Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040191 PC AgendaREGULAR MEETING ..... ' April 1, 1991 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: :.ROLL 'CALL: Chairman Chiniaeff Heagland~ PUBLIC COMMENTS A{0tal:of 15 minuteS:is~p:roviljed. sO meffib~ of<:th~:publi~ can:address the ~:ommi~sione~-s o.n .items that .are not listed" on the Agenda~. 'Speak~!~s-~,are limited to three (3) minutes each. If ~ou desire ta speai( t~ 'the Ci~miS~|6h~s about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commissi~'ner Secretary. When you are called -to speak, please come. foPward and:state your name and For all other agenda items a ."Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three { 3 ) minute time limit 'f~>r~idual'~peake~S. COMMISSION, BUSINESS 1. Minutes 1.1 Minutes of March 18, 1991 Planning CommiSsion Special Meeting NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS e Case No: Applicant: LOcation: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Cha~qge Presley of S~n Diego" Highway 79 between Pala Rd. and Margarita Rd. Change of Zone for 221.1 acres from R-R (rural residential ); to R-3" (general ReSidential'), R-q ( Planned Residenti~l)~. R-5- :(~))en" Are~' Combining Zone - Residential:DeVelopments ); Recommend App~,0~al Richard Ayala Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 Presley of San Diego Highway 79 between Pala Rd. S Margarita Rd. Revise Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 for the development of 601 residential lots. Recommend Approval Richard Ayala Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 Presley of San Diego Highway 79 between Pala Rd. and Margarita Rd. To plan for the development of lu,7 Detached Condominium Project. Approval Richard Ayala Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981 William Kouvelis South of Pauba and East of Showalter Road Subdivide 3.01 Acres into three Residential Lots Approval Richard Ayala Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Tentative Parcel Map No. 26723 (TPM 26723) Devadutt Shaw South Side of Santiago Rd., Approx. 3/~ mile West of Margarita Rd. Residential Subdivision of Approx. 10.7 gross acres into First Extension of Time for the development of 28u, Condominium Units. Continued to April 15, 1991 Charly Ray Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Conditional Use Permit No. 06 Prestige Incorporated North side of Business Park Drive, approximately 3,000 feet north of Rancho California Rd. Request to convert 101,98u, square feet of an existing industrial\warehouse structure for use as a commercial meeting \seminar venue including provision of food services. Recommend Approval Charly Ray Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 231q2, First Extension of Time Costa Group Bonny Road, North of Zinfandel Avenue First Extension of Time for a 20 1at single family subdivision Approval Scott Wright Case No: Applicant: Location :_ Proposal: R ecommendatlon: Case Planner: Plot Plan 11339 Don Coop Northwesterly side of Rio Nedo St. approximately 720 feet Southwest of Diaz Road. To construct a 9,216 square Foot Automotive Service Center. Approval Scott Wright 10. 11, Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Change of Zone No. 9, Substantial Conformance No. 11 Buie Corporation North of Rancho California Rd., East of Margarita Rd. Request for Substantial Conformance and Change of Zone to allow Duplex and Fourplex Units in Planning Area 37 of Specific Plan 199. Recommend Approval Mark Rhoades Case No: Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance Applicant: City of Temecula Police Department Location: City of Temecula Proposal: Revised Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance be Adopted Recommendation: Recommend Approval Staff Representative: Sgt. Jim Domehoe Planninq Director Report Planninq Commission Discussion Other Business ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: April 15, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California SJ/Ib pc/Agn3/18 ITEM MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18f 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, March 18, 1991, at 6:00 P.M., at 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer and Gail Zigler, Minute Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENT CAROL MARISTEN, De Portola Road, Temecula, wanted to remind the Commission that the installation of bridal trails throughout the City and connecting with Anza had been promised a long time ago. As a horse owner, she wanted to ensure that the Commission was still looking at incorporating these trails within the City. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. MINUTE8 1.1 Approve the minutes of February 25, 1991 Planning Commission Special Meeting. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND amended the minutes of February 25, 1991 as follows: Page 12, fourth paragraph, change the word "prohiting" to "protesting". COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to approve the minutes of February 25, 1991 as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. PCMIN3/18/91 -1- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Approve the minutes of March 4, Regular Meeting. MARCH 18, 1991 Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff None Blair 1991 Planning Commission COMMIBBIONBR HOARLAND moved to approve the minutes of March 4, FAHBY. 1991 as presented, seconded by COMMISSIONER AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair ABSTAIN:I COMMISSIONERS: Ford NON PUBLIC BEARINg ITEMS PLOT PLAN APPROVAL 83 Proposal to replace an existing 45 Ft. freeway oriented pole sign with a 35 Ft. freeway oriented sign with architectural treatment and landscaping. Located at Rancho Motor Inn, 28980 Front Street, Temecula. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. GEORGE AGN=LLO, representing Precision Sign Group, Inc.,. 42250 Baldaray, Temecula, advised the Commission that the change was to conform with Bedford's sign criteria. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to direct staff to ADDrove Administrative Plot Plan No. 83, subject to Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOArlaND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Blair PCMIN3/18/91 -2- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNING COXMISSION MINUTE2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS MARCH 18, 1991 3. SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME PARCEL HAP NO. 22629 Proposal for second Extension of Time for four parcel subdivision of 4.8 acres. Located on the west side of Green Tree Lane, approximately 300 feet north of Pauba Road. STEVE JIANNINO presented the staff report. He remindedl the Commission that this project was conditioned from the March 4, 1991, hearing to require street improvements. Mr. Jiannino advised the Commission that the representative of the project did not concur with the requirement for street improvements. Staff amended the Conditions of Approval by revising Condition No. 11 to read "Condition No. 8 and Condition No. 9 of County Road Letter" and by deleting Condition No. 21. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. BOB VANHOUTEN, representing Centennial Engineering, 27851 Bradley Road, Suite 140, Sun City, gave the Commission a brief history of the project and the delays caused by the incorporation from the County to a City. Mr. VanHouten advised the Commission that the applicant cannot financially construct the street improvements that are proposed by staff and requested that the Commission not impose the street improvement conditions with the approval of the project. LOUIS LOHR, owner of Centennial Engineering, 1779 East Florida, Suite D-l, Hemet, offered for consideration a condition by the Commission stating that the applicant make an irrevocable offer that the present or future property owners not oppose an assessment district for Green Tree Lane. JOHN H. TELESIO, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, concurred with the recommendations made by Centennial Engineering. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the Fire Department had a problem with Green Tree Lane in it's present state as a base only road. PCMIN3/18/91 -3- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 18, 1991 MIKE GRAY, County Fire Department, advised the Commission that the City is heading towards a more urban fire department with bigger, heavier equipment and therefore, the City needs to change it's stance on the development of the roadways. Mr. Gray stated that he felt now was the time to get the asphalt pavement in. He added that the minimum requirement would be two lanes. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the Commission should be proposing an amendment to Ordinance 460. DOUG STEWART advised that the standards of Ordinance 460 is minimum standards of base, gravel roads. He added that the Commission could require more than base, gravel roads; however, he suggested it might be appropriate for the Commission to make some modifications to Ordinance 460. JOHN CAVARAUGH advised that the Commission has the authority to impose conditions based on a health and safety issue, which the applicant must agree with; however, the Commission could deny the request entirely. He added that the applicant could appeal the conditions. COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDmoved to close the public hearing at 6:40 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next] approving the Second Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 22629 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended by staff, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAREY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Blair FIRST EXTENSION OF TIMM VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. 23316, AMENDMENT NO. 2 Proposal for First Extension Of Time for the development of 284 condominiumunits. Located at the northeast corner of Solaria Way and Margarita Road. RICHARD lYlL~presented the staff report. PCMIN3/18/91 -4- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 18, 1991 Staff amended the Conditions of Approval as follows: No. 9, to read "44' half-width" "55' half-width" and "44' half-width"; No. 10, to read "plus one eighteen foot (18') lane". The Commission as a whole expressed a concern for the traffic signals to be in place prior to occupancy of of the project. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. GARY KOONT2, CM Engineering, 41593 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, indicated the applicant's concurrence with the staff report and the Conditions of Approval as presented. Mr. Koontz added that he felt the fees that the applicant is paying for this project is appropriate for their fare share of the traffic signal. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the applicant would entertain a reimbursement agreement with the City for the applicant to install the traffic signal prior to completion and be reimbursed at a later date. He also suggested that the applicant complete the street improvements to Solano and Margarita before proceeding with the interior of the project. GARY KOONTZ concurred with Commissioner Ford's recommendations. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested that the applicant move back the parking structure off Margarita into the project. GARY KOONT2 accepted the suggestion and agreed to work with staff. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the applicant would be willing to have a new fiscal impact study performed. GARY KOONTZ stated that they would be willing to update the fiscal impact report. BREWSTER COTTON, 41905 Shorewood Court, Temecula, strongly opposed the project. His concerns included traffic impacts, over-crowded schools due to the high-density housing in this specific area, no open spaces in the project or surrounding area, and the lack of space between the housing developments and PCMIN3/18/91 -5- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 18, 1991 the condominium parking lots. GARY KOONTZ advised that they have worked at providing sufficient buffering between the condominiums and the housing developments and that they were consistent with all ordinances. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the applicant would be willing to relocate the two car ports at the south easterly property line inside the the parking area. GARY KOONTZ indicated they would be willing to address the relocation of the car ports. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the landscaping proposed will sufficiently shield the houses along the easterly property line. GARY KOONTZ stated that they would be willing to entertain an additional condition requiring sufficient landscape screening along the easterly property line. GARY THORNHILL stated that a condition could be added requiring, prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for Planning Department approve, addressing screening and buffering along the easterly property boundary. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the Planning Director would consider a non-rental condition for this project. GARY THORNHILL deferred the question to the City Attorney. JOHN CAVANAUGH suggested that the Commission could propose the restriction to the applicant; however, it could not be imposed unilaterally. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the applicant would consider restricting the eggress onto Solano Way. GARY KOONT2 deferred the question to the County Fire Department representitive. MIKE GRAY, County Fire Department, stated that as long as the primary access was off of Windwood Circle, that would pose no problems. PCMIN3/18/91 -6- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 18, 1991 GARY KOONTZ offered moving the driveway off of Solano further East. CBAIRMAN CHINIAEFF summarized the concerns that had been addressed: , That the street improvements and the signal installation be tied together. Move the two car ports along the south easterly property line and increase landscape buffering along the eastern property line. * Move the access off of Solano Way further down nearer the easterly property line. Additional condition requiring a detailed landscape plan showing dense screening and buffering along the easterly property line be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permit. GARY KOONTZ expressed the applicant's concurrence to these requirements. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 7:40 P.M. and AdOpt Resolution No. 91-(next] approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23316, Amendment No. 2; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval as presented by staff including the modifications by the Planning Commission, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAREY. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: i COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a recess at 7:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:50 P.M. PCMIN3/18/91 -7- MARCH 21, 1991 PI,ANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTE2 MARCH 18, 1991 5. CHANG~ OF 2ONE NO. 5; REVISED VEBTIN~ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 232671 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26261 Proposal for Change of Zone for 221.2 Acres from R-R to R-3, R-4, R-5; Revised vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 for the development of 601 residential lots; and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 to allow for 147 detached condominium development. Located on Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. RICHARD AYALApresented the staff report. staff amended the Conditions of Approval as follows: Page 39, Condition No. 61 delete "by Assessment District 159"; Page 40, C-3 delete the last sentence starting with "Based on the addendum letter"; Page 41, D-3 delete last sentence starting with "This developer"; delete heading "D" and re-number D) 1-7 as C) 5-11. Staff also presented Conditions of Approval from the Parks and Recreation Department to the Commission. These conditions had been received by staff prior to the start of the meeting. Staff advised the Commission that the applicant had been presented with these Conditions. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. ALEXANDER URQUHART, Crosby Mead Benton & Associates, 5650 E1 Camino Real, Suite 200, Carlsbad, presented the project and provided some background to the Commission about the proposal. RAY CASSY, Presley of San Diego, 12120 Via Milano, San Diego, also provided a history of the project and answered various questions by the Commission. LETTIS BOGGS, Temecula Valley Unified School District, advised the Commission that school officials were currently negotiating with the developer and working in good faith towards mitigation for schools. COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a concern that the Homeowners Association had been removed from the project, that the Parks Department was willing to maintain properties inside the project that are of no benefit to the outlying areas, and the lay-out of the parks. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she was concerned about whether there was a required dedication of the park or PCMIN3/18/91 -8- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION HINUTES I/ARCH 18, 1991 whether the City was accepting it, and who was going to maintain the property if the City does not accept the dedication since the requirement for a Homeowner's Association has been dropped. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND expressed a concern that the City was undertaking a tremendous liability with the maintenance of the parks. He added that he would like to hear from the parks and recreation department on this issue. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed his concern for the maintenance of the open space as well as the lay-out of the R-3 zoning. He suggested that staff may want to spend some more time with the applicant, particularily in the area of the R-3 zoning. COMMISSIONER FAHEY concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff's comments on the R-3 zoning and suggested that staff might want to work with the applicant on finding some more open spaces within that zoning. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he liked the proposal of the R-3 zone as opposed to what was previously proposed; however, he felt that they could work on the lay-out. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked the applicant if they would be willing to go back to staff and work on the lay-out of the R-3 zoning. HAY CASEY stated that they would be willing to go to staff on the R-3 zoning; however, they would like to have approval on the other items presented. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff also had concerns regarding the R-3 zoning and agreed with the Commissions comments; however, staff felt that the amount of common open area in this zone was not adequate. He added that the applicant did not meet the ordinance requirements in terms of the square footage of the floor area of the units. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF requested that the City Attorney give some direction on the ordinance issue. He added that the Commission was requesting clear explanation of the Conditions of Approval imposed by the Parks and Recreation Department. PCMIN3/18/91 -9- MARCH 21, 1991 MARCH 18, 1991 COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to Continue the public hearing and Continue Change of Zone No. 5; Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267; and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 to the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 1, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND. AYES: NOES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Hoagland, ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair ASSISTAlqT CITY ATTORNEY confirmed that the Commission wanted the City Attorney to research the code requirement for the square footages in the R-3 zone. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND excused himself at 9:00 P.M. due to illness. 6. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5621; AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. I tl Proposal to amend the boundaries and Land Use Designation of Planning Areas 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the Meadows Specific Plan. Located on the North Side of Highway 79, between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road. OLIVER MUJICA presented the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:05 P.M. BARRY BURNELL, planning consultant, representing Bedford Properties, clarified that no changes were being made to the zoning standards within the project. He also stated that the two multi-family sites were originally approved 1) at twelve to the acre and 1) at seventeen to the acre and that they are now proposing 2) at fifteen to the acre. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFFquestioned the additional access point that the applicant indicated off of Highway 79 in Plan Area 1. BARRY BURNELL advised that the applicant would be proposing this to Cal-Trans. OLIVER MUJICA added that staff had left it open for the applicant to pursue the additional access with Cal-Trans. PCMIN3/18/91 -10- MARCH 21, 1991 PY~NNING COMMISBION MINUTE8 MARCH 18, 1991 KEITHMcCAAN, JR., 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, was addressing the Commission on behalf of Mrs. Juliet Bousen who resides at 44060 Margarita, Temecula (Mr. McCaan indicated on the map, that she is located at the two outer parcels on Margarita at DePortola and one on the South). He expressed that Mrs. Bousen supported the proposed development; however, she would request that her land be re-zoned for retail/commercial use. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF advised Mr. McCaan that the re-zone was not part of the specific plan and was not on the agenda and therefore could not be addressed. He advised Mr. McCaan to submit a zone change application to the Planning Department and it would come before the Commission and at that time they would address all the facts. gARY THORNHILL added that staff would be willing to sit down and talk to the property owner and give their opinion in terms of the appropriateness of those properties relative to the requested zoning. DON RHOADES, 31625 DePortola Road, Temecula, opposed any allotment of land being proposed for multi-family housing and future development of apartments in the City. He also opposed the changing of the original specific land use plan approved by the County of Riverside, until an adequate proposal for drainage can be agreed upon. He added that he felt that an underground storm drain should be placed from Pio Pico and Margarita Road through to Highway 79 and on to the Temecula Creek. IRIS ABERNATHY, 43980 Margarita Road, Temecula, owns a parcel of land on the north side of DePortola and east side of Margarita and opposed high density housing in this part of Temecula. BARRY BURNELL stated that the number of multi-family units was changing by a small number; however, they were moving the multi-family units away from Ms. Abernathy and Ms. Bousen's properties. He added that this project has been conditioned to build storm drain structures to convey the water flows from this project and other areas all the way through to Highway 79. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF advised the individuals who opposed the multi-family housing that any high density housing would have to come back to the Commission for approval. PCMIN3/18/91 -11- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNIN~ C010~ISelON MINUTES HARCH 18, 1991 COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. and Recommended AdoPtion of Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1; and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next] recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that the applicant was protesting two conditions imposed on Items 7 thru 10 and requested that these items be continued. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF indicated that he would have to step down on these four items due to a conflict of interest. Assistant city Attorney JOHN CAVARAUGH advised that the Commission should continue these four items off calendar. 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL RAP NO. 25418 Proposal to subdivide 40.7 acres into 5 commercial lots and 9 open space parcels, within Planning Area No. I of the Meadows Specific Plan. Located northeast of Highway 79 and Margarita Road. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to Continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 25418 off calendar and re-notice the public hearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland 8. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24182 el Proposal to subdivide 136.2 acres into 443 residential lots; 17 open space parcels; and 4 multi-family residential lots, within Areas 2, 3, and 4 of the Meadows PCMIN3/18/91 -12- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 18, 1991 Specific Plan. Located on the northwest corner of Highway 79 and Butterfield Stage Road. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 24182 off calendar and re-notice the public hearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff Hoagland 9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24183 .1 Proposal to subdivide 48.8 acres into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open space parcels; and i park (1.6 acres), within planning area No. 5 of the Meadows Specific Plan. Located north of Highway 79, between Margarita and Butterfield Stage Road. COMMISSIONER FI~HEY moved to Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 off calendar and re-notice the public hearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland 10. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25417 10.1 Proposal to subdivide 41.2 acres into 6 multi-family residential lots and 2 open space parcels, within Planning Area No. 6 of the Meadows Specific Plan. Located northeast of Highway 79, and Margarita Road. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 off calendar and re-notice the public hearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. PCMIN3/18/91 -13- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: MARCH 18, 1991 Ford, Chiniaeff Blair, Hoagland PLI~WNING DIRECTOR REPORT GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission of the following: · Business cards will be ordered for the Commissioners. County project for ridge-line development went before the City Council. Council has requested some interim guidelines for ridge-line projects. · Hoping to make a General Plan consultant selection 3/19/91. After several meetings with water districts, staff will be preparing draft conditions of approval that provide for deferment of landscaping, as well as policies for existing approved projects. COMMISSION DISCUSSION CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he would like to see each item separately on the agenda instead of one item with numerous approvals. MIKE GRAY with the County Fire Department stated that when reviewing these projects, conditioning for maintenance by Homeowner Associations would be controlled more easily bythe Fire Department than having them maintained by the City. COMMISSIONER FAHEY requested that staff ensure a Parks and Recreation representative is present to answer questions by the commission. PCMIN3/18/91 -14- MARCH 21, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OTHER BUSINESS ADJO~qNMENT COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held Monday, April 1, 1991, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. MARCH 18, 1991 The next regular DENNIS CHINIAEFF, CHAIRMAN Secretary PCMIN3/18/91 -15- MARCH 21, 1991 ITEM STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1991 Case No.: Change of Zone No. 5 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: Forward the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the addendure to EIR No. 281 for Change of Zone No. 5. and; 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Presley of San Diego Crosby Mead Benton 8 Associates Chanqe of Zone No. 5 Change of Zone No. 5 is a proposal to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-3, R-u,, and R-5. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 are being processed concurrently with Change of Zone No. 5. South side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. R- R ( Rural Residential ) North: R -A-5 South: A-1-10 East: SP West: R - R ( ResidentialAgricultural, 5 Acre Minimum) (Light Agricultural, 10 Acre Minimum) (Specific Plan 217, Red Hawk ) ( Rural Residential ) A:\5.CZ 1 PROPOSED ZONING: 14.68 acres 189 acres EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: R-3 ( General Residential ) R-4 (Planned Residential) R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone, Residential Developments) 57.8 acres Vacant/Graded Land North: South: East: West: Low Density Single Family Existing Sod Farm Vacant/Single Family Tract Under Construction Vacant Total Project Site: Total Proposed Development: Total Density: Single Family Total Lots: Total Acres: Min. Lot Size: Density: Multi-Family Total Units: Total Acres: Density: Acreage Designated By Proposed Zones: R -3 ( Gen. Res. ) R-4 (Planned Res. ) R-5 (Open Area Combination Zone- Res. Develop. ) 221.2 gross acres 746 units 3.7 601 189 4,500 sq.ft. 3.19 DU/AC 145 14.68 9.9 DU/AC 14.68 acres 189 acres 57.8 acres On March 18, 1991, the Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow Staff the opportunity to provide additional information regarding Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 ( RVTTM23267 ) and VTTM 26861. The subject property was originally a portion of the Old Vail Ranch. It is located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads. The original application, Change of Zone No. 5150 was a request to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land from R-R (Rural Residential), and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone). This zone change was approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on October 20, 1988. However, due to an oversight by the County, the zone change was never given a second reading and, therefore, was never officially adopted. The applicant submitted a new A:\5.CZ 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to change the zone on 221.5 acres of land in the former Old Vail Ranch. The proposal is identical to the original Zone Change No. 5150. The land use breakdown is as fol lows: R -3 ~ General Residential - 1U,. 68 gross acres. This zoning permits multi-family dwellings. R-U,, Planned Residential - 130.8 gross acres. This zoning permits single-family and multi- family dwelling units incorporating open space. This allows for a smaller minimum lot size provided open areas are developed and maintained for residents. R-5, Open Area Combining Zone, Residential Developments - 57.8 gross acres. This zone allows for the development of parkland uses. The proposed zoning will be consistent with the surrounding projects to the east and the proposed project to the south, which are specific plans Red Hawk, Vail, and Murdy. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 26861 is proposed within the area zoned R-3 and will maintain a density of 9.9 DU/AC. Revised Tentative Tract No. 23267 is proposed for the area to be zoned R-u· and R-5 and maintains a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre including open space. The average density of the two tracts combined will be 3.7 units/acre including the flood control channel. ANALYSIS: The original Change of Zone 5150 for the overall project was never adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The supervisors conducted the first reading of the zone change ordinance, but never held the second reading which is required for a zoning ordinance to be finalized. Therefore, the applicant has submitted Change Zone No. 5 which is identical to the original Change of Zone No. 5150. The subject site is located south of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road and is presently partially graded and vacant. The subject site is currently zoned R-R (Rural Residential ) and designated 2-5 DU/AC by the SWAP (Southwest Area Community Plan ) map. Surrounding properties adjacent to Highway 79 are designated by A:\5.CZ 3 SWAP as being OC (Office Commercial) uses. Currently there are approved specific plans (Vail Ranch, Red Hawk and Murdy Ranch) situated south and southeast of the subject site, which consists of similar developments and densities bein9 proposed by the applicant. The applicant is proposing to zone the area adjacent to Highway 79, R-LI and R-3, due to the proposed density of the project for those areas. However, the project will incorporate a 20 foot buffer along Highway 79 to act as a noise buffer. Staff has reviewed the proposed zoning for the area adjacent to Highway 79 and has found it to be acceptable due to the density being proposed and its proximity to Highway 79. The R-3 site provides a transition from the commercial zoning to the east to the R-~, site to the west. The center area of the project is composed of R-5 and R-q zoning. The applicant is proposing R-5 zoning between the higher density to the north and lower density to the south in order to act as a buffer for the transition of density. The flood control channel is also being zoned R-5. The proposed project has adequate open space area and is consistent with adjacent existing approved and proposed developments to the south and southeast (Specific Plan - Red Hawk, Vail Ranch and Murdy Ranch ). GENERAL PLAN/SWAP CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY: The proposed zone change would greatly increase the density of the subject property from 2 dwelling units per acre to 3 to 10 dwelling units per acre. The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designates the subject property at a density of 2 to 5 units per acre. Combined. the density of the two tracts (VTM 23267 and VTM 26861 ) would be q. 1 dwelling units per acre. This is in conformance with the current SWAP designation of 2-5 units per acre o SWAP designates the entire flood control channel as recreational open space and therefore, this area is not included in the 2 to 5 unit per acre area. The portion of the map north of the flood channel maintains an average density of LL8 units per gross A:\5.CZ u, not included in the 2 to 5 unit per acre area. The portion of the map north of the flood channel maintains an average density of u,. 8 units per gross acre. The area south of the channel maintains an average density of ~,.0 dwelling units per gross acre. These densities conform to SWAP. This project does conform to the surrounding land uses in the area. The two approved specific plans to the east and south contain similar residential densities and minimum lot sizes as the subject property. These projects were approved under the plan previous to SWAP which allowed a slightly higher density. In addition, they contain over 6,000 housing units with similar characteristics to the proposed subject property. These plans have average densities between 5 and 6 DU/AC. The applicant is proposing to have an average density of only u, units/acre. The properties to the west are currently designated for commercial in SWAP, along with the land along the south side of Highway 79 between the subject site and Margarita Road. Staff feels that by breaking the commercial strip along the highway with residential, the commercial will be concentrated at the corner of Margarita and Highway 79 where it is more desirable. Another specific plan, Murdy Ranch, is directly west of the subject site and it contains similar residential densities to the proposed zone change. The properties to the north are designated commercial in SWAP along Highway 79 and existing low density rural residential beyond (Santiago Estates). Staff feels that there will be no significant impact from the higher density residential along the south side of Highway 79 due to the physical break of the roadway and the commercial barrier along the north side of Highway 79. To provide a barrier to noise for the proposed development along the highway, Staff will require a significant landscaped buffer of 20 feet minimum. Therefore, Staff feels that the zone change on the subject property is a logical extension of the type of residential development that is found in the area. Circulation This residential proposal will significantly increase the residential densities in the immediate area and this will have an impact on the surrounding circulation system. Currently, there are traffic impacts at the Pala Road and Highway 79 A:\5.CZ 5 intersection, and Highway 79 has not been improved to its full planned 6 lane right-d-way. These improvements are to be constructed through Assessment District No. 159. In addition, the environmental impact report for the project specifically states that a new bridge on Pala Road over Temecula Creek shall be constructed to mitigate traffic impacts. However, the Assessment District improvements do not include a new bridge on Pala Road. Therefore, the bridge will have to be constructed before the units are occupied. To further mitigate traffic impacts, the proposed development would require signalization of an intersection along Highway 79. In conclusion, the proposed zone change and Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will likely be consistent with the future adopted General Plan for the City of Temecula. This proposal is a logical extension of residential development in the area and with the implementation of traffic mitigation measures for the development, there will be no significant impact on the surrounding area. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 281 was completed on the subject property for Change of Zone No. 5150. The report indicated a number of mitigation measures that must be implemented in order to reduce the impact of the project below a level of significance. These mitigation measures included a new u,-lane bridge on Pala Road over Temecula Creek, the channelization of Temecula Creek, and several other significant measures that have not currently been implemented. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends that an addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 281 be adopted. A copy of which is attached. FINDINGS: The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Environmental Impact Report for this project. There is a reasonable probability that the zone change from R-R to R-3, R-u,, and R-5 will be consistent with the future General Plan. Further, densities and uses proposed A:\5.CZ 6 are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. There is not a reasonable 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 proposal is consistent with surrounding land uses. The proposed change in district classification is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it is a logical expansion of residential uses which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the project site. The proposed change in district classification will likely be consistent with the goals, policies and action programs which will be contained in the Ceneral Plan when it is ultimately adopted. The density and land use proposed are consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and approved and proposed adjacent specific plans. The site of the proposed change in district classification is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district as it is of adequate size and shape for the proposed residential use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely to arise as the project proposes residential uses similar to those existing in the general vicinity of the subject site. Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Highway 79, Margarita Road, and Pala Road. Additional internal access and required road improvements to proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with Riverside County standards. That said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. A:\5.CZ 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the addendure to EIR No. 281 for Change of Zone No. 5; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5. RA:ks Attachments: Resolution (Change of Zone No. 5) Addendure to EIR No. 281 Exhibits A. Change of Zone No. 5 A:\5.CZ 8 ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ~OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANCE NO. 5 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 221.2 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3, R-u,, AND R-5 ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA AND MARCARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 926-016-002, 003, 012, 017, PORTIONS OF 926-016-025. WHEREAS, Presley of San Diego filed Change of Zone No. 5 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on April 1, 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 recommend approval of said Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 ~ Findin,qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A:\5.CZ 9 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. 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 Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP and does meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. [2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 5 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. 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. A:\5.CZ 10 c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. ~ 1 ) Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Change of Zone may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any Zone change approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. {2 ) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings to wit: a) The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Environmental Impact Report for this project. b) There is a reasonable probability that the zone change from R-R to R-3, R-u,, and R-5 will be consistent with the future General Plan. Further, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. c) There is not a reasonable 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 proposal is consistent with surrounding land uses. d) The proposed change in district classification is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it is a logical expansion of residential uses which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the project site. e) The proposed change in district classification will likely be consistent with the goals, policies and action programs which will be contained in the General Plan when it is ultimately adopted. The density and land use proposed are consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and approved and proposed adjacent specific plans. A:\5.CZ 11 f) The site of the proposed change in district classification is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district as it is of adequate size and shape for the proposed residential use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely to arise as the project proposes residential uses similar to those existing in the general vicinity of the subject site. g) Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Highway 79, Margarita Road, and Pala Road. Additional internal access and required road improvements to proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with Riverside County standards. h) That said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Change of Zone No. 5150. Change of Zone No. 5 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. An addendure to EIR No. 281 is hereby recommended for adoption. SECTION 3. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zone Change No. 5 to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land from R-R to R-3, R-u,, and R-5 along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHA I RMAN A:\5.CZ 12 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:\5.CZ 13 ATTACHMENT II ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Change of Zone No. 5150 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 which supersedes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 has 87 fewer residential units than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will involve minimal grading and therefore, is unlikely that any additional amount of earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential impacts regarding drainage and non- renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendum has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Change of Zone and New Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Revised Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts. By reducing the number of residential units, the new project will reduce the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services. A:\5.CZ 14 CITY OF TEMECULA ) CAll NO.~~/ ~ "VICINITY MAP ) P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ sPI zc / / SP ZC S P ZONE ZONE MAP P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) O l' THE MEADOWS SP 219~ ~ HAW~ SP ; P,C, DATE 14 I ITEM ~3 Case No.: Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1991 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Forward the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. RECOMMEND adoption of the addendure to EIR No. 281 for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267; and 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Presley of San Diego Crosby Mead Benton S Associates Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 is a proposal to subdivide 189.0 acres of land jr. to 601 residential lots with approximately 57.8 acres of open space. This project is being processed concurrently with Change of Zone No. 5. South side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. R-R ( Rural Residential ) North: R-A-5 South: A - 1 - 10 East: SP West: R - R { ResidentialAgrlcultural, 5 Acre Minimum) [Light Agricultural, 10 Acre Minimum) ISpecific Plan 217, Red Hawk ) I Rural Residential) A: \VTM23267 ' 1 PROPOSED ZON I NG: lo,. 58 acres 189 acres EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: R -3 { General R esidential ) R-~ {Planned Residential) R-5 {Open Area Combining Zone, Residential Developments) 57.8 acres Vacant/Graded Land North: South: East: West: Low Density Single Family Existing Sod Farm Vacant/Single Family Tract Under Construction Vacant Single Family Total Lots: 601 Total Acres: 189 Min. Lot Size: 0,,500 sq.ft. Density: 3.19 DU/AC On March 18, 1991, the Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow Staff the opportunity to provide additional information regarding open space maintenance. The subject property was originally a portion of the Old Vail Ranch. It is located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads. The original application, Change of Zone No. 5150 was a request to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land from R-R {Rural Residential), and R-5 {Open Area Combining Zone). This zone change was approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on October 20, 1988. However, due to an oversight by the County, the zone change was never given a second reading and, therefore, was never officially adopted. The applicant submitted a new application, Change of Zone No. 5, to the City of Temecula Planning Department on September 20,, 1990. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 was submitted to the City of Temecula on December 21, 1990. On January 17, 1991, this project was reviewed by the Preliminary Development Review Committee (Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project and address any concerns, as well as suggesting possible modifications. The comments by the Pre-DRC included the following: A: \VTM23267 2 Open Space Maintenance Traffic Impacts Access/Circulation Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss possible design modifications in order to address the Pre-DRC~s concerns. On March 7, 1991, Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 was reviewed at a Formal Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting; and, it was determined that Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267 met the DRC's concerns. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This tract includes 189 acres of land with proposed R-u, and R-5 zoning. This subdivision contains 601 single family lots with 57.8 acres of open space. The minimum lot size is U,,500 square feet. The open space acreage contains 33.9 acres consisting of the Temecula Creek Flood Channel, which may have as joint use as a park in the future, two {2) neighborhood parks totaling 10.2 acres, and an 11.8 acre preserve for native vegetation and the original adobe ranch house. ANALYSIS: Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 is situated along Highway 79 and will incorporate a 20 foot buffer between Highway 79 and the subject tract. The subject site along Highway 79 consists of approximately lq8 single family lots with a minimum lot size of q,500 square feet. The applicant is also proposing a one acre neighborhood park ( Lot 605) for this section of the project. This area is proposed to be zoned R-u, and R-5. The entire tract is bisected by the Temecula Creek { Lot 60U,) which consists of approximately 33.9 acres and is zoned R-5. Subsequently, the possibility exists for the creek to be used by future residents as a regional park, but the joint use as a flood control system and park must be discussed and developed by and between the City and the Riverside County Flood Control District. A: \VTM23267 3 The area south of the Temecula Creek is also zoned R-u, and R-5 and consists of 0,53 single family lots well over LL500 square feet. This portion of the project is also incorporating a 10.7 acre regional park and a 1.1 acre lot for the old historic adobe house (Lot 603 and 609). In addition, the applicant is also providing a 9.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 602) and may incorporate the existing secondary treated water reservoir for the adjacent sod farm into the park design. The secondary treated water is to be upgraded to tertiary treated in the near future. The revised map was submitted in order to change the grade of the development and to change the cul- de-sacs designed off of "S" Street in order to create a more efficient design. The revised map is not proposing any major circulation or lot changes. Instead, the revised map will aid to eliminate the need for a Home Owners Association (HOA). Currently the applicant is working with the CSD in order to determine the maintenance of the proposed open space lots and down slopes at property lines. Open Space The Temecula Community Service District has been in direct contact with the applicant in regards to the proposed open space maintenance issue, and has determined that the following dedicated lots are acceptable for City maintenance by means of an irrevocable easement deed: Lot No. 606 Lot No. 607 Lot No. 608 Lot No. 610 Lot No. 611 Lot No. 612 As for the well sites ILots 185 and 570,), the Community Service District recommends that these well sites be dedicated to the serving water district by means of a grant deed. A: \VTM23267 0, Traffic Impacts The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed and accepted the findings and mitigation measures as specified in the traffic impact analysis prepared for revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 and has determined that the proposed project will have an impact to the existing road system. However, given the proposed mitigation measures, there will be no adverse unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting from the development of this proposed project. Access and Circulation The portion of the project that abuts Highway 79 will have vehicular access via "A" Street {a 100~ street) which in term has access to Highway 79. Additional access to the northern portion of the project will be provided by 'lB" Street (an 821 street with a 15~ bike lane) which runs parallel to the Temecula Creek. Internal, 66~ and 60~ wide streets will provide access through this portion of the project. Access to the portion of the project south of the Temecula Creek will be provided by Loma Lynda Road {a 66j street) which has access to Pala Road {a 110~ street). In addition, Via Cordoba l a 66' street) will provide access to the southeast portion of the project which will integrate with the existing Red Hawk Development. Internal 66j and 60~ wide streets will provide access through this portion of the project. Both the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Staff, as well as the Planning Department Staff, have determined that the applicant~s proposed access and circulation are acceptable. Grading The majority of the area south of Temecula Creek has been mass graded with some major infrastructure already being completed within the proposed street sections. The 10.7 acre open space is mostly sloping hillside and very little grading will occur within this area. The area north of Temecula Creek is rather flat and will require minimal grading for the project development. A: \VTM23267 5 GENERAL PLAN/SWAP CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 has an acreage density of 3.2 units per acre. However, SWAP designates the entire flood control channel as recreational open space and therefore, this area is not included in the 2 to 5 unit per acre area. The portion of the map north of the flood channel maintains an average density of u,. 8 units per gross acre. The area south of the channel maintains an average density of ~.0 dwelling units per gross acre. These densities conform to SWAP. This project does conform to the surrounding land uses in the area. The two approved specific plans to the east and south contain similar residential densities and minimum lot sizes as the subject property. These projects were approved under the plan previous to SWAP which allowed a slightly higher density. In addition, they contain over 6,000 housing units with similar characteristics to the proposed subject property. These plans have average densities between 5 and 6 DU/AC. The applicant is proposing to have an average density of only ~, units/acre. The properties to the west are currently designated for commercial in SWAP, along with the land along the south side of Highway 79 between the subject site and Margarita Road. Staff feels that by breaking the commercial strip along the highway with residential, the commercial will be concentrated at the corner of Margarita and Highway 79 where it is more desirable. Another specific plan, Murdy Ranch, is directly west of the subject site and it contains similar residential densities. The properties to the north are designated commercial in SWAP along Highway 79 and existing low density rural residential beyond (Santiago Estates). Staff feels that there will be no significant impact from the higher density residential along the south side of Highway 79 due to the physical break of the roadway and the commercial barrier along the north side of Highway 79. To provide a barrier to noise for the proposed development along the highway, Staff will require a significant landscaped buffer of 20 feet minimum. Therefore, Staff feels that the proposed development is logical and is consistent with the type of residential development that is found in the area, A: \VTM23267 6 In conclusion, the proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will likely be consistent with the future adopted General Plan for the City of Temecula. This proposal is a logical extension of residential development in the area and with the implementation of traffic mitigation measures for the development, there will be no significant impact on the surrounding area. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 281 was completed on the subject property for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. The report indicated a number of mitigation measures that must be implemented in order to reduce the impact of the project below a level of significance. These mitigation measures included a new u,-lane bridge on Pala Road over Temecula Creek, the channelization of Temecula Creek, and several other significant measures that have not currently been implemented. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends that an addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 281 be adopted. A copy of which is attached. FINDINGS: The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation. The proposed density of 3.19 units per acre is within the range of the SWAP designation of 2-5 units per acre. The proposed revised vesting tentative tract map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved projects. The proposed R-o, and R- 3 portions of the project adjacent to Highway 79 consist of higher densities and abuts future office commercial SWAP designation land uses. The lots situated south of the Temecula Creek are substantially larger than u,, 500 square feet and abut specific plan areas such as Red Hawk, Vail Ranch and Murdy Ranch, which in term are similar in density and design. A: \VTM23267 7 The lot design and internal street layout are acceptable to the City Planning and Engineering Departments. All lots conform to the standards of their respective zones, and proposed street alignments are adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pala Road and Highway 79, and four (u,) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation, and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval'of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and Change of Zone No. 5150. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. A: \VTM23267 8 10. 11. 12. 13. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 3~,8 and ~,60 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. The proposed project includes adequate dedication for public parks in that it provides for 10.2 acres of public parks and 10.7 acre preserve for native vegetation. The lawful conditions stated in the project~s Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND adoption of the addendum to El R No. 281 for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. RA:ks Attachments: Resolution [ Revised VTM No. 23267) Conditions of Approval {Revised VTM No. 23267) Addendum to EIR No. 281 Exhibits A. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 {Site Plan) A: \VTM23267 9 ATTACHMENT ) RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23267 TO SUBDIVIDE A 189 ACRE PARCEL INTO 601 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 5 OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA AND MARCAR ITA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-016-002, 003, 012, 017, AND 025. WHEREAS, Presley of San Diego filed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map on April 1, 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 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (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: \VTM23267 10 ~a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map and 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 recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: There is reasonable probability that Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 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. A :\VTM23267' 11 ~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. 0,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: 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. g) 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 recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: A: \VTM23267 12 a) b) c) d) e) f) The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation. The proposed density of 3.19 units per acre is within the range of the SWAP designation of 2-5 units per acre. The proposed revised vesting tentative tract map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved projects. The proposed R-u, and R- 3 portions of the project adjacent to Highway 79 consist of higher densities and abuts future office commercial SWAP designation land uses. The lots situated south of the Temecula Creek are substantially largeF than ~,, 500 square feet and abut specific plan areas such as Red Hawk, Vail Ranch and Murdy Ranch, which in term are similar in density and design. The lot design and internal street layout are acceptable to the City Planning and Engineering Departments. All lots conform to the standards of their respective zones, and proposed street alignments are adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pala Road and Highway 79, and four (u,) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City*s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation, and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. A: \VTM23267 13 g) It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. h) The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and Change of Zone No. 5150. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. i) The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. j) The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 30,8 and 0,60 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. k) The proposed project includes adequate dedication for public parks in that it provides for 10.2 acres of public parks and 10.7 acre preserve for native vegetation. The lawful conditions stated in the project~s Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. m) These 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 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. A: \VTM23267 10, SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. An addendum to EIR No. 281 is hereby recommended for adoption. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 for the subdivision of a 189 acre parcel into 601 single family residential lots and 5 open space lots located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-016-002, 003, 012, 017 and 025 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment I I I, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 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 1st day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: \ VTM23267 15 ATTACHMENT II CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 Project Description: Revision to VTM 23267 to allow for 2 additional lots and 7 open space lots to be maintained by TCSD Assessor's Parcel No.: 926-160-2, 3, 12 and 17 and a portion of 926-160-011 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 0,60, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 0,60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance of Lots __ Open Space, the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the district. A: \VTM23267 16 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. Delete Riverside County Condition No. 18{d). Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5 shall be approved by the City Council and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. Prior to recordation of the final map, the project site shall be annexed into the Temecula Community Service Distict ( TCSD ). A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical height of thirty (:30) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half the slope height. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department~s letter dated January 29, 1991, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated March 8, 1991, a copy of which is attached. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-~, (Planned Residential ) zone. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. A: \VTM23267 17 17. 18. 19. 20. The developer shaft be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet lEGS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory outdoor lighting policy. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Highway 79 and Lime Street, Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project, All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. A: \VTM23267 18 Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-d-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. A: \VTM23267 19 21. 22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s successor~s- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to l&5 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping, All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant { Class A ) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Rod-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. A: \VTM23267 20 23. 25. 26. g. 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: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of 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 recordation of the final map, 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. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. A :\VTM2326~ 21 27. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66~,62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 28. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 29. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 30. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC~,R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CCF, R~s shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, all buildings in common open areas, and all interior slopes. 31. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner~s group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC~,R~s which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC~,R~s shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 32. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. A: \VTM23267 22 33. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CCSR's. Within forty-eight (~,8) hours of the approval of this 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 Eight Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($875.00) which includes the Eight Hundred, Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.~,(d)(3) 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 1L~ Cal. Code of Regulations 1509~,. If within such forty-eight (u,8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted heroin shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~q 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. 35. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 36. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. u,60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 37. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, 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; US Army Corps of Engineers; US Fish and Wildlife; and California State Department of Fish and Game. A: \VTM23267 23 39. Street "T" shall be improved with ~, feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right- of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (~,L~/66'). Street "DD" and "FF" shall be improved with Lu~ feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (~A'/60') with 3 foot wide utility easements. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer~s cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66~,62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteelng the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping. d. Sewer and domestic water systems. 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 2u," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geelogical conditions of the site. A: \VTM23267 24 A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. Portions of the site are 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 for the affected areas. 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: A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d- way. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 50. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way: State Hiqhway 79 51. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 52. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 53. 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. A: \VTM23267 25 Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the 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 Enqlneerin.cJ Department PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 55. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Loma Linda Road, "DD" Street, and "S" Street, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 56. A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for all internal streets with u,0 feet or less of curb separation and can be shown on the street improvement plans. 57. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer and CalTrans for State Route 79 South, "A" Street, and "B" Street, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. Condition #32 of the County Road letter dated October 7, 1988 shall be deleted. 58. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering and CalTrans for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 59. 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 ANY OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 60. All on-site signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plans. A: \VTM23267 26 61. In the event that the required improvements err-St-at~t~ottt~9-S~th~tl~h~a Rl:md for the Pala Road realiqnment and the bridqe over Temecula Creek are not completed by-Assess.,.ent~)istriet 1;3 prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the developer shall be required to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula for the construction of the necessary improvements bwse~omthe. The developer's percent of contribution toward the facilities within the reimbursement aqreement shall be as per the approved Traffic Study. Construction of necessary improvements shall be based upon the following dwelling unit occupancy levels (Amended per Planning Commission March 18, 1991 ): A. For unit one hundred and one (101) or more: A 750 foot minimum right turn lane with an adequate transition for east bound travel on State Route 79 South for Pala Road shall be designed and constructed to CaITrans specifications and requirements and shall be approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. Multi-way stop controls shall be designed and installed, when warranted and approved by CalTrans, at the north bound and south bound on and off ramps of Interstate-15 and State Route 79 South. B. For unit two hundred and forty (2~0) or more: 1. A minimum u,50 foot north bound left turn lane with transition and a minimum 125 foot north bound right turn lane with transition on Pala Road at State Route 79 South shall be designed and constructed to CalTrans and City requirements and specifications, and shall be approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. ~= .... T~e~ieveloper-sha~-enter-ifrto-arrm3reenent-wk-+r4~neC-i~Tfor reh/tbtn-sement ~ the- '61t~-ff'om- other-developments- ~v~thl rr-the impect-~rer-fof--costs-~-~yond-~'~n~-e-~terrt-~f--th~s--projectus condltkm~d--p~-o~.--~mpsct--~Fo~--~-un--speci~ed--~-,gi~rmt improvenentf~t-wltkan-AE~-159~. C. For unit five hundred and eleven (511 ) or more: The signal at the intersection of State Route 79 South and Pala Road shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer. The signal shall be installed and operational, as warranted, per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. A: \VTM23267 27 The signal at the intersection of State Route 79 South and Interstate 15 north bound and south bound on and off ramps shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer. The signal shall be installed and operational, as warranted, per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. The signal at the intersection of Rainbow Canyon Road and Pala Road shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer. The signal shall be installed and operational, as warranted, per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by the City Engineer. BesecF~rYthe-addend~rn-Fetter chrted--Febrtrery--ii~--lr99tr-~rofn--i~Rk~-ke-~crtglfteeringT-,this developmenf--shaH--cotYcribtrte--5~--'towerd--these--reradway impr~vement~csT. (Amended per Planning Commission March 18, 1991. ) Full road improvements, including all required signing and striping, on State Route 79 South from Interstate 15 to Pala Road shall be in place in accordance with CalTrans requirements as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. Full road improvements, including all required signing and striping, on State Route 79 South from Pala Road to Margarita Road shall be in place in accordance with CalTrans requirements as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. Realignment of Pala Road with State Route 79 South in conjunction with the construction of a multi-lane bridge across the Temecula Creek. The Pala Road Bridge over the Temecula Creek shall be designed, constructed and operational as approved by the City Engineer. T~is-~tevelopmerrt-sheil--contribt,-te-6~-toward-'~he cens'~ru~'tlorr letter fl ~,~ ~R~~~~~~e~-~ Design and construction of dual left turn capabilities at the south bound interstate 15 off ramp at State Route 79 South in accordance with CalTrans requirements and specifications and as approved by CalTrans. The signal at the intersection of Loma Linda and Pala Road shall be installed and operational, as warranted, per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by the City Engineer. A: \VTM23267 28 10. The signal at the intersection of State Route 79 South and "A" Street shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer. This signal shall be installed and operational, as warranted, per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. 11. Design and construction of a dual right turn lane for east bound travel on State Route 79 South at Pala Road and a dual left turn lane for north bound travel on Pala Road at State Route 79 South in accordance with CalTrans and City requirements and specifications as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. Department of Buildinq and Safety 62. Submit approved Tentative Tract Map to the Department of Building and Safety for addressing and street name review. 63. School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District Prior to permit issuance. Lighting on site pool area and recreation area shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance #655. 65. Submit pool plans to Riverside County Health Department for review prior to structural plan review by the Department of Building and Safety. 66. Pool excavation area shall be fenced immediately the same day as excavation is complete. All plumbing trenches shall be fenced. 67. Obtain clearances from land Use and from Building and Safety Departments. 68. Provide a geological report at time of submittal for plan review. A: \VTM23267 29 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF r-ORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTICN L;I.EN J NE\VMAN FIRE CHIEF PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 787.6606 DATE: TO: ATTN: RE: January 29, 1991 City of Temecula Planning Department Tract No. 23267 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule A fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2~") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted hy 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 applicant/developer shall provide alternate or secondary access as approved by the City of Temecuala- Engineering Department. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a cash sumof $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. RE: TR 23267 Page 2 All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS By Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist Eas,er. Municipal Water District Dist~ct of Southern California March 8, 1991 John M Coudure~ Craig A Weaver Juani(a L Machek Richard Ayala City of Temecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 Subject: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23267 Dear Mr. Ayala: As requested, we have reviewed the subject project and offer the following comments: Sanitary Sewer The subject project is tributary to the District's Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility, via a sewer system to be constructed by Assessment District No. 159. The developer is expected to submit a proposed conceptual plan of sanitary sewer service to the District's Customer Service and Planning Departments for review and approval. This plan shall provide for a system of gravity-flow sewerlines located within road right-of-way according to EMWD standards. It must be understood that the available capacity of the District's sewer system are continually changing due to development within the District. As such, service will be provided based on the timing of the subject project, the service agreement with the District, and the status of the District's permit to operate. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ruth Newsham or me at (714) 766-1850. Sincerely, HAS:RN:lp cc: John Fricker, EHWD Presley of San Diego, 15010 Avenue of Science, Ste. 91-240 7/M 200, San Diego, CA 92128 RIVERSIDE COUtrTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT SLYDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23267 DATE: /~NENDED NO. 2 EXP/RE$: STANDARD ~'INDZTZONS The subdivider shall defend, tndemntf , and hold harmless the ~ounty of RIverside, tts agents, officers, and employees from l~y claim, Ictton, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or tts agents, officers, or employees to attack, set astde, votd, or annul an approval of hthe County of RIverside, tts advisor7 agencies, appeal boards or hgtslathe body concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267, which actton ts brought about wtthtn the time period provtded for tn Coltfornta Government Code Section 66499.37. The Count~ of RIverside will promptly notify the subdhtder of shy such clatm, action, or proceeding egstnst t e County of RIverside and will coo rate fully tn the defense. Zf the County fails to promptly notify the su~htder of any such clatm, actton, or proceeding or fails to cookrate fully tn the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be r~sponstble to defend, Indemnify, or hold hamhss the CounV of Rherstde. 2. The tentative subdivision shall compl vtth the State of California Subdivision Hap Act end to I11 the re ~rements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless mdtfted by the conditions ~sted below. 3. Thts conditionally mpproved tentative map will exptro tkg years after the County of RIverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. 4. The final map shall be prepared by m 11cansad land surveyor subject to mll the requirements of the State of ~allfornta Subdhtston Hap Act 0 dininca460. r S. The subdivider shell submtt one copy of a sotls report to the RIverside County Surve~or's Office BM tm copies to the Department of Butldtng and Safety. l~e r~port shall address the sotls stability end geological conditions oft he stte. 6. Zf any gradtng ts proposed, the subdivider shall suhmtt one print of comprehensive gradtrig plan to the Department of Butldtng end Safety. The plea shall comply ~tth the Uniform Botldtng Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for tn these conditions of approve1. VEStiNG TEITATTTE 11UiCT frO. 23~7 Md. #! CoMttlens ef JlWreval Page ! 7. A gradtog permit shall be obtained from the Department of Bufldtng and Safety p?'. tor to canaancement of any gradtog outsfde of county maintained road Hght of key. 8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be patd prior to recordatlon of the ftnal rap. The subdivider shall comply vrith the street Improvement recommendations outltned !e the RIver.Ida County Road Oeparl~ent's letter dated :t0-07-88, a copy of uhtch Is attached. 10. Logs1 access as requtred by Ordinance 460 shall be provtded from the tract map boundary to a County roeretained road. MY road assents shall be offered for dad(carton to the public and shall . conttnue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved b the Road Conmisstoner. Street names shall he subject to approval of ~e Road Cmm4ssfoner. Easements, xhen required for roadray slopes, dretnage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be sho~m on the final map tf theY are located wtthtn the 1aM division boundary. All off, re of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. Hater and sewerage dtsposal facilities shall be Installed tn accordance vith the provisions set forth tn the Riverside County Health Depertment's letter dated 9-12-88, a copy of which ts attached. The sutxltvtder shall comply with the flood control recowaendattons eutltned by the RIver.Ida Count flood Control Nstrlct's letter dated I0-29-88 a copy of which ts attached. ':.If the land dtvtston 11as vtthfn an edop~;ed flood control dratnage area pursuant to Sectton ``0.25 of Ordinance ~shaOil appro rtate fee for the construction of ares dratnage facilities be coTlacteal by the Road Commissioner. (Amended at P.C. on 10-19-88: The subdfvlder shell c ly vtth the fire Improvement rec~nendattons outltned fe the Count;cFmTre Hershel's letter dated 9.9-88, a copy of vhtch !s eftached. Sulxlfvfslo~ phestng, Including any propused coosen open space area fmprovaet phestng, tf applfcable, shell he subject to Planning Department a F prove1. My proposed phastng shell provtde for adequate vehicular access to all lots tn each phase, and shuT1 substantially conform to the tntent and purpose of the subdivision approval. '-7. Lob crested by thts subdivision shall compTy vtth the following: VESTTIE I~ITATTVE 1tACT IO. ~3~67 ~md. d~ renditions of kmnmmi Page 3 m. All lots shall have m mtntmum size of 4500 square feet net. Prtor to RECOROATIO~ of the ftnal map the following conditions shill be satisfied: Prtor to the recordeaton of the ftnal map the applicant shall sulxntt vritten clearances to the RIverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requtroments outltned tn the attached approval Teators fram the folioring agencies have been met: be County Ftre Department County flood Control County Perks Departneat County Planntn Prior to the recordorion of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5150 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shell be effecthe. Lots created by thts land dhtston shell be tn conromance ~th the develoFment standards of the zone ulttmateTy applled to the prope~y. Prior to recordeaton of the ftnal amp, the project stto shall be aqnexed tnto C.S.A. 243. Prior to recorderton of the ftnal mp, the subdivider shall convey to the County fee staple tttle, to all common or cemmn open space areas, free and clmer of ali lions, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and ~nrecorded) and easements, except those easements ~htch tn the sole Iscrftto~ of the County are acceptable. As e condition precedent4o~ the Coun~accepttng tttle to such areas, the subdhtder shall submtt~ ~h, foildying documnts to the Planntng h Ptzmnt for revtiv, ~htch. docai~t~ shall be subject to the approval o~athet department and the ~flce of ~ CountJr Counsel: l) A declaratto~ of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and 2) A sWle document conve tng tttle to the purchaser of an Individual lot or unit whf~ provides that the declaration of covemeats, conditions and restrictions ts Incorporated therein by The.declirattoa of covenants, conditions and rostrtcttonl submitted raytee shall o) provide for · term of 60 ors, (b) F~ovlda for for qstabi!t - t o~ I pWepl, LyOkml/J' loseclifton cg~.r!lad of the t~e I ~ST~N~ T~TATT~ TUCT I0. 23267 Ceeditllns If AMwell Page 4 o~..; of &sch (nd(v~deal tee or .,,IL end (c) conhi. Lhe Mlwing . prOviSiOnS veF'k-t~fa. ng any provision tn this Oeclaratton to the fallwing proveston shall app17: dormnt, request association sl Ittverstde, upo the 'Cannon attached hereto. 8 shall be at the sole ouners' association established heretn if tncorpGratton or otherYise at the of RIverside, and the owners' f unconditionally accept ram of County's demand, tttle to all of more particularly described dectston to requtre of the letton and the dectston ~tre that the accept tttle *canaan area' of the Counl RIverside. In the event that the conveyed to the thereafter shall mm continuously minteta transfer such comeon area, area, or thereof, ts the association, 'c~.,,~n shell manage and shall not sell or , absent the prtor creating wrttten consent of tim Rherstde or the County's OMmrS' aSsuCtatton shall have each Individual lot or of any such mtntenance assessmot. be pr~or to 811 other 1t. assesmerit or other Of the County of ~n - -triterest. The propert rtght to assess the owners o~ the reasonable cost of have the rtght to 1ten ults tn the lapant of a 1ten, once created, shall equent to the notice of sment 1ten. Thts Ibcleretten be temtnate~ g of the Conaty's st .interest. A proposed considered ' 1f tt affects mfntmmnca of 'c~ area'. I~' amended vrttten consent of RIverside or the shell be extent, USIgl or the event conflict baboon thts and the Arttcles thl avs, or the trey omers' Reel any, thts shall Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the sam ttm that the ftnal nap is ~TTTN~ TTXTATI~E TImer I0. 22267 REd. Condlttms ef Aperowel Page S el The developer shall be responsible for mtntenAncA and upkeep of ell slopes. 1Andstaped Areas and trrt atton s~stems unit1 such ttme as those operations Are the responstF;tltttes of other parttes as approved by the PIAnafng DIrector. Prtor to recordatton of the ftnel map, An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared tn conjunction ~tth the ftnal map to delineate 1denttried envtromentj1 concerns And shall be pernmnentl ftled ~lth the office of the CountJr Surveyor. A copy of the EC$ shAl~/ be tranmttted to the Planntng Department for revtev and approval. The ap roved EC$ shall be lonertied ,tth coptes of the recorded final map to ~he PTanntng Oeparbnent and the DepArtment of Butldtng and hfe~y. g. The mttce appearing 4n hctton 6.A. of Ordtnanoe No. 625, the Rtvers4de County RIght-to-Faro OrdinAnce, ShAll be placed on the Environments1 Constraints Sheet, vtt. h thts tract 1denttiled thereto, to the mMer prevtded tn sitd Sectton 6.e., As betrig located partly or ~olly ~lthtn, or vfthtn 300 feet of, land zoned for prtmrtly agriculture1 purposes by the Country of Rherstde. h. The follou4og note shall be placed on the Environmental ConstrAInts Sheet: "Ceent~ Environmental ImpAct Report No. 281 was prepared for thts property and ts on ftle it the RIverside County Planntng Oetartment.' t. The E.C.S. notes found tn the letter froE the COunty Geologist dated October 12, Zg68, i copl of ~htch ts Attached, shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet. Prtor to the Issuance of GRADING PERNITS the folioring conditions shell be sat(sited: · Prtor to the tssuonce of 9redtng peatie detetlnd camon open space Am landscaping and IrrigAtion plans shell be subedited for Plenntng hpertamt ApprevA1 fort he phase of developneat In process. ThA .-,,toc,..nd .h.. prev,d. Permeet sumtic (rrtgetfon systems ShAll be Installed on ell t 1Andsupnd ereas requtrfng trr getton, 2. Parbays And lAndscAped tmtldtng setbacks shall be lAndSCAped tO greed cover, shrubs and spectmn trues td h appreprlAto Is Approved bY the Planning VESTING TDITATIVE 1tACT I0. 23267 Aed. IZ Coedlttees of Apprwel Page6 3. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of spectmen accent trees at key vtsusl focsT pathas wtthtn the pro3ect. 4. I~ere street trees cannot be planted vtthtn rt ha-of-way of tntertor streets and pro~ect parkways due to t sufficient road n right-of-ray, they shall be planted outstde of the road right-of-ray. 5. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate nattve end drought tolerant plants ~here appropriate. 6. A11 extsttng spectmen trees and significant rock outcroppings on sub act property shall be shovm on the pre3ect's gredtng plans the sha~l note those to be removed, reloceted end/or rete4ned. ad n 7. All trees shall be mlntmum double staked. beaker and/or slov grorleg trees shall be steel staked. b. AnY oak trees removed vtth four (4) 4nch or larger trunk dlamters shill be replaced on · ten (lO) to one (1) beets as epproved by the Plann4ng DIrector. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. c. Prtor to the tssuance of gredtng pemtts, a btol teal resource pretectton 1in shall be prepared b e qualified btolog°~st detailing methods OF protecting the stgno~ftcant biological resources and tmplenentatton of biological adS1 atton measures is found tn ~unty Environmantel Impact Report No. ~81. Zmportent resources tnclude the Nevtns krberr~ found ou site. Thts plan shell be sub·tiled to the PTanntngDepartment for revtev end approve1. d. Durt.ng red1 ·cttvfttes, a qualified biologist she, be retetned by the~ve~epe~ mOattOt the gredtng activities end to see that the Proof of apro vdbtol 1ca1 resource protection plea ts Implemented. re~tnersldps°~il be suemiSted to the Departmet of Butldlng and Safety prior to the tssuance of lalldtng par·rite. The biologist shall have theright to belt ardlvert gredtng procedures, If necessary, Sn order to Inplment the biological resource protection plan. e. Prior to lssuence of grading mtts, an tn depth survey of the exist1 Archaeological sttes sha~ be undertaken by e qualified Archa~on~ogtst. Thfs surve~ shall tnclude date collection, test !x~tegs and excavation u darned necessary the concl~u~ou of the aS;roved by the Plannteg Department. bA~ the Archlie1 1st and Is lnvesttgaUou, a report prepared by the Archaeologist shill be suemiSted to the Planate Deparlnent and the Archloulogtcal Des··rob Unit at ta UntversJtar of ~allfornta of RIver·tall, for. revtee and e W. STInG I~TATIVE ~ nO, ZI2f/ked, #2 Conditions of AFtewe1 Page 7 detemlnatton of con;lateness. Following approval of the report, the Plenntng Department will Issue clearance for the release of grldtng permtts. f. If any archaeological resources' ere uncovered durtng grading a an activities or trenching, ell activities shall cease 5d archaeologist shall be consulted, My recommendations of the · h archaeologist s all be adhered to, g, The old adobe structure found within Open Space lot 603 shall be preserved. h. All existtrig nattve spectmen trees on the subject property shall be preserved aherever feasible. Hidere they cannot be preserved theY she11 be relocated or replaced with spectmen trees Is approved by the Planntng DIrector, Replacement trees shell be noted on approved landscaping plans. Grading pTans shall conform to Board adopted H111stde Development Standards: Al1 cut and/or ftll slopes, or Individual combinations thetaro ~hfch exceed ten feet tn vertical hetght shall be modified by in appropriate coeblnetton of a spaeta1 terracing (benchtng) plan, Increased slope retto (t.a., 3:1 retaining MIllet end/or slope planting combined vlth irrigation. ~?1 driveways shall not exceed a fiften percent grade. A11 cut slopes located edgecent to ungreded natural tarrate and exceeding ten (10) feet In VlrttCll height shill be contour-graded Incorporating the lolledrig grading techniques: :X) The an le of the reded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle ~ the itJIrlq totrate, 2) Mgwiar forms shall be discouraged, The graded foe shell reflect the natural rouadd ternln. 3) 1he toes and tops of slopes sbe11 be rounded with curves with t in pg. rtton to the tote1 bet ht of the slopes r dlt des gned or, dre M .UV,-Pb, tys.ch 4) Mbere c,t or ftll slo exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length. the hortcontal conto, re ~!Flsthe slope shall be curved tna continuous. undulattng fashfoa. k, Prior to the Issuance of grading pemtts, the developer shell provide slope mintnuance reslmnwib~tttes have been assigned as approved by the Dtrector of htld¶ng and Safety, VESTING TDITATIVE TRMT I0. 23267 AId. Conditions ef Apprwal Page 8 1. Prior to the tssuance of gradtng pemtts, a qualified paleontologist shell be ratateed by the developer for consultation and coneant on the proposed gradtrig vtth respect to potential peleontologtcal 1rapacts. Slmuld the poleontologtst find the potential ts htgh for trapact to significant resources, a he pro-grade mettrig between t Paleontologist and the excretion end grad1 contractor shall he arranged. i~en necessary, the paleontolo~st or representative shall have the authority to tenorart1 dtvert, redtract or halt gredtng acttvtty to a11~ recovery of fosst~s. 20. Prtor to the Issuance of BUXLDZNG PEI~!XTS the follwtng conditions shall be satisfied: a. !1o buildtrig porefits shall be lssued by the County of RIverside for any residential lot/untt vtthtn the project boundary unttl the developer's successor's-In-Interest provtdes evtdence of con 11once ~tth public facility financtn measures. A cash sum of one-~undred dollars ($100) per lot/untt sha~l be deposited vJth the RIverside County .Depertnent of 8utldtng and Safety as mitigation for public library deselolaent. b. Prtor to the sutatttal of botldtng plans to the Department of Butldtn and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acousttca~ engtncor to establish appre rtate mitigation measures that shall be ap l(ed to Individual dwelFt untie vtthtn the subdivision to reduce aPeglut Interior riotee levolsnFto 45 Ldn and extertor notse levels to E5 Ldn. c. M1 street 11ghts and OtheT outdoor 11ghttn shall be shove on electrical plans satedited to the De ramant of guildtrig and Safety for plea dmck approval and sha~l comply vtth the requirements of RIverside Count/Ordlnanco No. 655 aM the RIverside County C4mprehe~She inhere1 Plan. d. Prior to Issuance of botldlng tamits, detatled park site and rtpartan area devel_ol;ent 1Ins shall be subndtted to the Plien4ng Department for approval. ThPelse plans sbe11 confore vtth guidelines found fn the appn)ved des1' mnual (Exhibit H). The perks shall tnclude acttve recroattonal ~eetures such is ptc tc tables, barbecue n areas, tot lots, etc. Recomendattons found tn the letter Ira George klterta of the County Parts Deper~ment, a Co of ~ihlch !s attached, shall be tecluded te the destgn of the pe~ n pen Sp ce Areas. ado a e. De~loFemt of thts project shill confore to the recmmendattons found te County bologtc Report No. 488. VESn~E TBmmlEIUCT 10. Z3267 k,d. #E Coedittms ef Mreval Page 9 f. For the securtty and safety of future residents, the following crtme preventto~ measures shall be considered durtng stte and butldtng laJmut ~eslgn. a. Prier 11ghttn9 tn open areas; b. VIsibility of doors and vtndows frm the street and between buildings; c. Fenctng hefghts and materials; d. Adequate off-street parktng; and e. A clearly understood Bethod of street numbering to facilitate emrgency response. Prior to the Issuance of butldtn mats, coeqc~__stta landscaping and Irrigation pTens shell be sutxnttt~ ~r Plsnntng Department approval. The pTans shall address all areas and aspects of the tract re~ut~fn landscaping end Irrigation to be Instilled tncludtn , but not 1~ to, lark,a~ planting, street trees, slope plant~n , and tndtv~al front yard landscaping, and shall confom to the standards set forth tn the tract's Ipproved Destgn Yanull (Exhtbtt H). Roof-munted mechanical equti~ent shall not be pemttted vtthtn the ? ..no t. All front yards shell be provtded v4th landscaping and automatic Irrigation. A plotplan shall be submitted to the Planntng De rimeat rsuant to Secttoe ~8.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompon~ed by a1~usppltcable ftltq fees, as e plot plan that ts not subject to the Collfornta Ewrlrometel Quality Act ts not transmitted to any govarnmental agency other than the Itfvorslde County P1anntng Department. The plot ~lem shall ensure the conformsnee of the final stte development Vtth ~li~trect's approvedDesSen Itnual (Exhlbtt H), and shu11 conthin the 1 follodeg · ants: A ftnll stt· plan shMn the lots, butldtng footprints, all setbacks, fence and/or va~ls, and finor plan and elevation esstgments to Individual lots. 2. One (l) color andmtertals sample board (maximum stz· of 8 X Z3 tacbes by J/8 Inch thick) containing prec¶se color, texture and material swtcbes or phot raphs (vhtchmay be from suppliers' brochures). Zndtcatl on thec?~ard the ham, address and phone VESTING TEXTATIVE 11UICT NO. 23267 kd. i2 Condttlmm ef qqwwal Page SO numbers of both the sample board prepafar and the project e pltcant, tre number, end the manufacturer and product numbers ~ere bosstblecTtrade ames also acceptable). and mtertals board. The vrttton color and rotortel descr4pttons shell be louted on the elevation. 4. SIx (6) co 1as of each of glossy photographic color prtnts (stze 8 X 10 tncCs) of both color and mteraals board and colored h architecture1 elevations for permanent ftltng, eartng body revtew and agency distribution. All vrtttn9 must be legtble. Satd plot plan shell requtrs the approve1 of the Planning Dtrector prtor to the tssuance of any botld4ng pem4ts for lots Included N4thtn the lot plon. l~e substits1 of plot plans prtor to the 1souonce of butld~ng pendis my be phased provided: 1. A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planntng Department for each phase, ,htch shall be accompanied by appropriate ft14ng fee s. 2. Each Individual plot plan shall be epproved by the Plann4ng Dtrector r4or to t f butldlng pemtts for lots the ssuance o tncluded v~thtn that plot plan. k. A fenctng plan shall be submitted for Planntng Department approval. Thts plan slm11 be In substantial confermince with the Desagn Ihnual (ExhJbtt 14) aM tab Into account a~)r recomendattons of the requtred notse study. Prtor to the tssuance of OCCUpANCy PERHITS the fellertrig conditions shall be satisfied: a. All landscaping aM Irrigation shell'be installed tn accordance v~th approved plans Irtor to tim tssuence of occupancy pemtts. If seasonal cOnditIons do not pemtt plantto , tntlrtl landscaping end eroston control measures shell be uttllz~ as approvedby the Planntng DIrector and the Director of hlldtng and Safety. b. Prior to occupanCy, w11s aM fences shall be tnstallml tn accordance vith approvedplus. required mils shall be determined by the acoustt~ study where appltceMe. 1151116 ~Lndkl;vS TIACT I). 23287 kad. t2 CoediUees ef Alqwevel d. Pr¶or to occupancy, the ne~ Marhood rk s4te associated vith that phase of developaent sha~ll be deve~ped tn accordance v th Ipproved plans. e. Prior to occupancy, the tell stte open space lots associated v~th that h app~v~ Li~scaptng Plans. GN:sc;bc 10112/88 /,- RIverside Count~ Irlanntng Commission 4080 Leeon Street Riverside, CA 929)1 lie: Tract Hap 23267 - Amend Schedule A - Team i Ladies and Gentlehen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tont~ttve land division map, the Road Departant recommends that the landdivider provide the following street fa~orovement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside Count), Road Improvement $tendlrds (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tonialive mp correctly shM ecceptoble cantorline f pre ties, all existing easements, trlvlled ways, led drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their amission or unacceptablllt~y mY require the mp J t for to be resuMt ed further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and I requirement occurring in ONE is is binding as though occurring in s11. They Ire Jetended to be complementarT and to describe the conditions for a ccmpleto design Of the impreverent. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be re('erred to the Road Comtssloner*s Office. l. The landdivider shell protect doestream properties ('rOB ages cause by altoregion Of the drainage patinas, I.e., concentra- tion of diversion Of team. ProJection shell ha provided by constructIn; adequate drainage focil ltlex Including enlergtn9 exlsti locililies or by seterie I draineta lisamint or by beth. nX11 drltnege elsemats sha~l be ShOke am the fled nap and noted Is fo11M: "Drainage Easement - no building, · abstractions, or eocroaclments b land fills Ire I11oled". The protectfoe shall be Is aplroved [y the Road Department. 2. The landdhider the11 :~cTJTtro:a~ preparly dispose Of ali Of('stte drainage finwing o~to the site. In the event the Deed C0adsstonor peruits the use of streets for drefnnge pu ns, the rovisfons of Article Xz of Ordinance No. 460 lr~ipply. SIP~uld the quantities exceed the street upact~ or the use of streets be prohibited for dralnlge purposes, the subdivider shall prevtde ndequate drainage feclllUes as epproved by the Road Department. 'aGt ~p 2~3267 ° Amend 3. thief draMage fs involved on ~hfs landdivision end its resolution shall be as opprove4 b~ the bad Department. 4. 'Am Street shall be Improved within '.he dedicated right of v~y Jn accordance wdth County Standard No. 10:i, (7 '/10 ). S. 'B' Street (ames Avenue) shall be Improved viibin Cbe dedlcstad right of inky tn accordance with Hodtried County Standard No. (64'182'). ' "S' Street and "C" Street (south of Creek Lane) stall be improved within the dedicated right of way tn accordance vtth County Standard NO. 103, Section A. (44'/66'). 7. The remtntn9 inter|or streets shill be improved within the dedicated rl ht of Nay In accordance with County Standard No. 104, SectIon A. 8. l~e landdivider sbe11 cmply uith the Celtruns recomendattons as outlined In their letter dated 14arch 30, 1988 (a copy of vh|ch ts attached), prior to the recorderion of the final rap. 9. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance free KanchO C411f- erase Mater District prior to the recordalien of the final Z0. A cmpy of the fine1 map shall be submitted to Clltrens, District 08, A POst Office Box 231, Sen krelrdfnot CIlffornfl 92403; ttentfo~: Prefect Oevololaent for review and approve1 prior to recordstiDe. 11. The maxim cetarllne gradient sbe11 not exceed ISZ. 12. TIn etalane centerline radii sha~l be 300' or as Ipproved by the Ro~d ~pirbeeat. IL State H! y · roved v~th concrete curb and gutter Tract Ikp 23267 - Amend October 7, 1998 paving; reconstructions or resu~eclng of existing paving as diRemined by Coltruns Nithie a 7~ foot half v~dth dedicated right of aa3f In accordance with State Standard No. A2-8. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards men shall be shone on the street improvement plans. A minimum o~ four feet of full height curb shill be constructed bet~eee drtvek~ys, debris retention wall shell be constructed st the street ~ay line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approveS by the Road Commissioner. The minimere garage setback shall be 30 feet mainred from the face of cud). :~7. "T" Street shell be improved with 34 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within a 4S foot pert width dedicated rt ht of w~y in accordance with County Standard No. ~03, Secttoo X. (22'/33'). Z8, Concrete sideelks shall be constrocteS throughout the leesdivision tn accordsrico kith County Standard No. 400 and 40~ (curb sidewalk). lg. An access road (located mrth of Teamcalm Creek along the extension of :P Street, ~ames Avenue to the east) to the nearest paved road t reefeta ned by the County she11 be constructed within the public right of ks in accordance kith Conely StemNard No. ~06, Section l, (H'/60'~ It I grade and alignment as approveS by the bad Commissioner. This is necesser/for circulation purposes. Primry and secondary access reads (at the locations of Lores Llnda Street and the extenstue ef Park Avenue, "$' Street) to the fierest paved ned maintained by the henry shell be constructed v~thln the ~_.1$c right. of In seemFie;me vie, ik.& I~l~lerd He. SOl, 5emits& I, (:X'/;) it · Irlde end el IneRt as approveS by the bad Commissioner, This Is ~llso eeces:sry for circuletioo purposes, Tract limp 23267 - ABed ~ctaber 7, 1988 .4 Prior to the record·lion of the fine1 map, the developer shill deposit vtth the Riverside Countjr Road Department, · cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic stgnal t cta. Should tfi developer choose to defer the tim of I,yment,m~e may enter into · witten agreement with the Country deferring said pa)~ent to the tim of Issuance of I bu!Tding remit. Taproyce·hi plans shell be fish upon a centerline profile extending · minimum of 300 feet bejrond the pro;Ject boundaries it I grade and ellgum·at Is approved bjr the Riverside Coun Road Ccentssioner. tJmpletio~ of road improvements does not I:;t~jr acceptance for maintenance bjr CountJr. 23. Electrical and c=,,dnlcltlons trenches shall be provided In accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 811. ~sphelttc mulsion (fog sul) shall be applied not less than f ~ef~een days followdog placement o the asphslt surfacing and shall be ·p lied at e rate of O, OS gallon per sl:luIrl Jrlrdo Asphalt muls~ shell confoe to Sections $7, 39 led g4 of the State Standard Specifications, Standard cul-de-sacs end Imuckles and off-set cul-de-sacs shall be coutrocted throughout the llnddhtsion.- 56. Cottier cuttacks in contorn·rice with Count~ Standard No. 805 shall fi shone on the ftnll onp led offered for dedication. 27. Lot access sbe11 be restricted on State HIghW 79, 'A' Street and *Be Strut (~limel Avenue) led so noted on the ftnal rap. Zk Londdtvlslo~s creating cut or f111 slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slopo lismnts u Ipproved b.y the bid Deplrlaent. 29. All ce~terltne Intersections shill be it 90* with · minimum 50' tangent muurod frm foe line. 30. 1he street design end Improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with Rlncho Villages Assessment District #159 and TR 23063. ctolar ~, Zg88 age S ~ Street ltghttng shall be required tn accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The Coun~ Service Arel (CSA) kleinlair, for dateminis whetbar this proposal qualifies under In extsttn9 usesreset district or not. if not, the 1and owner shall file an appltcatlo~ ~ith LAFCO for annexation Into or creation of i ell tIN Assessment District" In Iccordlncl with Governmental Code ~e~ ee 56000. I 32. A striping pile ts _required for State Iky. 7g, "A" Street, and 'B" Street (James Avenue). The rreevsl of the existing striping shall be the res nstb!ltty of the applicant. Traffic signing striping sCll be done b7 County forces with all Incurred costs borne bl the applicant. ~H:lh Ver7 trul)~ 7ours, Road OTviston Engineer County of Riverside 0~ IIV~_-_qI!)E COUNTY PLANNaG DER. DAT~ Septsaber 12, 1988 ROM: ATTa~lw~~rian* Environneutral Health Serv4ces I~ACF ~ 23267, Amended No. 2 Environmental Health Services has reviewed Tract Hap 2326?, Amended lqo. 2 dated September 6, 1988. Our current conmeats viII resmin as stated in our letter dated April 12, 1988. c~:tae · ~. FOIM 4. flier. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENLf HEALTH' lZVEfISlZ:~ COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4080 Lea~ Street ~NNING ~EPARTM;NT ~ivereide. CA 92502 Attn: Greg Neel !~; Trict Map 23267; That portton of Parcel 1.2.3 and 4 of Parcel Map 18993 recorded in Book 234. Pages 13 through 28 of Parcel Hips 2n Riverside County. California. (S91 LotS) Gentlemen: ellIV .mw The Department of Public Health has revieved Tentattve Hap No. 23267 and recommends that: k v&ter system shall be tastelied according to plans and specification as &pproved by the vlter compLny and the Hellth Department. Permanent prindt, of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate. v3th a minimum !tale not less th,n one inch equ, l, ZOO feet. alon9 vlth the origin,l drawing to the County Surveyor. The print, ,halt I~ov the internal pipe di,meter. location of valve, and fire hydrants; pipe and joint ,pacification,. and the ,txe of the main · t the junetim ot the new ,y, te, to the extlting my,teE. The pl&n, sha[~ conply in · ll re,pact, with Dtv. S. P, rt ]. Chapter 7 ot the C, Ztfornt, Health &rid S&/ety Code. Californi, Admini,trative Code. Title 2Z. Ch,pter 15. ,rid General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Cpmmi**ion of the State of Californ/&. when ,pplicable. tREat7 t "'h lac~c n liStTilt ' L'vice - SuCh t. Davidsou :liVE:BiDE COUI1C PLA~rlillG DEPA:ICIilERC Count~ Avtatfon Comtsstoner Iresson RIVE.qSID}- C.~'. :t~'~ pLANNING DE/'/..R': :.:.-'.NT ..................... · ! pal I~ater - If, Edtson '~f. Gas · Jone portltton 18 n H~gh School ~er of Co~erce YZSTING TIACT 23267 - (Ca-l) - t.A. - Thetam American Co~p. - baths Pacific - Sancho California Ares - First SupervisorlaX District - South of 1JiBbray 79 and Vest of Horgsrita toad - S-t Zone - Schedule A- 193.7 acres into 596 lots - Concurrent Cases CZ 51~0. Trl 23299 - Hod 120 -A.F. 926-160-010 to 013; usa described above. along vtth the attached case rap. A Land t matinS hem bean tcntativcly scheduled for April 28. 1988. If it :a Is to public hearthS. , · recoumndatioea arm requested prior to April Ill 1988 in order that ve . ~ the staff report for this particular ease. -7 questions foistdinI this itsat please do not hesitate to contact - 1363 Vestd-~ Tract 23267.should be required to annex to an appropriate aleacTvhithptovtdes pack mirecreation services. Annexation viii mitigate beets of Metlaced population to be sewed aml feel (park dmlopmnt)s shall he used to acquire and develop 8 park site, n:~~l~~.~,~eral Neuter, ValleY-Vide Recreation and pax Distrio · ,. 9TM FLOOR 4~209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304 : Riverside County Plannlng Dept. Page Two Alan: Greg Nesl April 12. 1988 The plans shell be signed by a registered engineer and veter company vith the folloving certification: "I certify thet the design of the water system in Tract Hap 23267 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service,storage sad system viii be adequate to provide valet service to such trect. This certification does not constitute i guarantee that it viii supply v/Let to such trect at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for f~re protection or any other purpose'. This certification shall be s3gned by I responsible official of the water company. !b!_~!D}_!~!