Vt.11 ) Project Generated Noise Affectin~ Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. %/I.11) Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. %/I,11 ) Air Quafib/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. VL30 - %'1.31 ) Other Other RESOURCES ;7 6_,.~AgriCtmu"e~F'W. VI-3a, 'VI.35)1'~:,~ In o~ Nea~ en Agricultural Preserve (l:!iv. C,c~. ~r.,ultura114rid Cortvef~.tio~ Contract Maps) 2~3~18~ Witdlite (Fig. VI,36 Mineral Rr~urces (F~g, VI.41 - VI,42) S1 Energy Reso~-ces (Fig. Vt.43 - VI,44) Scenio Highways (Fig. %/I,45) Historic Resources (Fig. %'1.32 - VL33) Archaeological Resources (Fig. %/I.32 - VL33 & VI.46 - VI.48) Paleontologicat Resources (Paleontologicat Resources Map) Other Other Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptabffity Ratings NA - No( Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally ACCeptable r - -' - - - ' , ..... , ' r . C-, ~-~" ' Un~scenf~b{e D - Lgnd Use Discouraged IV. LAND USE Dr.. ! ~..RMIN,A"""')N A. Complete this part unb,_ss the projed is located in "Adopted Specffic Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Wlages Community Policy Areas." I. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): t~Pt~c ('~"~t%"~,,"~.,(.t~'~ ~ 2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA: ~<~r~.3'It'V~t.-to~,~r"~.J4,~' 4. COMMUNITY POLICY AREA, IFANY' ~(:::~'~-c 5. COMMUNfiYPLAN, IFANY: ' 6- COMMUNTTYPLAN DESIGNATION(s), IFANY: -- 7. SUMMARY OF POUCIES AFFECTING PROPOSAJ.: l:~l~"ut,,e, ~,,r~ t,J~,//-~ ,trt',, V:,,~,: (t~u~-e~Je~ B. F~r~1pr~jects~inidcatew~h~yesC~n~(N)whetheranypub~icfac~ities~d~eN~s~mys~t~ or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures am contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any issue mad~ed yes (Y), write data sourues, agencies consulted, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Section V. Cifojta6on (Fig. N,I-IV.11. D:_,s~_jss in ~ V Existing, Planned & Required Roads) Bike TraRs Fag. N.12 - N.13) Wae~(AgencyLettem) 8ewer(AgencyLette~) F,e Sen'ice= (Fag. N,16 - IV.18) 8hedff Sen4ces (Fig N.17 * N.18) Schools (Rg. N.17 - N.18) Sold Waste (Fig. N,I? - N.18) Parks m'~d Recreation (F'~g, N.19 - N.20) PUBUC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 10- I,~ Equestrian Traqs (F',g. IV.19 - N.24/ Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trm'~ Maps) 11_tJUtilitiesF~g.N.25*N.2e) 12._.~Libraries (Fig. N.17 - N.18) 13..~HealthServioesOrK}.N.17-N.lS) 14- 1~ ,Nq}orts Orsg. ll.182-1L18.4, 11.18.8 - IL18.10 & N2.7 - N.36) ~:~..~ Disaster Preparedness If ~11 or pad of fie project is located in "Adopted Spedfic Plans", 'IREMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas", ~wiew in detail !he specific policies applying to ~e proposal, ~nd complete the following: 1. State the relevant land use designation(s): Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the policies and designations of the appropriate document, end therefore consistent with Ihe Comprehenshm General Ran? ff noL explain: 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 I)t'TBtMINATION ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED B. For each issue marked yes CO under Sections III.B ~ IV.B, iderttify fire Sectio~ and issue number and do the lollowing, in the format as shown ~ 1. Ust el! additional relevant eta sources, Including agencies consulted. 2. State all froclings Of fact regarding environinertia! u~,tcems. 3. State ~oeclfic mitigation measures, If identifiable without requiring an environmental impact repod (E.I.R.} 4. If additional informNion is required before the enviror~mentaf assessment Can be completed, refer tc 5. If additional sheets am needed to complete this ~-ction, check the box st the end Of the section and attac! SECTION/ ~IV. LAND USE DETERMINA'I ION (continued) D. If all or pad of the project site is in "AreBs not Designated as Open Space", and is not in a Community Plan, complete ~uestions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 If it is in a Community Pla~. · , . \ Current land use _r~b,gory(ies} for the site based on existing conditions. Also indicate land use type C c.L 3. 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 prol:x~ed project consisfent wffil the policies and designations of the Community Ran?. If not, ex,o~in: Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed aun'O~nding land uses? not, explain: 7. Based ort !his .initial study, Is the proposal consistent wffih the Comprehensive General Ran? If no~ reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identif,/ing inconsistencies: ~/ or lad of the project site is in an Ope~ Space and Conservation designation, complete the following: State the designaUon(s): 2. Is the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain: 3, Based on ~is initial study, is the proposal consisent with the Cornpreher~sive General Plan? If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies: CITY OF TEMECULA ) / \ I / 22962 ;18W VTR 218 VICINITY MAP /- '-~ CASE NO. u/7',*"f 2-2~,2"."~ P.C. DATE ~,, ( CITY OF TEMECULA ) ZONE MAP ) /- CASE NO. P.C, DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ",L, 112 AC MIN: ~ '-- SWAP MAP ) CASE NO. P.C. DATE EXHIBIT CASE # !="- I.M !--- EXHIBIT CASE # EXHIBIT CASE # /,/~ EXHIBIT /~--~. i sxHmrr CASE # ~,,~,,~ CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: First Extension of Time, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627 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. 1 Condition No. 2 Condition No. 21 Condition No. 15 ( County Roads ) Condition No. 3 Letter Dated 7-26-88 Letter Dated 3-9-88 STAFFRPT\VTM22627 11 ITEM #10 ITEM ~9 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1991 Case No.: Plot Plan 166 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino Recommendation: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 166; and, ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot Plan No. 166, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Eastwood Tech. Group / UNOCAL Markham 8 Associates Construction of a 2,7q2 square foot service station, and 3,000 square foot canopy with 7 gasoline pump islands. Northeast corner of Ynez Road and Solana Way C-1/C-P (General Commercial) North: C-1/C-P South: C-P East: C-1/C-P West: C-P-S PROPOSED ZONING: Same EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDINC LAND USES: ( General Commercial ) ( General Commercial ) ( General Commercial ) (Scenic Highway Commercial ) North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Commercial Buildings Auto Dealership STAFFRPT\PP166 PROJECT STATISTICS: Lot Size: Building Area: Canopy Area: Landscape Area: Parking Provided: 42,000 sq.ft. 2,742 sq.ft. 3,000 sq.ft. 11,400 sq.ft. 16 standard spaces 1 handicappedspace 17 parking spaces BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project was submitted August 31, 1990. The project was reviewed at a Pre-Development Review Committee meeting at which time it was discovered that the dedication along Ynez Road had to be expanded which affected the project's site design. The developer has worked with Staff and the Property Manager on the required changes and landscape setbacks. All parties have come to an agreement on the landscaping setback along Ynez Road of 15 feet from the ultimate right-of-way. The project was then scheduled for a Formal Development Review Committee meeting at which time the applicant received the Conditions of Approval proposed for the project by City Staff. The applicant has not protested any of the Conditions of Approval at this time. This project proposes the construction of a 4 bay service station of approximately 2,750 square feet with a 3,000 square foot canopy over seven gasoline pump islands on a 42,000 square foot lot. The site is located on the northeast corner of Solana Way and Ynez Road. The site is part of the existing commercial center located adjacent to the corner. The site layout has the service station backing up to the corner with the gasoline islands located towards the interior of the site. There are 16 parking spaces provided along Ynez Road with one handicapped parking space along Solana Way. A trash enclosure along with an enclosure for recyclable items, i.e., tires, batteries, etc., are provided east of the building along Solana Way. STAFFRPT\PP166 2 Architecture The proposed project continues the Spanish Mediterranean style exhibited in the commercial center. The structures incorporate stucco materials for building walls with red mission barrel tile used as roof treatment. ANALYSIS: The project does not propose any direct access to Solana Way or Ynez Road, Access will be provided by internal circulation within the commercial center. A large landscape buffer is being provided along Ynez Road and Solana Way. Staff will be working with the applicant on the issue of the timing for the widening of Ynez Road, The widening of Ynez Road will include changing the grading to move the existing slope out of the City~s right-of-way. Staff is concerned as to when the grading should be done and what will be done with the existing landscaping along Ynez Road. Depending on the timing of the widening of Ynez Road, Staff will want the grading done immediately or have it bonded for along with the street improvements to be done at a later date. These determinations will be made when applications are made for precise grading and building permits. Prior to issuance of building permits, the additional dedication along Ynez Road will have to be completed. GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP land use designation of C (Commercial) which includes gasoline service stations, The project is also consistent with the current zoning for the site of C-1/C-P which allows gasoline service stations. The project design also conforms with the existing commercial center adjacent to the site. Therefore, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new Ceneral Plan when it is adopted. STAFFRPT\PP166 3 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 which ave been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption. FINDINGS: There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 166 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the proposed gasoline service station is consistent with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of Commercial. 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 due to the fact that the proposed gasoline service station is consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP land use designation of Commercial, and the existing developments of the surrounding area. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 3~,8 and the action complies with State Planning 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 due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 3u,8. STAFFRPT\PP166 10. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures which will ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained. 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 due to the fact that the proposed development is consistent with current surrounding development and Ordinance No. 348: 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 due to the fact that the surrounding properties are also zoned C-1/C-P ( General Commercial ). The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and connects with Ynez Road and Solana Way. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigations for the 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 as shown on the underlying Parcel Map and the plot plan for the site. STAFFRPT\PP166 5 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 166 TO CONSTRUCT A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION ON A PARCEL CONTAINING .8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND SOLANA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-680-006. WHEREAS, Eastwood Technical Group filed Plot Plan No. 166 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 February 25, 1991, 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 Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. { 2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\PP166 7 (hi 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 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 of 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. 166 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. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), noplot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: STAFFRPT\PP166 8 a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) 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. (2) The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 166 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the proposed gasoline service station is consistent with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of Commercial. b) 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 due to the fact that the proposed gasoline service station is consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP land use designation of Commercial, and the existing developments of the surrounding area. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 3LI8 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. d) 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 due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 3q.8. STAFFRPT\PP166 9 e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures which will ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained. f) 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 due to the fact that the proposed development is consistent with current surrounding development and Ordinance No. 3L~8. g) 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 due to the fact that the surrounding properties are also zoned C-1/C-P ( General Commercial). h) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and connects with Ynez Road and Solana Way. i) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigations for the project. j) 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 as shown on the underlying Parcel Map and the plot plan for the site. 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. STAFFRPT\PP166 10 SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 166 to construct a gasoline service station consisting of a 2,740 square foot service building with four service bays and seven gasoline pump islands located at the northeast corner of Ynez Road and Solana Way and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-680-006 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 1991. 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 25th day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANN I NG COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP166 11 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 166 Project Description: 2,742 square foot service station with 3,000 square foot canopy area. Assessor~s Parcel No.: 921-680-006 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a four (4) bay service station of 2,742 square feet with a 3,000 square foot canopy area with seven (7) gasoline pump islands. The permittee 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. 166. 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 harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall 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 (2) year period which is thereafter diligently 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 Plot Plan No.166, marked Exhibit D, 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 herein. STAFFRPT\PP166 12 10 11. 12. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department~s transmittal dated October 22, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 5~,6 and the County Fire Warden~s transmittal dated January 29, 1991, a copy of which is attached. 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. 3~18, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the 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) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. A minimum of seventeen (17) parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. eighteen (18) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit D. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~ inches of Class II base. A minimum of one ( 1 ) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit D. 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 parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, 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 Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. STAFFRPT\PP166 13 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Health Rancho Water District School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Eastern Municipal Water District Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall be submitted for Planning 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 Exhibits E, F and G. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibits E, F and C; {Color Elevations). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. All trash enclosures and storage bin 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 block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. 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 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. STAFFRPT\PP166 14 23. 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 plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 25. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 26. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 27. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ( $1,250.00 ) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711. ~,( d ) { 2 ) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight |48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Came Code Section 711.4(c). Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO ANY OTHER SUBMITTAL: 28. Show location of corner cut-off dedication at Ynez Road and Solana Way. 29. Monument sign shall be relocated out of cut-off area. 30. Slope on Ynez Road shall be pulled back out of the future right-of-way. STAFFRPT\PP166 15 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT: 31. 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; CATV Franchise; 32. The developer shall submit four {u,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~,"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 33. The developer shall submit four (u,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 35. 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. 36. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 37. Sufficient right-of-way along Ynez Road shall be confirmed to exist or conveyed for public use to provide for a public street for public use to provide for a 67 foot half width right-of-way. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 38. Prior to occupancy, the developer shall provide evidence that the Mello-Roos District will construct the improvements on Ynez Road, in accordance with County Standard No. 100, Section A ( 110~ / 13~,~ ). STAFFRPT\PP166 16 In the event that the Mello-Roos District will not construct the improvements, the developer shall be required to construct the improvements. 39. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and publ.ic facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Buildinq and Safety Department Submit two (2) sets of plans to include plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and structural drawing for review to Building and Safety. ql. Submit approved County of Riverside Health Department plans to Building and Safety prior to or at the same time construction plans are submitted to Plan Check. q2. Lighting on site and located on structures shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655. Remove brooks or equal drain out of handicapped path and provide minimum 36" clearance next to concrete block refuse enclosure prior to submitting plan for approval. Applicant shall fill out an Application for Final Inspection. Allow two (2) weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final inspection. q5. School fees must be paid to Temecula Unified School District prior to issuance of Building Permits. STAFFRPT\PP166 17 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FiRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF CI, I. SFORN#4 ~ PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS SI'REET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619} 342-8886 January 29, 1991 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 IZTH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PLOT PLAN 166 AMEND #I With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. The required fire flow shall be available from a super fire hydrant (6"x4"x2½x2~), located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along vehicular travelways. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2000 GPM fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 5. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 6. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. 7. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 40BC Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. RE: PP 166 Page 2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee. 10. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist rmac TO: FROM: RE: = bf Riverrode DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA A TN: ?liver Mujica ~'~T>t~F~IBONMENTAL / PLOT PLAN ~d7. i~ DATE: HEALTH SPECIALIST IV 10-22-90 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 166 and has no ob.jections. SanltarV sewer and water services are available in this area. ~£1~f_..~Q b~.L!~D~_P_~D %U~_~!~!_~ the following items will be requested: 1. "Will-serve" letters from the water and severing agencies. If there are to be any hazardous materials, a ~J~f~P~._,!.~_k~.[ from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Manaqement Branch (Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: a. Underground storage tanks. b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185). d. Waste reduction management. SM:dr cc: Jon Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 5. 6. Name of Proponent: Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Eastwood Tech. Group, Christopher Pruhsmeier 28475 Front Street, B-2 Temecula, California 92390 (714) 699-6108 Date of Environmental Assessment: January 17, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Plot Plan No. 166, UNOCAL Location of Proposal: Northwest corner of Solana Way, and Ynez Road Environmental Impacts ( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\PP166 18 Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? Yes Maybe N_9o X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP166 19 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants ( including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP166 2O 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, 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: Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP166 21 lq. 15. 