~_~! Thzs Department has a statement from the Rancho Californ~a Mater D3strict agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfectory financiel arrangements ere completed v~th the su~div~der. It viii be necessary for the finencial arrengements to be made prior to the recordsLion of the f~nal mep. This Department his , statement from the Eastern Hunxcmps] ~,ter District agreeing to alloy the subdivision sevk~e system to be connected to the severs of 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 trxpltcate. along with the original drawing0 to the Cotmty Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location sanholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specificaticns and the sixe of the severs at the junction of the new systs= to the existing system. k single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage please and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sever dlstrlct with the following cert~ftcation, "! certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract ]4ap 23287 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Hunicipai 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. Page Three ATT)h Greg Neel April 12, 1988 viii be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. It viII be necessary [or the annexation proceedings to be completely finalised prior to recordatlon of the final map. SanitarXan Environmental Health Serv=ces N~NNL9'14 L, m'DV/ARD$ mill N&IIKI~ RIV~'RSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT October 18, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 1 Greg Seal Ladies and Gentlemenx Re: Vesting Tract 23267 Amended So. 2 This is a proposal to divide approximately 194 acres for single family housing in the Temecula area. The site is located along both sides of Temecula Creek about 1200 feet west of Nargarita Road. This project is located on the floor of Temecula Valley and is subject to bothriverine flows from Temecula Creek and.sheeting offsite storm flows from two other sources. The main course of Temecula Creek flo~a through the center of the tract. Storm water from a 800 acre watershed to the north traverses the north- ern half of this project. Due ~o poorly defined drainage pat- terns, it is probable that large amounts of storm water emanating from tributaries north of Temecula Creek and from far to the east may sheet west, generally parallel to Temecula Creek, and across the site. Unless these storm flows are dealt with by upstream development in the watershed, the developer will have to con- struct drainage facilities to protect this project. Onsets storm rtmoff is proposed to be conveyed via both streets and storm drains to Temecula Creek Channel. Several acres of onsets area ate be southeastern tract boundary is proposed to be diverted to tie neighboring develol~nent, The applicant (Thetam America Corp,} he submitted documentation that the developer to east (Great~ss~ican Development Co.) plans to accept this run- off. A decsmear showing evidence of this agreement should be submitted to the District for review prior to recordation of the final map. The improvements toTemecula Creek are proposed as apart of Assessment District 159. The District's interest An the con- figuration of the main channel is limited to its adequacy as a flood protectice facility. I~ should be noted that the present design does sot allow for habitat mitigation within the channel, nor does it sl~cifically provide for Joint use oft he ~acility (e.g., equestrian or bicycle trails). A change in channel con- figuration or regiS of way width may require redssign of this proposal. Riverside County Planning Department Rat Vesting Tract 23267 Amended No, 2 -2- October 18, 1988 The developer's Exhibit abe proposes to collect storm flows from the 800 acre canyon at De Portals Road and convey them to Temecule Creek in a trapezoidal channel. Two collection dikes are proposed on the east side of MarSeries Road to capture storm flows traveling parallel to Temecula Creek. These flows would combine with the northern stream Just north of Highway 79. Following are the Dlstrict's recommendat,ones 1. Temecula Creek Channel should be constructed throught this tract as shown on the tentative map. Both Temenula Creek Channel and the drainage facilities proposed to convey storm flows from the north and east should bebuilt to District standards. Some of these facilities ere proposed to be constructed by Assessment District 159. If these have not been installed by the time grading permits are requested, it will be necessary for this tract to construct drainage structures necessary to protect it from tributary 100-year storm flows. Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be sub- misted to the District and County for review and approval prior to recorder,on of the final map. A portion of the proposed project is in a flood plain and may affect swatere of the United Starass, '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 atudy consisting of HEC-2 calculations, cross sections, maps and other data should be prepared to the satisfaction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the District for the purpose of raising the effective Flood Insurance Rats Map of the project site, The submittal of the study should be soncurrent with the initial submittal of the related project improvement plans and final District approval will not be given until a Conditional Letter of Sap Revision (CLOKR) has been received from FEMA, A coW of appropriate correspondence and necessary perairs from those government agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State law (such as Corps of Engineers 404t~rmit or Department of Fish ld lad Game 1603 agreeman shou be provided to the District prior to the final District approval of the project · Riverside County Planning Department Res Vesting Tract 23267 Amended No. 2 -3- October 18, 198e e Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements sho~nonths final map. & note should be added to the final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions"· Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to retardation of the final map. The 10 year storm flow should be con=ained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When either of these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities should be ~nstalled. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. additional emergenc~ escape should also be provided. 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 easement should be obtained from the affected property o~ners ~or 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 recordselan o~ the final map. Development oft his property should be coordinated with the develolssent of adjacent properties to ensure that ~mtercourses remain unobstructed end storn~aters are not diverted flea one watershed to another. This may require the c~nstruction of temporax~ drainage facilities or offsiteconet. ruction and grading. A coIP7 of the taprovement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydralogic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department for review end approval prior to retardation of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Riverside County Planning Department Res Vesting Tract 23267 Amended No, 2 October 18, 1988 Guestions concerning this matter may be referred to Bob Cullen of tl~s office at 714/787-2333, ccz RANPAC Very truly yours. BCsbab 9-9'88 4080lmmaSbed, kb IlL iUeskJt, CA rzso! (?t4) 787.66o6 GIF, G!IF, AL l'l&C2 23267 Vfth respect to tha conditions of ·pproval for tha above referenced land division, the Fire Departsent rotamends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with liversida County 0rdiusucae and/or recognized fire protection gLanderda: FIRE PROTECT1011 Schedule sam fire protection approved standard fire hydra·is, (6"zdwx2J') located one at each street intersection and spaced us more than 330 feet apart In any directfoe, With us portia· of any lot frontage more than 165 feet frowa hydrant. Kinimm fire floe shell be 1000 GPH for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant;developer shall furnish sue copy of the valet system plans to the Fire Department fez review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system s~all met the fire floe requirements. Plans shall be slgned/approved by · registered civil engineer and the local valet company vith the foilswing eertificatiou: eI certify that the design of the vator system is In accordance With the requireseats prescribed by the liveraids County Fire Deparment.u b requiredstar system, including fire hydra·is, shall hs installed and accepted by the appropriate waist agency prior to any cosbust/bin building mterial be/uS placed on anisdivtdual lot. Prior to tho t~cordatiou of the final nap, the applicant/developer shall preyida alternate or nccoudaz7 accents ns approvsd by the County Road Department. NITIGATIGe Prior to the recordation of the final sap, the developer shall deposit vith the liversida Comty Fire Departments · cash sm of e&O0,O0 per lot/unit so mitigation for fire protectfoe aspacres Should the developer choose to defer the tins of payment, he/ale say enter into ·written USroeuont vith the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of · building permit. Subject, :ruct 23267 tall 2 All quellion relardin8 tbs meauinI of conditions shall be referred to ~hl Planminl and ZnSineerin8 staff, IillJO~l) I. REGIS Chief Fire Department Fleanet horse S, TatnEe PlanalaS Officer iVEq)iDE PLAIlninCS DEPA CI En October 12, 1988 Highland Sotls Engineerie 1832 S. Comercenter ClrcTe, Sutte A San kmardtno, CA g2408 Attention: 14~. Robeft C. Harmtrig Hr. I/arren L. Shefling fir. I~111aa T. Altaeyer SUBJECT: Alqutst-Prtolo/Ltquef Job No.: 07-6556-010-00-00 AP.:,s-ols-ooz.oo3.olo%z'.o12.o Ranthe California Area Gentlenee: T~e have reviewed your report anttiled *Fault Hazard and Preliminary Geetechnical investigation, 242t Acres, Southwest of the intersection of Pargarita Road and State Htghwey 79, Ranthe California, RIverside County, CA," ...d "' co.. s.ts.t./,.o,o,t,, r..t.we. dated an Your rel~r~ deCInChed that: 1. Exploretot7 fault trenches 1,3 and 4 exposed fault offsets associated ~ith the acttve lttldoaer .fault. The localton of this fault ts shown on Plate 2A, hotechnlcsl Hap of your report. 2. The setsate date for the Elsieore (Idfidonar fault) Fault Zone located -ca site ts as follws: lixtim Prdable Earthquake -7.0 (lickMr ligniteale) Peak keead Acceleretton- O. S3g DuraUna ef Strong I1ottoe o 30 seconds 3. The settTment tenttal under setsEft loadtrig for the on-site and ledrock mtarli~ Is malerata to very 1or, respectively. 4. The Ferrets1 for 11quefectton tS considered htgh tn the larger drainage courses vtthln Paubl and Holt Valleys on the site. LI ofectton my occur tn the fore of differentIll settlement, sand !e~ls, and lateral spreading. 4080 LEMON STREET. P FLOOR Itl/F. RSIDE, CAUFORliA 92501 (1'14) 787'~181 46-209 OASIS STkEET. ROOM 304 INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 HIghland Sotls Engineering October IZ, 1988 S. A minor landslide area my be located at the central portion of the site, sham on Plate IA, Gintechnical Nip. 6. The alleytel MIls generally are considered to have a low expansion · potential. The siltstones within the Pluba formation on site can be moderately to highly expansive. e The flne gretMd allaytaT srils in the major drainage courses are generally cmaprtsstble to the upper five feet. TIm currut area designated as the ZOO-year floodplain for ~emecula Creek exceeds the seismic-Induced flood 1nundalton area .that Mould result dartrig lost.heine,us failure of Sktnner or Vat1 Reservoirs. Only the 1mast area of Pauba Valley Mould be affected. 9. Ground fissure development is considered a significant hazard rithtn the soeMt portion of the site, due to the presence of active fauittmJ !n thts area. Your report recoamended that: ]. A 50 foot setback zone from both stdes of the illdoer Fault Zone is requtred for human occupanc~ structures. This setback ts designated on Plate IAt Geotechlncal Nip. The lollslag rill mtttgete the liquefaction porenile1 on this stte: a. A csepmcted ftll mt along with a gravel blanket and additional foottrig reinforcement should he used for structures. b. Structural setbacks from tops of ftll slopes toetrig into soudbeusd. 1teataction prone areas h 1 e c. Lateral spreading hazards along Pauba Creek are mitt ated by the placm~nt of Loam Ltnds Drtve ted the 100 foot ride Sutldtng Setlack area. Thts effects Lots 490-503 d. Grid1 alon Temecula Creek rill tnvolve the placement of up.ards of' l~n~eet c~ creepacted ftll over the 8-10 feet of recoewnended allude1 rMOVelS, In order to seafly ellathat4 the potential for 11qmefmcttM 1educed loss of boarto or send bolls. aml !14~ eftlOt the lalldfeg eatlack should be Increased to bdco tim.skis Might or post-tonstoned slabs and additional foundation twister{ mt or 1,to 208-Z21. 3. AllnTis1 MIls should be overexcavate tn the la r extstt drainage and cae~a areas to a salelaura depth of S fit. ~:re feastfie tote1 reeve1 of loose alluvial sotls to bedruc ts ricoended. As an alternative, settlement santo and monitoring my be used In the am wttk thtck a11uvfum. Highland SOtlS EaSegearing - 3- October IZ, 1988 4. kldltlonal Investigation of the posstble landslide located at the cohere1 portion of the sttets recoemended prior to site gradtog. S. The 50 font huron occupancy setback to the northeast and the property bounds to the southwest of the incited active fault vtll mtttgeto the portenttel hazard of ground fissure development on the Stte. It ts our optnine that the roport yes prepared tna competent manner consistent rith the present *stain-of-the-art* end satisfies the roqutrements of the Alqutst-Prlolo Spectal Studtes Zones Act, the associated RIverside County Ordinance No. 547, led n h additional tnformtSon roqutred u dert e California Envtromaentsl Qua11~ Act raytoy. Ftnal approval of this report is hereby gtven. Me racemend that the folioring conditions be satisfied before rocordetton of the ftnal parcel IMp or County paretea associated vtth thts project: l. The 'Fault Hazard Zone' shwn on Plate 1A, (Geniechoice1 Rip) tn your report shall be delineated on the Environmental Constraints Sheet (E.C.S.), and the area tn between the setback 1tees shell be labeled 'Fault Hazard Area.' 2. A note shall be placed on the E.C.S. stating: · Thts proporgy is affected by earthquake faulting. Structures for human occupancy sball not be allwed In the Fault Hazard Arel. Thts constraint affects paroels 490 through 504, 602 and 603.' 3. Notes sba11 be placed on the ftnal land dtvtston rap stating: · CountyGeolo tc Report No. 488m as prepared for thts property on is) FebruerJ~ 3, ~88, and ls on the RIverside Country Planntng file at De rtaent. Spectftc 1tom of concern in this report are as fo~IM: ecttve earthquake faulting, liquefaction, ground 1 flssuros, lands tdtng, solsate 1educed flooding, end uncompected trench beckfill." for lean occupancy shall not be allneed Are. The constraint affects parcels 490 through S04, 602 and 6030 as shmm on the accompanying Environmental Constraints Sheet, the oftglee1 of ~hlch ts on ftle at the offtee of the Itlverstde CounV SurveJmr. A cop~ofthefinal mp and Environmetal Constraints Sheet sba11 be sulatttnd to the Planning Departant Engineering Geologist for roytee and apprml. H~ghlend Soils [ntngeer~mj - 4 - October 12, 1988 The exploretory trenches ere beckfelled, but not coeFacted, and she1] be coalacted under the direction of the pro~ect 9eotechntcal engtneer 1f any structures ere contemplated for construction over eny portions of these trenches. Yer~ truly yours, SAK:al CoCo COUNTY PLANNZNG D£PARTNENT ~~eg~ter - Pl ntn9 DI ector Ranpac - Dawn OSllon Cel4G - Earl Hart Butldfng& Safety -Nort Losthem {2) 6re9 Nell - Teem 1 ./ RECEIfEDNOV 8 1989 RiVERSiDE courts, PLAnninG DEPARa;En Noventer 2,1989 Geo Soils, Znc. 5751 Palmet Way, Sutte D Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Hr. Robert G. Crtsman Hr. Paul L. HcClay E. ~tca e Hr. TImothy If SUBdECT: Alqutst-Prtolo Spectal Studtes Zone ~. O. 9g4-SD Tentative Tract 23267 APN: 926'016'002,003,010,011o012,013 County Geologtc Report No. 488 (update) Rencho California Area Gentlemen: have revtewed your report entttled "Fault Investigation, Tract 23267, Old Vat] Ranch, RIverside County, CA," dated August 24, 1989. Your report determined that: 1. The Wtldomar fault, as previously 1denrifted by Htghland Sotls Engineering, ts not present on the project stte. 2. The fault contacts Indicated by Htghland Solls Engineering are actually eposftton o recent erostonal/strettgrephtc contacts produced by d f a11uvlum or colluvlue agatnst bedrock of the Pauba formation along the margtn of the Wolf Valley alluvta1 platn. 3. There ts a lack of geoe~rphtc expression charactartstfcs of faulttrig on the stte. 4. Based on aertal photographs, the actlye trace of the ~11domar fault, northwest of Pauba Valley, appears to bend eastward tn Pauba Valley and die out east of the project stte. Your report recon~nended that there ts no need to place any fault related setback or restriction tn the study area. 4080 LEMON STREET. 9T' FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304 :: Geo Solls, Inc.' * 2-' November 2, 1989 [t ts our optnton that the report was prepared tne competent manner consistent wl th the present "state-of-the-art" and satisfies the requirements of the Alqutst-PrtolO Spectal Studtes Zones Act and the associated Rherstde County Ordinance No. 547. Ftnal approval of thts report ts hereby ghen. We reco~nd that the following condition be satisfied before issuance of any County permits associated with this project: Uncompacted exploratory trench backft11 shall be addressed by the ProJect Geotechntcal Engtneer prtor to Issuance of project grading permits, It should be noted that County Geologtc Report No. 488 entttled "Fault Hazard and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 242t acres, Southwest of the Intersection of Ma[~:rita Road and State Highway 79, Rancho California, Riverside County, "dated February 3, 1988was previously prepared for this property. Your report now supercedes only the fault setback aspects of that report. Very truly yours, SAK: rd c.c. Crosby,- Head, Benton & Assoc. - Engineer CDMG- Earl Hart Bulldlng & Safety - Norm Lostbem (2) tm Jo nson Planntng Team 1, K h · INTIII-DIioAIITMBNTAL LITTIN COUNTY OF ReVERe;DE October 7, 1988 ]10: Greg lies1, PTann~ Depart·eel George hlterte, Chief Park Planner SLeJECT: TF 23267,23299 01d Vat1 Ranch, [ZR 281 The County Parks Department has reviewed the above referenced document and offers the following recommendations. Perks and Recreation Our department supports the extension of a regtonll open space/natural green belt along the Temecula Creek. This ]s consistent with other specific plans and davelolaent along thls creek. Our department w~11 require an offer of dedication of this am be made to the Parks Department on the final tract asps. (Regional Park *A*.) Begtonal Park 'B' is actually a local park and is located in a strategic position to serve as · comunlty park. it does not qualify as a re9 one1 park am due to its 11Sited stze; however, the htstor~c adobe contained wtthtn this area can be successfully preserved with a comuntty park setting and interpreted. 0verallo the parks contained vtthtn this development show s lack of large sports ftelds capab]e of accoenedattng organized sports activities and this my Ned to boexaatned. Coonunity and neighborhood perks should be developed to the satisfaction of the local county service area (CSA). ItecreatlonTralls legionel Part 'A' 81009 the Thescala Creek correctly 1dentilted the need for a rdmry equestrian tratt Is shove. The tretl location and development should As Indicated, on the attached exhibit No. 1., a Class I btc~clt lane needs to be provided for along the TeecuTs Creek. This should be developed to county standards and have connecting access to local street Class lZ bicycle lanes. lit. Grog lieel, Planning Deparment Page Z On the attached exhtbtt No. 1, provision for access to the Tee·calm Creek by a secondary rtdtng and htktng trot1 last be Incorporated tnto the project. Thts wtli utilize the proposed reinforced concrete box cu vert under State Htghvty 79 and praytale access to the tretls tn the creek for residents to the north of this project. Thts eccess/secondary era11 should be developed to · mintam vldth 12 feet and to count), standards. clearance. (See attached detatr.) C. lturol/Hlstortc Resources 'me proposed slta of the Old Vat1 Ranch project ts tn an extrare17 sensitive area for cultural resources. In the thorough cultural resources assesssent he prepared, arcbeeologtst Christopher Drover discusses the htstortc eve-story adobe Vatl Ranch House and i large Lutseno Indian ·rch,olo9tc·l site. l~e Parks Department' s Htstory Dtvtston commends Ranpac Engineering Corporation for tts sensitive consideration of these cultural resources tn the Elm. hie concur vtch the reposed mitigation measures of recovering arttracts from the archaeological sties and asking these avatTable to the public tn an interpretIre center, end preserving the Vali Ranch House through t rehabilitation and adapttve rouse. A 1 brary. comuntty center, stall museum or restaurant vould ·11 be approT;.iate uses for the house, is would be t con 1hoed residential use tf proper mintaimed. In addttton to the mitigation measures Benttoned In the £IR, the Parks Departsent requests full-tile lanltorlng b~ · qualified archaeoTogfst durin the gredtng process. Thts ts essential due to the extreme 11kellhoed o~ enknmm archneologtcal resources extsttng on the site. If any htstortc resources surface. Dtana Setder, Htstorl Dtvtslon DIrector, should be nottfted at (714)787-2551. Should ~ou have questions regarding parks, recreation, or trail Betters, plesse contact me or Hsrc Brewer of th~s depart·ant. 68110186 c: Paul Ranre, DIrector, Parks Department San Ford, Deput~ DIrector, Parks Department lisa hidere HtStor~ OtVlSion Director, Parks DepirbNnt ISirc Iremr, Assistant PTanner, Parks Department DA~E; hbzuaz7 29° 1988 BuildinS and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duds load Departmat liesigh - Ralph Lucha Firs Protection Timed Centrex District Fish & Gm LAYCOw S hislay U,S, Feats1 Service - guth E, Davidass qiVE:DEDE counc.u PLAnninG DEPARCrnEni. County Avtstfon C~mtss~oner Brasses RIVE.qSID:' Ca'*: :?~'Y pLANNI r4G D~'AR= :/, ~NT Rane. o Caltf, Mater Eastern Muntc4pgl Mater Southern Ca14f, Edtson Southem Caltf. Gas General TelepJone Dept, of Transportation 18 Temecula Eleu~ Elithere Union H4gh School Temecula Chamber of Comerce Mr. Palemr Slerra Club Valle~tde Parks VZSTZNG TRACT 23267 - (tm-1) - E.A. 32544 -TbotemAmricau Co:~, - Sancho Pacific - gauche CarLfonts Area - First Superviserim1 District - South of gllhvay 79 ann Vest of Xerlarlta goad - I-g Zone - SchnnuXe A - 193,7 acres into 596 - Concurrent Caeca CZ 5150, VTl 23299 Mad 120 - A.P, 926-160010 to 013; 926-016-002-003 County Parks please review the case described above, aXonl vith the attached case nap. ALerid Division Committee Met/uS has been tentatively scheduled for April 28, 1988. Zf it clears, it rill then Is to pub~4c hearing. Your comments and recoumendatiou are requested prior to April 14, 1988 in order that ve may include them in the staff report for tbla particular use. ShouXd you have any question regarding tht~ Itmm, please do not hesitate to costact Grel Meal It 787-1363 tXanaer CCtg~Dr~Ss Vesting Tract 23267.abouZdbe required to anna to an appropriate ngentTMhieh provides park and rerreatio~ services. Annexation rill mitigate impacre of in~reasnn pepsigrime to be marvel and fees (park development), lhalZ be used tO acquire and dmZop a park cite, print na-a a ai Y, snsler, Valley-Vide Recreation and pax Distric 4080 LEMON STREET. S~ FLOOR 46-20g OASIS STREET. ROOM 304 ~lVl:l~lfil: fi'il II~?~DMIA Q'~fll INfilfil f4. At Igf'~QMIA Q~9~il RIV u lu= UUUNTy LANNING DEPARTMENT October 13, 1961 Nr. Rtchard HecHott, 8ularvt81ng ~lenner Rtver81cle County Plenn4ng Department 40e0 LeStrat, Bth Floor Riveraide, CA 92601 SUBJECT: Veettng Tentative Tract NeD Number 23267 Dear Hr. 14e;Hott: The following 8~eeertzee our f4ndtng8 regarding the ftecel teeact 8n81yete for the pro3eGt identified above. The N~endtx ettachedeumBsrtzee the basic eeeum~tton8 ueed the analysts. Pleue note that these reeult8 reflect the current levels of.service provided by the County based on FleGal Year 1986 - 1987 actual coete (Der GapitS factore) end Departaentel and Auditor-Controller review of operations emd factllty coete for 8ervtcee reviewed uetng caee study inelyete. Staff to ~he erowth Fte¢81 ZB~eCt Teek Force end De~artaente are currently reviewing 8errice levele provided end the need te 1norease ~he 1eye18 of service. Current' ftndtng8 ere that extettne level8 of 8errice ere not ~ete in · oat ceeee. Should the deetred level of service be uttllzed tn the ftecel en81yet8 ~erformecl, tt would etgntftcantly tnoreeee the coats usoc4eted with this develolx~ent. (X]JNTY FUIQ (OIxrettonl end NItntenenGe) FZSCAL ZHPACT AFTER BUXLDOUT CUNULATXVE FZSCAL ZHPACT AT BUZLDOUT County General Fire Free Ltbrary (S89,811) (110,360) ($329) (118,428) (120,720) (Sees) SUBTOTALCOUIITY ($80,200) ($38,804) Iixed Fund 88,230 S12,480 ($73,790) (824,344) 4011lZMIBlII11BT · IZ/HR.fX31 · IINBUI~CALBq3MAg~OI · C/IQ~I'/4M4 The following 8pacts1 ctrcumet-ances apply t~ t. hie project-: I. The develolxr assumpt~tons 4 ncl uded · factor of 2.1 person8 per dwelling unit. CAO 8t-elf ut-tltzed 8 factor of 2.69 per·one per household, which ~8 closer to the countywide average for t-ht8 t-ype of unit. Z. CAO stiff hie revtewed 11brary coet-e wtt-h Llbrary personnel and tncorporat,ed act-us1 operations and Betntenance ceeta tn~o the analysts. Using Ltbrery at. all eet~tBate8 of the coat8 of providing t-he current level of 8errtee, considering t-he tncreaee tn populat-ion, thts project should result- in one-tim c·pttal fectlity coet~8 of $7g,263 (11brary apace, volumes) and ongotng ensue1 operatetone and Ba~nt-enance costs of 814,694. Ltbrery et-aff ha8 Indicated that the currant level of service ~8 not edequat~e. 3. Flood Cont~rol staff hem indicated t~hat flood cont~rol facJlttje8 constructed within Zone 7 are unltkely th be 8ufftc~ent. ly funded for maintenance costs. Current eat~matea tndicats that fundtrig shortages should occur for the next ten years. Suggested mitigation measure8 include 8 cash deposit by the pro3oct~ dev®loper or use of an suesam·st- mechanism. The amount- of depoett~ would be {let·mined by · praent value analyst8 end proJectz t~tmtng. The cost of maintaining flood control facilities wtll not- be known unt,Jl fine1 deltgn philel, when fectl~t~y needs have been fully Identified. Flood Control 8tell wt11, therefore, condtt-fon project- 8pprov818 to tdent-ify · means of financing fsctltt-y saint-chance and 'oDerat,ion necessary) prtor te racordet~ton of subdivisions. bed on the analysts and 888umtng thlt- t-he average 8else prtce of tthe unite wtll be 1142,658, overall Tentative Tract 23287 w~il have · nagarty· f~sc·l tmpact buildouter 924,344. After buildout, tht8 pro~iect- will have an annual negateire fiscal ~pect- t-o t-he Country of 8?3,970 current layell of 8ervtce. Zntttal Revte. By: Review ADDroved By: · . ~ ~ ~.~ ....~ ....; ..: ;~ .~ ..~ ~:I .~ ---... ....~..- ' .'~ ~ ~..~ _., .....: --, ~ ~': -.., ,,=,,~,~t}....i~i i ATTACHMENTIll ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Change of Zone No. 5150 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 which supersedes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 has 87 fewer residential units than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will involve minimal grading and therefore, is unlikely that any additional amount of earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential impacts regarding drainage and non- renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to Section 15160, of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendum has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Change of Zone and New Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Revised Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts. By reducing the number of residential units, the new project will reduce the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services. A: \VTM23267 30 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ CASE xo.x~,;~'~ ) //r,,-.f VICINITY MAP P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) '~'~ sP/ zc , ,/' SP ZC '\ ~-2 ('Z ,~/#./,~r-2 ZONE MAP ) P.C. DATE ~,_/~_~/I . CITY OF TEMECULA ~ /. THE MEADOWS S 219 .- ~ VA HAWI, SWAP MAP c,,,. .o.""" ~,~, P.C. DATE; t ( U ITEM Case No,: Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1991 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 Prepared By: Richard Ayala ADOPT the addendum to EIR No. 281 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Presley of San Diego Crosby Mead Benton ~, Associates Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 Proposes a lu,2 unit single family detached condominium development on approximately lu,.68 acres. South side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. R-R ( Rural Residential ) North: R -A-5 South: A-1-10 East: SP West: R - R ( ResidentialAgricultural, 5 Acre Minimum) (Light Agricultural, 10 Acre Minimum) (Specific Plan 217, Red Hawk ) ( Rural Residential ) R-3 ( General Residential ) R-u, (Planned Residential) R-5 (Open Area Combinin9 Zone, Residential Developments) lu,.68 acres 189 acres 57.8 acres Vacant/GradedLand A: VTM26861 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: North: South: East: West: Low Density Single Family Existing Sod Farm Vacant/Single Family Tract Under Construction Vacant Multi-Family Total Units: 145 Total Acres: 1~,.68 Density: 9.7 DU/AC Common Recreation Open Space: 26,500sq.ft. (0.6 acres ) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 was presented before the Planning Commission on March 18, 1991 and was continued in order for Staff to come with an agreement with the applicant regarding the common recreation open space area; and also for the city attorney to interpret the minimum 1,000 sq.ft. ground floor living area requirement in Ordinance No. 348. Since then, both Planning Staff and the applicant have been in direct contact and have come to an acceptable agreement relating to the recreation area. The applicant has agreed to incorporate units 124, 14Li, and 145 into the recreation area design thus increasing the recreation area to 26,500 sq.ft., {190 square sq.ft. per unit) which Staff feels is acceptable for this type of development. The subject property was originally a portion of the Old Vail Ranch. It is located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads. The original application, Change of Zone No. 5150 was a request to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land from R-R (Rural Residential ), and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone). This zone change was approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on October 20, 1988. However, due to an oversight by the County, the zone change was never given a second reading and, therefore, was never officially adopted. The applicant submitted a new application, Change of Zone No. 5, to the City of Temecula Planning Department on September 24, 1990. A: VTM26861 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 was submitted to the City of Temecula on December 21, 1990. On January 17, 1991, this project was reviewed by the Preliminary Development Review Committee (Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project and address any concerns, as well as suggesting possible modifications. The comments by the Pre-DRC included the following: Open Space ( Common ) Setback (Side Yard) Traffic Impacts Access/Circulation Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss possible design modifications in order to address the Pre-DRC~s concerns. On March 7, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 was reviewed at a Formal Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting; and, it was determined that Vesting Tentative Tract No. 26861 did not meet code requirements or Staff's concerns regarding useable common open space. This tract proposes 1~,2 single family detached condominium units on approximately 1~,.68 acres of proposed R-3 zoned land. The development is also proposing approximately 26,500 square feet (0.6 acres) of common recreational area composed of a swimming pool, wading pool, spa, cabana and a general use open space area with picnic benches and a tot lot. Access to the development is being provided from "A" Street and the proposed road adjacent to the creek. (See VTM 26861 Site Plan. ) The applicant is proposing to develop 1~,2 single family detached condominium units on approximately 1~,.68 acres of proposed R-3 zoned land along with a 26,500 square foot (0.6 acres) recreational area. The project is situated along Highway 79 and is east of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. Access to the project is being provided by "A" Street and Via Rio Temecula along the Temecula Creek as shown on the site plan. A: VTM26861 3 The design as submitted and reviewed by Planning Staff represents a PR D ( Planned Residential Development) design. However, the project as submitted does not conform with the PRD Standards as required in an R-3 zone in that the ground floor living area of the proposed product types do not meet the minimum 1,000 square foot standard. Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission recommend an official waiver for the required minimum ground floor area. (See attachment IV for waiver request.) In addition, although the project contains the required ~,0% open space, the majority of the open space is located within the private rear yards of the units and only contains approximately 300 to 600 square feet of useable area. The proposed common open space within the project is approximately 5% of the site and is approximately 190 square feet per unit. Since there are currently no specific design criteria regarding open space requirement for R-3 projects or PRD~s, the Planning Staff cannot address what portion of the required ~,0% open space should be useable common open space, but it is Staff~s determination that the common open space provided is not sufficient. The applicant has made a strong effort to meet Planning Staff~s recommendation for common recreation open space and is proposing approximately 26,500 sq.ft. of recreation area. By deleting three additional units ( 12u,, lq~, 1~5). The project as submitted does not conform to City adopted Ordinance No. 3~,8 in regard to a smaller lot single family project, thus, not conforming to R-2 Single Family Restricted nor R-~, zones due to the density, lack of adequate street frontages, and rear yards. In Staff~s opinion, the proposed project does not provide acceptable useable recreation open space to compensate for the proposed density with the proposed design concept of single family detached units. The project as proposed consists of a 20~ minimum front setback and an 8~ minimum distance between dwelling units. In addition, private rear yard open spaces are being proposed with a minimum 10' setback and range between 300 to 600 square feet of useable area, thus, not conforming to R-2 and A: VTM26861 ~ GENERAL PLAN/SWAP CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY: development standards. However, the applicant is compensating the small private rear yard open spaces with additional recreation area in order to provide additional Common open space area for its future residents. Planning Staff recommends that multiple family projects and PRD's provide a minimum of 200 square feet per unit or 1096 of the net area as common open space within the project. This recommendation would require the project to provide a 30,000 square feet to one acre site designated as common open space recreational area. The applicant is proposing approximately 26,500 sq.ft., thus, increasing the recreation area by 10,978 sq.ft. from the original proposal. The proposed development's access which has been determined to be acceptable to the Engineering Department. The project is proposed to be completely gated with 33' private streets and 5j sidewalks on only one side of the street. The project also provides a 26,500 sq.ft. (0.6 acres) recreational area which is centrally located. In conclusion, although Planning Staff has determined that the project does not conform with ordinance 3~,8, the applicant has made a strong effort to compensate the Ordinance 3L~8 deficiencies by providing an acceptable common recreation open space area. In addition, Planning Staff believes that the proposed development will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 alone is inconsistent with the SWAP. However, combined with Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, they are consistent with the SWAP, in that they propose a density of 3.7 DU/AC, well within the designated density of 2-5 DU/AC required by the SWAP. Planning Staff believes that there is a probability that the project as developed and zoned will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density acts as an A: VTM26861 5 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: adequate buffer to adjacent residential and commercial areas. Environmental Impact Report No. 281 was completed on the subject property for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299, the originally approved County tract map. The report indicated a number of mitigation measures that must be implemented in order to reduce the impact of the project below a level of significance. These mitigation measures included a new t-lane bridge on Pala Road over Temecula Creek, the channelization of Temecula Creek, and several other significant measures that have not currently been implemented. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends that an addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 281 be adopted. A copy of which is attached. There is a reasonable probability that the proposed R-3 portion of the project will be consistent with the future general plan. Furthermore, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. The overall density for the entire 221 acres is 3.7 units per acre which conforms to the SWAP designation of 2-5. The proposed project does not conform with Ordinance No. 3~,8 development standards for Planned Residential Developments (PRD) due to the fact that the proposed development is proposing less than 1,000 square feet of ground floor living area which is required. Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission recommend an official waiver for the required minimum ground floor area. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. The proposed project is physically suitable in design for the roposed density due to the fact that only 5~of the site net area is being designated as common recreation area for a project with a density of 9.7 DU/AC. A: VTM26861 6 10. 11. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pala Road and Highway 79, and two (2) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed design includes sufficient common open space and may therefore be consistent with the future General Plan. It , is likely that the proposed vesting tentative map will not constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan, if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, in that it may set a precedence for required common open space that may not be detrimental to the Parks and Recreational elements of the General Plan. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. A: VTM26861 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the addendum to EIR No. 281 for Tentative Tract Map No. 26861; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861. RA:ks Attachments: 1. 2. Resolution IVTM No. 26861 ) Conditions of Approval {VTM No. 26861) Addendure to EIR No. 281 Waiver Request Exhibits A. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 {Site Plan) B. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26863 {Elevations and Floor Plans) A: VTM26861 8 ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26861 TO DEVELOP A 1~,.68 ACRE PARCEL INTO 142 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATEDALONGTHE SOUTHSIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA AND MARGARITA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-016-025. WHEREAS, Presley of San Diego filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map on April 1, 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 said Vesting Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findin,qs. That theTemecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ~2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A: VTM26861 9 There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. {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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and is consistent with the SWAP and meat 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 recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: There is reasonable probability that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 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. A: VTM26861 10 Ic) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. I1 ) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. u,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 wildllfe 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. g) 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 the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: A: VTM26861 11 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) There is a reasonable probability that the proposed R-3 portion of the project will be consistent with the future general plan. Furthermore, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. The overall density for the entire 221 acres is 3,7 units per acre which conforms to the SWAP designation of 2-5. The proposed project does not conform with Ordinance No. 3u,8 development standards for Planned Residential Developments (PRD) due to the fact that the proposed development is proposing less than 1,000 square feat of ground floor living area which is required. Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission recommend an official waiver for the required minimum ground floor area. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. The proposed project is physically suitable in design for the proposed density due to the fact that only 596 of the site net area is being designated as common recreation area for a project with a density of 9.7 DU/AC. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pala Road and Highway 79, and two {2) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed design includes sufficient common open space and may therefore be consistent with the future General Plan. It is likely that the proposed vesting tentative map will not constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan, if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, in that it may set a precedence for required common open space A: VTM26861 12 that may not be detrimental to the Parks and Recreational elements of the General Plan. h) The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. i) The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. j) The lawful conditions stated in the projectis Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. k) These 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. An addendum to EIR No. 281 is hereby recommended for adoption. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 for the development of a lu,.68 acre parcel into 145 single family detached condominium units located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads and known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 926-016-025 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment II, attached hereto. A: VTM26861 13 SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 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 1st day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: VTM26861 1 q- ATTACHMENT I I CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 Project Description: Development of 1~,5 sinqle family condominium units on apl~roximately 1~,.68 acres of land situated south of Hiqhway 79 between Pala Road and Mar.qarlta Road. Assessor~s Parcel No.: 926-016-025 Plannlnq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. This condltionally approved vesting tentative tract map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~60. The expiration date is Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. A: VTM26861 15 10. 11. 12. 13. Prior to the recordat/on of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5 shall be approved by the City Council and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance along Highway 79, the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the district. A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Open Space/Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department~s transmittal dated January 2~, 1991, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department~s letter dated March 7, 1991, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. 1~,. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: 15. 16. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-3 {General Residential) zone. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. A: VTM26861 16 Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Highway 79, "A" Street, and Via Rio Temecula. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. A: VTM26861 17 17. 18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developeris successoris- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to L~5 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivisionis approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant I Class A ) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. A: VTM26861 18 19. 20. 21. 22. g. 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: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of 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 recordation of a final map, 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. u,60. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. A: VTM26861 19 23. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 660,62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wlred in the residence. 25. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 26° The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR~s) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC~;R~s shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, all buildings in common open areas, and all interior slopes. 27. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner~s group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CCF, R~s which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CCF, R~s shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 28. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. A: VTM26861 20 29° Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CCF, R~s. 30. Within forty-eight (0,8) hours of the approval of this 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 Eight Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($875.00) which includes the Eight Hundred, Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.0,(d)(3) 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 10, Cal. Code of Regulations 15090,. If within such forty-eight (0,8) 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 Game Code Section 711 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. 31. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 32. 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. 0,60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 33. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality; 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; CalTrans; and Parks and Recreation Department. A: VTM26861 21 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. q. 1. q.2. q.3. 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. B, C, D, E, F, and G Streets shall be private streets and shall be improved with 33 feet of asphalt concrete pavement including rolled curb, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, 5 foot utility easements shall be dedicated running parallel on both sides of street. A 5 foot sidewalk shall be constructed on one side minimum of all private streets. Dedication shall be made or shown to exist to provide for a 71 foot half street right-of-way for State Highway Route 79 (lu,2~ right-d-way). Construct half street improvements within a q~, foot dedicated right-of-way Street "A" from State Highway Route 79 to Phase One and along the frontage of Phase One. in accordance with County Standard No. 102 In the event that State Highway 79 is not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for Phase One, the developer shall design and construct a deceleretion lane west of Street "A" and an acceleration lane east of Street "A", per CalTrans standards. State Highway 79 improvements shall be bonded for prior to Final Map. "A" Street access shall be limited to right turning movements in and right turning movements out only. There shall be no left turns permitted and no provision for such movements shall be provided for on Highway 79 South. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Highway 79 and so noted on the final map with the exception of approved public road connections as approved by the City Engineer. Dedicate a 38 foot minimum easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access for all private streets and drives. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. 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 CCSR~s shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCF, R~s shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The A: VTM26861 22 CCF, R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCSR~s shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense. The CC~,R~s shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning. City Engineer and the City Attorney. and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The 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. The CCF, R~s shall provide for the effective establishment, operation. management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. The CCF, R's shall provide that the property shall be developed. operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CCSR~s shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC~,R's, then the City. after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CCF, R~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots. ii. All parkways. open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by homeowner~s association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building permits. iii. 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 CCF, R~s or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. The developer, or the developer~s successor, shall execute a current Public Facilities Agreement with the City of Temecuta which provides for the payment of the sum of money per residential unit then established by Resolution of the City Council. prior to the issuance of any building permits for any individual lots. A: VTM26861 23 0,.7. q.8. q.9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed 9uaranteein9 the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and 9utter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping. d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 0,61 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic 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. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering Department. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. Im.p.rovement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a m~mmum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. A: VTM26861 2~ 56. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 20," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 57. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 58. 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. 59° A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 60. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainege easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 61. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrolegic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. 62. The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 0,60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering Department. 63. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the Cityis 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: 65. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. A: VTM26861 25 66. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-d-way: State Hiqhway 79 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 67° 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 68. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 69. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 70. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than lq days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 90, of the State Standard Specifications. 71. 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 affect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Department of Buildin.q and Safety 72. Submit approved Tentative Tract Map to the Department of Building and Safety for addressing and street name review. School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District prior to permit issuance, Lighting on site pool area and recreation area shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance #655. A: VTM26861 26 75. Submit pool plans to Riverside County Health Department for review prior to structural plan review by the Department of Building and Safety. 76. Pool excavation area shall be fenced immediately the same day as excavation is complete. All plumbing trenches shall be fenced. 77. Obtain clearances from Land Use and from Building and Safety Departments. 78. Provide a geological report at time of submittal for plan Feview. A: VTM26861 27 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIg. CALIFORNIA 92370 ~ c- (714) 657-3183 GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF I't6,P, CH 7, 1991 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING/RICHARD AYALA RE: TRACT 26861 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule A fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2i") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Appliaant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a cash sum of $400.00 per unit as mitigations for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. Parking will be allowed only on one side of private streets, PLANNING DIVISION ~ TEMECULA OF'FICE 41Otx2 C~u,r) Can,. Drive, ~i{e 225. T~uLm. CA TRACT 26861 PAGE 2 Blue-dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrants. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner -/~, By Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist LC/tm Attn; Richarc Ava. la January 34. 1991 This certification does not constitute a ouaFantee that it will SUPPLY water to such tract mam at any smeciflc ~uantlties. flows or oressures for fire protection or any other ourmoss" This certification shall be ~ioned by a responsible official of the water C,DmD~nV. The plans m~st be submltte~.~O TheCq~zq~y ~qryeyQr_ ~Offlce t0review ~t This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District aoreeln~ to serve domestlc water to each every lot ~n the subdivision on demand Drovldino satisfactory financial arranoements are completed with the subdivider, It will be nece=.sarY for financial arranoements to be made prior to the recordatlon of the final map, and This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the DIstrict, The sewer system shall be installed accordlno to plans and specifications as aDDroved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department, Permanent prints of the mlans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, alonq with the orlqlnal drawlno, to the County Surveyor, The prints shall show the internal Dime 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 exlstlnu system, A slnole plat indlcatlnO locatlon of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and ~rofiles, The plans shall be si0ned bY a reqlstered enqlneer and the sewer district with the followln~ certification: "I certify that the deslon of the sewer system in Tract MaD 23299 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water Distr~ct and that the waste dlsDosal system is adequate at thls time to treat the anticxDated wastes from the proposed tract maD," ATTACHMENTIll ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Change of Zone No. 5150 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 which supersedes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 has 87 fewer residential units than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will involve minimal grading and therefore, is unlikely that any additional amount of earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential impacts regarding drainage and non- renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to Section 1516u, of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendure has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Change of Zone and New Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Revised Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts. By reducing the number of residential units, the new project will reduce the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services. A: VTM26861 28 Marzh 9, L991 ~r. Steve Jxannino. £ey, ior City of TamecueS 13i72 Buelnces Park Drive Tem~cula CA 92390 Dear ~r. Jiacn!no: z am pleased Che plannir~a a=af[ sees a place in Che commur~icy for this type of PaD mnd recognizes the need for more explicl~ development ,tendares £or these tTpes el projects. Ic i8 apparent co m~ the 1o000 w¶uere foot minimum around floor ares requirement ~o~ mention in 7our lutt~r detud Hatch 6, 1991 iB tean~ for 8Ul~i- family boildlnes. as thl~ section (18.5~3]) el ordinance 3~8 IQes ~n ta lay "eeuh dwellinS unlc ir~ a builair, 8 shall have the minimum floor ilvin8 eree resulted by seCtiOn 19.11 o~ this urdinsrace." In eectio~ 18.11 i~ states: "NO dwellia~ shall be constructed unless iZ ha= a mi:sLmum floor buildin2 area ot non Less than 750 square ~eet. However, if i: is your opinion lhat an off~cial waiver is a~ill re,sired ~o eRarove t~is project, I would ]~ke to respectfully request Lhac waiver a~ this Came, Once s~eln, ~hSnk you for yOdr con[insane e~orts in the review o[ Sincerely. SAN OI~CO JJ Raym, A. Cese.~ Project Nanager RAG/IW cc: Jerry Nordeman. Preeley o! Sen Dielo Gaey ~hornhill~ Planninl D~recLor Richard Ayala, Case Planner CITY OF TEMECULA ~ r CASE NO. VICINITY MAP ) P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ e-, / / SP ZC SP ZONE CITY OF TEMECULA ) F THE MEADOWS VA Z HAWh SP SWAP MAP EXHIBIT D- / L:XHIBff ~ ' ~-- ITEM 15 Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1991 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981 Prepared By: Richard Ayala 1. ADOPT Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981; 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: William Kouvelis Benesh Engineering Subdivide 3.01 acres into three (3) residential lots. South of Pauba Road and east of Showalter Road. R-R (Rural-Residential) The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 3.01 acre parcel situated south of Pauba Road and east of Showalter Road into three {3) parcels as follows: Parcel 1: 1.00 gross acres Parcel 2: 1.00 gross acres { existing Residence) Parcel 3: 1.01 gross acres BACKGROUND: On March L~, 1991, the Planning Commission considered the applicant~s proposal; and, continued this item in order to allow the Planning Department Staff the opportunity to address the Commissionis concerns regarding access, grading and road improvements for Pauba and Showalter Roads. STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 1 ANALYSIS: In response to the comments expressed by the Commission, the Planning Department has reviewed the following: Access Access to the new lots will be provided from Showalter Road and a new cul-de-sac to the south of the site lsee Site Plan). The existing residence {Parcel 2) will continue to have access from Pauba Street. Grading The proposed project will alter the existing natural terrain with the construction of manufactured slopes at 2:1, in order to create useable building pads ranging from 11,000 to 13,000 square feet. The proposed grading involves the following earthwork: Cut Fill Parcel 1 1,500 c.y. -0- c.y. Parcel 2 3.000 c.y. 4,500 c.y. Parcel 3 7.000 c.y. 7.000 c.y. TOTAL 11,500 c.y. 11,500 c.y. Road Improvements The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has determined that the following improvements are necessary: Pauba Road shall be improved with 32' of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted. Showalter Road shall be improved with 181 of half street improvement plus one 12* lane within a 60~ dedicated right-of-way. A cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the terminus of Showalter Road with a 38~ radius to curb face. Road improvements will be installed per the following schedule: STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 2 Prior to final inspection for occupancy of Parcel 1, all improvements shall be constructed and approved by the City Engineer along Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 frontage. Prior to final inspection for occupancy of Parcel 3, all improvements shall be constructed and approved by the City Engineer for Showalter Road along Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 frontage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981. RA:ks Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution Conditions of Approval Environmental Assessment Planning Commission Staff Report {dated March u,, 1991 ) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes { dated March 4, 1991 ) STAFFRPT\PM25981 oA 3 ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25981 TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.01 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD AND EAST OF SHOWALTER ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO 9~,5-070-00~,. WHEREAS, William Kouvelis Filed Parcel Map No. 25981 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on 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 said Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTIO_.~.N 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\PM25981 -A ~, 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. 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, {herelnafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. |2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the fol Iowi ng: a) There is reasonable probability that Parcel Map No. 25981 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. STAFF R PT\PM25981 -A 5 c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. ~1) Pursuant to Section 6.5, no parcel map may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any Parcel Map approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. (2) ThePlanningCommission, inapprovingtheproposed parcel map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding current residential develop- ment, the Southwest Area Plan and existing zoning. c) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. d) The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. q60, Schedule H. e) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and appropriate building area. STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 6 f) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the initial study. g) The design of the subdivision is consistent with the 5tare Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. h) All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Pauba Road and Showalter Road. i) The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. j) The lawful conditions stated in the projectis Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. k) 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 Parcel Map proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant affect 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. STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 7 SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Parcel Map No. 25981 for the subdivision of a 3.01 acre parcel into three parcels located South of Pauba Road and East of Showalter Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-070-001& subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment II, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 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 1st day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 8 ATTACHMENT I I CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No: 25981 Project Description: Subdivide 3.01 Acres into three residential parcels. Assessor~s Parcel No.: 90,5-070-000, Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~,60, Schedule H, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance q60. The expiration date is Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical height of thirty (30) feet. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted tothe City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. STAFF R PT\PM25981 -A 9 10o The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Departmentis transmittal dated March 19, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated April 0,, 1990, a copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance 0,60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Departmentis letter dated January 29, 1991, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. 11. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: 12. 13. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-R I Rural Residential) zone. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the followin9 conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successoris- 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 STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 10 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. development. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivisionis approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant ~ Class A) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. 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 defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmlees the City of Temecula. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. Prior to recordat/on of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of issuance of a building permit. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 11 20. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permits, the developer or his successor~s interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program to the Planning Department for approval, which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. 21. Within forty-eight (~8) 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 .u,(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 lu, Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (~8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted hereln shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code, Section 711 .q.(c). Engineerlnq 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. 22. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 23. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. u,60. PRIOR TO RECORDAT/ON OF THE FINAL MAP: As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. STAFF R PT\PM25981 -A 12 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 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. Sufficient right-d-way along Pauba Road shall be confirmed to exist or conveyed for public use to provide for a public street for public use to provide for a ~,~, foot half width right-d-way. Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right- of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 102 Showalter Road shall be improved with 18 feet of half street improvement plus one 12-foot lane with a 60 foot dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A {60'/36'). A cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the terminus of Showalter Road with a 38 foot radius to curb face in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 800. In the event road or off-site right-d-way or easements for grading are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer~s cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66zi62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 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. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: A.C. paving, curb and gutter, signing, sidewalks, drive approaches, and drainage structures. 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. STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 13 35. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 36. The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u,'' x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 37. The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 38. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 39. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the Cityis 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: Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineeris Office. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate 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: Prior to first building permit for any parcel, Pauba Road shall be graded to a 296 slope from existing right-d-way to edge of existing pavement. Existing City road shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate traffic control as approved by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A lu, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: Construct street improvements including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, drainage facilities, parkway trees and street lights per the following schedule: Prior to final inspection for occupancy of Parcel 1, all improvements shall be constructed and approved by the City Engineer along Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 frontage. Prior to final inspection for occupancy of Parcel 3, all improvements shall be constructed and approved by the City Engineer for Showalter Road along Parcel I and Parcel 3 frontage. Asphaltic emulsion (fag seal) shall be applied not less than 10, days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39 and 9L~ of the State standard specifications. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EiR/Nagative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (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: A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Showalter Road and shall be included on the street improvement plans. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 50. 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. STAFF R PT\PM25981 -A 15 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 51. All signing shall be installed per the approved signing plan. Buildinq and Safety Department 52. Submit approved parcel map to Building and Safety for addressing. Provide a waterway reserved easement on Parcel 3 for natural water flow from Parcels 1 and 2, along with storm drain easements for vacant Parcel No. 90,5- 070-001. Temecula Community Services District Subdivisions containing less than five (5) parcels will be subject to the following conditions: Upon the request of a building permit for construction of residential structures on one or more of the parcels within four years following approval of a tentative map, parcel map, or planned development, real estate development, stock cooperative, community apartment project and condominlum for which a tentative map or parcel map is filed, a predetermined Quimby Act fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of required acreage ( Plus 2096 for offsite improvements) shall be paid by the owner of each such parcells ) as a condition to the issuance of such permit as authorized by Riverside County Ordinance No. 0,60 as amended through Ordinance No. 0,60.93. STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 16 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46.209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (6X9) 342-8886 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION · GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF January 29, 1991 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE. CA 9250! (714) 275-4777 TO: ATTN: RE: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT PARCEL MAP 25981 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "H" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2t") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 660 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 330 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI; Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist COUNTY ENVIR0~ DATE: :IVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF Hr~LTH ,NTAL HEALTH SERVICES DIV,.~DN 3838 UNIVERSITY AVENUE RIVERSIDE, CA 92503 PARCEL SCHEDULE ~ PARENT P,M, (IF ANY)' _,- WAIVER REQUEST?~/0 THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAS REVIEWED THE MAP DESCRIBED ABOVE, ARE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS TRANSMITTAL, RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: AREA ORD. 480 IF THERE CONTACT (714) 787-8543, OUR The Environmental Health Services Division (EHSD) has reviewed the above Parcel Map and while we are not privileeed to receive any preliminary information relative to subsurface sewage disposal or connection to sewers or domestic water supply. it is our considered opinion that the soils that might be encountered in this area may not be conducive to effective subsurface sewage disposal systems and because of soil characteristics in the area. there may be a requirement for extensive qradinQ. compaction. cutting, etc. Prior to recordation of the final map. an acceptable soils feasibility report shall be submitted for review and approval by the Environmental Health Services Division. When eradine is required. the soils enelneer must assume theoretical cuts. fills. compaction. etc. and perform time tests and borinqs at the necessary subsurface sewage disposal system depths. the soils engineer must provide a eradang plan for review and approval. which shall include and address the foliowine: subsurface sewage disposal system. The sewace system and it's 100% expansion area. placed in natural undisturbed soil. R2. PL *AR~//~Sloe COUNTy reference to the elevation of the disposal system. GOEPART&fEN The elevation of the individual bu~ldine pads in On those pro.iects where the eradine plans are prepared by other than the person preparing the soils feasibility report, a statement must be included on the grading plan submitted soils engineer's signature and seal as grading with regard to the conclusions soils engineer's estimate by more than required. A copy of the final eradine plan, FOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH for review and approval with the to the appropriateness of the and recommendations set forth in the two feet. additional reports may be on a scale not smaller than 1"=40' maximum with detailed subsurface sewage dlsposal data to include 100% expansion, shall be submitted for review and approval. (SIGNATURE) ~/7/~'/// (T~TLE) DOH SAN 117 (REV. 0i/90) KENNETH L. lEDWARDS )995 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 1033 TELEPHONE (714) 787-20te FAX NO. (714) 788'996E RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 Riverside County P] arming Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. I Re: PM 2~IB [ P1 a..er Area: We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: V//' Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions property the project is considered free from ordina~ storm However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. of the flood hazard. New construc- The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the/v(H,r;J, Creek~Fp_a~ec~(^ ~l(e p~bP Area .drainage plan fees shall be paid in accor nce with the Xp cable r~les and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of . The project will be free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. cc: ~ene~ ~J. rry ~ul~ ~O~H. KASNUBA ;enior Civil Engineer DATE: /<F' ATTACHMENT III CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: William Kouvelis Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 30675 Pauba Road Temecula, California 92390 (71~) 676-2502 Date of Environmental Assessment: January 10, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981 6. Location of Proposal: South ofPauba Road and east of Showalter. 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 X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\PM25981-A 17 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, mudslldes, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X STAFF R PT\PM25981 -A 18 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 STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 19 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances {including, but not limited to, oil, pesticicles, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X STA F F R PT\PM25981 -A 20 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, tall 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 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __ X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X STAFF R PT\PM25981 -A 21 17. 18. 19. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 22 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe No X X X X STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 23 Ill Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation EARTH 1.3, No. The project site will be substantially graded , which will include approximately 11,500 cubic yards of excavation and 15,000 cubic yards of fill. However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the project was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to grading. Therefore, the proposed project will not create an unstable earth condition or change in the geologic substructure. 1.b. 1.C. 1 .d,f,g. 1.6. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, compaction, and over-covering. Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are required. Yes. The project site is located within a fairly prominent natural hillside of Temecula. However, the grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross natural topography of the site in its original condition, as well as the building pad designs of the surrounding properties. While substantial grading and recontouring of this site, which includes 11,500 c.y. of excavation and 15,000 c.y. of fill, will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of site topography. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant. No. The proposed project will not create any significant impacts regarding geelogic features or conditions. No evidence of faulting was found and indications of mass movement or major landsliding have not been observed or reported on the site, nor will the proposed project expose people to any geologic hazards. Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted and the proposed drainage facilities are constructed. The wind erosion impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through the use of watering trucks and erosion control planting of disturbed areas after grading. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temeculaas standards and the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant, due to the fact that appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A AIR No. The proposed project will not result in any substantial changes in air quality or movement. WATER 3.a,c,i. No. The proposed project will not have a substantial impact on any water courses or supplies and the project lies outside of all 100 year flood zones. Furthermore, the project will be free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approval plans. 3.b. Maybe. The proposed project will slightly increase the impermeable surface area. Thus, possibly allowing for changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff on the subject site. However, the amount of runoff water will not be significant and will receive subsequent review. PLANT LIFE Yes. The proposed project involves grading the subject site which will eliminate all of the existing native plants; and the proposal includes landscaping and erosion control which will be designed to City standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified on-site. No. No agricultural production occurred on-site. ANIMAL LIFE 5,a-c. No. Presently, the proposed project site is vacant and native animal species have been displaced. Thus, no substantial impacts will be imposed on any animal life. However, the subject site is in an area shown as Stephenis Kangaroo Rat Habitat, thus, the project will be subject to the appropriate mitigation fees to be used toward implementing Riverside Countyis Habitat Conservation Plan. NOISE No. The proposed project will not have significant impact on noise nor expose people to severe noise levels, STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 25 LIGHT AND GLARE No. Only two additional residential homes will be proposed on the subject site. LAND USE No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the area. NATURAL RESOURCES 9.a,b. No. The proposal will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewable natural resource. RISK OF UPSET 10.a,b. No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. 10.b. Maybe. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. However, in any event, if street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City and Police Department. POPULATION 11. No. The proposal will not alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population in the area. HOUSING 12. No. The proposal will not affect existing housing or create additional demand. Due to the fact that only two additional residential homes will be proposed. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 13.a-f. No. Proper transportation facilities are provided for, to the site. PUBLIC SERVICES Yes. The project adds to the cumulative impacts on City Facilities and Resources. Mitigation will be achieved by paymentof appropriate fees. l~,.f. Maybe. See l~,a-e. STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 26 ENERGY 15,a,b. No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy or increase demand of existing sources of energy. UTILITIES 16.a-c, e,f No. No major utility extensions will be required 16.d. Yes. Septic tanks will be proposed for the project in the future. Septic disposal must be approved by the Riverside County Health Department. Soil percolation test must be completed and shown as adequate prior to recordation. HUMAN HEALTH 17.a,b. No. No Health hazards were apparent or proposed on site. A EST H ET I CS 18. No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic view open to the public. However, emphasis should be placed on the development of proposed future residences in relationship to the surrounding area. RECREATION 19. No. The subject site is not used for recreational uses. CULTURALRESOURCES 20.a-d. No. The proposal will not result in adverse effects to historic structures, cultural values, or restrict religious or sacred uses in the area. However, if any cultural resource are encountered as a result of grading, a qualified paleontologist or archaeologist must be on site. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 21 .a. Maybe. The proposed project may have a significant impact on plant or wildlife species. However, the project is located within an area designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees for the Stephence Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. I n addition, during grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present. 21 .b. Maybe, The proposed project may have the potential to achieve short- term,to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed. STAFF R PT\PM25981 -A 27 21 .c. 21 .d. Maybe. The project does have individually limited impacts, however, if these impacts are cumulatively considered, they do not have a significant impact on the overall environment. No. This project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. All regulations and standards will be imposed and maintained on the project so that adverse effects are minimized or eliminated. STAFF R PT\PM25981 -A 28 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 Fequlred. January 10, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA X STAFFRPT\PM25981 -A 29 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March ~,, 1990 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: 1. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: P R O POSA L: IZOCATION: ' EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: ADOPT Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. William Kouvelis Benesh Engineering Subdivide 3.01 acres into three (3) residential lots South of Pauba Road and east of Showalter Road R-R { Rural-Residential ) North: R - R | Rural Residential ) South: R-R ( Rural Residential ) East: R-R ( Rural Residential ) West: R-R ( Rural Residential ) Not requested Single Family Residential North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Single Family Residence No. of Acres: Proposed Lot Sizes: 3.01 Parcel 1: Parcel 2: Parcel 3: 1.00 Gross Acre 1.00 Gross Acre 1.01 Gross Acre STAFFRPT\PM25981 1 BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: The application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981 was originally submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on March 13, 1990. It has been through the LDC (Land Development Committee) process in the County and, upon transfer to the City, has gone through a Pre-Development Review and a Formal Review process. A biological study was requested and indicated that the proposed development will have no significant effect upon the subject site. However, the site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and will be subject to mitigation fees. An archaeological assessment was also requested and indicated that no cultural resource constraints exist on the subject site. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 3.01 acre parcel situated south of Pauba Road and east of Showalter Road into three (3) parcels as follows: Parcel 1: 1.00 gross acres Parcel 2: 1.00 gross acres Residence) Parcel 3: 1.01 gross acres (existing The project site contains an existing residence where the proposed parcel 2 will be located. The remainder of the site is basically undisturbed and consists of gently rolling slopes. Showalter Road which will be the main access to Parcel 1 and 3 is currently unimproved. Land Use and Zoninq The proposed tentative parcel map is currently surrounded by low density residential lots zoned R- R ( Rural Residential ) and composed of approximately one-half acre and larger lots. This area retains a rural character with unimproved roads and septic systems. The applicant is proposing to create three (3) one acre lots which are consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan which calls for 1-2 DU/AC for the subject site. Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the proposed one acre lots will not have a significant impact on the rural character of the immediate surrounding area. STAFFRPT\PM25981 2 CIRCULATION: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: Access and Circulation Access to the new lots will be provided from Showalter Road and a new cul-de-sac (see site plan) which both will be improved with Class II aggregate Base along the length of the project site. The existing residence (Parcel 2) will continue to have access from Pauba Street. Gradinq The proposed project will alter the existing natural terrain with the construction of manufactured slopes at 2:1, in order to create useable building pads ranging from 11,000 to 13,000 square feet. However, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Erosion Control All slopes over three feet in height will be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. Furthermore, graded but undeveloped land will be maintained in a weed-free condition and be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Traffic The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed this project; and has determined that the proposed project will have a minimal impact to the existing road system and there will be no adverse unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting from the development of this proposed project. The proposed density of the project is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan of 1-2 DU/ac. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the New General Plan when it is adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Initial Study was performed for this project which determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. and a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption. STAFFRPT\PM25981 3 Pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) which authorizes the charging of certain fees for the filing of Negative Declarations which provide funding for the Department of Fish and Game, the Planning Department Staff has included the following condition I see condition No. 2q ) within the recommended Conditions of Approval: "Within forty-eight (q8) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/ developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five dollars ($1,275.00), which includes 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 County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and lq Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (~,8) 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 Game .Code Section 711 .q.(c)". FINDINGS: The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding current residential develop- ment. the Southwest Area Plan and existing zoning. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with. the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. STAFFRPT\PM25981 q 10. 11. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. ~,60, Schedule H. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and appropriate building area. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the initial study. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Pauba Road and Showalter Road. The design of the subdivision. the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. The lawful conditions stated in the projectIs Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health. safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps. exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFFRPT\PM25981 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RA:mb Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Environmental Assessment Exhibits STAFFRPT\PM25981 6 CITY OF ~'EMECULA ) I II ii VICINITY MAP CASE NO. P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ) R-I-14,000 CZ 3082 R-R ~i ~-m CZ 3827 R-R CZ 4837 R-A-2 CZ 2200 ~rL ,% L___m_ ZONE MAP CASE NO. ~/~ ~/~/ P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) SWAP MAP r CASE NO. ~ z~'~l P.C. DATE PL~I~N MINUTES COMMISSION C LE8 RAY concurred that Condition No. dele d. COMMIBBI ER HOAGLAND moved to clos. ~ and Adopt the Negat: Plan No. lnd AdOpt Resolu 52 be Plot Plan No. based on contained in aff re Conditions of Condition No. 52 and in a location suita by public hearing Declaration for Plot 91-(next) approving analysis and findings and subject to the lied by staff, deleting five Class II bike racks Planning Director, seconded AYES: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, iniaeff 0 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Ford 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25981 Proposal to subdivide 3.01 acres into three residential lots. Located south of Pauba Road and East of Showalter Road. STEVE JIANNINO presented the staff report. COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND expressed a concern for the requirement for street improvements to Pauba Road and Showalter. CHAIRMAN ClIINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:45 P.M. WILLIAM KOUVELI2, 30675 Pauba Road, Temecula, California, applicant, addressed the Commission's questions. Mr. Kouvelis explained to the Commission that he had built his home on one of the parcels and had plans to deed over the other two parcels to both his children to build their homes. He added that although there were limits as to what they could do financially, they wanted to cooperate with the Commission on any requirement for street improvements. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned if the applicant had obtained off-site grading easements from the adjacent property owners. Mr. Hoagland was also concerned with the amount of grading that was being shown and questioned if the applicant fully understood the requirements. PCMIN3/04/91 -7- MARCH 7, 1991 !OMMISSION MINUTES 4, 1991 RAY concurred that Condition No. be de moved to close at 7:35 P.M. AdoPt the Nec Plan No. 217, Plot Plan No. 217; ~ed on contained in the Conditions of Approval Condition No. 52 and requ' in a location suitable by COMMIB8IONER FAHEY AYES: 4 ~S: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 1 COMMISSIONERS: 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25981 public hearing for Plot inext) approving ,sis and findings subject to the by staff, deleting five Class II bike racks ning Director, seconded None Ford 4.1 Proposal to subdivide 3.01 acres into three residential lots. Located south of Pauba Road and East of Showalter Road. STEVE JX/~NNINO presented the staff report. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND expressed a concern for the requirement for street improvements to Pauba Road and Showalter. CMAIRMANCHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:45 P.M. WILLIAM IO~VZLXS, 30675 Pauba Road, Temecula, California, applicant, addressed the Commission's questions. Mr. Kouvelis explained to the Commission that he had built his home on one of the parcels and had plans to deed over the other two parcels to both his children to build their homes. He added that although there were limits as to what they could do financially, they wanted to cooperate with the Commission on any requirement for street improvements. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned if the applicant had obtained off-site grading easements from the adjacent property owners. Mr. Noagland was also concerned with the amount of grading that was being shown and questioned if the applicant fully understood the requirements. PCMIN3/04/91 -7- MARCH 7, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4, 1991 DOUG STEWART stated that although he did not know if the applicant had received those easements, Condition 29, 37 and 38 of the Conditions of Approval addressed the requirement for the applicant to obtain those grading easements. MIKE BENESCH, Benesch Engineering, 28991 Front Street, Temecula, advised the Commission that the applicant was given an estimate of the costs for grading, etc., and they felt that they could afford the improvements; however, should the Commission condition the project for street improvements, the costs could double, which would impose financial difficulties on the applicant. PETER KOUVELIS, 30675 Pauba Road, Temecula, questioned if a two parcel split might be accomplished with less grading and street improvement requirements. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981 to April 1, 1991, to allow staff to address the Commission's concerns regarding access, grading and the Condition the Commission would be looking at for the paving of Showalter, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he supported the motion to continue, but to support the project, he would want to see a condition requiring some paving of Pauba. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Ford 5. P G DIRECTOm RZPORT · GARY THO ILL discussed the following it s with the Commission: · Commissioners 0 drew one year rms will be up for 4, 1990. · two Commissioner's t appointments Is scheduled to resented o the City City Council on May84,' · General Plan proposals re du~e--March 8, 1991. Committee will review all the oposals an~ make a selection. PCMIN3/04~9 - - -~7, 1991 ITEM #6 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City of Temecula Planning Commissioners Gary Thornhill ~'L,~e~.(~,.~' Tentative Parcel Map No. 26723 {TPM26723) April 1, 1991 Public Hearing Item No. 6 April 1, 1991 Tentative Parcel Map No. 26723 was inadvertently advertised for the Commission's Hearing of April 1, 1991. The correct and intended scheduling of the item was for the Commission Hearing of April 15, 1991. Accordingly, the project was re-advertised for the April 15, 1991 Hearing date with the applicant's and representative's concurrence. Appropriate re-noticing of adjacent property owners was also conducted. Staff, with the applicant~s agreement, requests this proposal be continued to the City Planning Commission Public Hearing of April 15, 1991 GT:mb Z ITEM #7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM; DATE: SUBJECT: City of Temecula Planning Commission Members Gary P, ..ing Direr, or April 1, 1991 Conditional Use Permit No. 6 ICUP No. 6) Continued at Commission's Direction from March ~, 1991 Planning Commission Hearing to April 1, 1991 Planning Commission Hearing Primary issues necessitating continuance of CUP No. 6 from the 3/~/91 to the u,/1/91 Commission Public Hearing are enumerated below. Resolution, or lack thereof, for each issue listed is also discussed. 1. A. ISSUE - ACCURACY OF INITIAL TRAFFIC STUDY ANALYSIS B. DISCUSSION Based on increased project occupancies proposed, and availability of newly constructed access point(s), the applicant has revised the project's initial traffic study reflecting current information available. Proposed occupancy schedules as of 3/18/91 are attached (Attachment M-l). The traffic study addendum has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer who has determined that the study remains inaccurate. Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated by the proposal may be as much as twice that currently reflected in the Traffic Study Addendure. Accuracy of ADT projections is critical in determining "Fair Share" contribution is) to road/signalization improvements necessitated by approval of the requested conditional use. At this juncture further Engineering review of this project remains contingent upon provision of accurate traffic impact analyses for CUP No. 6, thereby allowing formulation of appropriate mltigative Conditions of Approval. ISSUE - PERCEIVED POTENTIAL PROJECT iMPACTS AFFECTING ADJACENT/VICINITY PROPERTY OWNERS B. DISCUSSION A central point of involvement at the commission~s previous hearing of 3/u,/91 were comments and concerns voiced by Mr. Robert Engman, President of "OPTO 22" , whose new facility is to be located directly opposite the proposal in question. The discussion focused on perceived significant potential offsite impacts of CUP No. 6; those being trespass, noise, litter and general disturbance the proposal might generate. Staff and the applicant attempted individually and in concert to arrange face-to-face meetings of all concerned A:6.CUP City of Temecula Planning Commission Members April 1, 1991 Page 2 parties ( reference Attachment M-3). "OPTO 22" representatives chose not to attend such meetings, and in essence"agreed-to-disagree". Atthisjuncture, a solution viable to all concerned has not been ascertained. However, staff has drafted additional proposed mitigative project Conditions of Approval, which may in part alleviate "OPTO 22's" concerns. These conditions ( Attachment M-2 ) have been reviewed by, and are acceptable to the applicant. In brief, the City Engineering Department has determined that potential traffic impacts of this proposal may be appropriately mitigated once accurate ADT data are provided, thereby allowing development of correlating project Conditions of Approval. Further, the Planning Department recommends that, should the commission decide to approve CUP No. 6, the additional mitigative measures contained in Attachment M-2 be incorporated in the project Conditions of Approval. GT:ks A:6. CUP 'e~ ~'~ ~F,,,u' :~,; ATTACHMENTM- I " RANPAC ~'NGI]~I~EING C0~I0P, ATION March %8, ~99% Mr. Charly Ray Assistant planner 43180 BuNthess Park Drive, Ste. P.O. BOX 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 200 C.U.P. NO. 6, Te~ecUla Valley conference CeRter; 43805 BuGlness Park Drive Dear Mr. Ray; Pamela Jandt, Presiden~ of Event Planners o~ Southern Calttornta has decided to increase the occ~panc~ s~atis=lcs and area originally indtcate~ on ~he oritlnal application. The Temecula V~lle~ Conference Center is now anticipated to encompass 10~,00o SF (62,o0o SF/tra~e shovs: 40,000 SF/meeting and ban~lxet f~cilttiee~. The fulluwing table illustrates the anticipated occupancies: Temecula COnference Center Anticipated Occupancy Max. Occupancy Trade Shows Guest Banquet Facilities Banquet S~aff Admin. Kitchen Banquet Guests TotalS: 500 3 5 25 900 2,933 Mr. Charly Ray March 1~, 1991 l~age TWo In our meeting on MaTch 1A, 1991 you has ~ecfu~sted that the aotivities pl~nnea for th~ cOnferSnee facilities be outlined in Setall by type, number of events per year, weekday v~. weekend events arid utilisatien of off-site paTking areas. The following ~able ou~llnme the typical activities planned for the Conference Center~ Tamsouls conference Center AntLclpated Activities Type of Uses Events/month Maximum Guests Weekend Ac~ivities Trade shows Banquets/MeeEings one/mo,(la/yr.) eight/mo.(96/yr.) ~,000 900 weeKda~ activl=les corporate Luncheons/ Professional Meetings eight/me. ( 96/yr. } 250 The antici;ated trade shows can ~ divided into two types of functions; w~olesale trade shows and non-sale ~ubllc shows. T~e wholesale trade shows are tlp!call~ characterized by uses suuh but not limited to, construction expels, business-to-business conferences and general trade shows. The types of shows that are anticipated to be open to the public include: bridal fairs, home shows, antique shows and recreational vehicle expo s. These of shows la~ not inolude direct on-site sales, however, facility will be listed as ~he oint of sale for some of the off- site sales activity. In addition, these type of shows will stimulate additional sales for businesses within the Temecula area. Mr. Charly Ray Ma~ch 18, 1991 Page Three The off-site parking agreements have been created to provide parking for the ~esta of the facility du~in~ off- eak hours of the business park. It should be noted that the Rio-N[e~to parking area will only be utilized by the trade show exhibitors, whom typically do not need preferential parking areas and park their vehicles for long periods of time. Again, thank you for your continued assistance on this matter. If we can prcxvide any further information, please contact me at (714) Ronald W. Williame A~eociate Planner Gar~ Thornhill, City of-Telnecula Doug Mac Pherson, Cit~ of Temecula Pamela Jandt, Event Planners Kinset A. Egge:, RANPAC Jerry Gonzalez, I~ANPAC TOTAL PAGE.004 ~ ATTACHMENT M -2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE INCLUDED IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.6 CONDITIONS FOR APRIL 1, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING (Continuance of March 4, 1991 Hearing) Occupancy of the proposed use shall be limited to on-site parking capacities for all events scheduled Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. A minimum of one (1) security guard shall patrol and monitor on-site activities during all events. Two (2) additional, mobile security guards shall monitor off-site activities during all events during which occupancy of the project site exceeds on-site parking capacities. Maintenance crews shall be provided for removal of all litter following all activities planned at the subject site. The applicant shall be responsible for effective litter removal within 100(+/-) feet of the site perimeter. Maintenance shall occur prior to the beginningof kthe next normal work day. During all proposed events, Business Park Drive shall be posted with temporary "No Parking" signs. Signs shall be posted on both sides of Business Park Drive extending a minimum of 3,000 feet, i.e. frontage of the site proper plus 1,000 +/- feet to either side of the subject property. This Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to periodic review at a Public Hearing of the City Planning Commission. As a minimum, the review shall be conducted semi-annually, effective from the date of Final Approval of this proposal. The review shall be requested by the applicant in writing to the City Planning Director a minimum of 40 days prior to the specified hearing date, where upon City Staff shall schedule and advertise the proposal for Hearing. Public Hearing fees pursuant to Section A ( 1 ) of City Ordinance No. 671 .u, shall be due and payable by the applicant upon request for the required semi-annual review. p 1 anni ng\COA. CUP6\mb G2 March 26t 1991 VIA FACSIMILE FOLLOWED BY FEDERAL EXPR=BS Mr. Robert G. Engman President (~ptO 22 15461 Springdale Stgeot Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Re: Temecula Valley Conference Center 43085 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Ca 92390 Parcel 8, of Parcel Map 19580-1 ("Property") Dear Mr. Engman: The ProDarty described above i8 owned by Lead Ranclio C~llfornla X Partnership, a California limited partnership ("Lessor"). Prestige Associates, Inc. ("Lessee") has been working with the City D[ Temecula Planning Department for several months to obtain a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). YOU have objected to the issuance of the CUP. In a sincere attempt to reasonably discuss your concerns and to search for solutionst the Lessee has attempted to meet with you several times as foilowe: Letter~ (enclosed) March 7, 1991 Telephone call March 12, 1991 Telephone call March 15, 1991 You have not responded to the Lessee's letter or phone calls. In 8 final attempt to resolve your concerns prior to the April 1, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, wherein the CUP will be reccommended for approval, I suggest the following: that you, the general partners of the Lessor sn~ Lhe Planning Director of the City Of Temecula meet to discuss our mutual concernS. Please contact me immediately so the meeting can be arranged. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ E D P R 0 ? E R T I~ ~, Mr. P~e~t a. Engma M~roh 26, lg91 Page 2 I NC, V4~S~truly yours, LE PROPER $, IN~ Managing General P~rtncr Lead Rancho California NJL/mac cc:(facsimile anly)~ Charly Ray Basil Johnson Tomislav Gabtic Pamela Jandt Pia Oliver Encl. (1) STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March .q., 1991 Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 6 Prepared By: Charly Ray Recommendation: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 6; and, ADOPTResolution91- recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 6, based on the analysis and findings contained herein. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Prestige, Inc. Ms. Pia Oliver Request to convert approximately 102,000 square feet of an existing industrial/warehouse structure for use as a corporate meeting/seminar center; including in-house food and beverage catering services. ~,3085 Business Park Drive M-SC ( Manufacturing - Service Commercial ) North: M-SC (Manufacturing Commercial ) South: M-SC East: M-SC West: M-SC Service No change in current zoning requested. Commercial/Industrial Warehouse structure. North: South: East: West: Sewage Treatment Plant ( under construction ) Professional office/warehouse complexes Vacant Professional Medical offices STAFFRPT\CUP6 1 PROJECT STATISTICS; No. of Acres: No. of Buildings: Proposed Use: On-Site Parking Provided: Total Parking Required: 8.3Li acres One existing at 1LI0,~,36 total square feet. Proposed C. U. P. use encompasses 101,9~,8 sq,ft. of the existing building. Commercial Convention/Seminar meeting center; provisions include food catering services. 393 spaces On-site assets and adjacent off- site parking as necessary - see "Site Design/Parking" analysis, following page. BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposal was initially submitted to the City of Temecula on August 21, 1990, and was reviewed on a preliminary basis by the City Staff Development Review Committee ( DRC ) on October 11, 1990, and on a formal basis on December 6, 1990. In summary, the proposal in its present configuration requests use of 102,000 square feet of an existing commercial warehouse structure for use as a meeting/seminar center with attendant commercial food services. The primary impacts and related analyses of this proposal focus on existing parking adequacy and interior structural modifications necessary to allow the change in use planned. The applicant proposes to convert 102,000 (+/-) square feet of an existing warehouse structure for use as a commercial convention/seminar center. The subject property is located roughly at the northern end of the Business Park Drive loop, which in turn is situated generally northwest of the intersection of 1-15 and Rancho California Road (Reference Exhibit A) . The property is currently zoned for Manufacturing - Service commercial (M- SC) uses as indicated by Exhibit B. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required to conduct the requested business within this zone district in that the requested use is not specifically allowed by Land Use regulations governing the subject site. Uses not specifically listed as "Permitted" by ordinance may be conditionally permitted provided that the Planning Commission finds the proposed use to be characteristically the same as uses specified as allowed in the M-SC zone district. In STAFFRPT\CUP6 2 ANALYSIS: this case, Staff considers the proposed use generally appropriate, if adequacy of off-street vehicle parking can be assured, and necessary interior structural modifications are realized as discussed in the following project analysis. In general terms, the proposed use is more intense than similar uses within the immediate vicinity, e.g., medical/professional offices to the south and west; although the use requested probably would not be an issue given adequate automobile parkin9 at the project site and appropriate interior improvements allowing safe operation of the proposal. However, the existing structure on the subject site is a commercial warehouse and was designed and constructed to warehouse standards, including existing parking provisions and interior finish. Site Desiqn/Parking As evidenced by the site plan submitted by the applicant, Exhibit D, existing on-site parking available to this proposal totals 393 spaces. Based on the project scale and occupancy type it can be expected that parking demands will periodically exceed this availability. To mitigate this potential shortage, the applicant proposes to share existing parking facilities with the property immediately adjacent to the southwest (a medical professional building). Such an arrangement is considered acceptable to the City if contractually assured with the owner(s) of the affected property. To this extent, the applicant has provided documentation allowing use of parking spaces on the adjacent medical office site, reference Attachment No. 5. Further, proper utilization of all available parking is encouraged by the provision of valet staff parking attendees as specified in Condition of Approval No. 12. Such use is considered feasible, and to an extent, preferable to construction of additional asphaltic parking areas, given that the medical office parking spaces will be largely vacant and relatively accessible during the peak use operations of the proposed convention center when additional parking areas may be required. STAFFRPT\CUP6 3 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY: Structural Adequacy As mentioned above, the existing structure was constructed to warehouse standards. As such, existing interior improvements are inadequate to assure the health and safety of occupants utilizing the proposed convention/seminar venue, primarily due to the warehouseis current lack of structural elements necessary to comply with applicable Uniform Fire and Building Code|s) Standards. In response to City Building and Safety comments, as well as those of the Riverside . County Fire Department, the applicant has agreed to retrofit the existing structure interior as specified by Building and Safety Department Condition Nos. 25-31 and those conditions referenced in the attached Fire Warden Transmittal of January 16, 1991; thereby bringing the existing building into conformance with structural/fire protection requirements appropriate for the use proposed. It is further noted that the project is also affected by a known seismic fault underlying the easterly portion of the project site/subject structure. Within the structure itself this area is identified as the Restricted Use Zone referenced in City Building and Safety Department Condition Nos. 3.a. and 3. b., and subject to occupancy limitations specified therein. The project's potential geologic hazard ( s ), impact(s), and mitigation measures are also discussed in item No. 1 .g. of the attached Environmental Assessment. If the provisions stated above are conscientiously complied with, the proposed use should not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community at large. As such, the City of Temecula Planning Department Staff recommends approval of this proposed CUP as conditioned {see attached Conditions of Approval ). As conditioned, Staff finds the proposed use is no more objectionable than other uses generally allowed within the siteis current Manufacturing - Service Commercial land use designation. Given conscientious compliance with the projectis Conditions of Approval, the proposed use is likely to conform with the General Plan eventual ly adopted by the City which is anticipated to contain the same general CUP provisions affecting the subject property. STAFFRPT\CUP6 ~ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Initial Environmental Assessment has been prepared for Conditional Use Permit No. 6; the analysis of which concludes with the finding that although the proposed use could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in the case under consideration because the measures specified in the project~s Conditions of Approval mitigate potential adverse impacts. FINDINGS: The site of the proposed use together with the off-site parking required and contractually provided is suitable in size to accommodate the proposed intensity of development. The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. Proposal overflow parking will occur primarily during hours which parking areas on affected adjacent properties will be largely vacant. Further, off-site parking arrangements have been contractually procured by the applicant in concurrence with the affected property owner(s). Nuisance overflow parking is considered grounds for termination of this Conditional Use Permit, reference Planning Department Condition Nos. 11-1~, and 19. The site for the proposed use has adequate access to improved Business Park Drive as evidenced in the site plan for CUP No. 6, Exhibits A and D. The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive solar energy systems. Adequate building exposure is provided for these alternatives. As conditioned, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as evidenced in the Initial Environmental Assessment for CUP No. 6. STAFFRPT\CUP6 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in the staff report and the proposal's conformance with existing applicable ordinances and Conditions of Project Approval. The lawful conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The Conditions stated in the attached Staff analysis are based in mitigative measures necessary to reduce the severity of, or entirely eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project, including potential impacts on adjacent parking facilities, human health and safety, and City fire protection services. There is not a probability of detriment to, or interference with the future adopted General Plan Land Use if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the new General Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant scale in the context of regional development. Further, the project is likely to prove an interim short-term use of the project site, thereby minimizing potential long-range impacts. Further, if found to be ultimately detrimental, the use is subject to termination under City ordinance provisions contained in Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. 348 (Attachment No. 6). These findings are supported by Staff analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits, associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 6; and, ADOPT Resolution 90- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 6, based on the analysis and findings contained herein. STAFFRPT\CUP6 6 CR:ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Environmental Assessment Exhibits: A. B. C. D. El. E2. Sublease Vicinity Map Zoning Map SWAP Site Plan Floor Plan Floor Plan Detail Parking Contract Agreement between Professional Hospital Services, Inc. {Master Lessor) and Prestige Association, Inc. (Sublessee) City Ordinance No. 3~,8, Section 18.31 Letters of Correspondence/Public Comment Fee Checklist STAFFRPT\CUP6 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION STAFFRPT\C'UP6 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 6 TO PERMIT CONVERSION OF 101,9u,8 SQUARE FEET OF AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE FOR USE AS A CONVENTION/SEMINAR CENTER AT THE COMMON LOCATION KNOWN AS u,3085 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, Prestige, Inc., filed CUP No. 6 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said CUP on March 4, 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 CUP; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are 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\CUP6 9 [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 CUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: ( 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The 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 CUP No. 6 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 18.26(e), no CUP may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any CUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. ( 2 ) The Planning commission, in recommending approval of the CUP, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The site of the proposed use together with the off-site parking required and contractually provided is suitable in size to STAFFRPT\CUP6 10 b) c) d) e) f) g) accommodate the proposed intensity of development. The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof, Proposal overflow parking will occur primarily during hours which parking areas on affected adjacent properties will be largely vacant. Further, off-site parking arrangements have been contractually procured by the applicant in concurrence with the affected property owner{s). Nuisance overflow parking is considered grounds for termination of this Conditional Use Permit, reference Planning Department Condition Nos, 11-1~, and 19. The site for the proposed use has adequate access to improved Business Park Drive as evidenced in the site plan for CUP No. 6, Exhibits A and D. The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive solar energy systems. Adequate building exposure is provided for these alternatives. As conditioned, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as evidenced in the Initial Environmental Assessment for CUP No. 6. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in the staff report and the proposal's conformance with existing applicable ordinances and Conditions of Project Approval. The lawful conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The Conditions stated in the attached Staff analysis are based in mltigative measures necessary to reduce the severity of, or entirely eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project, including potential impacts on adjacent parking facilities, human health and safety, and City fire protection services. STAFFRPT\CUP6 11 h) There is not a probability of detriment to, or interference with the future adopted General Plan Land Use if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the new General Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant scale in the context of regional development. Further, the project is likely to prove an interim short-term use of the project site, thereby minimizing potential long-range impacts. Further, if found to be ultimately detrimental, the use is subject to termination under City ordinance provisions contained in Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. 348 (Attachment No. 6). These findings are supported by Staff analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits, associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the CUP proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project, as mitigated by the attached Conditions of Approval, will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of CUP No. 6 for the conversion of 101,948 square feet of an existing industrial/warehouse for use as a convention and seminar center at u,3085 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California subject to the attached conditions. See Attachment No. 2. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 1990. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\CUP6 12 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of October, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\CUP6 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL STAFFRPT\CUP6 14 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: Conditional Use Permit No. 6 Project Description: Proposed Conversion of 102,000 S uare Feet of An Existin.q Industrial~Warehouse Structure for Use As A Seminar/Meetinq Venue; Includin.q On-Site Caterin.q Capabilities Assessor~s Parcel No.: 921-020-01~6 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for use of 101,9~8 square feet of an existing industrial/warehouse structure for accommodation of corporate meetings/private party functions. Internally provided food catering services for on-site activities is also allowed. 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 6. 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 one ( 1 ) year 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 one (1) year period referenced, 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 indicated by Exhibits D, E1 and E2, 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. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department~s Conditions of Approval which are included herein. STAFFRPT\CUP6 15 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated January 16, 1991, a copy of which is attached. Within forty-eight 148) 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 711.4( d ) ( 2 ) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar 1525.00) 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 148) 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 Game Code Section 711.4(c). The applicant shall comply with conditions/provisions of the Riverside County Health Department which are incorporated herein. The applicant shall comply with conditions/provisions of the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department which are incorporated herein. The applicant shall comply with the provisions specified in the sublease executed the 21st day of November, 1990, by and between PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY, INC., (the "Sublessor"), whose address is 43225 Business park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 and PRESTIGE ASSOCIATES, INC., (the "Sublessee"), whose address is 27635 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, CA 92390, a copy of which is attached. This document shall be notari zed and recorded with the County of Riverside Clerk and Recorder prior to issuance of building permits. Proof of recordation shall be submitted concurrently with application for building permits. All functions shall be provided valet parking to insure proper use of on-site, as well as authorized use of off-site parking spaces; thereby minimizing overflow parking on adjacent properties and City rights-of-way. No parking within City rights-of-way shall be permitted in association with the requested use. No outdoor activities shall be allowed on the subject site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain all necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Health School District Fire Department STAFFRPT\CUP6 16 16. Any proposed additional 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. 17. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground, 18. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 19. This Conditional Use Permit is subject to revocation pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. Enqineerinq Department - Transportation PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 20. Based on the Traffic Study, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to contribute 1096 to the construction costs of the signal {including intersectional signing and striping) at the intersection of Ridge Park Drive and Rancho California Road. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 21. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. This fee will not be required if appropriate documentation of prior fee payment is provided. Enqineerinq Department - Civil PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 22. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase, STAFFRPT\CUP6 17 Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS) PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE APPLICANT SHALL: 23. Provide DEHS "Will-serve" applicable letters from the water and sewering agencies; and Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. Department of Buildinq and Safety PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 25. Provide two (2) complete sets of plans for tenant improvement, wet stamped by a licensed structural engineer or architect. Provide complete area analysis on plot plan or cover sheet. 26. Incorporate a two-hour area separation wall between A.2.1 and B.2 occupancy. Exercise the use of a parapet Wall Sec. 170~ or Sec. 505(e ) 1988 - Uniform Building Code (UBC). 27. Print occupant load on plans. 28. Provide 80.5 lineal feet of exiting in A.2.1 occupancy. 29. Provide bathroom facilities for all occupants per the 1988 Uniform Plumbing Code appendices and the Installation Standards contained therein; also, provide the approved and signed off As Built Sewer Plan for lateral size confirmation. 30. Submit two (2) complete sets of plans on tenant improvements and kitchen area to: County of Riverside Health Department, 3636 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501 (275-8980). Health Department approved plans shall be submitted to Buildinq and Safety prior to tenant Improvement Plan Review. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 31. The following conditions shall become part of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Leed Building: "The City of Temecula Building and Safety Department, in review of past history and current geological reports provided on the Leed Building located at q3085 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA, does find there is some potential for ground breakage and differential settlement to recur along previous fissure trails within the building. Therefore, the following conditions shall become part of the Conditional Use Permit {CUP). STAFFRPT\CUP6 18 32. 33. a) No human occupancy within the area designated as the "Recommended Building Restricted Use Zone" J RUZ) noted by figure ~, on the project site Geological Report dated March 29, 1989, shall be allowed far more than 2,000 man hours per year. No change in use, other than storage and warehouse use shall occur in the restricted use zone. b) All Portions of Structure: In the event of seismic activity, differential settlement, change of occupancy use, additions to structure, or should any other modifications occur, the CUP may be reviewed by the City with the possibility of suspension of the CUP and Certificate of Occupancy. It shall be the responsibility and duty of the owner to request a review and inspection of the structure and its occupancy every two {2 ) years. If no request by the owner is received by the City within the time period set forth, the Certificate of Occupancy will be suspended. In the event new geological findings occur in, or branches near, the RUZ, the owner shall supply an updated Geological Review along with a Structural Statement from the Engineer of Record to the City Building and Safety Department." Lighting on site and located on structures shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655. Applicant shall fill out an Application for Final Inspection. Allow two weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final inspection. STAFFRPT\CUP6 19 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619) 342.8886 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE pROTECTION GLEN I. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 DATE: January i6, 1991 TO: City of Temecula ATTN: Planning Department RE: Conditional Use Permit With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the follow- ing fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The western portion of the building show as A-2 occupancy shall be constructed according to plans approved by the building and fire departments with all corridors and out side exits fully improved prior to any use. The center portion of the building shown as B-2 occupancy shall be limited to temporary manufacturing or trade type shows with open aisles and limited seating. Prior to use of the B-2 portion the following improvement shall have been completed. (A) All outside doors shall have lighted exit signs located above and below each opening. (B) Doors shall be equipped with panic hardware. (C) All temporary partitions or space dividers shall be fire retardant material. (D) Install portable fire extinguisher minimum 2A-10BC. One per 5000 square foot. Minimum 75 feet travel distance. Ro: CUP 6 Page 2 (E) All temporary electrical distribution systems shall be UL approved and inspected by the fire department prior to use. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be ferred to the Planning Division staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner ml Michael GraySDeputy Fire Marshal ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STAFFRPT\CUP6 20 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. NamedProponent: Prestiqe, Inc. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 27635 Jefferson Avenue Temecula, CA 92390 Date of Environmental Assessment: January 23, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 6 6. Location of Proposal: ~3085 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 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\CUP6 21 Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\CUP6 22 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\CUP6 23 Yes Maybe No 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 811 area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\CUP6 24 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 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __ X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ X STAFFRPT\CUP6 25 17. 18. 19. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe N._9o X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\CUP6 26 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe N_9o X X X X STAFFRPT\CUP6 27 I I I Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1 .a-f. 1.g. ?.a-c, 3.a-e. 3.f,g. 3.h,i. u,.a-d. 5.a-c. 6.a. 6.b. No. The proposal entails internal modifications to an existing structure. No development activity affecting existing topographic or geologic substructures is proposed. Maybe. The structure accommodating the proposed use overlies an identified earthquake fault. Potential exposure of persons to geologic hazards is largely mitigated by use restriction(s) imposed on affected portions of the structure in question. Reference Building and Safety Department Conditions of Approval Nos. 31a and b. No. The proposed change in use will increase localized air pollutants due to increased auto traffic to and from the subject site. Effects on ambient air quality are considered insignificant however. No. No development is proposed which would normally affect surface bodies of water. As such no impacts on these resources is anticipated. Maybe. Groundwaters may be nominally affected as a result of increased water usage/sewage discharge effluent due to the increasing use intensity proposed for the structure in question. Overall effect on regional groundwater quantity/quality should be largely unnoticeable. No. Increase in water usage due to this proposal are considered individually insignificant; and the property in question is not subject to known flood/tidal hazards. No. Vegetation shall not be introduced, nor removed to effect this proposal. No. The proposal does not entail aspects that could logically affect wildlife nor their habitat. Maybe. Ambient noise levels may increase due to the more intense use of the subject site proposed. Noise impacts, if any, will be of short duration and should not extend beyond the proposalis immediate boundary. No. No use is proposed which would logically generate significant noise levels. No. Short term glare may result due to increased night time auto traffic; impacts on night skies are considered insignificant. STAFFRPT\CUP6 28 10.a,b. 11. 12. 13.a. 13.b. 13.c. 13.d. 13.e. 13.f. Yes. The proposed change in use is considered a substantial alteration to existing occupancy, Effects of the proposal extending beyond the existing building confines should be insignificant. The most noticeable exterior impact will be an increase in automobile parking requirements, reference Item No. 13.b. Mitigation is as per Condition Nos. 11-14. Condition No. 7 referencing attached County Fire Warden 1 project requirements mitigates potential increased fire hazards resulting from the change in use proposed. Condition Nos. 31a and b mitigate potential increased exposure of persons to identified geologic hazards. No. Even with the more intense use proposed, increases in use of natural resources; i.e., water and fossil fuels should be insignificant when considered in a regional context. No. The project does not propose elements entailing storage or use of hazardous substances; nor is the subject site within identified emergency response movement corridors. No. The project does not entail population relocation aspects. No. Similarly, no housing is proposed for construction nor demolition. Maybe. Additional vehicular movement in the vicinity of the subject site could be considered or substantial increase over that currently commuting to/from the property. Regional effects are considered nominal. Yes. Based on the proposed change in structure occupancy, the project will generate a significant new demand for site/use - specific automobile parking. Anticipated overflow parking impacts are mitigated largely through shared parking arrangements with the property adjacent to the southwest. Reference Condition of Approval Nos. 11- 1~,. No. Impacts on transportation systems, primarily adjacent roadways will be nominal and of limited duration. No substantial impact is anticipated. Potential impacts of nominal scale are mitigated by Condition of Approval Nos. 20 and 21. No. It is anticipated additional persons and delivery vehicles will travel to and from the subject site to frequent the proposed convention/seminar operations. Impacts, however, should not be noticeable beyond the immediate project vicinity. No. Use of, or interference with waterborne rail or air traffic is not proposed nor anticipated. Maybe. Any increase in projected traffic impacts may include the potential for additional accidents. Incrementally, risk of additional accidents is considered negligible however. STAFFRPT\CUP6 29 lu,.c,d. 14.e. 14.f. 15.a,b. 16.a-f. 17.a,b. 18. 19. 20.a-d. 21 .a-d. Maybe. Due to increased occupancy of the subject site as proposed, there is the potential for increased police and fire protection services. Impacts are those normally associated with nominal additional development and are not considered significant. Maybe. The proposed use may contribute secondary impacts on school and recreational facilities. Impacts are mitigated by applicable development fees as well as school impact fees specified by state law, and implemented locally by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). Maybe. Additional automobile/truck traffic is anticipated to frequent the project site, which may increase road maintenance requirements in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. Impacts are not expected to be significant. No. Additional impacts on other governmental services have not been identified at this time. No. Due to increased occupant loads, there should be a slight increase in fuel/energy demands for space/water heating and cooling, as well as energy consumed in food preparation as proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated. Maybe. Nominal utility service upgrade may be required to support the proposed use. No significant impact on regional services is anticipated. Maybe. The proposed site represents a significant change in allowable building occupancy, requiring parallel modifications to the existing structural interior in order to mitigate potential health hazards. Notably, additional fire protection requirements are as specified in project Condition of Approval Nos. 7 and the referenced attachment. Mitigation of potential exposure to geologic hazards is indicated in Condition Nos. 31 .a and 31 .b. No. No additional construction is proposed which would logically impact existing vistas. Maybe. Reference Item No. l~.d. Further, in general terms, the project may be considered an addition to existing recreational assets, providing increased recreational opportunities. No. No development affectin9 the referenced resources is proposed, and no impact on these resources is anticipated. No. Reference Item Nos. 1 through 20. STAFFRPT\CUP6 30 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. January 23, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA X STAFFRPT\CUP6 31 ATTACHMENT NO. EXHIBITS STAFFRPT\CUP6 32 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ I SITE VICINITY MAP ~* - !! ._~_~_' .,Temecula:., VICINITY MAP ) r~V,i~,i'T~o. A CASE NO. p.c. DATE: CITY OF TEMECULA /;' RA_NCH0 ZONE MAP CASE NO, 6.d.~,~.~ P,C, DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) -. SWAP MAP ~,'e~'T ~. c CASE NO.C.d.f. 4o.~ P.c. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) FLOORPLAN EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ FLOORPLAN -C:~_,"~iL ) ATTACHMENT NO. 5 PARKING SUBLEASE CONTRACT STAFFRPT\CUP6 33 SUBLEASE 19 ~; , by and between PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY, INC., f(the "Sublessor"), whose address is 43225 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 and PRESTIGE ASSOCIATES, INC., (the "Sublessee"), whose address is 27635 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, CA 92390. RECITALS A. L and T Corporation as Lessor, and Professional Hospital Supply, Inc. as Lessee, executed a lease on August 29, 1990 (the "Master Lease"). By, the terms of the Master Lease, the real property described in Paragraph 1 of this Sublease was leased to Professional Hospital Supply, Inc. for a term of 9 years, commencing on August 29, 1990, and ending on August 29, 1999, subject to earlier termination as provided in the Master Lease. B. Sublessor desires to sublease to Sublessee a portion of the property currently occupied bySublessor under the terms of the Master Lease, and Sublessee desires to lease that property from Sublessor. C. Under the terms of the Master Lease, Lessor's consent to this Sublease is not required. THEREFORE, Sublessor and Sublessee agree as follows: 1. Leasina and Description of Property. Subject to the terms, conditions, and covenants set forth in this Sublease, Sublessor hereby leases to Sublessee, and Sublessee hereby leases from Sublessor, the improved parking areas on the property located in Riverside County, California, described as follows: Parcel One of Parcel Map 21501 as shown by Map on file in Book 157, Pages 82 and 83 of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, California. County The subleased property shall hereinafterbereferred to as the "Subleased Premises," and is commonly known as 43225 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. JANDTSUB. LSE 1 2. Term. This Sublease shall conunence on November 15, 1990, and shall end on the date on which the Master Lease terminates or on August 29, 1999, whichever is earlier. 3. Rent. Sublessee shall pay to Sublessor as rent for the Subleased Premises a rental of $150 for each occasion on which its invitees, agents, successors and assigns use the Subleased Premises for parking vehicles. 4. Use of Premises. Sublessee, its invitees, customers, agents, successors and assigns may use the Subleased Premises to park vehicles at the Subleased Premises at all hours during the weekend and, during the week only, during the hours between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Such use includes pedestrian ingress and egress to said Subleased Premises. Sublessee shall provide a security guard at the Subleased Premises on each occasion on which its invitees, agents, successors and assigns use the Subleased Premises. 5. Advance Notice. Sublessee shall give Sublessor at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice of its intent to use the Subleased Premises. 6. DamaCes to Leased Premises. Sublessee shall be responsible for any damages to the Subleased Premises or to the buildings located adjacent to the Subleased premises, which buildings are leased byProfessional Hospital Supply, Inc. pursuant to the Lease by and between L and T Corporation and Professional Hospital Supply, Inc. 7. Ouiet En~opnent. Sublessor covenants that Sublessee shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the Subleased Premises, provided that Sublessee complies with the terms of this Sublease. 8. Condition of Premises. Sublessee shall be required to remove all litter and trash from the Subleased Premises leftby the invitees, agents, successors and assigns of Sublessee. Except for the specific requirements contained in this Sublease, Sublessor shall be required at its own expense to maintain the Subleased Premises. 9. Applicability of Master Lease. This Sublease is subject and subordinate to the terms and conditions of the Master Lease. 10. Termination of theM aster Lease. If theM aster Lease is terminated, this Sublease shall terminate s~multaneously and the JANDTSUB · LSE 2 Sublessor and Sublessee shall thereafter be released from all obligations under this Sublease. SUBLESSORz PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY, J0 HOFFEE,~ By: )H~0FF~ , INC. SUBLESSEE: JANDTSUB.LSE 3 State of California ) ) County of Riverside ) SS personally appeared JOHN HOFFEE II, known personally to me to be the President of the above-named corporation, and that he, as such officer, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein set forth, by signing the name of the corporation by him as such officer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I ~ave hereunto set my hand and official seal. State of California My Commission expires~/C'/5'-23 OFFICIAL SEAL MARY E. ANDERSl!'N t4OTAI~Y PUBLIC - CAL FORNIA JANDTSUB. LSE 4 State of California ) ) County of Riverside ) SS undersigned~ officer, personally appeared PAMELA JANDT, known personally to me to be the Executive Vice-President of the above-named corporation, and that she, as such officer, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein set forth, by signing the name of the corporation by her as such officer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I ~ave hereunto set my hand and official seal. No/ta~~--- State of California My Commission expires: ~'//- ~ / JANDTSUB. LSE 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ORDINANCE NO. 318, SECTION 18.31 STAFFRPT\CUP6 3~ ~R~SECTION 18.31. FINDINGS AND PROCEDURE FOR REVOCATI~ OF VARIANCES Arid PEI~41TS. Any condittonal use permit, public use permit, variance, cemmerctal or .cc.sory pe.itre.k. hy th. Oirector of ~ Safety upon findtag that one or more of the follow~n9 conditions for revocation exist. (I) That the use (s dear(mental to the publtc health, safety or ~hat the permit was obtained by fraud or perjured testimony. I~l eneral welfare, or IS I publlC nuisance. That the use is being conducted tn violation of the terns and conditions of the perrata. (4) That the use for which the perrata ms granted has ceased or has been suspended for one year or more. Upon detemtnatton by the Director of Butld~ng and Safety that grounds for revocation exist, the following procedure shall take effect: (1) NOTZCE OF REVOCATION. Notice of revocation and a copy of the findfngs of the Director of Buildtag end Safety shall be matled by the Director by certified mat1 to the owner of the property to which the pemtt or variance applies, as show~ by the records of the Assessor of Riverside County. The d~ciston of the Director of Building end Safety shall be final unless a notice of appeal is ttmely flhd. (2) NOTICE OF APPEA~. I~ithtn 10 days folloW rig the mailtrig of the notice of revocation, the o~ner of the property to which the permit or vatlance applhs me file ~th the P1annin Director a notice of appea~ from the decision of the Dlrector o~ Building and Safety. A notice of appeal shall be aCcempanled by the filing fee set forth in Ordinance No. 671. A notice of appeal not accernpanted by such he shell be darned null end void and shall not be processed. (3) SETTING HEARZNG~ COSTS. Appeals ~thin the area Jurisdiction of the East Area Planning Counctl, with the exception of appeals concerning canmerctal tlEC$ pemtts, shall be heard by the Council or, If the Council so elects, shall be heard by a County Hearing Officer pursuant to and in accordance ~th Ordinance No. 643. All other appeals, Including appeals concerntn~ cem~erctal WECS permits, shall be heard by the Planning Cemtsston, of if the Cammission so elects, shall be heard by I County Hearing Officer pursuant to and tn accordance ~th Ordinance No. 643. . Notice of the ttme, date and place of the hearing shall be givon as provtded in Section 18.26(c). In the event that an appeal ts heard by a County Hearing Officer end the owner of the property to which the perrata or variance a plies does not prevail tn the appeal, the owner shall not b obligated ~ p~ ~ hearing costs. Zn t~ event that an ~peal ts bard b~ ~ ~unty ~arin9 Offtcer end t~ o~er of the pro~rV ~ ~tch the ~mlt or vartence applies prevails In t~ appee3, the ~er she13 not ~ obligated to p~y all hearing costs. 199 ~? (4) TESTZNONY UNDE;~-OATH. All testimony at the heartrig shaql be taken under Oath. (5) NOTICE OF DECZSTON. Nottce of the Planning Ce,,,,lsston or Planntng Counctl's dectston end a report of the proceedings shall be filed ~tth the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors not later than 15 days following the date the decision ts adopted. A copy of the notice end the report shall be matled to the applicant and fred ~tth the Clerk of the a e Planning Cb,,,Isston or Planntng Counctl does not reach a decision h reported the Board of due to a tie vote, such fact s all be to Supervisors in the see manner end wtthtn the see time for reporting decisions end such a failure to reach a deciston shall consit tute lift manca of the Bull dtng Dtrector's revocation of the permit or variance. (6) PLACEIqENT OF NATTER ON BOARO'S AGENDA. The Clerk of the Board of $uperrlsors shall place the Notice of Decision on the Board's agenda for the next reguqar meeting to be held followlag the lapse of 5 days after the Notice is filed wtth the Board. (7) TRANSFER TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON APPEAL. The revocation or non-revocation of a permit or variance by the Plenntng Commission or Planning Council shall be final unless, ~dthtn ten (xO)days follovring the matter at which the Notice of Decision was on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors, the following occurs: a. An appeal to the Board of Supervisors is made by the owner of the property which is the subject of the revocation proceedings, or b. The Board of Supervisors orders the matter transferred to it for further proceedings. (8) FURTHER PROCEEDZNGS BEFORE THE BOAR9 OF SUPERVISORS. If either of the actions mentioned in paragraphs e. and b. of Subsection 7 above ere taken, the Board of Supervisors may: a. Refuse to review the Planning Cmenisston or Planning Counctl's decision, in which case the decision shall be ftnal, or b. Review a transcript or recording of the testimony and other evidence Introduced before the Planning Cm~tsston or p,.nning cou.c....d b..d ,'.";%;?;."; r.v. rse the decision of ,h.o.'f' Coundl or refer the matter beck to the Planning Cammission ' (9) or Plenntng Counc11 for the takln of further evidence or hearing additional argment (n whTch case nottce shall be gtven to the o~ner of the property whtch Is the subject of the proceedt rigs, or c. Set the matter for bearing before ttself. At such hearing the Board of Supervisors shall bear and decide the matter de novo as if no prior bear"lng had been bald. Nottce of the time, date end place of the public heart rig shall be gtvon as provt dad tn Sectton 18.26(c). ACTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVTSORS. The dectston of the Board of Supervisors on revocation of a pemtt or variance ts final. 200 ATTACHMENT NO, 7 LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE/PUBLIC COMMENT STAFFRPT\CUP6 34 RECEIVED ,/AN 9 199f C.u.F. January 7, 1991 Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California 92390 Reference: Dear Sirs: Conditional Use Permit #6 As a property owner and businessman located at 43225 Business Park Drive, Temecula, this letter will convey my acceptance of EVENT PLANNERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA conducting operations in the Business Park. JWH:jj cc: Pam Jandt President Event Planners of Southern California PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY, INC. 43225 Business Park Drive · P. O. Box 9010 · Rancho California, CA 92390-7030 RECE V'ZS January 10, 1991 Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Subject: Use Permit #6 Gentlemen: The proposal for the Temecula Valley Conference Center is not met with any enthusiasm from the people at Opto 22. In fact, the general reaction is one of strong opposition for several very good reasons: We originally chose the eight acre site in the Rancho California Business Park for our high-tech manufacturing and R&D center because of the quiet campus like atmosphere. We are building a facility that will have more than four acres of beautiful landscaping which will include a sculpture garden, employee recreation area with picnic tables, volley ball court, etc. The thought of having hundreds of the general public parking and partying across from this facility will certainly create additional security and tempting trespassing problems that should not be necessary. It is our opinion a general public commercial type enterprize as described is inappropriate for this business park and would diminish its character and desirability. Very truly yours OPTO 22 R. G. Engman President t, RF'CEiVED ,,!:i:: l 5 ~]91 CIjLURZ O Vineyard & Winery January 7 1991 City of Temecula Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit #6 Dear Sir, The Cilurzo Vineyard and Winery wishes to support the de- velopment of a new Meeting and Convention Center in the city of Temecula. We feel this will bring more tourists to this valley. This will increase sales at many many business~ including ours. Temecula will grow as a city only with a strong economy to support her citizens. Thank you, Audrey Cilurzo 41220 Calle Contento · P.O. Box 775 · Temecula. California 92390 · (714) 676-5250 RECEIVED JAN 18 199t k WINDSOR PARTNERS January 14, 1991 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 4308 Business Park Drive Gentlemen: We are the property owner of Windsor Park I, located at 43172-43180 Business Park Drive. We are aware that the applicant Event Planners of Southern California is applying for the above conditional use permit. We do not have any objections to the issuance of this permit provided that the applicant follows their "Statement of Purpose", particularly those conditions relating to large events not being held weekdays which could create severe traffic problems within the park. Sincerely, Matthew Pollack MHP:mp Cc: Event Planners 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 (714)676-8400 FAX (714) 676-8554 January 17, 1991 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 To whom it may concern: The Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce encourages support of the concept of establishing a meeting and conference center in Temecula. We hope that you will evaluate all requests received by you as there is real immediate need for assemblage within the community and the more visitors that come to Temecula, the stronger our local economy will be. In addition, we feel that the growing number of restaurants, motels, gift shops, antique stores and the fourteen wineries will be of great interest to visitors who will attend the various conferences held at a center of this magnitude. Sincerely, Leigh Engdahl General Manager 40945 County Center Drive, Suite C, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-5090 ATTAGHMENT NO. 8 FEE CHECKLIST STAFFRPT\CUP6 35 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Conditional Use Pomit No. 6 (CUP 6 ) 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 N/A N/A Condition No. 22 ( EngineeringDepartment ) Condition No. 20/21 ( EngineeringDepartment ) N/A N/A N/A STAFFRPT\CUP6 36 ITEM STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1991 Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 231~,2, Extension of Time Prepared By: Scott Wright Recommendation: ADOPT the Resolution approving the extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 231L~2. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Costa Group ALBA Engineering The applicant requests an extension of time for a 20 lot R-1 subdivision. Bonny Road north of Zinfandel Avenue R-1 and R-5 North: South: East: West: R-R R-1 Specific Plan 199, 2-5 du/ac Specific Plan 199, 2-5 du/ac Not requested North: Vacant South: Single family residential East: Vacant, graded West: Vacant No. of Acres: 6 acres No. of Lots: 20 single family lots, 2 open space lots Min. proposed lot size: 7,611 square feet The applicant requests an extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~,2. The project is to create a 20 lot single family subdivision on a 6.0 acre site. The lots range in size from 7,611 square feet to 18,183 square feet. The landscaped slopes on both sides of the street at the entrance to Staffrpt\VTM23142\rob 1 BACKGROUND: the site are designated as open space lots to be maintained by a landscape assessment district or a homeowners association. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142 and Change of Zone 5115, from R-R to R-1 and R-5, on October 25, 1988. On the recommendation of the County Planning Staff, the Board of Supervisors added the stipulation that the landscaped slopes at the entrance to the site, lots 21 and 22, should be zoned R-5. The site has been graded for street improvements and building pads, and concrete lined bench drains have been installed along the southerly and easterly boundaries of the site. The City received the request for a time extension on October 5, 1990. ANALYSIS: Lot Size and Dimensions The lots are between 7,611 square feet and 18,183 square feet in area and conform to the R-1 standards requiring a minimum of 7,200 square feet, 60 feet of average width, 35 feet of street frontage on knuckles or cul-de-sacs, and 100 feet of depth. Site Access Each lot takes access from Bonny Road which provides access to the site from Zinfandel Avenue. The proposed single means of ingress and egress is consistent with County Fire Department policy which only requires a second access where there are 35 lots or more, or the street exceeds 1,320 feet in length. Vesting Tentative Tract 23142 contains 20 residential lots, and Bonny Road is 640 feet long. Drainaqe and Slope Stability Lots 10 through 17 have tops of slopes which are not at the property line resulting in areas which slope downward toward adjacent properties. Concrete lined bench drains have been installed along the property line abutting said lots in order to prevent impacts to adjacent properties due to water runoff from the site. County Condition No. 5 requires submittal of a soils report addressing soils stability. County Condition No. 6 requires compliance with Ordinance 457 which stipulates that all slopes greater in height than three feet must have erosion control planting. Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 2 Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses Vesting Tentative Tract No. 231~)2 is compatible with the existing R-1 development south of the site and with anticipated future development at a density of 2-5 dwelling units per acre east and west of the site. The R-R parcel northwesterly of the site contains a steel tank water reservoir. Archaeoloqical and Paleontoloqical Resources The Archaeological Report prepared for this project stated that no artifacts were found on the site. The site is located in an area known to contain fossil resources. Condition No. 19(e) requires that the developer retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the impacts of grading and implement measures necessary to recover and preserve any fossil resources found on the site. Additional Facts Not Included in the Oriqinal Conditions of Approval The original Conditions of Approval did not include provisions requiring the developer to satisfy the requirements of the Quimby Act or to agree to pay public facility fees. Staff has recommended that the developer agree to pay these additional fees not originally included in the Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231u,2. Kanqareo Habitat Conservation Fee Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 19(a) in the attached County Staff Report, Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees were paid prior to the issuance of grading permits by the County. Processinq Time This staff report was completed in draft form and set aside because recordation of the map seemed imminent, and recordation of the map would make action on the extension of time unnecessary. However, after several weeks the final steps required for recordation have still not been taken. Therefore, Staff is proceeding with the time extension request. Staffrpt\VTM231 u,2\mb 3 ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: The size and dimensions of the lots are consistent with the requirements of the R-1 Zone, and the proposed density of 3.3 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 2-4 dwelling units per acre. On October 25, 1988 the County adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32354 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142. Extension of Time for Vestinq Tentative Tract No. 23142 The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation. The proposed density of 3.3 units per acre is within range of the SWAP designation of 2-4 units per acre. Vesting Tentative Tract 23142 is compatible with the surrounding zoning and adjacent existing land uses. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. A second means of access is not required for subdivisions of 35 lots or less. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation, and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 2310,2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development proposed. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. 10. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 30,8 and 0,60 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. 11. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare. 12. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein associated by reference. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91 - approving a first extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2310,2 through October 25, 1991 based on the analysis and findings contained in this report subject to the Conditions of Approval in the attached County Staff Report and the attached City of Temecula Conditions of Approval. SW:mb Attachments: 2. 3. 0,. Resolution Conditions of Approval County Staff Report Exhibits: Vicinity Map Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2310,2 Fee Checklist Staffrpt\VTM~310,2\mb 5 RESOLUTION NO, 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVI NG A FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2310,2 TO SUBDIVIDE A SIX ACRE PARCEL INTO 20 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED ON BONNY ROAD NORTH OF ZINFANDEL AVENUE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORIS PARCEL NO. 90,6-060-000, WHEREAS, Costa Construction, Inc. filed a time extension request for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2310,2 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on April 1, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission Hearing, the Commission approved said Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 231~2; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 6 Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, { hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approvlng projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: There is reasonable probability that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~2 will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. {1 ) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. L~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. Staffrpt\VTM231~2\mb 7 b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 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. g) 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 the Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 231u,2, makes the following findings, to wit: The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation. The proposed density of 3.3 units per acre is within range of the SWAP designation of 2-u, units per acre. Vesting Tentative Tract 2310,2 is compatible with the surrounding zoning and adjacent existing land uses. Staffrpt\VTM231 ~2\mb 8 10. 11. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. A second means of access is not required for subdivisions of 35 lots or less. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation, and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 231~2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development proposed. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 30,8 and 0,60 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare. Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 9 12. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein associated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves a First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231u,2 for the subdivision of a 6 acre parcel into 20 single family residential lots located on Bonny Road north of Zinfandel Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 9L~6-060-00~, subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 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 1st day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Staffrpt\VTM231~,2\mb 10 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planninq Department Prior to recordation, the subdivider shall satisfy the requirements of the Quimby Act by payment of fees and/or contribution of land or shall provide an agreement approved by the City Council providing for payment of fees and/or contribution of land. 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 the developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. The developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assumlng benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. The first extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231u,2 shall expire one year from the expiration of the original approval unless extended as provided by Ordinance 0,60. The expiration date shall be October 25, 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. 0,60. PRIOR TO ANY OTHER SUBMITTAL: The Tentative Map shall show a concrete drainage swale at the base of this slopes for Lots 10-17 and Lot 20. Staffrpt\VTM2310,2\mb 11 PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 7. 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; CalTrans; and Parks and Recreation Department. The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into the landscape maintenance districts: Lots 21 and 22. 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. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Sewer and domestic water systems. 10. 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. 11. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 12. 13. 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 21~" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. Staffrpt\VTM231 ~,2\mb 12 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: 15. 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: 16. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 17. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights, including the extension of Bonny Road to Zinfandel Avenue. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION: 18. A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Bonny Road and shall be included with the street improvement plans. 19. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 20. All signing shall be installed per the approved signing plan. Staffrpt\VTM231u,2\mb 13 RIVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARll~ENT SUBDZVZSZON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ¥£STING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23142 DATE: AMENDE/) NO, I EXPZRES: STANDARD CONDITIONS 1.~*'he subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of :iventde, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or ~roceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or mployees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County af Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body Te,tativ, Trect ,o. ,,Z. ,o. ich actio. tVe within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or roceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider sha~ or defend, hold 1 not, thereafter, be responsible to indemnify, harmless the County of Riverside. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire tNo years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and Ordinance 460, 5. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and tm copies to the Department of Building and t Safety. The report shall address the so ls stability and geological conditions of the site. 6. If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 end as maybe additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. VESTING TENTATIVE 11UQLl 10. 23142, Mad. #X Conditions of M!mJmnwal Page 2 A grading permit shall be obtained from the Depari~nent of Building and Safety prior to c~,m,encmnt of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement reco, mnendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Oeparb~ent's letter dated 3-23-B8, a copy of which is attached. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract nklp boundary to a County maintained road. All road easmnts shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved b the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of ~e Road Coemnissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be sho~ 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 s~rage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated 4-04-88. a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 3-29-88, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an d a opted fl~ control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460 apprO date fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be coVlected by the Road Commissioner. The subdivider shall c~ly with the fire in~orov~nt recommendations outlined tn the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 3-23-88, a copy of which is attached. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval, Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shell substantially confom to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval, 17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Vr_fTIMG TENTATIVE TUL'F le. 2)142, Amd. #1 Con<litions of Airoval Page 3 All lot length to width ratios shall be in 3.8C of Ordinance 460. conromance with Section 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 8 weed-free landscaping or approved by the Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met: County Fire Department County flood Control County Health Department County Planning Department Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5115 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conromance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. c. Prior to recordation, the subject property shall be annexed into CSA 143. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to the County fee simple title, to all common or c~,,,~n open space areas, free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and unrecorded) and easements, except those easements which in the sole discretion of the County are acceptable. As a condition precedent to the County accepting title to such.areas, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the Office of the County Counsel: 1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and 2) A sample document conveyt.nSJ title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. VESTXRG TEITATIVE TIACT I0. 23142, kid. Conditions of/~proval Page 4 The declare,ion of covenants, conditions end restrictions submitted for review shall (a) provide for a term of 60 years, (b) provide for the establls~ent of a property owners' association comprised of the o~ners of each individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following provisions verbatim: · Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: The property owners' association established herein shall, if dormant, be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, 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 demand, title to all or any part of the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhibit 'A' attached here,o. The decision to require activation of the property o~ners' association and the decision to require that the assode,ion unconditionally accept title to the 'common area' shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside. %n the event that the common area, or any part thereof, is conveyed to the property o~mers' association, the association, thereafter shall o~vn such :connon area*. $hall manage and continuously maintain such 'common area' and shall not sell or transfer such 'conwnon area' , or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The property owners' association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonabh cost of maintaining such 'camon area', and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the pa,ment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other Hens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien. Th~s Declaration shall not be temtnated, 'substantially' amended Or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-Interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' if It affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common Irea*. Zn the event of any conflict between thts beclaretion and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the pro arty owners' association Rules and Regulations, tf any, this Declaration shall control." VEST[PC TT)iTAT[VE TWACT NO. 23142,/Ned. #1 Conditions of AIWroval Page S Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map ~s recorded. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. ft Prior to recordorion of the final map, an Environmental Constramts Sheet (ECS} shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded f~nal map tq the Planning Deparb~ent and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constramts Sheet: 'County Biological Report No. 189 was prepared for th~s property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Deparl~ent. The applicant shall participate in a fee program and shall pay the ul timate fee imposed for mitigation of impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Prior to final map approval or issuance of grading permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall enter into a deposit alreement with the County and shall deposit monies based on a rate of 750.00 per residential lot to be used towards payment of the fee, or if an ordinance implementing the fee is in effect, the applicant shall pay the fee. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the foITowing conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of grading pamits, the biological mitigation Prior to the issuance of grading pemtts betoiled common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning .pprov., for th. ph.s. o, d..,o...t i. process. 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 up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. VESTZRG TEMTATZVE TRACT I10. 23142. And. fl toed,floes of Approval Page 6 All utillty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baf~ · treatments. as epproved by the P1 ann,rig Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and roJect arkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shawl be pVanted the road outside of right-of-way. 5. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. 7. All trees shall be minimum double staked. growing trees shall be steel staked. Weaker and/or slow All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall incorporating the following grading techniques: natural terrain and be cOntour-graded Vrad.d s, op. sh.1, be .radu.lly .d usted to the a a terra i n. 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded fom shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the tote1 height of the slopes where drainage and stability pomit such rounding. 4) 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. Prior to the issuance of grading pemits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded shpe easements and that slope mintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. VESTING TE)ITATIVE TItACT IlO. 23142, lad, #1 · Conditions of Approval Page 7 01 Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and gradtng contractor shall be arranged. When representa ve shall have the necessary, the paleontologist or ti authority to temporerll divert, red,tact or hal t grading activity to a11o~ recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BU/LDING PERHITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shaql be issued by the County of Riverside for any residential lot/untt within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evtdence of compliance with public facility financin measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shal~ be deposited with the Riverside County Oepartment of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development. A plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted to any governmental agency other than the Riverside County Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site development with the tract's approved Design Yenual (Exhibit N), and shall contain the following elements: 1. A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setbacks, fences and/or walls, and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots, 2. Dee (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 X 13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containin precise color, texture and material swetcbes or photographs (whlc~ may be from suppliers' brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone numbers of both the sample board prepafar and the project applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers where possible {trade names also acceptable). One (1) copy of the architectural ehvattons colored to represent the selected color combinations, with s3eboqs keyed to the color and materials board, The tartan color and material descriptions shall be located on the elevation, 4. Six (6) coptes of each of lossy photographic color prints (size 8 ,tnches of coTor and materials board and colored X 10 ) beth architectural elevations for permanent ftling, hearing body review and agency distrtbotton. All ~riting must be legible. VESTING TDITATIVE TRACT NO. 23142, All. #1 Conditions of Apprwal Page 8 Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building permits may be phased provided: 1. A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing fees. 2. Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included within that plot plan. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for P1 anning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant {Class A) roofs as approved by the County Fire 14arshal. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however sol ar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. f. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. g. A fencing plan shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Wall and/or fence locations shall confom to approved plans. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy pemits. If seasonal conditions do not pemlt planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. GN:sc g/13/88 OFFICE OF ROAD CONA41SSIOI~ER 6 COL'NTY SL'RVEYOR Hatch 23, 1988 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Rtverstdeo CA 92501 Re: Tract Map 23142 - Amend Schedule A - Team 1 Ladies and Gentleman: With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative lane 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 Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate O's, and that their mission or unacceptabtltty may require the map to be resubmi tted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions ere essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner'S Office. The landdivider Shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentra- tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging map and noted as follows: "Drainage Easmnt - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are ellowed", The protection shall be as approved by the Road DepartJnent, The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner pemtts the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. ~ract Hap 23142 - An!~d ~1 .Hatch 23, 1988 Page 2 e 1, Mmjor drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. 'A" Street (including any offsite right of way) shall be improveo within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A. (36'/60'). Concrete sidewalks shall be constructe~ throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb Sioewalk}. am access road to the nearest pave~ road maintaineO by the County within the public ri ht of way in accordance shall be constructed No. 106, Section B, 132'/60') at a grade anc with County Standard ali gnrent as approved by the Road Commissioner. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Snould t~e developer choose to defer the time of payment, he ray enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Z~provement 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 c~rnmunications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be appl'ieo not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of O.OS 9allon per square yard. A~phalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39' and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed tlmroughout the division, Corner cutbacks in conformante with County Standard No. 805 shall be show on the final map and offered for dedication, Tract Nap 23142 - Amend #1 I~tch 23, 1988 P,ege 3. 13. 14. 16. 17. 19. 20. 21. 22. GH:lh Landdivisions creating cut or ftll slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, Sight distance and slope easements as appr~red by tP4 Road Department. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif. Water Company prior to the recordatlon of the final map. The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15%. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs shall be 35 feet. Street trees shall be planted in conformante with the provisions of Article 13a of O~inance 460.53 and their location(s) shall be shown on street improvement plans. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. The mtnimu~n garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. All centerline intersections shall be at 90Q with a minimum 50' tangent measured from flow line. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall coordinated with NB 169/16-19. Street lighting Shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 400 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) R~ministrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing aSseSsment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into Or creation of a "Lighting Assessment Distrio{" in accordance with Governmental Coee Section 560C0. Very truly yours, · Gus Hughes Road Division Engineer County of Rlxrex-mide RTVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DKPT. A~n~i~rian. TRACT MAP 23142. Amended No. 1 BarIs. A~ril 4, 1988 Environmental Health Services Environmental Health Services has revieved Tract Map 231~2, Amended No. 1 dated March 21, 1988. Our curren~ comments remain as stated in our letter dated February 18, 1988. SM:tac '~ ~PR 0 5 98 RIVERSID-' COUNTY pLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 ATTN: Greg Neal RE; Trect Hap 23142: Being i subdivision of I port&on of the Rancho Temecula, which was 9rented by the government of the United States to Luis Vignes by Book 1, Page 37 of patents dated January 18, 1860 recorded in the Office of the County Recorder or Sin Diego, State or California. (20 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Heilth h,, reviewed Tentative Map No. 23142 and recommends thit: A vzter system shill be instilled according to plans and specifzc&tZon is &pproved by the water company Ind the He,lib Dep,rtment. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system sh&ll be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 ~eet, llong v~th the originml drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe dimmeter. location or valves and fire hydrants; pipe and 3oint specitications, mnd the size or the main it the 3unction or the new system ta the existing system. ll~e plins shall comply in I11 respects with Div. 5. Part 1, Chapter 7 of the Cmlirorni& Health and Satety Code, Cilifornz& Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 or the Public Utilities Commimston of the State or California,when Ipplicable. I'ne pllns shall be signed by t registered engineer and water company with the rollowing certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Nap 23142 zs zn accordance with the ester system expansion plmns 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. Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two Attn: Greg Neal February 18, 1988 This certification does not constitute a guerantee that it will supply water to such tract at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be s~gned by a responsible official of the vater company. ]'his Dep,rtment h,s a st,tement from the R,ncho C,liforni, Water Di,trict ,greeing to ,erve domestic v,ter to e,ch and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing **tzsf,ctory financiel arr,ngements are completed wxth the subd~vider. It will be necess,ry for the financial ,rr,ngements to be mede prxor to the recordatzon of the final map. This Dep,rtment h,, a st,tement from the E, stern Munxcip,l Water Distrmct agreeing to alloy the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the severs of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specific,alone as approved by the District. the County Surveyor ,nd the Health Department. Perm,nent prints of the pl,ns of the sever system shall be submitted in triplicate. along with the origin,l drawing. to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the intern,l pipe di,meter. loc,tion of manholes. complete profiles. pipe and 3oint specific,alone · rid the size of the severs at the 3unction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indic,ting loc,txon of sever lines and water lines ,h, ll be , portion of the sev,ge plans ,rid profiles. The pl,ns shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sever district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sever system in Tract Map 33142 is in accordance with the sever system exp,nsion plans of the Eastern Xunicip, l Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Riverside County Plmnning Dept. Page Three ATTN: Greg Heel February. 18, 1988 It viI1 be necessary for financXal arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. It viii be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely [inalized prior to recordatxon of the final map. Sincerely, Environmental Health Services SM:tac IklNNI'rH L_ ll~qfAmml P.o. BOX 1013 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California · APR 06 1988 Attention: Regional Team No. __ RIVERSIDE COUNTY pLANNING DEpAIrrMENT We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the regulations. Area applicable r~les and The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The Distrtct's report dated ~-Z'~ is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached comments apply. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS KENNITH I,. I[DWARDI tees e~Aaxe'r RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT March 2, 1988 Riverside Comty Plannir~ Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 1 Greg Neal Ladies and Gentian: Re: Vesting T~act 23142 This is a proposal to divide 6 acres in the Temeeula Valley area. The proper- ty is bet~=cn Sou~h General Kearny Road and Rancho California Road about 2000 £eet west of ~utterfield Stage Road. The property is located at high ground and receives very little offsite storm runoff. Onsite storm runoff would be conveyed by the proposed Bonny Road and discharged at the site's southwest corner through an offsite storm drain system. Follo~rlng are the Dtstrtct's reconxnendatlons: This vesting tract map is located within the limits of the Murrieta CreeldTemecula 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 "Rules and Regulations for Adminlstratio~ of Area Drainage Plans", mended July 3, 198q: ae Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Coe~tsstoner as part of the filing for record of the subdivision finaZ map or parcel map, or if the recording of a final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be paid an a condition of the welver prior to recording a certificate of compliance evidencing the welver of the parcel map; or At t.he optto~ of the land divider, upon filing a required af- fidavit requesting defennent of the payment of fees, the drainage fees shall be paid to the Building Director at the time of Is- suance or a grading parmlt or building permit for each approved parcel, ~htchever may be first obtained after the recording of the subdtvisto~ final map or parcel map; however, Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road C~nlssloner as a part of .the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map, or before receiving s waiver to record a land division, for each lot wlthin the land division ~here construction activity as evi- denced by one of the follcNlng actions has occurred since Hay 1981: Riverside County Planning Department Re: Vesting Tract 23142 -2- March 2, 1988 (a) A grading permit or building pe~mlt has been obtained. (b) Gradlng or structures have been Initiated. Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicat- ed drainage eas~ents obtained from the affected property owner(s). The document(s) should be recorded and a copy submitted to the Dtstrlct prior to recordatlon of the final map. 3- All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an ade- quate outlet. The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When either or these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facili- ties should be installed. A drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property o~ners 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 recordsrich of the final map. Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be submitted t~ the District and County for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. A copy of the improvemant plans, grading plans and final map aloha with supporting hydrologtc and hydraulic calculations should be sub- mitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. Grading plans should be ap- proved prior to issum~ce or grading permits. ~uesttons concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chtang of this of- fice a~ 71q/787-2333. Very truly yours, H. KASHUBA I Civil Engineer oc: Rmncho Pacific Engineering Corp. RC:pln RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RAY HEBRARD RKE CHIEF 3-23-88 PLANNING DEPARTMENT &TTN: TE~M X TR 23142 - AMENDED With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recomends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2½") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one cow of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the follo~iDg certification= eI 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 Imp, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash so of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developor choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. all ~uestions regarding the meaning of the conditions shell be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff, GEORGE S. TATS, Plann~n~Of~fic~e~ April 27, 1988 Mr. Rlchard MacHott, Supervising Planner Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 SUBJECT: Vineyards Vestlng Tentative Tract Map Number 23142 Dear Mr. MacHott: The following summarizes our findings regarding the fiscal impact analysis for the project identified above. The appendix attached summarizes the basic assumptions used in the analysis. Please note that these results reflect the current levels of service provided by the County based on Fiscal Year 1986 - 1987 actual costs (per capita factors) and Departmental and Auditor-Controller review of operations and facility costs for services reviewed using case study analysis. Staff to the Growth Fiscal Impact Task Force and Departments are currently reviewing service levels provided and the need to increase the levels of service. Current findings are that existing levels of service are not adequate in most cases. Should the desired level of service be utilized in the fiscal analysis performed, it would significantly increase the costs associated with this development. COUNTr FUND (Operations and Maintenance) FISCAL IMPACT AFTER BUILDOUT CUMULATIVE FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILDOUT County General ($1,336} $1,414 Fire ($554) ($554) Free Llbrary ($71} ($71) SUBTOTAL COUNTY ($1,961) $709 Road Fund {$421) ($421) GRAND TOTAL ($2,382) $368 Rdaert T, Andersen ,eudmin~ Cente~ ~" ~ - "'"ngmee,'lr~_,~92501 · {7141787-25/A The following special circumstances apply to this project: 1. The developer assumptions included a factor of 2.1 persons per dwilling unit. CAO staff utilized a factor of 2.69 persons per household, which is closer to the countywide average for this type of unit. 2. Please note the attached letter, dated March 28, 19~8, from the Riverside City and County Public Library concerning this project. 3. Flood control staff has indicated that flood control facilities constructed within Zone 7 are unlikely to be sufficiently funded for maintenance costs. Current estimates indicate that funding shortages should occur for the next ten years. Suggested mitigation measures include a cash deposit by the project developer or use of an assessment mechanism. The amount of deposit would be determined by a present value analysis and project timing. The cost of maintaining flood control facilities will not be known until final design phases, when facility needs have been fully identified. Flood Control staff will, therefore, condition project approvals to identify a means of financing facility maintenance and operation (if necessary) prior to recordation of subdivisions. Based on the analysis and assuming that the average sales price of the units will be $125,000, overall Vineyards (Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 23142) w=ll have a positive fiscal impact at bulldou= of $368. After buildout, this project will have an annual negative fiscal impact to the County of $2,382 at current levels of service. 'Initial Review By: Review Approved By: IF:}.= 1 Riverside City and County Public Library arc 28, 1988' Mr, Kevin Hughes Rancho Pacific Engineering 27447 Enterprise Circle West Temecula, CA 92390 Deer Mr, Hughes: SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 23142-RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA I am writing in response to your request for information re- garding the impact of a proposed project upon library service. The proposed project would adversely affect existing library services. The increase in population to be served would require an increase in funding to the County Library to maintain the current level of service. However, the current level of service has been recognized as substantially inadequate. The attached charts show how the current number of volumes per capita and the current square feet per capita are inadequate and have declined during the last decade due to the impact of rapid opulation growth throughout the County. See attached charts [A C D). ppendix and The fiscal impact of an additional 42 persons (20 dwelling units) is stated below in 1988 dollars in amounts needed to 1)maintain the current, inadequate level of service only and to 2)provide the desired level of service. The desired level is inclusive of the current level. Facilities (one time cost only) Maintain Current Level of Service i 954 Provide Desired Level of Service Collection (volumes) (one time cost only) $ 964 $ 1,377 Subtotal for Facilities and Collection gone time cost only) $ 1,918 $ 4,359 Services (annual ongoing cost) 386 $ 794 Lincla M. WoNI, Director P.O. Box Riverside California 92502-0468 Letter to RANPAC, Tract e23142, 3/28/88, Page 2. These costs might be mitigated The assessment of a library facilities end collections fee in laSS dollars at a cost of $96 per residential unit to maintain the current level of service, or $218 per residen- tial unit to provide the desired level of service. The determination that the proJect's estimated assessed valuation will provide at least $386 per year in 1988 to f hence ongoing dollars to the County Library District i expenses at the current level of service, or $794 per year to finance ongoing expenses at the desired level of service. Feel free to contact me at (714)782-5213, if you have further questions. Sincerely yours, Bead of Branch Services BED:mjb Enclosures: Appendix C and D cc: Linda Wood, Library Director Norm Caouette, Senior Administrative Analyst .1201B/eg Aprl 1 Zl, 1988 Land Development Committee RIverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor RIverside, California 92501 PL.;ZZ~.;i;G DEr .... SUBjECT: VESTING TRACT 23142/ZONE CHANGE 5115 The Dtstrtct ls responding to your request for coments on the subject project(s) relatlve to the provision of water and sewer servtce. The ttems checked below apply to this project review. The subdect project: X Is not within EMWD's: X water service area sewer service ares Must be annexed to this Distrtct's Improvement D~strict No. in order to be eltgtble to receive dogstic water/sanitary sewer service. X W111 be required to construct the following facilities; tf serviced by EMWD: a.) Water Service b.) Sewer Service Onstte/offstte regionally sized gravity sewers and participate in regional sewer facilities. No sewers allowed now or future along lot 1tries. Very Truly Yours, EASTERN HUN/C/PAL WATER DISTRICT Planning Department 4- a -e e March 9, 1988 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY pLANNING DEPARTf,..~-",,;T Officers: Sta~ T. Mills PhilUp L. For~ D~r ~ F~ - No~an L. ~omu Thomu R. M~ster D~r of O~mU~ B~ J. ~ Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Vesting Tract 23142 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced proper~y is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Senga P. Doher~y Engineering Services Representative r0Z2/Jkw075 L RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-0615~ RiVERlaDE coun;u, PL nnin( DEPAR mEn DATE: January 15, 1988 TO: Assessor Bulldtng end Safety Surve3mr - Dave Dude Road Depart~nt Health - Ralph Luchs ' FIre'PrOtection ..... Flood Control Dtstrt~t FiSh & Game LAPCOs S Paisley U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Ilavtdson Rancho California Water Co Eastern Municipal Water District Southern California Edison Southern California Gas General Telephone Temecula Union School Diet Elsinore Union High School Diet Temecula Chamber of Commerce Mt. Palomar Observatory Sierra Club County Parks Department Con~nisstoner Bresson CHANGE OF ZONE 511~ - (Tm-1) - E.A. 32354 - Costa Construction Inc, - Rancho Pacific Enptneertng - nancho Caltfronia Area - First Supervtsorial District - North of Rancho Calfornta ~oad and ~rest of Butterfield Stage - 6 acres - Request Zone Change from R-R to R-1 - Concurrent Case Tract 23142 - Mod 119 - A.P. 923-210-fi15 Please review the case described above. along with the attached case map. A Land Division C~.,,ittee meeting has been tentatively scheHuled forM arch 3, laBS. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. Your comemrs and recommendations are reauested prior to February 18, 19RR in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should y~u have any ouestlons re~ardtng thts 1tam, please do not hesitate to contact Greg Neal at 787-1373 Planner COI(NTS: The Fire Department hae no comments or conditions, 'b. iE: 3-1-88 SIGNA)mE PLEASE print nare and title RECEIVED GEORGI S. TATUM, Planning 4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 Dn,cl~esl"'tc Pal Itl'%l)Mla Q~rtfil INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 (DountS of Ri-,R-exemide Riverside ~unty PlanninZ Department February 17, 1988 Attn: Greg Neal i . Sanitarian, Environmental Health Services Change of Zone 5115 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed this change of zone case and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water senices are available in this area. SH:slw PINKS SUBMI t'1 AL TO THE BOARD OF S'UPERV1SORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUD MI'||ALDATE: SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE NO, 5115 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0, 23142 -.~ Costa Construction - First Supervisorial District - Rancho California Area ~ 6,0 Acres -'22 Lots - Schedule A - REQUEST: R-R to R-1 RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Co~mnission and Staff Reconmnend: ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. )'~)'~j~['~sed on the findings incorporated in the environmental assessment and the conclusion that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and DENIAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5115 from R-R to R-1 in accordance with Exhibit 2, but APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5115 from R-R to R-1 and R-5 in accordance with Exhibit 4, based upon the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated September 28, 1988; ant APPROVAL of VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23142, AMENDED NO. 1 subject to the attached conditions, based on the'findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Coffaission minutes dated September 28, 1988. ~WG~:sC 1/88 Prem,. Age. rd. D~im. Commmw~m Dime. AGENDA NO Zoning Area: Rencho California First SuperviSorial District E,A. Number: 32354 Regional Team No. ! ClIARGEOFZDREIIO. Sl15 V~s[IIG TEIITATIYE TRACT I10. 23142 N~gl)rnllO. 1 Planning Commission: 9-28-88 Agenda Item No. 3-5 ~IVERSIDE COURT~ PLARNIRG DEPARTIIglT STAFF RDOItT Applicant: Engineer/Rap.: Type of Request: Location: Existing Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Existing Land Use: Surrounding Land Use: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: 10. Land Division Data: 11. Agency Recommendations: 12. Letters: 13. Sphere of Influence: Nt~LY$I$: Costs Construction, Inc. PanPac Engineering Schedule "A' subdivision and zone change from R-R to R-l. North of Rancho California Road and West of Butterfield Stage Road. R-R R-R, R-l, R-2, R-5. C-1/C-Po A-I-lO Vacant Vacant land, single family ho~es under construction, vineyards and horse ranches. Land Use: Category II Density: 2-8 DU/acre Total Acreage: 6.0 Total Lots: 20 single family lots. 2 open space lots. DU Per Acre: 3.3 Proposed Nan. Lot Size: 7200 sq. ft. See letters dated: CZ 5115 VTR 23142 Read: ~nt 3-23-B8 Health: 2-17-88 4-04-88 Flood: No Cormant 3-29-88 Fire: 3-01-88 3-23-88 Opposing/Supporting: None received Not within a City Sphere ProJect Description Change of Zone No. 5115 and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142 are re ests to chen· the zoning on 6.0 acres of land in the Rancho California area ~rm R-R to ~1 and to create 20 single family lota. The proposed project wtll have an average density of 3.3 dwelltrig units per acre with s minimum lot size of 7200 square feet. CIIARGE OF ZOIE NO. VESTXNG TENTATIVE 11tACT I0. 23142 NEll)El)NO. 1' Staff lieport Page 2 The project site is located north of Rancho California Road and west of ~utterfield Stage Road. The pro~ect site is surrounded by, but not a part of, the Margarite Village Specific Plan (S.P. 199). The project site also lies adjacent and north of Tentative Tract No. 20879, which wee approved on November 26, 1985 by the Board of Supervisors and which created 140 R-1 lots on 45 acres of land. The project site is presently vacant. Surrounding land uses include single family houses under construction on Tract No. 20879 to the south, a ~ater tank to the northwest, and vineyards and a horse ranch to the east. The remaining surrounding area is vacant. Zoning on the property is currently R-R. Surrounding zoning includes R-1 to the south, A-1-10 in the vineyard area to the east and R-R, R-2, R-l, R-5 and C-1/C-P zoning in the area encompassed by the Iqargarita Village Specific Plan. Design Considerations The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the R-1 single family residential development standards, and all other pertinent standards of Ordinance 348 and 460. Due to the tracts vesting status, additional material s were submitted for review in accordance with Ordinance 460. A drainage plan, a hydrology study, and a grading plan were submitted and found to be adequate. These plans will f be implemented through the conditions o approval. As is the appltcant's option, a design manual addressing architecture, landscaping and irrigation, and fencing was submitted and reviewed. These development guidelines will be implemented through an Ordinance 348, Section 18.30 plot lan which will need to be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building pemits. Pro~ect Consistency/CompatibilitY The proSect site lies within the Rancho Callfornla/Temecula Subarea of the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area. Land use policies for this area s~te that future development shall generally be Category I and II, with Catego_n/III development in the out1 leg areas. The project site lies adjacent to an R-1 subdivision (TR 20879) wt~ I density of 3.1 dwelling units per acre. aM is surrounded by the Fargirlie Village Specific Plan, with adjoining property designated for )tedium density development (2-5 dwelling units er acre). The are therefore can be designated a Category IX area. Due to ~he p oposed density of the project and with the availability of all the necessary services and facilities, the proSect is considered consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and is compatible with area development. alAIE (W ZOIIE I0. 5115 VEST~RG TERTATIVE TItACT IB. 23142 JI~]I)EDRO. 1 Staff Report Plea 3 The applicant is proposing R-1 zoning for the entire tract. Because two open spice lots are being crested with this tract, staff feels it would be more appropriate to place R-5 zoning on these two lots, Therefore staff wouqd recernmend a change of zone from R-R to R-1 and R-5, Ftscal Analysts Under current poltcy regarding processing of vesting tentative maps, a flscal analysis is required to be submitted to the County for review, The fiscsl h a~alysis prepared for t is project showed a net benefit to the County of $368.00 upon buildout of the project, and a net annual deficit of $2,382. a These figures ere re chad by using an assumed average selling price of $125,000 per house. Environmental Assessment: The initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 32354 indicated these ,nvironme,tal concerns: 1. ,rosion potanti,l; 5. i,pacts to Stephens Rat~ 3, Paleontologtcal Resources; 4, Hi. Palomar Zmpacts; 5, library impact. The biological report prepared for this project found that Stephens Kangaroo Rats were inhabiting portions of the project site. Since this report was prepared, the County has established an interim Stephens Kangaroo Rat mitigation program. The applicant is conditioned to participate in this program, with participation to include payment of $750 per unit toward establishment of habitat area, so therefore the impacts are considered mitigated. Erosion impacts will be mitigated through erosion control landscaping and adherence to pro r Count grading standards, Paleontological resources will be ,itig,ted conditions of approval ~htch will require that a f quell ted Paleontologist be consulted prior to grading and any recommendations be adhered to, Wc. Palemar impacts will be mitigated by adherence to County Lighting Ordinance No, 655. Any impacts to library services will be mitigated b through paJ~nent of a $100.00 per unit li rary mitigation fee. FINDIMS: The applicant proposes changing the zoning on 6.0 acres of land in the Rancho California Area from R-R to R-1 and to divide the property into 50 single family lots and two open space lots, 2, The project will have e density of 3,3 dwelling units per acre. CI4ANGE OF :ZORE I0. 5115 VESIJlIG TBITATZVE TIIACT IS. ~3142 ~I~ENDE/) I10. 1 Starf Report Page 4 3. The project is located adjacent to Tract No. 20879 (Board of Supervisors approved November 26, 1985) which created 140 single family lots on 45 acres. 4. The project is surrounded by the Pargarita Village Specific Plan (5.P. 199 . Adjacent are designated for medium density residential (2-5 DU/j~re). areas 5. Surrounding land uses include single fNnily homes, vineyards, a horse ranch and vacant land. 6. Surrounding zoning includes R-R, R-l, R-2, R-5, C-1/C-P and A-1-10. 7. The project is located within the Rancho California/Temecula Subarea of the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area. 8. The tM) open space lots are proposed to have R-1 zoning. 9. The fiscal analysis indicates a financial net benefit to the county of $368.00 at buildout and a net annual deficit of $2,382 every year thereafter. 10. Environmental concerns include erosion, biological impact, Paleontological resources, Nt. Palomar resources and library impacts, All environmental concerns can be mitigated by the conditions of approval. CONCLUSIONS: %. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan. 2o The proposal is compatible with area develo;nent. 3. R-5 zoning is a more appropriate zone for the two Open Space lots. 4. The project rill not have a significant effect on the environment. RECOR4ENDATZOR$= ADOPTZOR of a Negative I)eclaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32354, ; the conclusion that the proJec~ will n~t have a significant effect on the environment; and, DENIAL of CHANGE OF ZONE leO. 5115 from PPIt t8 R-l, tn accordance with Exhibit GWQGE OF ZONE llO, 5115 VESTING TE)iTATIVE TRACT llO. 23142 NQ'NDEDRO, 1 Staff Report Page 5 APPROVAL of OIARGE OF )/)RE I0. 5115 from R-R to R-1 and R-5 in accordance with ~4; and, APPROVN.. of Vt~i~NG TENTATIVE TRACT IIO. 23142, subject to the conditions of ~, and based upon the findings and conclusions incorporated in this staff report. GN:Sc 9/13/88 · cz 4ca- . VAC. :Alp. GOSTA CONSTRUCTION. ,IIIC. · aT,OvaL mAP ;GimuI~tk:m. RANQHO,QAI,;IE ~RD. NITERIAL. IIO' ~Eimsnt~BUTrlI:RF, IELD STAGE R9. MTERIAL I10' I: ~N. Ik. 111.55C Dale 8/291~8 Iraw~ 8y lee 1~- I I00' ~ COUN~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT .o ec~ce ' ! CZ 5115 / 1'11 I PROPOSED ZONING R-R! 'A-I-IO '\ ,,z,,, R-2 : lapp. COSTA CONS'PR~CTION, INC. Ocar~oN4L ).',,,,- .,,.c.o c,,,r-~,,,~,,~,,,, iSeg:.~ T.?S;,R:2W. lsseeor'l BIr,. 123, ~ ) ;Circtd~on,RAN{3HO P.,,iLIF. ~ ARTERIAL IIO' !ElementI'U~TERFIELI) S1NIE RO. ARTBIAL I10' ~ ;N ek. ~.55C Date I~2S/88 [hen ey Jtw ,1'- 8CO' 'e'.,e,. 51151TR 23142 RECOMMENDED ZONING q 4 , {~Art~IVAL MAP '~i'- lt--.m wO lll-q & R-S """"'~"~' ' ~ ~ ~II'LIE II). ARTERIN,,. I10' :;':VE:LI;~E COUR;Y PL~nha~ DEPa~;I;En; APPLICATION FOR LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT DATE: December 17, 1987 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. CONDr~ONAL US~ P~RMIT NG R.OT PLAN NG. RJI, K; USE P~RMFT NO. ](a]rRACTMAPN0. VESTING .2/,h4u2 TEMPORARY USE PERMff NO. II~COMIg~ETE APPUCAllONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. JAN 12 1988 PLANNING DEPARTMENT COSTA CONSTRUCTION, INC. ~80 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE, SUITS A, Carlshad, CA 92008 (619 Same as above. ( ) (8&~-SAm.) Rencho Pacific Snqineerinq Corp. .,~]780 Prone Stre~, Suite 9, Temecule, CA { 71a ) 676-4024 (8 &~-6 ~) 92390 PROJECT INFORMATION ,. ,.,... ,o.._.. Subdivi( into 20 single fsmily lots. 1. 4aeeum'sPameiNo(s). 923-210-002 Geml MElon (mast s~emee. e~=) North of !ancho CalLfornie Rosa and West of Butterfield Stage Road lsncho-Te/ecul8 Portion 4. m~meem: 6 Acres ~ Le~Nc~e~1p~j~1~giv~x~ct~e~N~e~c~i~mcoe~di~th~e~heC~untyR~r)~M~ybe$~ch~ i. ThomaBrothefIPageN0. snclCoordinetes: Psge 126-C-1 SaGNATURIEOFAIt~ __SIS ATTACBBD ~ITTER OF AUTRORIZ. DAIT 12-17-87 Aumorlty~xtNsel~i:ationlhembyglven: 8~GIMTLIRE OF PR01~RTY OWNERS) 4080 LEMON STREET, 0TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA i2~014657 (714) 787-8181 46*209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 IND|O, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 CaqE NO. E I0, St,u:F U~E ONLY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORIIA TION FORM free to cemtlc~ t~l Planning Deplrtment at (7T4) 7874418. PART I: General InfotmaUon 2. k'thefellxevHxaN:;ir-ati0nflledfo~rneumeMe? Report Nuneer, I ai;~l~NY4. CASE NO. ~'R22473 (ParceiMe~ZoeeChenge, et~) E.A NO. I1 KnowN, ErR PART II: EnvtmnmentN QueBtkmeNre 1. l/ Ihe lxomct wltNn ln AktuiM-Pf, olo SIxcie/StudiesZoee? YES D NOD zDne, refer to Ordinlnce 547,1, or discuff the NtultiO~ wtlh the Co~jnty Geologist, melt Techflecll Report? YES [:3 NO 5. lesewereeevtce evelieY, eetheelte'P Y~lkl NOD ff-No,-howfarmustNwNerlm(Ntaextendedt01xov~eeNee? PART Ill: AiklNOMI MMefil$ 1. Af~th~3;p~1~T~c~g~h~(~:~x~fth~c~t~e~iN~h~4~~r~r~ph~ · Thepoeameh~mwNcheec~phoiographweatekee b. Themaeoic~o~eiic~pi~tog~ 2- A clear phO~,,,~__~N~y(Xe4~z Of e-roller CQpy) 0i the mXxeC4'iete pelion O~ N U.& Ge~ogical Survey quacfrlngle maD. knoedeege. :IiVE=DiDE count PLK,'IirlG DiP,&:trJilil APPLICATION FOR LAND UIE AND DEVELOPMENT INC~~TI~IWILLIIOTliAC~PT~D. 1./~ig~eldem: COBTA CONSTRUCTION, INC. JAN 1~- 1988 RNEK~IDE COUh'I'Y R,ANNING I~;PARTMENT 2380 ~AiM;NO YZDl ROBLE, SUZ'I'E A, C&RLSa.~D, CA ( 714 ) 676-4024 9200~ 92390 l. PROJILT INFORMATION 1. Purpose of ReQuest (~escrilN project): (Ordmlnce 348 eel. no.) C- ImOPU~Pd~I~CTRsi~t end vesting Ttsct 23142 1, AmenorePNtelwoJ). 923-210-002 Iorth of bncho CalifOrnia Road end West of Butterfield Stage Road Z le~ Rennho TemeculsTPom~on Range d. ~G~9SS~: 6 acres IL TROetlSZF~QtmIPR~eNO. inIIM PaVe 326-c-I emNATU~E OFAP~JCANT _see better of Authorization DATE i'13-88 _-- laGNATURE OF INIOPERTY OWNERI) 4080 LEMON STREET. 1~ FLI:XIR I~VEREmDE CALWORNIA 171417874111 OASIS STREET W00~ 3C INDIO, CALIFORNIA 922C telg~ 342-817 INyI, RONMENTAL INFORIIA lION ltMmemW, me~raeelsmeeemee~e9 ~,l~. NOr, CallNO. '~L~ 22473 I. Ad~tieseIC4sasems~ OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE COUNTY ADHZNZSTRATXVE CENTER, NXNTH FLOOR 4080 LEIeN STREET R/VERSIDE, CA~ZFORNZA 92501-3557 Roger S. Sireater, fiefining T)trector A PUBLIC IEARXII6 has been scheduled before the $qJUSNII~ COIINISSION to constder the application(s) described kloe. The Planning Department has tentathely found that the proposed proJect(s) ,111 have no significant environmental effect and has tentatively completed negative declaration(s). The Planning Coonlesion rill consider uhether or not to adopt the negathe declaration along rlth the proposed project at this hearing. Place of Hearing: Board Room. 14th Floor, 4080 Lemon Street, Rlversldeo CA Date of Heerlng: IEDNE~DAYo SEPTEMBER 18, 2988 The ttme of heartng ts Indicated vtth each application listed below. Any person my submtt wrttten con~ents to the PliAntrig Department before the hearTrig or my appear and be heard ¶n sup oft of or opposition to the adoptton of the negative declaration and/or epproveJ~ of th t s project et the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the pro acts tn court,/ou my be 11mtted to raisin only those Issues you or someone ,{$e raised at the publlc hearth9 descrlged !n thts nottce, or ~ written correspondence delhered to the Planntng Co,~tsston st, or prior to, the publlc hearing. The environmental flndtng along wtth the proposed project application m~ be v(ewed st the public Information counter Nond~y through Frld~y from 9:00 e.m. until 4:00 p.m. CkA~IGE OF ZONE 5115, E.A. 32354, located In the Poncho California Area and FIrst Supervisortel Dlstrtct ls en application submitted to amend Ordinance No. 348, RIverside County Lend Use Ordinance. Said amendment would change Zone R-R (Rural ResidenUll) to R-1 (Stngle Famtly Dwelling) or other such zones is tht Planning Commission m~ find appropriate for property ~eneral~y described as north of Poncho C411forote Road, wst of~utterfteld.Xtap Road. MD IrESTING TRACT NAP 23~42, E.A. 32354, 1s an application submitted by Costa Construc~.Son, lnc,~ for property located In the Rancho California Area and FIrst SuperviSortel Ofstrtct vhtch proposes to dlvtde LOt acres auto 20 lots on propert/genlrel~ describid e$ north of Rancho Cel~fOrotl RoBde NeSt Of Butterfield Stage Road. TII~ OF HEARIIG: I0:OO l.s, RANCHO CALIF- DEV. CO. P.O. BOX 755 TEMECULA, CA 92390 923-210-008 923-210-014 VINEYARDS TRACT NO 20879 % COSTA CONSTRUCTION 2380 CAMINO VIDA ROBSE A CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RANCHO CASIF- DEV. CO. P.O. BOX 755 TEMECULA, CA 92390 923-210-008 923-210-014 VINEYARDS TRACT NO. 20879 % COSTA CONSTRUCTION CARLSBAD, CA 92008 923-210-012 923-210-016 :IiVE:DiDE (ounc,u PLArlrlil'16 DEFA::IClTIErlC Amended E.A. 9-2-B8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (F,,~) NUMBER: ~2354 PROJECT CASE TYPE(e) AND NUMBERS(a): V~ttrtg Tract Nn APPUCAN/:~ NAME: ro~ta Construction, NAME OF PERSON(e) PREPARING E.A-: Rr~'o L PROJECT INFORMATION MODULE NUMBER(s): 11 g ?.~la? anti r,a,vJe of Zone No. 5115 DESCRIPTION (includeproposed minimum ~t size lid uses lsepplicable): ~uhd~vi~nn Of 6 acres ~nto 20 lots w~th a m~n(mum of 7200 square feet. Chanae of Zone from Rural - Residential (R-R) to one family dwelllnq resident~a] (R-I~ units B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES R n C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(I): q~t-71 n-n15 D. EXISTING ZONING: R-R B THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? N~ ~ PROPOSED Z~NING: R-q B THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? Y~ ~ STREET REFERENCES: NOrth o~ Pancho California Road and ~cst of Butterfield Stage Road. G. BECKON, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: POrtion of Rancho Tenecula H. BREF DESCRIFTION OF THEEXISTINGENVtRONMENTALSEI'rlNGOFTHEPROJECTSITEAND ;S SURROUNDINGS: Vacant property tn native grassass and brush. Surrounding area ~ rurc~nfqy vacant, but w~th rap~d development occurring to the west. IL COMPREHENSNE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Chec~ N eppro~fil. le option(l) below end procem:l accordingly. rl AIr ~' plrl of the I:N'ojeCt cite II in "A~:}ptee Specific Ptlnl," "REMAP" or "RlichO Villages Community Policy Aream", Complete Sections III, W (B lid C only), V en{I VI. [] All or pad d the project site il in "Atoll Not Designated es Open Space". Complete Sections Ifi, IV (A, B lid D only), V anti VL r-I All or pld ot the project site his in Open Spice lid Conler4tion deeignition other than those mentioned above. Complete Sections III, N (A, B, anti E only), V and | III. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD8 AND RESOURCES A~SESeMENT A. ~ndk~1her~tt~1of~h~pr~ndu~eudet~mine~r~m~etec~c~Dit~rt~f~unc~inC~mpr~h~rmiv~Gen~F~ure Vt.3 (Ckcte One). This informlUort Is necessary to cletefmine the appropriate lind ule suitability ratings in Section Ill.B, NA - Not ~ CHU:~ E~ent~ No~nsl-H~h n~k ( NormS-Low Risk ) B, ~ndic~w~h~y~C~)orn~(N)whether~ny~nvir~nme~tmJh~z~rd~nd/~rr1e~tarcei~sue~mya~gn~Ic~nUy~ect~tbe~ected iddltion81 Cite soun:at agencies ~onsuHed, findings Of fact and any mlUg~tion measures under Section V. AJio, w~ere indicated, Gkcle Ihe m lind ule suitlbility or riolie Icce~tebifity etting(I). (See definitions at bottom Of ttil P~ge). HAZARDS ( 6- N 9,JL I N Aicluist-Prloto ,~ Studies or County Fault 12... H4zardZ~x~s(F'~.Vt.1) (NA) PS U R (Fig. ~n~) 2- N LiQuefaction Potentiai Zone (Fig. Vl.1) 13... ( NA ) S PS U R (F~. VL4) 3 N GroundshakingZone(FigVl.1) CLAS$ ZZ 14... ( NA ) S PS U R (Fig. ~n.5} 4- N Slopes {Fray. Co. 8430 Scale Slope Maps) 15. 