16. Yes Maybe No b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? X __ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? __ __ X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? __ __ X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ X Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? __ X b. Police protection? __ X c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? __ X f. Other governmental services: __ X Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __ X Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X STAFFRPT\PP166 22 17. 18. 19. 20. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard {excluding mental health)? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yea Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP166 23 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A 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\PP166 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1.a,c,d, e,f,g. No. There are no unique geologic feature in the area. The site has been previously mass graded in conformance to County permits and approvals. Any additional grading will be reviewed and approved during the building permit process. 1.b. Yes. All new construction causes compaction and overcovering of the soil for building and parking lots. This proposal will not be a significant impact because of the relatively small scale of the project. All construction will be required to obtain and maintain the proper City permits and approvals for mitigation of the impact. Maybe. The proposed use, gasoline service station, could cause potential air emissions and objectionable odors due to the gasoline dispensing. This impact will be mitigated by adherence to State, County and City Codes regarding air emissions and underground storage of gasoline. No. The proposed use and size of the project will not cause any changes in air movement. 3.a,c,d,f, g,h,i. No. The site has been mass graded in conformance to County permits and approvals. No additional changes will be made to the course of water flow. 3.b. Maybe. See 1. b. Maybe. The proposed use will increase the possibility of oil and gasoline spillage. The site will be required to be maintained in a clean manner and all storage of materials must adhere to County Health and Fire Department recommendations and approvals. Obtaining and maintaining County Health and Fire Department permits will mitigate possible impacts. u,.a-d. No. The site was previously mass graded and an existing commercial strip center is adjacent to the site. Therefore, no natural vegetation occurs oll site. No. See LI. a. 5.b. Maybe. The City of Temecula is within the historic range of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, a listed endangered species. The site does not contain the species, but due to the loss of possible habitat and cumulative effect of development within the historic range, a development fee has been imposed as a mitigation for all development within the range. STAFFRPT\PP166 25 6,3. 6.b. 7. 9.a,b. 10.a. 10.b. 11. 12. 13.a,c,d,e. 13.b. 13.f. 14.a-c,e,f. Maybe. During construction of the project and then after occupancy, some service function will increase local noise. The site is within a commercial center and the impact will not affect residential development. The impact on the surrounding commercial uses will be insignificant. No. No severe noise impacts should be generated by the proposal use. Yes. The proposed project will include outside lighting features. The project has been conditioned to hood and direct the lighting away from public rights-of-way and to conform to Palomar Observatory guidelines. These requirements will mitigate any adverse impacts from additional lighting. No. The project conforms to the planned commercial development of the area. No. The project will not use natural resources. Yes. The use includes the storage and dispersal of gasoline and oil which, by their nature, pose a risk to explosion. Conformance to State, County, and City Codes and Guidelines will mitigate the impact. No. The site design and access will not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. No. The project does not propose the introduction or elimination of any residential units. No. The project is not of large enough scale to affect the housing needs of the area. No. The project is of minor scale and should not affect the circulation patterns within the area. The project has been conditioned to pay their fair share for impacts to area infrastructure. Yes. The project will increase the demand for new parking. The project is designed to provide sufficient parking on-site to mitigate the demand. Maybe. New development increases traffic which will increase possible traffic hazards. The project is conditioned to provide proper street improvements and on-site circulation to mitigate possible impacts. Maybe. All new development increase the need for public services. The project has been conditioned to pay fees to mitigate the increased demand on services. STAFFRPT\PP166 26 15.a,b. 16.a-f. 17.a,b. 18. 19. 20.a-d. 21 .a-d. No. The project is not within any existing or proposed recreational or Open Space sites and the use will not create a substantial demand for new facilities. No. The project should not create a substantial demand for increased energy use. No. The project will connect to existing utilities on or along the boundaries of the project. Maybe, see 10a. No. The project is consistent with area development and is not within any designated view corridors. No. See lq.d. No. The site has been previously graded and no cultural resources were observed during grading or are known to be on-site. No. The project has been conditioned to mitigate any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. STAFFRPT\PP166 27 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X January 17, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\PP166 28 CITY OF TEMECULA LOCATION 'MAP CASE NO. P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ** / /' / ~ R-:;' o, CZ 333~ cz 4689 M! M CZ 1954 C-I/C-P \ CZ 5008 C-P-S CZ 4070 C R-2 3 ~~k ' r · N CAsE .O. PP lt, 6' (~ ZONE MAP ) P.C. DATE ~'~-~' CITY OF TEMECULA ~ SP 180 SWAP MAP CASE .0. PP I~' P.C. DATE ,I l ~'i it, ! I / / / / II I ! ~ STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1991 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335; based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Bedford Properties Robert Bein, William Frost S Associates First Extension of Time North of junction of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) North: I -P ( Industrial Park ) South: C-P-5 (Scenic Highway Commercial ) East: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial ) West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) Not requested Vacant North: South: East: West: Industrial Park Commercial Vacant Commercial STAFFRPT\PM23335 I PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Acrea9e: 10.18 acres No. of Proposed Lots: 6 lots BACKGROUND: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 was originally approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on October L~, 1988, along with Change of Zone No. 5163 (R-R to C-P-S). At that time, a Negative Declaration was adopted and the project was found to be consistent with applicable policies in the County's Comprehensive General Plan and zoning requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Parcel Map No. subdivide approximately commercial lots, as follows: 23335 is a proposal to 10.18 acres into 6 Parcel 1 0.9 acre Parcel 2 1.0 acre Parcel 3 0.8 acre Parcel 4 1.1 acre Parcel 5 0.8 acre Parcel 6 4.5 acre The property is located north of the junction of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. At present, the subject site is vacant. Surrounding land uses include primarily vacant and graded land. Westerly of the property, there is an office building, a CarPs Jr., and graded land. A commercial center is located across 1-15 to the west. The subject site is currently zoned C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial ). GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan, which calls out the subject site to be commercial. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: On October ~,, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32718, at which time STAFFRPT\PM23335 2 determined that the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 will mitigate any environmental concerns. Therefore, Staff is not requesting any further environmental determination. FINDINGS: There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated commercial development standards. 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, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) land use designation. 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, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed facility structures; adequate landscaping will be provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions will be in conformance with adopted City standards. 5. The project, as designed and conditioned, STAFFRPT\PM23335 3 10. will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The density creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and has adequate area in order to provide for siting of proposed development. 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, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site ( C-P-5; Scenic Highway Commercial ) and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation of Commercial. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project will propose independent access points from Winchester Road and Possibly Ynez Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. STAFFRPT\PM23335 4 11. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91 - approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RA:ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of approval Exhibits STAFFRPT\PM23335 5 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 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 Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension 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. ( 1 ) Pursuant to Section 18.30( c ), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following findings can be made: STAFFRPT\PM23335 7 a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. (2) ThePlanningCommission, inapprovingtheproposed Time Extension, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated commercial development standards. b) 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, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. c) The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial ) land use designation. d) 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, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed facility structures; adequate landscaping will be provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions will be STAFFRPT\PM23335 8 e) f) g) h) i) in conformance with adopted City standards. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The density creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and has adequate area in order to provide for siting of proposed development. 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, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site { C-P-S; Scenic Highway Commercial ) and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation of Commercial. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project~s Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project will propose independent access points from Winchester Road and Possibly Ynez Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\PM23335 9 j) The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. E. As conditioned pursuant toSECT ION 2, the Time Extension 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. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous environmental determination (Adoption of Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32718) still applies to said Parcel Map (Extension of Time). SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves The First Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 for a six (6) parcel Commercial Subdivision of 10.18 located north of junction of Winchester Road and Ynez Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-011-031 Portion subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION ~,. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\PM23335 10 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 25th day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PM23335 11 CITY OF TEMECULA ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 Commission Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planninq Department 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 Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Prior to any construction on the area shown as remainder, the applicant shall file for a Certificate of Compliance with the Planning Department. This conditionally approved extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 will expire one year after the original expiration date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~,60. The expiration date is October 4, 1991. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. The 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. STAFFRPT\PM23335 12 PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 6. 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; CATV Franchise; and CalTrans. Prior to final map. the developer shall provide evidence that Assessment District 161 will construct the improvements on Winchester Road. in accordance with County Standard 100, Section A ( 110' / 13q' ). In the event that the Assessment District 161 will not construct the improvements, the developer shall be required to construct or bond for the required improvements. Sufficient right-of-way along Winchester Road shall be confirmed to exist or conveyed for public use to provide for a public street for public use to provide for a 67 foot half width right-of-way. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 10. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R~s shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed. shall make the City a party thereto. and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCE, R~s shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CCF, R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCF, R's shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense. The CCF-R~s shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney. and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CCF, R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. STAFFRPT\PM23335 13 The CCBR's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and faci l iti es. The CCBR's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CCBRJs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CCBR's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CCSR's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CC~,R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 11. County Road Condition Number 1~, shall be deleted. 12. 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 signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. 13. The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating the area within the 100-year floodplain. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 15. 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. STAFFRPT\PM23335 lq. 16. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 17. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer for Winchester Road and Ynez Road, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 18. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact CalTrans and City Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 19. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil 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: 20. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 21. All Conditions df Approval stated in the County Road Department letter dated June 23, 1988 shall still apply to this project. STAFFRPT\PM23335 15 RIVE]tSI[N~ COUNTY PLANNING DLDAR'TI, ENT CONDITIONS OF NzPROVAL TEXTATIVE CIXIERCIAL PARCEL NAP llO 23335, N!). The subdivider shell defend, Indemnify, and hold hemless the County of RIverside, 1Is agents, officers, and enployees from any clatm. actton, or proceeding agatnst the County of Rherstde or 1Is agents. officers, or employees to attack, set astde, votd, or annul an approval of the County of RIverside, tts advtsory agencies, appeal beards or legislative bo~y concerning CONFERCZAL TENTATXVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23335, AND. ~1, whtch actton ts brought trlthtn the ,1me peHod provtded for tn California Government Code Sectton 66499.37. The County of RIverside vr111 promptly no,try the subdtvfder of any such clatm, actton, or proceeding agatnst the County of RIverside and vtll cooperate fully tn the defense. Zf the County fatls to promptly notify the subdivider of any such clatm, at,ton, or proceeding or fa(ls to cooperate fully tn the defense, the subdivider shell not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, ~ndemntfy, or hold harmless the County of Rtversfde. The tentetlve,parcel up shall conform to the requfrements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E unless modtf~ed by the conditions listed below. Thls h approved tentative rcel mp ~ill expire two years after t e Board of Supervisors approvaJ~date unless extended as provided by 0rd~nance 460. The ftnal map shell be prepared by a registered civt1 engineer or 11censed land surveyor subject to 811 the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act, RIverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460. All road easements shell be offered for dedication to the publlc and shell conttnue fn force untt1 the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shell be free from all encumbrances as approved by the County Road Coamtsstoner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road atsstoner. Easements, ~en requtred for roadNny slopes, dratnage facilities, ut11~tfes, eta., shell be shown on the f~nal map tf vtthtn the land dtvts$on beundary. All offers of dad(ca,ton shell provtde for nonexclusive public road and uttlity access. All easements, offers of dedfcatton and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as dtrected by the RIverside County Surveyor. Legal access as requtrod by Ordinance 460 shell be provided from the parcel map beundary to a County maintained road, All delinquent property taxes shall be patd prior to recorderton of the ftnal map. TE)ITATZVE PARCEL NAP NO. 23335 Conditions of Jlpproval Page 2 4ee Prtor to any grading, e Gradtn9 Plan tn compliance wtth the Untform Butldtn9 Coda, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted to the County Deportaent of Butldtng end Safety. The subdivider shall comply vtth the street Improvement recoeeendattons outlined tn the County Road Deportment's letter dated June 23, 1988, a copy of which ts attached, The subdt vt der she 11 comply vt th the envt tonmental heal th recommendations outltned in the County Health Deportment's transmittel dated june 16, 1988, a copy of which ts attached. The subdtv4der shall comply wtth the flood control recommendations outltned tn the RIverside County Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter dated June 22, 1988, a copy of whtch ts attached, Zf the land dtvtston 11as wtthln an adopted flood control dratnage area pursuant to Sectton 10.25 of RIverside County Land Dtvtston Ordinance 460, approprlata fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by' the Road Comatsstlner prtor to recordatton of the ftnal map or wetvet of porcel map. The subdivider shall comply wtth the ftre Improvement recoe~endattons outlined tn the County Fire Deportment's letter dated June 13, 1988, a copy of ~htch ts attached. The subdivider shall comply wtth the recoanendatton's outltned tn the Butld~ng and Safety Deportment: Grading Sect(on's transmittel dated June 10, 1988, a copy of which ts attached. All proposed construction shell comply wtth the California Znstttute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recoemendattons dated Apt11 26, 1988, a copy of which ts attached. The subdivider shell COEply wtth the recomendattons outltned in the County Geologtc Report No. 509 end the County Geologist lettot dated July 13, 1988, a copy of whtch ts attached. TENTATIVE PARCEL IMP 13.23335, ~lle. #1 Comfittons of Approval Page 3 GIla}Ill: 16. Gradtrig plans shall conform to the Htllstde i)evelopment Standards as presented tn the CoeFrehenstve General Plan. All cut end/or ftll slopes, or Individual combinations thereof, ~htch exceed ten feet tn verttcal hetght shall be medtfted by an appropriate combination of a spectal terracing (benchtrig) plan, Increased slope ratto (e.g. 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope planttrig combtried wtth Irrigation. All drhew&ys shall not exceed a 15% grade. 17. Lots created by thts subdivision shall be tn conformance wtth the development standards of the C-1/C-P zone. 18. All lots created by thts land dtvtston shall have a mtntmum area of 0.8 acres gross. ihen lots a~ crossed by major publlc uttllt, y easements, each lot shall have a net usable area of not less than 3600 square feet, exclushe of the utlllty easement. 20. All lot length to wtdth rattos shall be tn conformance wtth Sectton 3.8C of 0rdtnance 460. 21. Corner lots shall be provtded wtth additional area pursuant to Sectton 3.8B of Ordfnance 460. 22. Prtor to recordalton of the ftnel map the land dfvtder shall execute a certificate of noncontiguous o~nershtp. All street 11ghts and other outdoor 11ghttng shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the 0eparment of Buildtrig and Safety for plan check approval and shall compl.v wtth the requirements of RIverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the RIverside County Comprehensive General Plan, 24. Prtor to the recordalton of the Ftnal Nap, the following conditions shall be complied with: Change of Zone No. 5163 shall be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be transmitted to the Planntng Department for revtev qnd approval. TENTATZVE PARCEL NAP MO. 23335 JUg). #1 Conditions of Approval Page 4 EMVIRO~N. COIL~NT SHEET CONDITIONS: An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared vlth the ftnal map to delineate 1denrifted environmental concerns end shall be permanently filed ~th the office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordatton of the final map, a copy of the [CS shall be transmitted to the Planntng Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded wtth copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Butldtng and Safety. The following note(s) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet· a. "County Archaeological Report No. 1217 was prepared for this property on 14arch 30, 1988 by Christopher E. Drover PhD, and is on ftle at the Riverside County Planning Department. b. "County BIological 'Report No. 212 was prepared for this property tn Nay 1988 by the Planntng Center, and is on file at the RIverside County Planning Department. c. "County Geological Report No. 509 was prepared for this property tn Nay, 1988 by Leighton and Associates, and ts on ftle at the Riverside County Planntng Department. Specific ttems of concern tn the report are liquefaction hazards. 25. The following note shall be placed on the ftnal map: "Constraints affecting this property ere shown on the accompanying Environmental Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file st the office of the R~verside County Surveyor. These constraints affect all parcels." GH:aea 7-27-88 OFFICE OF ROAD COal/dlS$1ONER 6 COL'NTY SL'RI/EYOR June 23, 1988 Riverside County Planntng Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re:. Parcel Nap 23335 - Amend Schedule E - Team I Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recemmends that the landdivider provide the following street Improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It Is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline f pro fles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's,4nd that their omtsslon or unacceptsblltty my require the map to be resubmJtted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requlrmnent occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in 811. They are Intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a coek~lete design of the Improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commtssioner's Office. 1. The landdivider shell protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra- tion of diversion of flow. Protection sbe11 be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities or by securtn a drainage easement or by beth. All drainage easements shaT1 be shom on the final map and noted as follows: "Drainage Easemnt - no building, obstructions, or encroachnents by land ftlls ere a11omed". The protection shall be as epproved by the Road Departaent. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. Zn the event the Road Commissioner pormtts the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article X! of Ordinance RO. 460 wtll apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shell provide adequate dratnage facilities Is approved by the Rold Deparlaent. ITEM #11 Parcel Nap 23335 - Amend .June 23, 1988 ~ ?age 2 3, !~Jor drainage is involved on this landdivtslon and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department, The landdivider shall comply with the Celttans recoenendations as outlined in their letter dated Hatch 2, 1988 (a copy of which is attached), prior to the recordation of the final map. A copy of the final map shall be submitted to Celttans, District 08, Post Office Box 231, San Bernardino, California 92403; Attention: ProJect Development for review and approval prior to recordation. YnPz Road shall be Improved with concrete curb and gutter located 38 feet from cent,tithe and match up asphalt concrete paving; recon- struction; or resurfaclng of existing paving as datemined by the Road Ceeenisstoner within a 50 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No, 101, Al1' driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. WInchester Road including R.C.W,D. lots irontang ~tnches~er Road shall-be improved with concrete curb and gutter located 55 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; reconstruction or resurfacing Of existing paving as determined by Celttans within a 67 foot helf width dedicated right of ~ay. P~ior to the recordatton of the final map, the developer Shall deposit w-ith the R4verside County Road deparment, a cash sum of $2,500 per gross acre as mitigation for traffic signal Impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of pa~nent, he may enter Into a written agreement with the County deferring said prymerit to the time of issuance of a belldlng permit. Xmprovement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extand- fng a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as epproved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner, Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. Asphaltic emmlslon (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen dtYs fellerring 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 Standard Specifications, Parcel Nap 23335 - Amend Uune 23, 1988 Page 3 ,2 · Corner cutbacks tn confonMnce with County Standard No. 805 shall be ShOMq on the ftnal map and offered for dedication. Lot access shall be restricted on Ynez Road and so noted on the final nip with the exception of one access opening located at the northwest corner of parcel 1. Lot access shell be restricted on Nargarita Road and so noted on the ftnal map with the exception of that portion of parcel 14 abutting Nargarita Road. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Servtce Ares (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not, if not, the applicant shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation Into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. 16. Prior to recordation of the final map or any phase the applicant shall establish a businessmarts association to provide for reciprocal parking and legal access. 37. Lot access shall be restricted on Mlnchester Road and so noted on the ftnsl map with the exception of a 35' driveway located between parcels 3 and 4 as approved by Celttans. el:lh Very truly yours, Eus Hughes Road OJvJsfon Engineer County of Riverside TO: ,RIVER,SIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. RE: PAR~.EL MAP 23335, Amended No. 1 DATE: June 16, 1988 E~vironmental Health Services Environmental Health Services has reviewed Parcel Map 23335, Amended No. 1 dated June 9, 1988. Our current comments will remain as stated in our letter dated April 29, 1988. SM:tac \ JUN 21 1988 RIVEH,'.%~u~- CUUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GkN. FORM 4, (Be. 8/87) Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Attn: Gloria Naciel April 29, 1988 The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "l certify that the design of the water system in Parcel Nap 23335 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service,storage and distribution system will be adequate to provide vlter service to such parcel. ~rhis certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This cert~ficztion shall be signed by t responsible official of the water company. This Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water Distric~ 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 przor to the recordatlon of the final map. This Department has a statement from the Eastern Nunicipal rarer District agreeing to alloy the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers o~ the District. The sever 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 sever 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 ~oint specifications and the size of the severs at the junction of the new system to the existing System. & single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall he signed by a registered engineer and the sever district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sever system in Parcel Nap ~33~ is in accordance with the sever system expansion plans of the ~astern Nunicipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed parcel." Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Three Arz~: Gloria M&ciel April 29. 1988 It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the flnal map. Environmental Health Services SM:tac ,KENNETH I,. EDWARDI tees MARKrf ITRilrlr RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT June 22, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 1 Gloria Maciel Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Parcel Map 23335 Amended Map No. i This is a proposal to divide about 10 acres into several conunercial lo~s in the Santa Gertrudis Valley area. The site is along the north side of Winchester Road about 1000 feet east of Interstate Our review indicates ~hat the entire property is within the 100 year flood plain caused by Santa Gertrudis Creek which traverses the north portion of the si~e with an estimated 100 year flow rate of 11,300 cfs. The applicant proposes to channelize Santa Gertrudis Creek by installing hardened slope protection along both banks to protect this development. This reach of Santa Gertrudis Creek is a portion of the Murrieta Creek Master Drainage Plan facilities, and will be operated and maintained by the District if the proposed improvements of Santa Gertrudis Creek is constructed to District's standards. Mo indication was made on the site plan how to collect the flows into the proposed channel and how to pro- tact the lo~s along Mergerira Road. Following are the District's recon~endations: 1. This parcel map is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudis Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board- Drainage fees shall be paid as set foruh under the provi- sions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plane', amended February 16, 1988z Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Co~nissioner as pert of the ~iling for record of the subdivision final map or per&e/map, or if the recording of a final par- cel map is ~aived, drainage fees shall'be paid as a condition~%he waiver prior to recording a certifi- cate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map~ or Riverside County Planning DeparTment Rez Parcel Map 23335 Amended Map No. I -2- June 22, 1988 be At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grading permit or building permit for each approved parcel, whichever may be first obtained after the recording of the subdivi- sion final nmp or parcel map~ provided however, this option tO defer the fees may not be exercised for any parcel where grading or structures have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3 year period, or per- mits for either activity have been issued on that par- cel which remain active. Prior to initiation of the final construction drawings for those facilities required to be built as part of the Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudis Valley Area Drainage Plan, the developer should contact the Riverside County Flood Contro~ and Water Conservation District to ascertain the terms and conditions of design, construction, inspection, transfer of rights of way, project credit in lieu of fees and reimbursement schedules which may apply. Title reports and title insurance mustbe provided for all right of way to be Transferred to the District. The developer should note that if the estimated cost for required area drainage plan facilities exceeds the required drainage fees and the developer wishes to receive credit for reimbursement in excess of his fees, the facilities will be constructed as a public works contract. Scheduling for construction of these facilities will be at the discretion of the District. Hardened slope protection should be installed along both banks of Santa Gertrudis Creek to District standard· The slope protection Should extend from the top of slope to a point below flow line based on design flow velocities. The protection should be tied into the existing crossing under Ynez Road. The proposed channel invert should be designed as close as possible to the existing natural channel's slope and rela- tive invert elevations. Arrangement should be made to channelize the flows upstream of Margarita Road into the proposed channel to protect those lots along Margarita Road~ otherwise, appropriate floodproofing measures should be provided for all the buildings on the lots which are affected by the tributary flows. Any blocking of the tributary flows or significant- ly raising of the upstream water surface caused by the development is not allowed. Riverside County Planning Department Parcel Map 23335 Amended Map No. i -3- June 22, 1988 A portion of the proposed project is in a floodplain 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 KEC-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 FEMA. 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. Where flows are collected or conveyed offsite, or where offsite construction is required for these purposes, re- corded drainage easements should be secured from the af- fected property owners. Copies of these easements should be submitted to the District prior to recordation of the final map. If easements are not Obtained, hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted for District review which show that no adverse impacts, such as backwater ponding will result from the proposed improvements. This is par- ticularly important in reference to Santa Gertrudis Creek and any impacts the proposed improvements might have upon Winchester Road. Lots abutting the proposed channel should be at least 1 foot above the 100 year storm water surface elevation· Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, 'Drainage easements shall be kept free of build- ings and obstructions". Riverside County Planning Department Re= Parcel Map 23335 Amended Map No. I -4- June 22, 1988 Offsite drainage facilities should De located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property o~ners. The documents should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to recordation of the final map. The property's street and lot grading should 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 ease- ment should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the recordation of the final map. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debFis onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calcula- tions 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. ~uestions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang of this office at 714/787-2333. Very truly yours, ccz RBF & Associates KENNETH L. EDWARDS RCibab cpm23335 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CAIJFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RAY HEBRARD aRE CHIEF 6-13-88 T0: PLANNING DEPARIMENT ATTM .* TL~ I, GLORIA HACIRL PN 23335 - ANENDED fl Pbnnlnl&EnlineerinlOfilce 4080LemonSfi. eet, S uile I1 Rhefeide, CA 92J01 (714) 787.6606 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department retreads the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 5000 GPH end sn actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 2500 GPN for hours duration at'~0 PSI residual operating pressure. Approved super fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2-2t') shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. The mppltcant/daveloper shall provide written certification from the appropriate water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing or that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review, Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spatin2, and, the system shall met the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be aiSned/approved by a reiterated civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is im accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Dept.w The required water system tucludtnl fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water alency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. All questions relsrdln2 the meaninI of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Enllneering staff. IA~qtOND H, REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner horse Tara, Deputy Fire Nmrshml :~,,,:~m.o',-..-', Grading - Building end Safety Grading's original ¢o,,a,ts sin applicable to U~is case. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY RE.- Pin Z333S The following 'X ' marked comments pertain to this proiect. 1. Refer to the attached standard vesting tract comments. 2. The information submitted is too vague for specific comment, Please refer ~o departmental forms EB~-~b, 86, & 28~-1~e when preparing a grading plan. In order to permit your grading plan, items~will be needed. the following a. Obtain grading plan review. b. Provide 3 copies of Preliminary Soils Report c. Provide I copy of each of the hydrology - hydraulic reviews standard improvement plan, and ........... . d. Provide clearances from the following department. ~~'~Road Department e. Provide copy of Plannin~ Department conditions of approval for the approved or tent·tire approved C·Se, f. Provide ·n erosion control plan prepared by licensed landscape architect. ..... 5. Provide e conceptual grading plan. Observe slope setbacks from permit areas and/or structures per section ?el2 and figure 29-1 of the Uniform Building Code as modified by Ordinance Driveway grades shall be 15X or less. When obtaining · plan review permits grading plan to Building and Safety and plan'review. " submit 5 Copies of for distribution ...... ~. Show street and pad elevations. Insure that a I% grade can be maintained from back of pad to street. Design V-ditches at top of slopes to handle the year storm flow. 11. Provide (1) one copy of the hydrologic/hydraulic talc':, and drawings. Provide recorded drainage easements for the proposed lot to lot drainage. Sho, the Qlg and Q1~8 all properties and at out]ets. flows at the inlet and outlet to all drainage structure inlets and 1~, Provide building footprints on lots. 15. 16, This property is located in the Rancho California Potential Subsidence area. Per Board Resolution 88-61, additional gaDtechnical information is required. Including the asphaltic corporate, base earth moved this pro~ect will exceed 50 Thetermite, a grading permit is required. material, and cubic yards. Design each lot to drain separately. 'swaIes. Do not Projects having an imbalance between the cut and fill shall specify the location of their import or export, Refer to form E84-120 for additional comments. Show slopes, including terraces, to scale. Proposed off-site grading will require written notarized permission from the affected property owner. No obstruction or diversion of natural water courses shall be permitted, Provide topography beyond permit area, especially where adjacent property is developed or being developed. Slope height say affect .adjacent properties. On flag lots show the location, grade9 cut fills to scale that will be required to construct the drive way/access. ::IiVE )iDE COUrl ,u PLAnI'IinG DEPA:I filEII July 13, 1988 Letghto~ and Associates 27715 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 109 Rancho California, CA 92390 Attention: Mr. Daniel Chu Mr. Mark Bergmann SUBJECT: Liquefaction Hazard ProJect No. 11880600-01 Tentative Parcel Map 23335 County Geologic Report No, 50g Rancho California Area Gentlemen: We have reviewed your report entitled "Preliminary Geotechntcal Evaluation of Liquefaction PotelZttal~.Lots 1through 18, Winchester Headows, Tentative Tract Nap No. 23335, Northeast corner of Winchester and YnezvRoads, Rancho 'California, Riverside County, CA," dated Nay 1, 1988,/~d your response letter dated June 30, 1988~ -.... ~:..~ ~ " Your report dotemined th4t* tNe potential"for lt' uefaCUOn'exists on the site for an earthquake of 6,.7-'nkg~ttudd~d ~td~g&~.'ground,.acceleration of 0,41g. The factor of safety ag~ins'c'11quefactton ts*tess-than-~;(~for a layer of sot1 rangtrig in depth of 10 tb 20 feet below the existing ground surface, Your report recamended that in pr_tder-to reduce the liquefaction potential, one of the following elternethes should be folloed: 1, Placement of additional fill (mpprextmitely 10 feet in thickness) throughout the proposed butldtn and improvement area to increase the overburden pressure, The existing 7~ feet of compacted fill on Lots 1 liquefaction, such is utilities loceted w~thin Lots 6 through 18 should be underlain by at least 10 feet of c~acted fill, The fill blanket should extend 10 feet beyond the building footprint, Removal of approximately 1S feet to 20 feet of alluvial depostts and replaced and recompacted to at least 90 percent of relative compactIon as determined by ASl14 D1557-78. 4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787~181 46.209 OASIS STF,/EET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (819) 342-8217 Letghton and Associates - 2 - July 13, 1988 Denslftcattoe of the upper 20-foot subsurface cohesionless material to at least 92 percent relattve compactton as determined by ASTh D1557-78, by vtbroflotetton dynamtc compactton, or other techniques. Utilizing post-tenstoned slabs for the proposed structures. Thts measure wtll not etttgate liquefaction potential; however, tf liquefaction should occur and ttts not too severe, post-tensloned slabs should help keep the butldtng tntact. Zt ts our oplnton that the report ms prepared tn a competent Banner and satisfies the additional tnfomatton requested under the California Env~ronmenta~ Qualtty Act review and the RIverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Ftnal approval of the report ts hereby gtven. lie roceemend that the following note he placed on the Ftnal Hap prtor to its recordatton. "County Geologtc Report No. 509 was prepared for this property on Hay 1, 1988 by Letghton and Associates, and ts on ftle at the RIverside County Planntng Department. The spectftc ttems of triterest are liquefaction and setsmtc design of. structures." The recommendations lade tn your report for m~ttgatton of liquefaction potential shall he adhered to In the destgn and construction of thts project. Very truly yours, RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streettar - PTanntng Dtrector · SAK:rd c.c. Robert Deln, Ifilllem Frost & Assoc., Robert B. lamble Norm Lostboa -klldln' & Safety (2) Plenntng Tee I - 61orTe Hactel CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Although the proposed project is more than 30 u~Llee from PeZomar Observatory, we request that any outdoor lighting conform to the follos~lng Ndelines ~ttich are formulated to minimize the adverse effects of light pollution: 1. Use the minimum amount of light needed for the task, 2. Orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. Turn off lights at 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in co~mercial applications, the associated business is open pest that time, in which case the lights should be turned off at.closing. Use lov-pressure lodiom lmmps for roadrays, vallcways, equipment yards, parking lotl, security and other similar applications. These lights need not be turned off at 11:00 p.m. Adoption of these guidelines rill help preserve the conditions needed for the continuation of research 8t Palumar Observatory. For further informa- tion, please call (818) 356-4035. · Robert J. Brucato Assistant Director :IiVE:t:MDE COU!I(u, PLAIIllilIG DEPA:taTIER( ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Ej~) NUMBER: 32718 PROJECT CASE TYPE(S) AND NUMBERS(a): CZ 5163 and Coe~ercial P.H. APPLICANTS NAME: Rancho California Development Company NAME OF PERSON(e) PREPNqlNG EJ~: Glorta Naclel L STANDARD EVALUATION MODULE NUMBER(*): 119 23335 PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIPTION (include propo~edminimumlotlizeendueesumppllcl~e~ APPlicant is proposinq to divide 48,7 acres into 18 Coenerctal lots with a zone change fr~ R-R (Rural-Residential) to C-1/C-P (General Commercial). B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES 48.7 ; or SQUARE FEET C. AS,SESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(e): 910-110-029, 31, - 911-180-018 D. EXISTING ZONING: ~-R (Rural-Residential) IS THE PROPQSN. IN CONFCRMANCE? E. PROPOSED ZgNING: C-1/C-P (General Coenercial} IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? F. STREET REFERENCES: North of junction of Winchester Road and Znez Road. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGEDE~CR|PTIONORATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: T7S, R3W section 26 The subject property h currently vacant with moderate rolling htlls, dry grass and shrubs, Surrounding land uses tnclude coenercial development to the west, and vacant land to the east. IL COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PI.AN OPEN IPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Check the sppmpdm option(a) beew and mo~eed eccxxding~y. [] NI or pitt c4 the Ixoject IIt8 iS In "Adopted Specific Ptlns,' 'REMAP' or "Rmncho Villlges Community Poacy~mas". Comp~eSe~kx~m,N(BendCenh/),Vend~. I'1 NI or pert of the pro~ct ~le b b "m Not I~ted u Open Spice". Complete ~ectiona III, IV (A, Sete Donly~Vend VL mixwe. Coml~ete Seclieee KN(A,B, end Eenly~V end Vt. III. ENVIRONMENTAl. HAZARDS AND RESOUI~CES AtSESSMENT A. ~ndk~1henItum~hepr~x~ed~ndu8~Ite~minedfr~m~he~e~cripti~uf~Undin~m~~Figure VL3 (Carols One). TNI informltton is necelllry to mine the N:~roGrlate laid use Suitability ratings in ~ectlo~ III.B. Crlticll Eleentill Normal-High Risk Normal-Low Risk B, indicate with · ~s (Y) or no (N) whitftef aiy environmental hazard aid/o~ rse~jrce illues rely llgnificlnUy affect or be affected by the propoeal. NI ruler·raced figure~ Ire CoNained in the Comprehailive Ge~erll Ptln. F~ aiy t~sue marked yes (Y) write Iddllionl ditl Iourxxl, ige~cie~ consulted, findingl ol fact and aiy mitigation melsurll under Section V. Nso, where indicated, Oimtl ~e Ii)grolyilt8 lind ule Iultlbility or noile Iccl~tl~lllty Illing(s). (See defthitachi It bottom of ~hil DIg·). HAZARDS 1. rt Nquist-Prloio Special Studies or County Fault Hazard Zones (Fig. V1.1 ) NA PS U R (Fig. VI.3) 2._,Y,_ LiQuefaction Potential Zone (Fig. %/I.1) NA 8 PS U R (Fig. VI.4) 3. Y GroundshakingZone(FigVl.1) Class ~] NA 8 PS U R (Fig. VL5) 4. N Stopes(Riv. Co. 8OO Sclle Slope Mapa) 5. I~ Llmdalide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Seismic Mlps oPOn-aite Inlpeceon) NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.6) 6. N Rockfall Hazard (On-site I~) 7. Exl:analve Soils (U,S.D.A. Soil ( ConservaUon Service SOIl Sun·/s) 8. Erosion (U.S.D,A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Son,e/s) 9. N Wind Erlodon & Blows·rid (Fig. %/I.1, Ord. 4eO, Sec 14.2 & O~:l. 484) 10. Y Dlm lnundltion Arel(Fig. vi.7) Sktnner Dam 11. Y FkxxifNoins(Ftg.~7) Vat11 Dam NA U R (Fig. VIa) w~th~n 4 m~]es 12. Y Ai~Pott Noise (Fig. ll.18.5,11.18.11 & VI,12 & 1984 NCUZ Report, NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) 13. N Rallrced Noise(Fig. VI.13-VI.16) NA A B C D ', .. NA A B C D (Fig, %/1.11) 15. N Other Noise NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) 16. N Project Generlted Noise Affecting Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. %/I.11 ) 17. N NoiseSefialtive Project (Fig. V1.11) 18. N. Air Quality Impacts From Project 19. H Project Senaltive to Air Quality 20. N Water Quality Impacts From Project 21. N Project Senaltive to Water Quality 22. N I-lazardo~s Materials ~nd Wastes 24. N ~ °~ithinmt nutes e response 26. Y 27- N RESOURCES Local Zmportant Ag~-uBum (1~ VI34 - VI3S) Farm1 and, Prime In or Near m Ag~unum Pm, e~e Farm1 and Conetot Malta) 28. y Wklllte(Fig. VI36-VI37) Stephen's Kangaroo Rat 30 N MineIll Re·on·el (Fig. VIA1 - VI.42) 36.~N Other e11gtble state s entc Hwy 32. Y ScenicHighwsys(Flg. VI.45) ~-15 33. N Historic Resources (Fig. VI,32 - VI.33) 34. Y Amhaeofogical Reeou~;es (Fig. %/I.32 · VI-33 & VI.46 - %/I.48) 3S, Y F'Neomoiogical (PeleontoiogicaJ Resources MN~) Oe~nitiona for Land Use Suitability end Noise Acceptability Ratings U-GensMy~ R-Reemaed A-Genem~AGmpmNe · - Cmebnaly~ C - Genem.yUnacceptame O - L:ndUeeO~oumeed 3~6-~lNew12~87) 2 A. 'ComlNele this ~ ueMe~ the Wolect M k~Ned in "AckN)tecl Specific Rens", "REMAP" or "Rancho Viegee Community Policy 1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): 2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA: 3. SUBAREA, IF ANY: 4. COMMUNITY POLICY AREA, IF ANY: COMMUNITY R.AN. F ANY: COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(a), IF ANY: SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING F~tOPOSAI~ B. F~r~p~.~jec~inid~4te~a~he~Y)~rn~(N)whether~nypub~icf~ci~it~e~nd/~r~mi~s~y~n~e~ or be/ffected by the propoei. NI referenced ~gure~ Ire conflirted in the Comprehensive General lotan, For any issue-- mlrked ye~ (Y), write dab, sources, egendee consulted, findings of fact and mitigation measures under Section V, I_N · N EN 7. N e.N INBUC FACILITIES AND SERVICE Inez, Winchester Urban Arterial C~mulelion~N.1-N.11.Dl~in 134 ' 8ec~V~PMnrediRequtmdReedN BIkeTreJie(F~.N.12*N.13) ~ewere~gencyLmam) 10. N Eqt. m~Y~w~ Tm~s (F~g. N.19 - N.24/ Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equesffimn Til Maos) 11N Utilltiel (Fig. N.25 - N.26) 12, N L.brede~(Ftg. N.17.N.18) 13. N HeenhSe~oee(F~.N. iT-N.18) Fim Sew~ca(Fig. N. le-N.18) Within 5 mtr~te 14. Y e(F~g...182-,.l&4, withln 5 miles 8twtff See~eeFIg N.17 - N.18) fire response ,.IU - ~.18.10 & N27 - N~) ~N.17-N.18) 15. ~ ~~N.17-N.18) 1~ ~~~N. le-N~) 17. N C ffd or ped of the Ixaiecl i kx:eed In 'Adomated 8pecec Pies", "REI~ or 'laancho V~ges Community Pd~y 1. Slmtelhe~landueedeeignmtim(m): Winchester and East of 1-15. 2. B~ed~th~n~i~J~udy~hepr~a~eN~n~Mintv~d~hthep~i~c~ee~nddee~g~Ni~fthe~ppr~pri~m~ mnd merdom ux~mment wim the ConmmWwmke(3eneml Pimn? ffnot, expmmin: Yes D. ~a~xpert~f~hepr~ect~tei~n"Ame~n~tDe~ign~tmK~s~penSp~ce~ndi~n~a~mm~m~e m1, 2, 3, 6 end T. Compleeequeetlons4,5,68nd71fltislnaConmqunltyPlan, indicate land usa type 3- · D.1 N from D.2, will t~ ~ be resolved m ~ devaL~pn'~.nt e? Explah: ~L C~xnmunlty Ran designation(m): oencho Villages Community PoliC~y Plan no~ explain: Yel - Within Planning area "F" designated for commercial land uses along Winchester Road and East of 1-15. t Is the proposal compaUble with exis~g and proposed surrounding land If not, explah: Yes 7. a~ed~nthisinit~lstuch/,islhepm~eonm~tentwfihtheCompmtmrmiveGenemlRmn? If not, m by 8ectlon lnil lllue Ntatlxrlhoee llsues k;Im~tlfy~g~: Yes E. ~a~rtd~he~x~ct~eim~nm~pen~p~e~ndC~n~en~u~nm~e~ign~u~n~c~mp~et~the~: 1. State me desk;nation(m): not rderm by Sectkin and ~ Numb~ fft~e ism i~lmWWtg ktc~tfc'.n' m y. INFORMATION IOURCES, FINDING8 OF FACT AND MITIGATION MF. AIUItES ¥ A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (:;AN BE COMPLETED: DATE DATE ADEQUACY 8ECllON/ INFORMA~ON INFORMATION INFORMATION uzn:t~liA'TlON ISSUENO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEN~D ]ZZB-2 Liquefaction ReDoft ;-I?-RR /%/RR y~ 1IIB-28 g~olog~cal Report 5-12-88 6/88 yes IIIB-34 Archaeological Report 5-12-88 6/88 yes B. For each issue marked y~s (Y) under Sections IILB and N.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the kiowing, in the format ss shown below: 1. ~ 8{I additional relevant dets sources, including agencies consulted. 2. Slam 811 timings of fact regarding anvironmenfal concerns. 3. ~taM $pecitic mitigation measures, If identifiable without recluiring an environmental impact report (E,LR.) 4, If additional information le required before Ihe anvironmentsl assessment can be completed, refer to 5. If mddiional sheets ~ needed to complete thle section, check ~ box at the and Of the section and attach the necessary sheets, IIIB-3 IIIB-IO,11 IIIB-l~ IIIB-14 IIIB-26 SOURCES, AGENCE$ CONSULTED, FINDINGS OFFACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: The ~uhJert are set forth tn Liquefaction Report No. 509 which was prepared for the ~uhjsrt ~tt~ in 14a3f lqnR and w~11 he tnl~l~mented fhrn,0h the rnnd~f~nn~'n~ app~val. ~e p~]ect falls N~th~n the Class ZZ g~undshak~ng zone. The p~ect ~11 adhe~ to the ~ffom Building Code Standards at develo~nt stage. ~ ?nundat~on and ~tenttal floodplains ~11 be m~t~gated b~ flood control's conditions of app~val. The p~]~t site ~alls N~tn i fw m~les of the Rancho California A~rport. ~se conce~s ~11 be add~ssed at develo~nt stage. The subject s~te encmpasses h~gh~a~ no~se, h~ever t~ p~sed use (cmrdal develo~nt) tS a cmat~ble use ~or th~s area. hvelo~t o~ the p~pePt~ ~11 result ~n a loss o~.pP~m and local ZmDoPtant Famland. H~ver. sur~und~nQ uses to~ th~s aPea ~nclude ]ndustP~al and c~Pc~al land uses. Su~und~ng uses also a~e developed ZndustP~al and ~rctal. t~o~ the subject D~Hrty~uld not be ~duc~ve ~o~ agP~cul~ use. V. 4~IFORMATION 8OURCES, FINDING8 OF FACT AND MITIGA'TION MEASURES (continued) SECTION/ ISSUE NO. IIIB-2B IIIB-31 IIIB-34 SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, BNDINGS OFFACT, M~IGA~ON MEASURES: Biological Report No. 212 was prepared for the site to address the impact on Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat on June of 1988. No Stephens Kangaroo Rats were found on the property, therefore no mitigation is required. Thermal Waters is not technoloqicallv feasible to access as an enerqv resource therefore no mitigation i~ required. If the ~ubtect orooerty is to be develooed the site will be conditioned for a landscaoinq olan D~ior tO issuance of buildtnq permits tO assure the develooment is aesthetically pleasinq. IIIB-35 Archaeological Report No. 1217 was prepared for the site and no culture artifacts were found therefore no mitiqation measures are necessarY. The project will be conditioned that a qualified paleolologist be present during grading. rl~eea~acheepage~ VI. ENVIRONMENTAl. lIPACT DETERMINATION: O llw pro~ect will not live a eignlficant ef~ct on the envkonment end · Negative Declaration may be I'1 The Ixo~ect could ~ a eignlficlnt effect off h iv~,,,n,¥~lnt, however, them will not be a ltgnlfmant effectinthi~c~~e~x~~u~eNm~t~~at~~nmee~ure~~e~J~bed~n~ecti~n~havebeen~~p~iedt~the Ixoject end · Negative Declaration may Ix Ixel~ld. ['1 The OtojlCt rely hive · eignlcent effect on the ~kd'.,~a~t and an Envkor.,,_r4i Imlact Report is mquirecL CITY OF TEMECULA ~ 23335 ~R PP2 VICINITY MAP r "~ CASE NO. P.C. DATE z-',z~'~// CiTY OF TEMECULA ) CZ4078 .~,,~ - S / 7 ' r ~ ',Z4348 \ \ \ A - t - lO / CZ4077 ~\, M - SC M -SC Z 4607 ~-S CZ 4566 -R R ZONE MAP CASE NO. P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) SWAP MAP CASE NO. ,~-~5""~5" P.C. DATE Tentative ParCel Map ty '"heW Ide; """'~" *' Coun. of . $ .. State of California ,, ,, WincheSter Meadows ''' ,:t, . CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 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. 1 N/A Condition No. 16 Condition No. 12 N/A Letter Dated 6-13-88 Letter Dated 6-22-88 STAFFRPT\PM23335 16 MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Oliver Mujica February 25, 1991 Case No. Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 was scheduled for the Planning Commission Meeting of February 25, 1991; and the Public Hearing Notices were sent to the surrounding property owners. On February 19, 1991, the applicant submitted a letter to the Planning Department requesting a continuance "Off-Calendar" in order to prepare a design modification. It should be noted that Public Hearing Notices will be sent to the surrounding property owners advising them of the rescheduled meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission CONTINUE Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 "Off-Calendar". STAFFRPT\TPM26664M1 ITEM #12 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1991 Case No.: Ordinance Amendment 91-1 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 91 recommending approval of Ordinance Amendment 91-1 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: City of Temecula Amend Ordinance 3L~8, Section 18.30 (f) to allow time extension for plot plan approvals. City wide. In reviewing the processing for Plot Plan Applications it was determined that, unlike Conditional Use Permits and Public Use Permits, no mechanism existed within the code to allow for requests for a time extension for plot plan approvals. Due to the change in processing requirements for plot plans, Staff determines that it is inappropriate to treat plot plans differently than Conditional Use Permits or Public Use Permits. When the City incorporated, the land use authority of the Planning Director was changed and plot plans are required to be approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council; prior to incorporation, the Planning Director was authorized under the County to approve plot plans at Planning Director Hearings. Currently, the processing of plot plans and conditional use permits are similar with the exception that plot plans are not afforded the opportunity for extensions as are conditional use permits. Staff feels that the code should be changed to reflect consistent review requirements of the projects. Staff is recommending that the code be amended to allow plot plans to have the same three (3) year maximum approval period as Conditional Use Permits and Public Use Permits with an original approval period of two {2) years or less Staffrpt/ordamd91.1/rob 1 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: with the possiblity of a time extension to extend the approval to a maximum of three {3) years. Staff is also recommending that Ordinance 348 Section 18.30 (f) , approval period, be amended to read similar to Section 18.28 (f) regarding Conditional Use Permits. The following is the proposed wording for 18.30 (f), Approval Period: Ordinance 3~8 Section 18.30 (f) The approval of a plot plan shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from its effective date thereof, or within such additional time as may be set into the conditions of approval, which shall not exceed a total of three (3) years; otherwise, the approval shall be null and void. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an approval is required to be used within less than three {3) years, the applicant may, prior to its expiration, request an extension of time on which to use the approval. A request for extension of time shall be made to the Planning Commission, on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be filed with the Planning Director, accompanied by a fee as set forth in Ordinance No. 671. Within thirty (30) days following the filing of a request for extension, The Planning Director shall review the application, make a recommendation thereon, and forward the matter to the Planning Commission Secretary, who shall place the matter on the regular agenda of the Planning Commission. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon a determination that a valid reason exists for applicant not using the approval within the required period of time. If an extension is granted, the total time allowed for use of the approval shall not exceed a period of three {3) years, calculated from the effective date of the approval. The term "use" shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of the use that is authorized, which construction must thereafter be pursued diligently to completion, or the actual occupancy of existing buildings or land under terms of the authorized use. The effective date of a plot plan shall be determined in the same manner as applications for Conditional Use Permits pursuant to Section 18.26. The project is a Code amendment to allow Plot Plan approvals to have the same approval periods as Conditional Use Permits and Public Use Permits. It is anticipated that these approval periods will be reflected in the Zoning Code adopted for the new Staffrpt/ordamd91.1/rob 2 General Plan. Therefore, this project will be consistent with the new General Plan and Zoning Code or will be amended by the new Zoning Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The project is exempt form CEQA under Sectrlon 15061 Ib) (3). This project does not have a potential for causing a signficant affect on the environment. This Ordinance Amendment does not increase densities or allow any uses by right. It only provides for the possible extension of time for a previously approved plot plan. There is reasonable probability that Ordinance Amendment 91-1 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State Law, due to the fact that the subject request involves an amendment to Section 18.30 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance, which pertains to the an extension of time for Plot Plan Approvals, which may be consistent with the goals and /or policies of the City's future General Plan. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed Ordinance Amendment is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that a new Zoning Code will be adopted for the new General Plan. Therefore, it is likely that the City will consider this amendment during their preparation of the General Plan. The project is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15061 (b){3) due to the fact the project does not allow any increased densities or intensity of use nor does the project allow uses by right. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 91 recommending to the City Council approval of Ordinance Amendment 91-1 providing an Extension of Time for Plot Plans based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. SRJ:mb Staffrpt/ordamd91.1/mb 3 Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Draft Ordinance Staffrpt/ordamd91.1/mb L~ RESOLUTION NO. 91-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 91-1 TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 3~,8, SECTION 18.30 (f) TO ALLOW A TIME EXTENSION PROCEDURE FOR PLOT PLAN APPROVALS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. WHEREAS, The City filed Ordinance Amendment 91-1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Ordinance Amendment was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Ordinance Amendment on February 25, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Ordinance Amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. Staffrpt/ordamd91.1/rob 5 (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 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 Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Ordinance Amendment, makes the following findings, to wit: 1. There is reasonable probability that Ordinance Amendment 91-1 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State Law, due to the fact that the subject request involves an amendment to Section 18.30 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance, which pertains to the an extension of time for Plot Plan Approvals, which may be consistent with the goals and /or policies of the Cityis future General Plan. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed Code Amendment is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that a new Zoning Code will be adopted for the new General Plan. Therefore, it is likely that the City will consider this amendment during their preparation of the General Plan. The project is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15061 (b){3} due to the fact the project does not allow any increased densities or intensity of use nor does the project allow uses by right. D. The Ordinance Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Staffrpt/ordamd91.1/rob 6 SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission herelby recommends approval of Ordinance Amendment 91-1 to amend Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.30 (f) , to allow a time extension procedure for Plot Plan Approvals to be consistent with Conditional Use Permits. SECTION 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 1991. 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 25th day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Staffrpt/ordamd91.1 /mb 7 ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-0~ PERTAINING TO EXTENSIONS OF TIME APPROVAL PERIODS FOR PLOT PLANS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. City Ordinance No. 90-0~, adopted by reference certain portions of the Non-Codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 3u,8. Article XVIII, Section 18.30 (f) of Ordinance 3~,8 is hereby amended to read as fol lows: "f. Approval Period. The approval of a plot plan shall be valid for a period of two ( 2 ) years from its effective date, or within such additional time as may be set into the conditions of approval, which shall not exceed a total of three (3) years; otherwise, the approval shall be null and void. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an approval is required to be used within less than three {3) years, the applicant may, prior to its expiration, request an extension of time on which to use the approval. A request for extension of time shall be made to the Planning Commission, on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be filed with the Planning Director, accompanied by a fee as set forth in Ordinance No. 671. Within thirty (30) days following the filing of a request for extension, The Planning Director shall review the application, make a recommendation thereon, and forward the matter to the Planning Commission Secretary, who shall place the matter on the regular agenda of the Planning Commission. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon a determination that a valid reason exists for applicant not using the approval within the require_d period of time. If an extension is granted, the total time allowed for use of the approval shall not exceed a period of three {3) years, calculated from the effective date of the approval. The term "use" shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of the use that is authorized, which construction must thereafter be pursued dligently to completion, or the actual occupancy of existing buildings or land under terms of the authorized use. The effective date of a plot plan shall be determined in the same manner as applications for conditional use permits and public use permits pursuant to Section 18.26". SECTION 2. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Staffrpt/ordamd91.1/rob 8 SECTION 3, The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION q, Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council Members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this ,1991. day of ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk Staffrpt/ordamd91.1/mb 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91 - was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of · 1991, and that thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of , 1991 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS June S. Greek, City Clerk 5taffrpt/ordamd91.1/rob 10