5- N Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Seismic Maps or On*mite Inspection) 16... NA ) S PS U m (F~. ~n.6) ROCkfill Hm-mrd (On*late Inspection) 17.. Expansive Soils (U.S.D.A. Soil 18. N Conservation Service Soil Surveyl) 19. Y 8 Y Erosion(U.S.D.A. SoilConsen~ation SOILS 20. N Se~e S~ Surveys) ArC2 21. N Wind Ersosion & Blowsand (Fig. I/I.1 ,P, NE3 22. N Or~.460, Sr_142&Ord. 484) 23. JL, 10. N Dam Inundltion Are8 (Fig. I/I.7) 24. 11. N Iqoodp~ns (F~. Vl,7) 25. (NA) U R (Fig. W~) 2e, Y 30_N N Airpod Noise (Fig. I1.18.5, I1.18.11 & %/1.12 & 1984 AJCUZ Report, M.A.F.B.) ( hl~ A B C D (Fig, VT.11) H Railroad Noise (Fig. %/I.13 - VI.16) (NA) A . e C D (Fig,~.l~) Highwly Noise (Fig. %/I.17 - %/I.29) r,{ ( NA ) A B C D (Fig, V1.11) NA A B C D (Fig, %/1.11) Project Generated Noise Affecting Noise ~ensltive UseS {Fig. %/I.11 ) Y Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. %/1.11 ) .. Air Quality Imlacts From Project Project Sensitive to Air QulJity .. Water Quality Impacts From Prolect .. Project Sensitive to Water Qu/lity .. HazarCloua Materials and Wastes HlzlrclOCa Fire Arel (Fig. %/I.30 - %/I.31) RESOURCES 3~- N Scenic Highways (Fig. %/I.45) 33. Y Historic Resoumes (Fqi. %/I.32 - V~.33) 34. y Arch~eol~icj Resources (Fig. Vt.32 - VI.33 & %/!.46 · 35, Y Plleonto~ogic/Resources (Paie~ntoloeicai Resources Map) 36. Y Other Mt Pa10m,,,- 37. Other Definitions for Land Use Suitability snd Noise Acceptability Ratings NA - Not AppliclbM 8 - Ge~erily Sultlble PS - Proviaiortslly Suitable U - Generllly UnlultlbM R - ReltllCtacl A - Generally Acceptable a - Conditionlily Accepllbll C - Gee~rilly Unacceptlble D - land Use Discouraged 1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(a): Not designated a~ Open SpacP 2. LAND USER. ANNING AREAc c;Buthw~t T~rri tnry ~ SUBAREA, IFANY: l)~nrhn £,lifnrni~/Tpmprul, 4. COMMUNITYPO LICY AREA IF ANY: Mf Palnm, r Oh~rv~tnry street lighting policies 5. COMMUNITY PLAN, IF ANY: 6. COMMUNITY PLNI DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY: SUMMARY OFPOLICIESAFFECTINGPROPOSA~ Future land I1~ g~ner~lly rategnry T or II with Category III in the outer portions, Ht, Palomar Observatory Policies apply as the property lies within their 30-mile radius, Low pressure sodium lighting and appropriate Shielding should be implemented. B. Fo~ ell projects, inidcate with a yes p0 or no (N) whether any public facilities and/or services issues may sign Hicantly affect or be affected by the propoMI. NI reference~ r~ures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any issu~ marked ye~ {Y), write d/f= sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Sectio~ V. PUBLIC FACIUTIES AND SERVICES 1 N Circutalm(Fig. N.1-N.11.Dicussin 10. N Sac__-: V Existing, INanned & ReQuired Roads) 2 N S~eTraib(Ir;.N.12-N.13) ll.N 3. N wa.~ (Agency Leer) 12. Y 4. N ~ewe~(Agen~l.et~) 13N 5 N Fire Sevices (Fig. N,16-N.18) 14N 6 N Shed~Sewtces(FigN,17-N.18) 7. Y Schcell(Fig. N.1?-N.18) ls, N 8 N SolidWeSte(R~N,17-N,18) 16N 914 Pmks and Recreeiet(Fig. N.19-N.20) 17. Equettrian Trails (Fig. N.19. IV.24/ Ray. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail M~os) Utilities (Fig. N,25 - N.26) I. ibrmtes (F~. N.17 - NAB) Health Seh4ce~ (Fig. N.11, N.18) Aimorts (Fig. 11.18.2 · 11.18.4, M.18~ - 11.18.10 & N27 - N~6) Disaster Preparedness City~oflnituence P,, ff dl or pet ol the project is located In "Acinpted Specific Rane', "REMAr or "P4t~ho Villages Community Policy 1. StNetheretevant~mndusecleaignNion(a): Based on alia Initial study, Is the proTX}~N consistent with the i;dicies end designations of the appropriate docum, end tamfore consistent wlfft the Comprehensive General Pin? If noL explain: ;' 'i N. LAND USE DLrtERMINAT!ON (GentinN) - D. ~f8~rpm1~U~epnyAct~t~i~in~Am8~n~tDe~ignat~d~s~p~nS~ce~8ndi~n~in8C~mm~~p~te ~Weetxts l, 2, 3, 6 and/. C4xN:~le~Fastk~s4,5, eand71f lt ls in aCommunlt~Ran. 1. Land use cat~m) necessary to support the propeeed proiect Neoindicatelandumtl~e [L~ re6idelqtll, commerc/I, etc.) Cate~nry TT - Rp~dpnt~aq C~rmm~ Imnd ~ee cNsgonyfes) foe t~e site based on exis~ng condrden& (L& ~, oernmercial, etc.) Categnry II - R~id~ntiR1 Also indicate land use type 3. If D.1 differs from D,2, will Ihe difference be revived it ~he development stage? Explain: 5. Is the proposed project ~.,~sistent wilh Ihe policies and designations of the Community Plan? ff hal, explain: 6. Is ff~e prc~x)sal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land ules? If not, explin: 7. ~ o~ this hl study, Is N proposll consistent with the Comprehensive General Ptan? ~ not, reference by Section mini Issue Number ~hose issues identifying InconSistencies: Yes 1= II Ill 0~ ~ 0f the ixoject Ire 18 in In Olan Space md Conservation designation, complete the fallowing: 1. SINe the design~m)~ 2. im Ihe p~ ;ontolatent with the demlgnmion(m)? If no~ exp4min: 3. aaMd on this rnl~l study, is ~e pm~xaJ consilent with the Comprehensive Genersl Ran? If nol, refm by Secton IrM:l Imeue Nu~dxr theme irasues identifying inconsistencies: ' '[ 'V. INFORMATION 8C)URCEB, FIND4NCI8 OF !tACT AND MITIGATION MEABUREB k ADDfilONAL lt:ORMAI1ON REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED: DATE DATE ADEQUACY SECTION/ INFO~MATION liFORMATION INFORMAlION I)t'FBqIJltAT10N I~UE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEMD II! B-28 BIological Report 2-5-88 4-88 IzI B-34 Archaeological Report 2-5-88 B. For each issue marked lea (Y} under Sectlone IIl. B and N.B, identify the Section mad issue number and do the following, in the format Is shown bek:w~. 1. List all add~ relevant data ~ource~, including agencies e.,~qsultad. 2. State all findings of fact regarding enviro~mental concerns. 3, State specific mitigation measures, If identifible without requiring an environmental impaCt report (E.I.R.) 4. If additional information is required before Ihe environmental assessment can be COmpleted, refer to Subsection A. 5. If additional sheets ire needed to con~piste Ibis lection, check ~e box It the end of the section and attach the necessary sheet SECTION/ ISSUE NO. III 8-8 III B-17 ,~OURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OFFACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: Mitiqatton for erosion shall occur throuqh SlOPe landscaping and proper erosion control technique during grading, There are no existing noise produces which will impact the site, some mitigation is proposed. III 8-28&29 III B-33&34 IIl B-35 Ill B-36 IV B-7 IV B-12 Biological Report No. 189 prepared for this project found that Stephens f(angaroo rats inhabit the site. Development of the Site would result in the loss'of this habitat, so therefore the. project mav have a siqnificant effect on the environment. Requested information concerntnq an archaeological report hat not bP~n submitted for review. Potential Paleontolgtcal resources will require a oaleontoloqist be on site during gra8fng activity. Mr. Pelomar impacts mitigated by utilization of low oressure sodium lighting. Impacts to schools mitigated thoruqh school fees. This project will be required to Day library mitigation fees. ~ECTION/ ISSUE NO. '1 ! ! B- .28 *IIIB- 3~ & 34 INFORMATION SOURCES, F1NDING8 OF FACT AND MIllGAllON MEASURES (tentingeel) SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED. FINDINGS OFFACT, M~IGATION MEASURES: After this E.A. was found to have a positive declaration, a focused EIR was requested to address Steohens Kanqaroo Rat imoacts. Since the N.O.P. was issued. the County ha~ established an interim nrogram for the mitigation of impacts to Stephens. Because the applicant will be required to participate in this program. inrluding payment of $750 per dwellinq unit, it is determined that this pro~ect has mitiqated the potential impacts and that a negative declaration may be prepared. The Archaeoloqical Report orepared for this pro~ect was submitted for this project. This report indicated no resources were found. so therefore no mitigation is necessary. O See afiac~ I~g~. VL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION: rl The peoJect wi~ not Mve a mignlfcant effect on the eewlro~m~t ~nd · Negative Declaration may be (~ [] The project COuM have · ligrdrt, lnt effect ~n the environment however, them will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation meseurse described in ~ection V have been applied to the project rand a Negative Declaration my be prepared. CITY OF TEMECULA ~ I'T VICINITY MAP r "~ CASE P.C. DATE '~/~/'~1 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Vestinq Tentative Tract 231~,2 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Paid in conjunction with underlying PM 19580. 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. 18h Condition No. 1 { City ) Condition No. 2 ( City ) Condition No. 7 ~ Roads Division) Condition No. 20a Condition No. 15 Condition No. lu, Staffrpt\VTM231u,2\mb ITEM t9 Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1990 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11339 Prepared By: Scott Wright Continuance to the hearing of April 15, 1991 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Don Coop Markham and Associates To construct a 9,216 square foot automotive service center on a 0.9 acre parcel The northwesterly side at Rio Nedo Street, approximately 720 feet southwest of Diaz Road M-SC, manufacturing-service commercial North: M-SC South: M-SC East: M-SC West: M-SC Not requested Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant CommerclalofficeacrossRioNedoStreet Light industrial Light Industrial Site Area: 0.9 Building Area: 9,216 sq. ft. Lot Coverage: 21% Landscaping: 6,046 sq. ft.(15% of site area) Parking Spaces: 62 spaces STAFFRPT\PP11339 BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Plot Plan 10U, L~5, a proposal to construct an office/ warehouse building on the subject property, was approved at the Riverside County Planning Director's Hearing of September 12, 1988. The office/warehouse project was dropped by the applicant, and Plot Plan 11339, a proposal to construct an automotive service center, was submitted to the County on June 28, 1989. Plot Plan 11339 was continued at the county Land Development Committee meeting of July 27, 1989 pending submittal of a traffic study, an amended plan, and conceptual grading information. Continuances on October 5, 1989 and November 16, 1989 occurred for the same reasons. There was a fourth continuance on February 15, 1990 for additional topographical and drainage information and a road correction to the plot plan. A fifth continuance occurred on April 16, 1990, apparently for the same reasons. On May 16, 1990 the county prepared a transfer form for transmittal of the application to the City. The project is to construct a 9,216 square foot automotive service center. The building will comprise two suites, and each side of the building will have five service bays. Sixty-two parking spaces with adequate interior landscaping and substantial street frontage landscaping are provided. Relationship to Adjacent Structures There are structures on the adjacent properties east and west of the site, a construction supply warehouse on the east and a vacant industrial building on the west. Both buildings are at or very close to the property line, and the walls facing the subject property are windowless; therefore, the service bays in the proposed structure will have a minimal visual impact on the adjacent properties. Overnight storage of vehicles will be restricted to the area behind the building, and planting materials along the rear property line will be required to be of sufficient height to provide visual screening. Traffic The traffic analysis required by the City Transportation Engineer indicated that the proposed automotive service center will generate 370 STAFFRPT\PP11339 2 trip ends per day and 30-35 vehicles per hour during peak hours. These volumes can be easily accommodated by the existing street system, and intersections in the vicinity of the site will continue to operate at Level of Service A. The Standard Signal Mitigation Fee and Public Facility Fee are conditions of approval for the project. Site Access and Interior Circulation Access to the site is provided by two driveways 28 feet in width at the right of way line. The drive aisles are 2u, feet wide and adequate to accommodate two way traffic. The turn radii at the rear of the building are adequate for refuse vehicles and fire trucks. Liquefaction Potential A site specific liquefaction investigation was prepared in conjunction with Plot Plan 101~1~5,. The report determined that the site is susceptible to liquefaction and recommended removal and recompaction of soll and review of foot Ioadings and design plans by the project geotechnical engineer prior to construction grading. The recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval. Parkinq The parking requirement for automotive repair businesses is one space per 150 square feet or four spaces per service bay, whichever is greater. The proposed 9,216 square foot structure is required to provide 62 spaces. The site plan shows 62 spaces, two of which are handicapped spaces at the front adjacent to the entrances. Loadinq Zone Waiver Ordinance 3~,8 requires I loading zone for commercial and industrial structures between 7,500 and lu,,999 square feet. The site plan does not include a loading zone but does satisfy the stringent parking requirement of one space per 150 square feet of floor area. In view of the ample provision for parking and multiple bay doors on both sides of the building, staff recommends waiving the requirement for a loading zone pursuant to STAFFRPT\PP11339 3 Ordinances 3~,8 Section 11.5 which al lows exceptions to development standards when appropriate for the proposed use and not contrary to public safety. Drainaqe and Potential Flood Hazards Engineering Department conditions of approval require the developer to provided written clearance from the County Flood Control District prior to issuance of Grading permits. Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant is required to pay drainage fees and submit Grading and Improvement Plans with Hydraulic and Hydrologic calculations to the Flood Control District for review and approval. The 40 foot drainage easement at the rear of the property, currently a drainage swale, will be filled in and will contain a continuation of an existing reinforced concrete pipe which can accommodate 100 year peak tributary storm flows. Building Setback and Landscapinq The 3L~ foot building setback from the right of way line exceeds the requirement for a 25 foot front setback in the M-SC zone. Landscaping adjacent to the street is 20 to 30 feet deep and exceeds the requirement for a 10 foot landscape strip. Ordinance 348 requires 10% of the site area in the M- SC zone to be landscaped. Interior landscaping shown on the site plan equals 1896 of the parking area, and the total area of landscaping equals 15% of the site. Buildinq Height The proposed one story structure will be 22 feet in height which is within the 50 foot maximum building height in the M-SC zone. Elevations Staff has expressed a concern to the applicant that the proposed elevations are too plain and present a box-like appearance. Staff suggested the addition of a cornice and some decorative tile to provide more contrast and articulation to the appearance of the building. Rather than make the suggested changes before the hearing, the applicant preferred to schedule a public hearing, to have the elevations STAFFRPT\PP11339 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION: reviewed at the hearing by the Planning Commission, and to receive direction from the Commission regarding the elevations. If the Commission finds the proposed elevations acceptable and is prepared to approve the project, findings, conditions, and a resolution approving Plot Plan No. 11339 are attached in order to enable the Commission to take action. The proposed automotive service center is a permitted use in the M-SC zone and is consistent with the Light Industrial Land Use designation in which the site is located. An initial Study was prepared for Plot Plan No. 11339 and is attached to this Staff Report. The project will not result in any impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 11339. Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission CONTINUE Plot Plan No. 11339 to the hearing of April 15, 1991 for submittal of revised elevations. SW:ks Attachments: 2. 3. u... 5. Findings Resolution Conditions of Approval Environmental Assessment Exhibits A. Vicinity Map B. Site Plan C. Elevations Fee Checklist STAFFRPT\PP11339 5 FINDINGS The proposed use is consistent with the M-SC zone and the Southwest Area Plan Light Industrial Land Use designation in which it is located. The project will not constitute an adverse impact on surrounding land uses in that it will be compatible with existing land uses in the area; the site will not drain onto adjacent properties, and project generated traffic will not pose an undue burden on the streets in the area. The site is adequate for the proposed use in that parking, internal traffic circulation, and landscaping are adequate and meet all applicable requirements. The site will have adequate access from the street. The project has two access driveways on Rio Nedo Street. Potential liquefaction hazards can be adequately mitigated. The proposed Plot Plan will not result in any significant environmental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated. The traffic generated by the project will not constitute a significant adverse impact on the level of service of the streets in the area as determined in the Traffic Study for the project. Also, the developer is required to pay traffic signal mitigation and road improvement fees. 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 due to the fact that the project is consistent with the current zoning for the site and with adjacent development. STAFFRPT\PP11339 6 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 due to the relatively small scale of the project and its consistency with surrounding development. STAFFRPT\PP11339 7 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 11339 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE CENTER ON THE NORTHWESTERLY SIDE OF RIO NEDO STREET APPROXIMATELY 720 FEET SOUTHWEST OF DIAZ ROAD. WHEREAS, Donald Coop filed Plot Plan No. 11339 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on · 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 said Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECT ION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time· the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: {1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. {2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: 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\PP11339 8 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 Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. ~2) The City Council 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. 11339 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: STAFFRPT\PP11339 9 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 City Council, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed use is consistent with the M-SC zone and the Southwest Area Plan Light industrial Land Use designation in which it is located. b) The project will not constitute an adverse impact on surrounding land uses in that it will be compatible with existing land uses in the area; the site will not drain onto adjacent properties, and project generated traffic will not pose an undue burden on the streets in the area. c) The site is adequate for the proposed use in that parking, internal traffic circulation, and landscaping are adequate and meet all applicable requirements. d) The site will have adequate access from the street on which it has frontage. e) Potential liquefaction hazards can be adequately mitigated. The proposed Plot Plan will not result in any significant environmental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated. f) The traffic generated by the project will not constitute a significant adverse impact on the level of service of the streets in the area and the developer is required to pay traffic signal mitigation and road improvement fees. STAFFRPT\PP11339 10 g) 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. h) 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. 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. project will Declaration, An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 11339 for the operation and construction of an automotive service center located on the northwesterly side of Rio Nedo Street 720 feet southeast of Diaz Road subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION u,. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this R esol ution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\PP11339 11 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 , 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions of approval set forth herein above in this resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 11339. DATED By Name Title STAFFRPT\PP11339 12 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 11339 Project Description: To construct a 9,216 square foot automotive service center Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-254-005 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 9,216 square foot automotive service center. 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. 11339. 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. 11339 marked Exhibit 1, 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 hereino Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department~s transmittal dated July 20, 1989, a copy of which is attached, STAFFRPT\PP11339 13 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated February 21, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated February 13, 1991, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Ceologist~s transmittal dated August 15, 1988, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water District transmittal dated July 28, 1989, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated July 11, 1989, a copy of which is attached. Prior to the issuance of building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted tothe 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. 348, 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 62 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 62 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit 1. 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 two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit 1. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed raflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height 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: STAFFRPT\PP11339 14 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. "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. 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 A Plot Plan application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit 2. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit 2 (Color Elevations) and Exhibit __ (Materials Board). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry 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. This project is located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Soils Engineer or Goolocjist shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Department identifying the potential for liquefaction or subsidence. Where hazard of liquefaction or subsidence is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. STAFFR PT\PP11339 15 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 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. One (1) Class III bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area, Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of 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. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall pay all cost associated with all monitoring activities. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 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 1~, 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 STAFFRPT\PP11339 16 711.q(c). Vehicles stored outside overnight will be stored behind the building. The planting along the rear property line will be of adequate height to provide visual screening of the overnight storage area. 35. Used parts and motor oil shall be stored within the building prior to disposal. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 36. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Flood Control district; Planning Department; Engineering Department; and CATV Franchise. 37. The developer shall submit four (~,) 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 2u,"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 38. The developer shall submit four {~) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 39. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to the commencement of any grading outside of the City Right-of-way. 41. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. STAFFRPT\PP11339 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. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. All plans, calculations, and specifications may be subject to review and approval by Riverside County Flood Control. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. Prior to any work being perfomed in Public Right-of-Way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office. Existing City roads shall remain open at all times with adequate detours during construction. Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of all drainage facilities. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: All improvements shall be constructed as shown on the approved plans. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401 {curb sidewalk). 50. 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 EI R/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. STAFFRPT\PP11339 18 Buildlnq and Safety Department 51. Provide 2 sets of fully dimensioned plans for Plan Review, which shall incorporate structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing drawings to the Department of Building and Safety. 52. Provide a Geological Report, which reflects foundation investigations and soils requirements for liquefaction at same time plans are supplied for plan review. 53. Lighting on site and located on structures shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655. Applicant shall fill out an Application for Final Inspection. Allow two weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final inspection. 55. School fees must be paid to Temecula Unified School District prior to issuance of building permits. STAFFRPT\PP11339 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 923'70 · (714) 657-3183 GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF DATE: February 13, 1991 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PLOT PLAN NO. 11339 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 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and offsite super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2~x2~), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." f'l INDIO OFFICE 79-733 Coumtv Club Drive, Suite F./ndio. CA 92201 (619) ]42~886 · FAX (619) 775-2072 PLANNING DIVISION {~ RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 [;~th ~zt, Rivet·kit, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 s FAX (714) 369-745[ ~t~TEMECULA OFFICE 41002 County Cent~ Drive, Suite 225. T~netula. CA (714) 694-5070, FAX (714) 694-5076 RE: PLOT PLAN NO. 11339 PAGE 2 Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the'building plans. Install a supervised waterfow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per UBC. In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section 505 (e) of the Uniform Building Code. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-iOBC. COntact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. Prior to the 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 fees. 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 LC/tm KENNETH L. EDWARDS CHIEF ENGINEER 1995 MARKET STREET P,O. BOX 1033 TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015 FAX NO. (714) 788-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 February 21, 1990 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 5 Jeff Adams Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Plot Plan 11339 Amended No. 1 Plot Plan 11339 is a proposal to construct an auto service center in the Temecula area. The property is Lot No. 21 on the northwest side of Rio Nedo between Diaz Road and Aqua Vista Way. The referenced site is in the flood plain of Murrieta Creek. The sub-areas up slope l~rom this project must cross it in order to drain into the creek. Tract No. 14936 is the map of record covering the site and it has the condition that a drainage easement forty feet wide be reserved in the back for the above men- tioned sources of runoff and flooding· Following are the District's recommendations: Plot Plan 11339 is located within the limits of the Temecula Valley subarea of the Murrieta Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of the new development. This new development has a total of 0.90 acres gross. At the current fee rate of $932.00 per acre, the mitigation charge is $838.00 The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 2. The proposed storm drain should be a sized to carry the 100 year peak flows tributary to it. A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with support- ing hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to the Subdivision section of this office at 714/787-2015. c: Markham and Associates DHT:slw VerY~~' OHN H. KASHUBA ~r Civil Engineer ::IiVEq)EDE COUIIC,u PLA IlilIG DEPA:I IEII August 15, 1988 Soil Tech 287008 Las Haciendas Street Suite 103 P. 0. Box 1568 Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: Mr. H. Wayne Balmbridge Mr. Anthony B. Brown Mr. John T. Reinhart Mr. David L. Jones SUBJECT: Liquefaction Hazard Project No. 2712-PS-88 Plot Plan 10445 County Geologic Report No. 538 Rancho California Area Gentleman: We have reviewed your report entitled "Liquefaction Hazard. Investigation, Lot 21, Tract 14936," dated August l, 198B. :/.', ,. ~ . Your report determined that the potential '~or liquefaction at the subject site is considered to be very likei)to the/dmX~mu~d~h~explored;'.Should liquefaction occur in the soil deposits belo~ t~e water table,' it i~'l~k~ly that the surface soils will experience settlemant. Your report recommended that in consideration of the potential for liquefaction induced differential settlement below the proposed structure, removal and recompaction of the near surface on-site soils should be performed. This over- excavation should project 5 feet outside the footing area and extend a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the proposed footings. Larger isolated square footings with vertical loads in excess of 25 kips may require additional removals. Footing loading and design plans should be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer prior to construction grading in order to determine the need for addi- tional removals. Although minor in nature, we would like to point out that paragraph 2.2 Borings should read "Two (2) exploratory borings" rather than "Three (2)." 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Although the proposed project is more than 30 miles from Palomar Observatory, we request that tny outdoor lighting conform to the following guidelines ~xtch ere formulated to minimize the adverse effects of light pollution: 1. Use the minimum ~mount of light needed for the task. 2. Orient tnd shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. Turn off li2hts at 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in commercial applications, the associated business is open past that time, in which cue the lights should be turned off at.closing. Use low-pressure sodium lsmps for roadways, walk~ays, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other similar applications. These lights need not be turned off at 11:00 p.m. Adoption of these guidelines will help preserve the conditions needed for the continuation of research at Palomar Observatory. For further informa- -tion, please call (81g) 35G-4035. Robert J. Brucato Assistant Director Soil Tech August 15, 1988 Page 2 It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and satisfies the additional information requested under the California Environmental Quality Act review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval of the report is hereby given. The recommendations made in your report for mitigation of liquefaction potential shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project. Very truly yours, SAK:et cc: Jean Keller - Markham and Associates Norm lostbom - Building & Safety {2) Patti Nahill - Planning Team 1 Tli: FliOM: liE: Co_nty of River, :de DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DATE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. : - ~~ronmental Health SPecialist IV PLOT PLAN 11339 07-20-89 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan 11339 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to any buildinq plan submittals, the followinq items will be submitted: 1. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewerlnq a0encies. 2. A q!~E~_!~E from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Manaqement Branch (Jon Mohoroski (714) 358-5055), will be required indicatin~ that the pro3ect has been cleared for: a. Underqround storage tanks. b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185) d. Waste reduction manaqement. $M:tac cc: Jon Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch JUt Z Board of Directors: James A. Darby President Jeffrey L. Minklet St. Vice President Ralph Daily Doug Kulberg Jon A. Lundin T. C. Rowe Richard D. Steffey Officers: John F. Hennlgar General Manager Phillip L Forbes Director of Finance- Treasurer Thomas R. McAliester Director of Operations & Maintenance Edward P. Lemons Director of Engineering Linda M. Fregoso District Secretary McCormick & Kidman Legal Counsel July 28, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Tract Map 14936, Lot 21 Plot Plan 11339 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have anyquestions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714) 676-4101. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon Civil Engineer F012/jkf59f R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A W A T E R D I S T R I C T 28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-0615 Riverside Co. Planning Dept. 4080 Lemon St., 9th Floor Riverside, Ca 92501 LJbC, The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject project: /Is not within EMWD's: /water service area sewer service area /Will be required to construct/provide the following facilities if to be served by EMWD: Sewer Service Any and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers, treatment, and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD regulations will be allowed. s~,-u~_~ AT cc~,,v,~-r~c~ ~N~", 1~0_, ~ z~o' ~ ~ EASTERN MUNICIPAL.WATER DISTRICT ~J~ ~ Planning Department ~ ~t~- ~'~ ~. 2045 S. SanJacinto Street · Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Donald Coop Address and Phone Number of Proponent: PO Box 123~· Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-3301 Date of Environmental Assessment: February 6, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Plot Plan No. 11339 Location of Proposal: To construct a 9,216 square foot automotive service center on the northwesterly side of Rio Nedo Street 720 feet southwest of Diaz Road. Environmental Impacts ( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe N,_9o 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? __ __ Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X X STAFFRPT\PP11339 20 Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP11339 21 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\PP11339 22 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: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP11339 23 Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: 16. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP11339 2LI. 17. 18. 19. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP11339 25 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 projectis impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe No X X X X STAFFRPT\PP11339 26 I II Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1 .a,b. 1 .c,d. 1.8. 1.f. 1.9. 2.b,c. 3.a,c, d,f. 3.bo 3°8° Yes. Topsoil recompaction and replacement to a depth of 5 feet will occur. Topsoil replacement is necessary to mitigate the potential for liquefaction and subsidence,' This is not considered a significant impact. No. The project will not result in substantial changes in topography or destruction of unique geologic features. The site is flat, and substantial changes in topography will not be required. Maybe. The potential for wind and water erosion will increase during construction. Wind erosion will be mitigated by the use of watering trucks and planting vegetation after grading. Increased water runoff due to the addition of impermeable surfaces will be accommodated by drainage facilities as approved by the Engineering Department. No. The site is not located near any body of water which would be impacted by siltation or deposition. No. County Geologic Report No. 538 was prepared for a previous development proposal to be located on the subject property. The report states that the potential for liquefaction and/or selsmically induced ground subsidence can be mitigated by recompaction and replacement of topsoil to a depth of 5 feet. The County Engineering Geologist found that the report satisfies the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act. The recommendations of the report shall be Conditions of Approval for this project. No. The project will not result in a significant increase in emissions. The nature of the project is not such that it will attract substantial volumes of new traffic to the region. No. The project will not involve any process which would create objectionable odors or cause any alterations in the climate. No. The site is not located near any streams or bodies of water. Drainage will be directed to streets or to drainage facilities. The project does not include any structure or excavation which would alter the flow of direction of ground water. Yes. Increased runoff due to the addition of impermeable surfaces will be accommodated by drainage facilities as approved by the Engineering Department. Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity in local surface water. This impact is temporary and is not considered significant. STAFFRPT\PP11339 27 3.g,h. 3.i. 4.a-d. 5,a-c. 6°8. 6.b. 7. 9.a,b. 10.a. 10.b. No. The project will be served by the Rancho Water District and will not involve any direct withdrawals or additions to ground water. Due to the limited depth of excavation for soil replacement and compaction, it is unlikely that ground water will be encountered. The project will not result in unusual or excessive water usage. No. The site is located above the 100 year flood elevation. The project will provide a continuation of an existing pipe to convey 100 year storm runoff to Murrieta Creek. No. No unique, rare, or endangered plant species have been identified in the area in which the site is located. The possible introduction of new species of plants to the site as part of the required landscaping is not considered a significant impact. The site has already been disturbed and is not used for any agricultural crops. No. The site has already been disturbed. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant is required to pay fees which will contribute to the implementation of Riverside County~s Habitat Conservation Plan. Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction and in the long term due to increased traffic volumes. This is not considered a significant impact because the surrounding land uses are not noise sensitive and noise levels are unlikely to exceed State daily average noise level standards. No. The proposed project and existing adjacent land uses do not create severe noise levels. No. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area. In order to prevent "skyglow" interference with the Mr. Palomar telescope, low pressure sodium vapor lighting shall be used. No. The proposed project is consistent with the designation of the site and its vicinity for commercial and light industrial land uses. No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in the rate of consumption of any natural or non-renewable natural resource. Yes. The proposed automotive center will involve the use of motor oil and may involve the use of other hazardous substances. The applicant shall provide a list of hazardous substances which will or may be used on the site and a submit a plan for their disposal to the County Health Department prior to issuance of building permits. Maybe. If closure of a lane on Rio Nedo Street during construction is necessary, emergency vehicle response may be inhibited. Any street or lane closures during construction shall be coordinated with the Police and Fire Departments. STAFFRPT\PP11339 28 11,12. 13.a,f. 13.b. 13.c,d,e. l~,.a.b. e.f. lu,.c,d. 15.a,b. 16.a-f. 17.a,b. 18. 19. 20.a-d. Maybe. The project will provide additional jobs and could attract more population to the area. However, the number of new jobs created will probably not be substantial, and at least some of the jobs will be taken by current residents of the area. The increase in population and demand for housing in the area due to this project are unlikely to be a significant impact. No. The project will generate 370 additional trips per day which will not constitute a significant impact on the streets and intersections in the vicinity which currently operate at Level of Service A. No. All required off-street parking will be provided on the site. No. The project will not impact public transportation systems, air water, or rail traffic, or alter present patterns of circulation. Yes. The proposed project will require public services in the areas of police, fire, road maintenance, and public facilities. Fire impact mitigation fees and property taxes will provide adequate mitigation for the additional need for public services generated by the project. The project is subject to the standard Facility Fee. Maybe. Any impact on schools or recreational facilities resulting from an increase in population due to new employment opportunities will be mitigated by Conditions of Approval upon new housing. No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial use or increase in demand for fuel or other energy sources. No. The proposed project will not result in a need for substantial alterations of existing utility systems. Maybe. The project will involve the use of motor oil and may involve the use of other hazardous substances. A list of hazardous materials which will or may be used at the site and a disposal plan shall be submitted to the City and to the County Department of Environmental Health Services and clearance obtained prior to issuance of building permits. Maybe. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic view currently available to the public. Overnight vehicle storage will be behind the building and landscaping at the rear property llne will be sufficient to provide visual screening. No. The site is not currently used for recreational purposes and is not located in or near a potential recreational trail alignment. No. The site is not located in an area of paleontological sensitivity or an area of sensitivity for archaeological resources. STAFFRPT\PP11339 29 21 .a. 21 .b,c. 21 .d. No. The project will not degrade the environment. The site has already been disturbed. No. Project generated traffic impacts will not constitute a significant impact on the streets and intersections in the vicinity. Maybe. The project will involve the disposal of used motor oil. Used oil will be recycled and will not be disposed in a manner which will pollute soil or ground water. The use of any hazardous materials will require a clearance from the County Department of Health. STAFFRPT\PP11339 30 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X Date ~-~ For CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\PP11339 31 CITY OF TEMECULA ). //' SIT /:~// VICINITY MAP r CASE NO. te.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Plot Plan No, 11339 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan ( K-Rat ) Parks and Recreation ( 0uimby ) Public Facility { Traffic Miti9ation ) Public Facility ( Traffic Signal Mitigation ) Public Facility ( Library ) Fire Protection Flood Control IADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. 27 N/A Condition No. 11 ~ Engineering) Condition No. 9 ( Engineering ) N/A Condition No. 10 Condition No. 9 STAFFRPT\PP11339 30 ITEM Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1991 Case No.: Substantial Conformance No. 11 Change of Zone No. 9 Prepared By: Mark Rhoades DIRECT Staff to issue a Letter of Substantial Conformance for Planning Area No. 37, Specific Plan No. 199 ADOPT Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 9. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Buie Corporation Turrini 8 Brink A change of zone application and request for substantial conformance to allow duplex and four- plex units in Planning Area 37 of Specific Plan No. 199. North of Rancho California Road and east of Margarita Road. Specific Plan, Medium Density Residential North: Specific Plan, Golf Course South: Specific Plan, Medium Density Residential East: Specific Plan, Very High Density Residential West: Specific Plan, Golf Course Amend zoning criteria for Planning Area 37 to allow duplex and four-plex units, which is allowed within the medium density residential designation for Specific Plan No. 199. Model Units STAFFRPT\SC11 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS: Specific Plan No.: 199 Planning Area No.: 37 Tract No.: 23371-1 Total Units: 107 Acres: 23.7 Density: ~,.6 DU/AC BACKGROUND: Substantial Conformance No. 11 and Change of Zone No. 9 were filed concurrently on January 9, 1991. The cases were filed for Planning Area 37 of Specific Plan No. 199 JMargarita Village). The Margarita Village Specific Plan was adopted by the County of Riverside on September 6, 1988. Planning Area 37 is composed of 107 single family units on 23.7 acres. The overall density is approximately B.6 dwelling units per acre. As part of its model program, the Buie Corporation has bonded and constructed a four-plex within Planning Area 37, with proper City permits. The applicant now requests the proposed Change of Zone and Substantial Conformance to allow the single model four-plex to remain and be utilized as a permanent unit. PROPOSAL: Substantial Conformance No. 11 The applicant is requesting a letter of substantial conformance from the Planning Commission to add language to the housing types allowed in the specific plan. Currently, the subject Planning Area is approved for 107 patio homes. In order to conform to the specific plan, the applicant proposes to add the words "duplexes, four-plexes" to patio homes. The addition of this language would bring the four-plex unit into specific plan conformance. The applicant is not proposing to construct any additional units on the proposed site. The density will remain the same, and with the exception of the STAFFRPT\SC11 2 existing model four-plex, the balance of the units will be patio homes. The proposed substantial conformance will not affect any other portion of the specific plan because other Planning Areas designated Medium Density Residential allow duplexes and four-plexes with each Planning Area allowed a maximum number of units independent of the housing type. Chanqe of Zone No. 9 The proposed change of zone is an application to amend a section of Ordinance 3Ll8.2922 (Specific Plan No. 199). The change in question is page 56 of the subject ordinance. In order for the existing four-plex to remain in Planning Area 37, the zone (Specific Plan No. 199) must be changed to reflect language which permits the duplex/four-plex unit. By changing the zone requirements, the unit would be in conformance with Ordinance 3L18.2922. As previously stated, no new units are proposed, and the density will remain the same. The change of zone will bring the existing unit into conformance with ordinance requirements. ZONING CONSISTENCY: The proposed change of zone and substantial conformance are being requested in order to bring an existing four-plex into conformance with the approved specific plan. If the change of zone and substantial conformance are not approved, the existing model four-plex will be demolished, removed, and replaced by a production patio home. GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed projects are consistent with the SWAP land use designation of SP {Specific Plan Area). Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. Staff has determined that Change of Zone No. 9 and Substantial Conformance No. 11 are exempt from the CEQA requirements as defined in to Section 15061.3 of the CEQA guidelines. STAFFRPT\SC11 3 FINDINGS: Change of Zone No. 9 There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 9 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 is consistent with the density which is already approved for the existing specific plan, and the proposed change is relatively similar in character to the approved project. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 9 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that an approval of the change of zone does not represent a significant change in the current land use approval. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance. 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 density is consistent with the zoning ordinance and approved specific plan. Substantial Conformance No. 11 The project as modified meets the intent and purpose of the adopted specific plan in that it does not represent a change in land use category or density. The project as modified is consistent with the findings and conclusions contained in the resolution adopting the specific plan in that no significant changes are proposed and the project is exempt from CEQA guidelines. STAFFRPT\SC11 u, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: D IR ECT Staff to issue a Letter of Substantial Conformance for Planning Area No. 37, Specific Plan No. 199. ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 9. MR:ks Attachments: Resolution (Change of Zone No. 9) Exhibits A - H Large Scale Maps STAFFRPT\SC11 5 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9 TO CHANGE ORDINANCE 348.2922 TO INCLUDE DUPLEX/FOUR-PLEX USESWITHIN PLANNING AREA 37 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199. THE PROJECT AREA CONTAINS 23.7 ACRES AND IS LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 9q-6-060-010. WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed Change of Zone No. 9 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on April 1, 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 Change of Zone; 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 proceedin9 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\SC11 6 (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. ~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 Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 9 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 is consistent with the density which is already approved for the existing specific plan, and the proposed change is relatively similar in character to the approved project. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 9 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that an approval of the change of zone does not represent a significant change in the current land use approval. STAFFRPT\SC11 7 c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance. d) 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 density is consistent with the zoning ordinance and approved specific plan. D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. Based on the criteria established in Section 15061.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act, Changed Zone No. 9 has been determined to be exempt. SECTION 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 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 1st day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\SC11 8 EXHIBITS A -- H STAFFRPT\SC11 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the front, side or rear yard except as provided ~c.r Section 18.19 of Ordinance No. 348. (3) Except as provided above, all other ments shall be the same as those requirements Article VIII of Ordinance No. 348. kk. Planning Area (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 37 of Specific Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 6.1(a) shall also include noncommercial community association recreation and assembly buildings and facilities; churches; medical and dental offices; and onsite signs. affixed to building walls, stating the name of the structure, use, or institution, however, the sign shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon which the sign is located. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 37 of Specific Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article VI, Section 6.2 of Ordinance No. 348, except that the development standards set forth in Article VI, Section 6.2(b), (c)o (d), and (e)(1), (2) and (4) shall be deleted and replaced by the following: A. Lot area shall be not less than four thousand (4,000) square feet. The minimum 10t area shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. -56- zoning require identified in PROPOSED 0R.P NANC, E the front, side or rear yard except as provided for in Section 18.19 of Ordinance No. 348. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning require- ments shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article VIII of Ordinance No. 348. kk. Plannin~ Area 37. (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 37 of Specific Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 6.1(a) shall also ~ncludeEuplexes, 4-plexes3noncommercial community association recreation and assembly buildings and facilities; medical and dental offices; and onsite building walls, stating the name of the churches; signs, affixed to structure, use, or institution, however, the sign shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon which 'the sign is located. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 37 of Specific Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article VI, Section 6.2 of Ordinance No. 348, except that the development standards set forth in Article VI, Section 6.2(b), (c), (d), and (e)(1), (2) and (4) shall be deleted and replaced by the following: A. Lot area shall be not less than four thousand (4,000) square feet. The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used to the portion of a lot used as a solely for access building site. -56- PLANNINQ COMMISSION EXHIBIT APPROVAL CASE PIj~NNER TABLE II-3 HOUSING TYPES DENSITY HOUSING TYPE Family-Oriented Housinq High Townhouses & Condominiums Medium-High Single Family Detached and Patio Homes PLANNING AREAS/ DU TOTALS 158 326 Medium Single Family Detached and Patio Homes 1,847 LOW Custom Single-Family Lots (e.g. 10,000 sq. ft. to larger than one acre). Single Family Detached 50 Retirement-oriented Housinq Very High Apartments and Condo- miniums [585] Medium-High Patio Homes, duplex and 4-plex condominiums [1,308] Medium Patio Homes [duplexes, ~4-plexes] ~ 4- Subtotal: Grand Total: [107] 2,000 4,381 Note: Text in brackets mance numbers I and 2. [] amended by -33- Substantial confor- PLANNINg COMMISSION ~' t-~ I EXHIBIT t""'. APPROVe,. CASE Pt. ANNER CITY OF TEMECULA ) c s NO.(.,'Z. (-..'l~ EXHIBIT NO- ~) ~p.C. DATE Ll-t-ql CITY OF TEMECULA ) LA e,tf'f''N/''' m~,,., ,Q~d. acI4o ¢NJ~IA ~ Itl~.. I m VICINITY MAP CASE NO.(,,7,..q~/S..C.l~ P,C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) PLANNING AREAS 37,38,39,40,41 A___]yJar~arita Vi|la~re r CASE EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) CASE NO.C.'2,R//~.C. tl CITY OF TEMECULA ) 9EL HOME COMPLEX %ASE NO.(...'Z,cq/~.(.., ''~ EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATE q--1'-ql ITEM #11 APPROVAL CITY A I I ORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' Planning Commission Jim Domenoe Sergeant, Temecula Police Department March 7, 1991 Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the revised ordinance be adopted. BACKGROUND: This ordinance has been reviewed and accepted by the City Attorney, Police Department, and the Engineering Department. At its February 27, 1991 meeting, this ordinance was approved by the Traffic and Transportation Commission with the recommendation it be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. (See attached Minute Order.) Essentially the ordinance repeals portions of the Riverside County Ordinances (relating to parking and vehicles) and adds Chapter 12.08 to the Temecula Municipal Code establishing regulations relating to vehicles and traffic. This ordinance is necessary to delegate the authority on various traffic matters (such as the authority to install and maintain official traffic control devices) to either the City Council or the City Traffic Engineer/City Manager. In addition, the ordinance is vital for the Police Department to be able to effectively enforce the traffic/parking regulations in the ordinance. While this is not an all encompassing ordinance package, it is intended to be a starting point for a complete and comprehensive ordinance. There wilt no doubt be other issues that arise that may result in the need for a new ordinance. If and when this situation occurs, additional ordinances may be added to the current ordinance package. ATTACHMENT: Minute Order STAFFRPT/ENG-020 jec/ORD10358 DIVISION 1 - DEFINITIONS Sections: 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 12.08 001 Vehicle Code definitions 002 Definitions generally 003 Alley 004 City Council 005 Curb 006 Loading Zone 007 Official Traffic Control Device 008 Official Traffic Control Signal 009 Park 010 Parkway 011 Passenger Loading zone 012 Pedestrian 013 Police officer 014 Safety Zone 015 Stop 016 Stop or stand 017 Vehicle Code 12.08.001 Vehicle Code definitions. Whenever any words or phrases used in this title are not defined in this chapter but are now or hereafter defined in the Vehicle Code of the state, the definitions are incorporated in this chapter and shall be deemed to apply to such words and phrases used in this title as though set forth in this chapter in full. 12.08.002 Definitions generally. The following words and phrases when used in this title shall, for the purpose of this title, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this chapter. 12.08.003 Alley. "Alley" means any street less than twenty-five (25) feet in width which is primarily used for access to the rear or side entrances of abutting property. 12.08.004 City Council. "City Council means the council of the City of Temecuia. 12.08.005 Curb. "Curb" means the lateral boundary of the roadway whether such curb be marked by curbing construction, or not so marked; the word "curb" as herein used shall not include the line dividing the roadway of a street from parking strips in the center of a street, nor from tracks or rights of way of public utility companies. -2- )ec/ORD10358 12.08.006 Loading zone. "Loading zone" means that space adjacent to a curb reserved for the exclusive use of vehicles during the loading or unloading of passengers or materials. 12.08.007 Official Traffic Control Device. "Official Traffic Control Device" means any sign, signal, marking or device, consistent with Section 21400 of the Vehicle Code, placed or erected by authority of the City of Temecula or designated official, for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic, but does not include islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway design features. 12.08.008 Official Traffic Control Signal. "Official Traffic control Signal" means any device, whether manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and proceed and which is erected by the City or designated official. 12.08.009 Park. "Park" means to stand or leave standing any vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading of passengers or materials. 12.08.010 Parkway. "Parkway" means that portion of a street other than a roadway or sidewalk. 12.08.011 Passenger loading zone. "Passenger loading zone" means the space adjacent to a curb reserved for the exclusive use of vehicles during the loading or unloading of passengers. 12.08.012 Pedestrian. "Pedestrian" means any person afoot. 12.08.013 Police officer. "Police officer" means every officer of the police department of this city, or any officer authorized to direct traffic or make arrests for violation of traffic regulations. 12.08.014 Safety Zone. "Safety zone" means the area or space lawfully set apart within a roadway for the exclusive use of pedestrians and which is protected, or which is marked or indicated by vertical signs, raised markers or raised buttons, in order to make such area or space plainly visible at all times while the same is set apart as a safety zone. -3- jec/ORD10358 12.08.015 Stop. "Stop" means a complete cessation of movement. 12.08.016 Stop or stand. "Stop or stand," when prohibited, means any stopping or standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the direction of a police officer or official traffic-control device. 12.08.017 Vehicle Code. vehicle code of the state. "Vehicle Code means the SECTION 12.08.017 - 12.08.050 RESERVED. DIVISION 2 - ENFORCEMENT--OBEDIENCE Sections: 12.08.051 12.08.052 12.08.053 12.08.054 12.08.055 12.08.056 12.08.057 12.08.058 12.08.059 12.08.060 12.08.061 12.08.062 12.08.063 12.08.064 Police Officers--Authority Authority to issue parking citations Police officers--Traffic directicn Authority of fire department officers or survey crew Obedience to police and fire department Officials Removal of Unauthorized Signs Removal of Obstructions Within Parkways Loitering--Obstructing traffic Persons riding bicycles or animals Public employees to obey traffic regulations Exemptions to certain vehicles Accident report--Required Accident report - Contents Accident report - Time Limit 12.08.051 Police officers--Authority. It shall be the authority of the officers of the police department, and such officers as are assigned by the chief of police, to enforce all traffic laws of this city and all of the state vehicle laws applicable to traffic in this city. 12.08.052 Authority to issue ~arking citations. Parking citations or notices of violatxons, related to charging violations of local or Vehicle Code regulations governing the parking or standing of vehicles, may be issued -4- jeJ/ORD10358 by any peace officer, by any other employee or agent of the police department or of the city who is duly authorized by the chief of police to do so, by any other person specifically so authorized by some other provision of law, and by any other person specially authorized by the chief of police in writing to do so. Whenever the chief of police delegates such authority to persons other than peace officers, he shall endeavor to see that each such person is adequately instructed regarding the provisions of the parking regulations to be enforced, and the evidentiary prerequisites to proper prosecution for violations thereof. He shall further provide such persons with the same form of citations or notices of violations as are utilized for the purpose by officers of the police department. Any such persons shall be appropriately instructed to deposit executed citations or notices with the police department for filing with the court, after review for legal sufficiency. 12.08.053 Police Officers-Traffic direction. Officers of the police department or such officers as are assigned by the chief of police are authorized to direct all traffic by voice, hand or other signal in conformance with traffic laws, provided that in the event of a fire or other emergency or to expedite traffic or to safeguard pedestrians, officers of the police department may direct traffic as conditions may require, notwithstanding the provisions of the traffic laws. 12.08.054 Authority of fire department officers or survey crew. Officers Of the fire department, when at the scene of a fire or, when in the course of their duties are protecting personnel, or equipment of the fire department, may direct or assist the police in directing traffic. Members of the city's survey crew, when in the course of their duties are surveying the city's streets and rights-of-way, may direct or assist the police in directing traffic. 12.08.055 Obedience to police and fire departments officials. No person shall wilfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order of a police officer or fire department official when directing traffic. 12.08.056 Removal of unauthorized signs, barricades, markings and lights. The City Traffic Engineer or chief of police may without notice remove or cause to be removed every unauthorized sign, barricade, marking, signal or device placed, maintained or displayed upon any city -5- ~c/ORD10358 street or road right-of-way contrary to the provisions of section 21467 of the Vehicle Code. 12.08.057 Removal of Obstructions within parkways. Whenever the City Traffic Engineer determines that any fence, hedge, shrubbery, tree or other objects within the parkway obstructs the view of any traffic upon the roadways, or is an undue obstruction to pedestrians attempting to walk within the parkway at locations where no sidewalks exists, he/she shall cause the obstruction to be removed or altered in such a manner as to permanently eliminate the problem. 12.08.058 Loitering--Obstructing traffic. It is unlawful for any person to stand upon any street, sidewalk or other public way open for pedestrian travel, or otherwise occupy any portion thereof in such a manner as to annoy or molest any pedestrian thereon, or so as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with the free passage of pedestrians, motor vehicles or other modes of travel. No person shall sit, lie or sleep upon any street, sidewalk or other public way. The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons sitting on the curb portion of any sidewalk or street while attending or viewing any parade permitted under the provisions Of this code; nor shall the provisions of this section apply to persons sitting upon benches or other seating facilities provided for such purposes by municipal authority. 12.08.059 Persons riding bicycles or animals. Every person riding a bicycle or riding or driving an animal upon a highway shall be granted all of the rights, and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to, the driver of a vehicle by this title except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. 12.08.060 Public employees to obey traffic regulations. The provisions of this title shall apply to the driver of any vehicle owned by or used in the service of the United States Government, this state, or any county or city, and it unlawful for any said driver to violate any of the provisions of this title except as otherwise permitted in this chapter or by the Vehicle Code. 12.08.061 Exemptions to certain vehicles. (a) The provisions Of this title regulating the operation, parking and standing of vehicles shall not apply to any vehicle of the police or fire departments, or other city vehicles, properly equipped to qualify as -6- jec/ORD10358 emergency vehicles, any public utility vehicle or any private ambulance, which public utility vehicle or private ambulance has qualified as an authorized emergency vehicle, when any vehicle mentioned in this section is operated in the manner specified in the Vehicle Code in response to any emergency call. (b) The foregoing exemptions shall not, however, protect the driver of any such vehicle from the consequences of his wilful disregard of the safety of others. (c) The provisions of this title regulating the parking or standing of vehicles shall not apply to any vehicle of a city department or public utility vehicle necessarily in use for construction or repair work, or any vehicle owned by the United States while in use for the collection, transportation or delivery of United States mail. 12.08,062 Accident report--Required. The driver of a vehicle or the person in charge of any animal involved in any accident resulting in damage to any property publicly owned or owned by a public utility, including but not limited to any fire hydrant, ornamental lighting post, telephone pole, electric light or power pole, or resulting in damage to any ornamental shade tree, traffic-control device or other property of a like nature located in or along any street, shall within twenty-four (24) hours after such accident prepare a written report of the events of such accidents to the city police department. report shall state the time e e accident took place, the name and address of the person Owning and of the person driving or in charge of such vehicle or animal, the license number of every such vehicle, and shall briefly describe the property damaged in such accident. 12.08,064 Accident report--Time limit. A driver involved in an accident shall not be subject to the requirements of Section 12.08,062, if and during the time such driver is physically incapable of making a report but in such event the driver shall make a report as required in Section 12.08,062 within twenty-four (24) hours after regaining ability to make such a report. SECTION 12.08-065 - 12.08.100 RESERVED -7- j~c/ORD10358 DIVISION 3 - OFFICIAL TR~FFIC-CONTROL DE~VICES Sections: 12.08.101 12.08.102 12 08.103 12 08.104 12 08.105 12 08.106 12 08.107 12 08.108 12 08.109 Authority to install Signs required to give notice for enforcement purposes Obedience by operators of vehicles and trains Installation of traffic signals Authority to remove Hours of operation Painting of curbs prohibited Lane markings Roadway markings to be distinctive 12.08.101 Authority to install. (a) The City Traffic Engineer shall have the power and duty to place and maintain or cause to be placed and maintained official traffic-control devices when and as required to make effective the provisions of this division. (b) Whenever the Vehicle Code of the state requires, for the effectiveness of any provision thereof, that traffic-control devices be installed to give notice to the public of the application of such law, the City Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized to install or cause to be installed the necessary devices, subject to any limitations or restrictions set forth in the law applicable thereto. (c) The City Traffic Engineer may also place and maintain or cause to be placed and maintained such additional traffic-control devices as he may deem necessary or proper to regulate traffic or to guide or warn traffic, but he shall make such determination only upon the basis of traffic engineering principles and traffic investigations and in accordance with such standards, limitations, and rules as may be set forth in this chapter or as may be determined by ordinance or resolution of the City Council. 12.08.102 Signs required to give notice for enforcement purposes. No provision of the Vehicle Code of the state Or of this chapter for which signs are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator unless appropriate legible signs are in place giving notice of such provisions of the traffic laws. 12.08.103 Obedience by operators of vehicles. The operator of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device placed in accordance with -8- jec/ORD10358 this division unless otherwise directed by a police officer or other authorized person subject to the exceptions granted the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle when responding to emergency calls. 12.08.104 Installation of official traffic signals. (a) The City Traffic Engineer is hereby directed to install and maintain official traffic signals at those intersections and other places where traffic conditions are such as to require that the flow of traffic be alternately interrupted and released in order to prevent or relieve traffic congestion or to protect life or property from exceptional hazard. (b) The City Traffic Engineer shall ascertain and determine the locations where such signals are required by field investigation, traffic counts and other traffic information as may be pertinent and his determinations therefrom shall be made in accordance with those traffic engineering and safety standards and instructions set forth in the "California Maintenance Manual and Planning Manual Traffic" issued by the division of highways of the state department of public works. (c) Whenever the City Traffic Engineer installs and maintains an official traffic signal at any intersection, he shall likewise erect and maintain at such intersection street name signs clearly visible to traffic approaching from all directions unless such street name signs have previously been placed and are maintained at such intersection. 12.08.105 Authority to remove. The City Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized to remove, relocate or discontinue the operation of any traffic-control device not specifically required by Vehicle Code or this chapter whenever he shall determine in any particular case that the conditions which warranted or required the installation no longer exist or obtain. 12.08.106 Hours of operation. The City Traffic Engineer shall determine the hours and days during which any traffic-control device shall be in operation or be in effect, except in those cases where such hours or days are specified in this chapter. 12.08.107 Painting of curbs prohibited. NO person, unless authorized by this City, shall paint any street or curb surface; provided, however, that this section shall not -9- jec/ORD10358 apply to the painting of numbers on a curb surface by any person who has complied with the provision of any resolution or ordinance of this city pertaining thereto. 12.08.108 Lane markings. The City Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized to mark center lines and lane lines upon the surface of the roadway to indicate the course to be traveled by vehicles and may place signs temporarily designating lanes to be used by traffic moving in a particular direction, regardless of the center line of the highway. 12.08.109 Roadway markings to be distinctive. The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to place and maintain distinctive roadway markings as described in the Vehicle Code of the state on those streets or parts of streets where the volume of traffic or the vertical or other curvature of the road way renders it hazardous to drive on the left side of such marking or signs and markings. Such marking or signs and markings shall have the same effect as similar markings placed by the state department of public works pursuant to provisions of the state Vehicle Code. SECTION 12.08.110 - 12.08.200 RESERVED. DIVISION 4 - STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING Sections: 12.08.201 12.08.202 12.08.203 12.08.204 12.08.205 12.08.206 12.08.207 12.08.208 12.08.209 12.08.210 12.08.211 Application of regulations More restrictive provisions Standing in parkways prohibited Use of streets for storage of vehicles prohibited Parking for certain purposes prohibited Parking parallel with curb Angle parking Parking adjacent to schools Parking prohibited on narrow streets Standing of merchandise or food vehicles Emergency parking signs 12.08.212 12.08.213 Display of warning devices when commercial vehicle disabled Parking on private property without permission or in an unauthorized manner -10- 3~c/ORD10358 12.08.214 12.08.215 12.08.216 12.08.217 12.08.218 12.08.219 12.08.220 12.08.221 12.08.222 12.08.223 12.08.224 12.08.225 12.08.226 12.08.227 12.08.228 12.08.229 12.08.230 12.08.231 12.08.232 12.08.233 12.08.234 12.08.235 Locking ignition required Impounding of vehicle illegally parked Parking prohibited or time limited on certain streets. Parking space markings--Installation. Parking space markings--Parking within required. Stricter parking regulations within council established limited-parking zones. Parking and driving on city property. Enforcement Of parking and driving regulations applicable on city property. Parking or driving regulations applicable on property of schools and other public agencies. No-parking areas. Installation, design and spacing of signs. Curb markings to indicate no stopping and parking regulations. Certain commercial vehicles prohibited from parking on private property and public rights-of-way Commercial vehicles exempted from Section 12.08.226 Establishment of Loading Zones. Loading zone-Designation. Passenger loading zone. Effect of permission to load or unload. Standing--For loading or unloading only. Standing--In passenger loading zone. Standing--In any alley. Bus zones. 12.08.201 Application of regulations. The provisions of this dxvision prohibiting the stopping, standing or parking of a vehicle shall apply at all times or at those times herein specified, except when it is necessary to stop a vehicle to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control device. 12.08.202 More restrictive provisions. The provisions of this division imposing a time limit on standing or parking shall not relieve any person from the duty to observe other and more restrictive provisions of the Vehicle Code or the regulations of this city prohibiting or limiting the standing or parking of vehicles in specified places or at specified times. -11- jec/ORD10358 12.08.203 Standing in parkways prohibited. NO person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle within any parkway paralleled by curbs or any parkway designated by the City Traffic Engineer as an area for no standing, stopping, or parking and posted accordingly. 12.08.204 Use of streets for storage of vehicles prohibited. (a) custody or control upon any street or of seventy-two (72) No person who owns or has possession, of any vehicle shall park such vehicle alley for more than a consecutive period hours. (b) In the event a vehicle is parked or left standing upon a street in excess of a consecutive period of seventy-two hours any member of the police department authorized by the chief of police may remove the vehicle from the street in the manner and subject to the require- ments of the Vehicle Code. 12.08.205 Parking for certain purposes prohibited. No person shall park a vehicle upon any roadway for the principal purpose of: (a) Displaying such vehicle for sale. (b) Washing, waxing, wiping, greasing or repairing such vehicle except repairs necessitated by an emergency. 12.08.206 Parking parallel with curb. (a) Subject to other and more restrictive limitations, a vehicle may be stopped or parked within eighteen inches of the left-hand Curb facing in the direction of traffic movement upon any one-way street unless signs are in place prohibiting such stopping or standing. (b) In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways and traffic is restricted to one direction upon any such roadway, no person shall stand or park a vehicle upon the left-hand side of such one-way roadway unless signs are in place permitting such standing or parking. (c) The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to determine when standing or parking shall be prohibited upon the left-hand side of any one-way street or when -12- iec/ORD10358 standing or parking may be permitted upon the left-hand side of any one-way roadway of a highway having two or more separate roadways and shall establish signs or markings giving notice thereof. (d) The requirement of parallel parking shall not apply in the event any commercial vehicle is actually engaged in the process of loading or unloading freight or goods, in which case that vehicle may be backed up to the curb; provided, that such vehicle does not extend beyond the centerline of the street and does not block traffic thereby. 12.08.207 Angle Parking. (a) The City Traffic Engineer shall recommend upon what streets angle parking shall be permitted and shall mark and sign such streets when appropriately so ordered by the City Council. Such angle parking shall not be permitted on any state highway or upon any other street or roadway that is not at the angle to the curb or edge of the roadway indicated by such signs or markings. 12.08.208 Parking adjacent to schools. (a) The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to erect signs indicating no parking upon any street adjacent to any school property when such parking would, in his opinion, interfere with traffic or create a hazardous situation. (b) When official signs are erected indicating no parking upon either side of a street adjacent to any school property, no person shall park a vehicle in any such designated place. 12.08.209 Parking prohibited On narrow streets. (a) The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to place signs or markings indicating no parking upon any street when the width of the roadway does not exceed twenty (20) feet, or upon one side of a street as indicated by such signs or markings when the width of the roadway does not exceed thirty (30) feet. (b) When signs Or markings prohibiting parking are erected upon narrow streets as authorized this section, no person shall park a vehicle upon any street in violation of any such sign or marking. such -13- jec/ORD10358 12.08,210 Standing of merchandise or food vehicles. No person shall stop, stand or park any vehicles from which merchandise or foodstuffs are displayed, offered for sale or sold, upon any portion of any street within this city except in compliance with all the following: (a) Stopping to Sell--Time Limit. Such vehicle shall stand or park only at the request of a bona fide customer or purchaser and for a period of time not exceeding ten (10) minutes at any one place. (b) Weight Limit. shall each have a gross weight of (8,000) pounds. Such vehicles at all times less than eight thousand times shall feet. (c) Length of Vehicle. have an overall length not Such vehicles at all exceeding eighteen (d) Days, Hours Of Operation. Such vehicles shall not so Operate on Sundays or holidays, nor before 9:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on other days. (e) Position on Street. Such vehicles, during the time they are stopped, standing or parked, shall be at the extreme right of the roadway, entirely off the paved, improved and main traveled portion of the roadway. (f) Purpose of Vehicles. Such vehicles shall be used for display, offering for sale, and sale of merchandise and foodstuffs other than fresh meat, fish, poultry, fruits and vegetables. (g) Noise emanating from such devices shall not exceed a duration of four (4) seconds nor an intensity of seventy (70) decibels. Record players or other continuous nOiSe-making devices are prohibited. 12.08,211 Emergency parking signs. (a) Whenever the Ciey Traffic Engineer, chief of police or their designated representatives determine that an emergency traffic congestion is likely to result from the holding of public or private assemblages, gatherings or functions, or for other reasons, the City Traffic Engineer, chief of police or their designated representatives, shall have power and authority to order temporary signs to be erected or posted, indicating that the Operation, parking or standing of vehicles is prohibited on such streets and -14- ]ec/ORD10358 alleys as the City Traffic Engineer, chief of police or their designated representatives shall direct during the time such temporary signs are in place. Such signs shall remain in place only during the existence of such emergency, and the person causing their placement shall cause such signs to be removed promptly thereafter. (b) When signs authorized by the provisions of this section are in place giving notice thereof, no person shall operate, park or stand any vehicle contrary to the directions and provisions of such signs. 12.08,212 Display of warning devices when commercial vehicle disabled. (a) Every motor truck having an unladen weight of ten thousand (10,000) pounds or more, and every truck tractor irrespective of weight when operated upon any street or highway during the time specified in Section 280 of the Vehicle Code shall be equipped with and carry at least two flares or two red lanterns, or two warning lights or reflectors, which reflectors shall be of a type approved by the Department of California Highway Patrol. (b) When any vehicle mentioned in subsection (a) of this section or any trailer or semi-trailer is disabled upon streets or highways outside of any business or residence district within this city and upon which street or highway there is insufficient street lighting to reveal a vehicle at a distance of two hundred (200) feet during any time mentioned in Section 280 of the Vehicle Code, a warning signal of the character indicated in subsection (a) of this section shall be immediately placed at a distance of approximately one hundred (100) feet in advance of, and one hundred (100) feet to the rear of, such disabled vehicle by the driver thereof. The continuous flashing of at least four approved-type Class A-Type 1 turn signal lamps, at least two toward the front end and at least two toward the rear of the vehicle, shall be considered to meet the requirements of this section until the devices mentioned in this section can be placed in the required locations. The warning signals mentioned in this section shall be displayed continuously during the time mentioned in Section 280 of the Vehicle Code, while such vehicles remain disabled upon such street or highway. -15- jec/ORD10358 12.08.213 Parking on private property without permission or in an unauthorized manner. (a) No person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle on private property or business premises without the express or implied consent of the owner, authorized agent of the owner, person in lawful possession of such premises or property, or other person charge thereof. in (b) No person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle on private property or business premises at a time, or at a place thereon, or for a period of time, or in any manner otherwise, which is unauthorized by the owner, authorized agent of the owner, person in lawful possession of such premises or property, or other person in charge thereof. (c) The following acts of stopping, parking or leaving standing a vehicle shall be included within those which shall be deemed a violation of subsections (a) or (b) of this section, whichever is applicable, but other acts not mentioned may also violate either subsection. (The use of the term "parking" in the following examples shall be deemed also to include collective acts of "stopping" and "leaving standing"): (1) Parking on any vacant lot or unimproved property unless affirmatively so permitted by posted signs or by the authorized person in charge; (2) Parking off-street on any improved private property not held open to use by the general public, unless such parking is by invitation of the occupant(s) or for bona fide business purposes upon the property; (3) Parking on any off-street parking area or lot or facility of an apartment building, hotel or business enterprise which is indicated by any sign(s) or other markings to be reserved exclusively for use by tenants, residents or employees or others not including the person so parking; (4) Parking on the off-street parking area or lot or facility of an individual parking stall or any area which is indicated by a sign or other markings to be reserved for the exclusive use of a person or persons other than the person so parking; -16- jec/ORD10358 (5) Parking in a shopping center or bus- iness parking area or facility for a purpose other than doing business with one or more of the stores or offices at the site, or for a purpose not related to such business operation, or remaining parked for longer than reasonably appropriate to do such business or acts related to such business operations; (6) Utilizing a space or stall which is indicated by sign(s) or other marking(s) to be reserved for use in connection with a particular store, office or business, and parking in the same for a purpose other than that for which it is so reserved; (7) Parking in any stall or space which indicated by sign(s), blue-painted curbing or other marking(s), to be designated for the exclusive use by physically handicapped persons, of a vehicle not displaying one of the distinguishing license plates Or placards issued pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 22511.5 or Section 9105. is (8) Parking at any spot where such parking is prohibited, as indicated by sign(s), markings, striping, lettering on pavement, red-painted curbing or by any other means, including (but not limited to) areas and locations within areas reserved for or designated as traffic lanes for movement of vehicles or pedestrians, clear areas at or near building entrances or exits, fire lanes, sidewalks or pedestrian or bicycle lanes, clear areas at or near ramps or other facilities used by or intended for use of handicapped persons, unimproved areas, dangerous areas, areas to be utilized by larger vehicles such as trucks, buses, emergency vehicles or other service vehicles, or areas designated for any other business or special use; (9) Except when necessary to avoid con- flict with other traffic or by reasons of vehicle dis- ablement or bona fide emergency, parking, standing or waiting at a location within a traffic lane or otherwise, which substantially interferes with the normal movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic at such location. (10) Parking in violation of the restrictions stated on any other sign or marking(s) not mentioned in the foregoing divisions of this subsection, which has or have been placed on private property or business premises by the owner, authorized agent of the owner, person in lawful possession of such premises or property, or other person in charge thereof; -17- ]ec/ORD10358 (11) Failure or refusal to remove or move a parked or standing or stopped vehicle from private property or business premises, in compliance with a direction to do so by the owner, person in lawful possession of such premises or property, or other person in charge thereof; or violation of a direction by such person not to park, stop or stand a vehicle upon, or at a particular location upon, such premises or property; provided, that this section shall not apply to an act or failure or refusal to leave property or to noncompliance with a direction to keep off such property, in any of those instances listed in this Section; or (12) Parking on a private street in violation of a prohibition or restriction stated on any sign or marking(s) or notification giving notice thereof, placed or given by or pursuant to authority of the association or person or other entity owning or in charge of such private street. (d) Nothing in this section affects or limits the rights or remedies any person may have pursuant to any other provision of law, such as Section 22658 Of the Vehicle Code, to remove or cause the removal of a vehicle parking upon private property. (e) It shall be the policy of the City Council to encourage the posting of signs on shopping center parking facilities similar to the signs mentioned in Section 21107.8 of the Vehicle Code, to give notice to the public that the parking regulations applicable on the private parking facility are subject to official enforcement by citations and fines and otherwise. This does not, however authorize signs posted in nonconformance with the city's sign control ordinance or other applicable regulations; and the posting of such signs shall not be deemed a requirement or condition precedent to enforcement of this section. (f) Sections 41102 et seq. of the Vehicle Code are referred to and incorporated in this section by this reference and shall be applicable in connection with any prosecution for violation of this section, in the same manner and to the same extent as said sections are applicable to prosecutions for parking violations occurring on the public streets. 12.08.214 Locking ignition required. No person shall park and leave a vehicle on a public street, alley or public parking facility unless the ignition has been locked; provided, however, that if the driver or passenger remains inside the vehicle after and while it is parked, or if the -18- iec/ORD10358 vehicle is in the custody of an attendant, the ignition need not be locked. 12.08.215 Impounding of vehicle illegally parked. Whenever a vehicle is illegally parked on a street or highway in violation of any provision of this division or of this chapter, or of this code, any regularly employed and salaried police officer of the city or deputy of the sheriff's office of Riverside County, or member of the California Highway Patrol, may cause such vehicle to be impounded, driven or towed away and stored, so long as signs are posted giving notice of the removal. Any reasonable costs resulting from such impounding, towing or storage shall be charged to the owner of the vehicle and to the driver who committed the parking violation. 12.08,216 Parking prohibited or time limited on certain streets. When authorized signs are in place giving notice thereof, specifying certain parking prohibitions or time limits, the prohibitions or time limits to be established by the City Council by resolution, or by the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to authority vested in him by this chapter, or by the Vehicle Code, no person shall stop, stand, park or leave standing any vehicle in violation of any such prohibition or time limit so specified on the signs. 12.08.217 Parking space markings--Installation. The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to install and main- tain parking space markings to indicate parking spaces adjacent to curbing where authorized parking is permitted. 12.08.218 Parking space markings--Parking within required. Each vehicle placed in any parking space shall be parked within the lines and markings so established by the City Traffic Engineer, and no person shall park Or leave standing any vehicle so that it extends across any such line or markings, or is in such position that is not entirely within the space designated by such lines or markings. 12.08,219 Stricter parking regulations within council established limited-parking zones. Pursuant to authority vested in him by other provisions of this division or by the Vehicle Code, the City Traffic Engineer is authorized to prescribe shorter time limits than those specified by resolution of the City Council, or to prescribe parking prohibitions, within a particular limited-parking zone so specified by the City Council; provided, that the stricter parking limitations or prohibitions are properly -19- jec/ORD10358 indicated by appropriate signs or markings in accordance with this division or other provisions of law. 12.08.220 Parking and driving on City Property. (a) The City Manager shall from time to time examine and survey all city-owned parking lots, parking areas and other properties, and all property under the city's direct control, with respect to vehicle driving and parking uses, and the need for regulations applicable thereto, in order to assure proper and appropriate use of such public properties and to prevent interferences with the orderly and efficient conduct of the city's business. (b) Based thereon, the City Manager shall promulgate such conditions, rules and regulations governing driving, stopping, parking or leaving standing of vehicles on the particular properties involved, as shall in his judgment, be necessary and appropriate to advance the public purposes mentioned in subsection (a) of this section. (c) A written statement or other graphic depiction of such special conditions, rules and regulations shall, upon promulgation, be filed in the office of the City Clerk, and the City Council shall be promptly notified of such filing. Any council member may then cause the matter to be submitted, in whole or in part, for a formal review by the City Council. If no council member takes such action within thirty days from the date the matter was filed with the City Clerk, then the special conditions, rules and regulations shall be deemed adopted and imposed by the City Council within the meaning of Vehicle Code Section 21113. 12.08.221 Enforcement of parking and driving regulations applicable on city Property. (a) Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 21113, a written statement or other graphic depiction of all special conditions, rules and regulations adopted per Section 12.08.220 shall, at all times while the same remain effective be kept on file and available at the office of the City Clerk, for examination by all interested persons. (b) The City Manager shall erect, place and maintain appropriate signs and markings at each city-owned or city-controlled parking lot, parking area and other property, giving notice of all special conditions, rules and regulations applicable thereto, adopted per Section 12.08.220 and imposed under Vehicle Code Section 21113. -20- jec/ORD10358 12.08.222 Parking or driving regulations applicable on property of schools and other public agencies. Conditions and regulations concerning parking or driving on property and grounds of schools or other public agencies are imposed by the appropriate governing boards or officers and are enforced pursuant to and under the conditions of Vehicle Code Section 21113. 12.08.223 No-parking areas. The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to maintain, by appropriate signs, markings or by paint upon the curb surface, certain no-stopping zones, no-parking areas, and restricted-parking areas, as defined and described in this section. No person shall stop, stand, park or leave standing any vehicle in any of the following places, except when necessary to avoid con- flict with other traffic or in compliance with the direction of a police officer or other authorized officer or traffic sign or signal; (a) Within any divisional island unless authorized and clearly indicated with appropriate sign signal; or (b) On either side of any street between the projected property lines of any public walk, public steps, street or thoroughfare terminating at such street, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or red paint upon the curb surface; (c) In any area where the City Traffic Engineer determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon any curb surface; (d) In any area established by resolution of the City Council as a no-parking area, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface; (e) In any area where the parking or stopping of any vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property; (f) On any street or highway where the use of such street or highway or a portion thereof is necessary for the cleaning, repair or construction of the street or highway Or the installation of underground utilities or where the use of the street or highway or any portion thereof is authorized for a purpose other than the normal -21- jec/ORD10358 flow of traffic or where the use of the street or highway or any portion thereof is necessary for the movement of equipment, articles or structures of unusual size, and the parking of such vehicle would prohibit or interfere with such use or movement; provided, that signs giving notice of such no-parking are erected or placed at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the effective time of such no-parking. (g) At any place within twenty (20) feet of a point on the curb immediately opposite the midblock end of a safety zone, when such place is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface; (h) At any place within twenty (20) feet of a crosswalk at an intersection when such place is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface except that a bus may stop at a designated bus stop; (i) In any area of approach to any traffic signal, left-turn lane, boulevard stop sign or official electric flashing device when such area is determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be valuable in the interest of promoting traffic safety or convenience, and the area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface that a bus may stop at a designated bus stop. 12.08.224 Installation, design and spacing of signs. The City Traffic Engineer is authorized and directed to cause signs regulating or prohibiting parking to be installed in the zones now or hereafter provided by resolution of the City Council at such places as the City Traffic Engineer is authorized to regulate parking, standing or stopping pursuant to other provisions of this Chapter or of law. Signs giving notice of a parking time limitations shall be approximately 12 inches by 12 inches by 18 inches in size, with green lines on a white background specifying the particular parking time limitation applicable. Such signs shall be spaced at a maximum interval of 200 feet, and provided that there shall be a minimum of 4 signs in one block on each side of the street. 12.08.225 Curb markings to indicate no stopping and parking regulations. \ .... {a-)_ _The City Traffic Engineer is authorized, subject to the provisions and limitations of this title, to place, and when required in this title shall place, the following curb markings to indicate parking or standing -22- jec/ORD10358 regulations, and the curb markings shall have the meanings as set forth in this section: (1) Red means no stopping or parking at any time except as permitted by the Vehicle Code, and except that a bus may stop in a red zone marked or signed as a bus zone. (2) Yellow means no stopping, standing parking at any time between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. of any day for any purpose other than loading or unloading of passengers shall not consume more than three minutes, nor the loading or unloading of materials more than twenty (20) minutes. (3) White means no stopping, standing or parking for any purpose other than loading or unloading of passengers, or for the purpose of depositing mail in an adjacent mailbox, which shall not exceed three minutes and such restrictions shall apply between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. of any day and except as follows: (i) When such zone is in front of a hotel or in front of a mailbox the restrictions shall apply at all times. (ii) When such zone is in front of theater Or restaurant the restrictions shall apply at all times except when such theater or restaurant is closed. or (iii) Taxicabs shall comply with this subdivision unless authorized to maintain a taxicab stand adjacent to the white curb marking, and provided the area for the taxicab stand is sign-posted at either end indicating "TAXICAB ZONE ONLY." a (4) Green means no standing or parking for longer than twenty minutes at any time between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. of any day. (5) Blue means parking limited the vehicles of physically handicapped exclusively to persons. (b) When the City Traffic Engineer, as authorized under this title, has caused curb markings to be placed, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle adjacent to any such legible curb marking in violation of -23- jec/ORD10358 any of the parking, standing or stopping regulations so indicated. 12.08.226 Certain commercial vehicles Prohibited from parking on private property and public rights-of-way. Unless exempted pursuant to Section 12.08.227 no commercial or construction vehicle, or towed commercial or construction equipment, shall be parked on private property or on public rights-of-way unless the vehicle or equipment is screened from public view and adjacent properties. The term "commercial Or construction vehicle and/or equipment" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, utility body trucks, farming and construction tractors, construction vehicles and towed equipment, semi-truck tractors, semi-truck trailers, dump trucks, step van delivery trucks or any parts or apparatus of any of the above. 12.08.227 Commercial vehicles exempted from Section 12.08.226. The following commercial and construction vehicles are exempted from the prohibition contained in Section 12.08.226: (a) Pickup trucks, utility vans and similar utility vehicles, each of which do not exceed eight feet in height or twenty feet in combined total length; (b) All vehicles while being used in actual construction work on a permit-approved construction site; (c) All vehicles in the process of making a pickup or delivery; and (d) Governmental and utility emergency service vehicles. (e) Vehicles parked on streets directly adjacent to a hotel, motel, or other such establishment displaying a parking permit issued by the establishment authorized by the Police Department. when as 12.08.228 Establishment of loading zones. The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to determine and to make loading zones and passenger loading zones as follows: (a) At any place in any business district; (b) Elsewhere in front of the entrance to any place of business or in front of any hall or place used for the purpose of public assembly. -24- jec/ORD10358 12.08.229 Loading zone-Designation. Loading zones shall be indicated by yellow paint upon the top and face of the curb, with black letters "LOADING ONLY" stenciled or Otherwise painted on the top of the curb. 12.08.230 Passenger loading zone. Passenger loading zones shall be indicated by white paint upon the top and face of the curb, with black letters "PASSENGER LOADING ONLY" stenciled or otherwise painted on the top of the curb. 12.08.231 Effect of permission to load or unload. (a) Permission granted in Section 12.08.225 to stop or stand a vehicle for purpose of loading or unloading of materials shall apply only to commercial vehicles and shall not extend beyond the time necessary therefor, and in no event for more than twenty (20) minutes. (b) The loading or unloading of materials shall apply only to commercial deliveries, also the delivery or pickup of express and parcel post packages and United States mail. (c) Permission granted in Section 12.08.225 to stop or park for purposes of loading or unloading pas- sengers shall include the loading or unloading of personal baggage but shall not extend beyond the time necessary therefor and in no e~ent for more than three (3) minutes. (d) Within the total time limits specified this section the provisions of this section shall be enforced so as to accommodate necessary and reasonable loading and unloading but without permitting abuse of the privileges granted by this chapter. 12.08.232 Standing--For loading or unloading only. NO person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in any yellow loading zone for any purpose other than loading or unloading passengers or material, for such time as is permitted in Section 12.08.231. 12.08.233 Standing--In passenger loading zone. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehxcle in any passenger loading zone for any purpose other than the loading or unloading of passengers for such time as is specified in Section 12.08.231. 12.08.234 Standing--In any alley. No person shall stop, stand,p4 or park a vehicle for any purpose other than the loading or -25- jec/ORD10358 unloading of persons or materials in any alley. 12.08.235 Bus zones. The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to establish bus zones opposite curb space for the loading and unloading of buses or common carriers of passengers and to determine the location thereof subject to the directives and limitations set forth in this section: (a) "Bus" as used in this section means any motor bus, motor coach, trackless trolley coach or passenger stage used as a common carrier of passengers. (b) No bus zone shall be established opposite and to the right of a safety zone. (c) No person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle except a bus in a bus zone. SECTION 12.08.236 - 12.08.300 RESERVED DIVISION 5 - S~OP INTERSECTIONS 12.08.301 Erection of stop signs 12.08.301 Erection of stop signs. Whenever any resolution of this city designates and describes any street or portion thereof as a through street, or any intersection at which vehicles are required to stop at one or more entrances thereto. The City Traffic Engineer shall erect and maintain stop signs as follows: A stop sign shall be erected on each and every street intersecting such through street or portion thereof so designated and at those entrances or other intersections where a stop is required. Every such sign shall conform with and shall be placed as provided in Section 21355 of the Vehicle Code. SECTION 12.08.301-12.08.350 RESERVED DIVISION 6 - YIELD RIGHT-OF-WAY SIGNS 12.08.351 Placement. The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to determine those intersections at which drivers of vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to opposing -26- jec/ORD10358 traffic. The City Traffic Engineer shall place and maintain "YIELD RIGHT-OF-WAY" signs at the entrance of streets previously determined by him, and the signs shall comply with the specifications of the Vehicle Code of the state. SECTION 12.08.352 - 12.08.380 RESERVED DIVISION 7 - ONE-WAY STREETS AND ALLEYS 12.08.381 Signs. Whenever any resolution of this city designates any one-way street or alley, the City Traffic Engineer shall place and maintain signs giving notice thereof, and no such regulations shall be effective unless such signs are in place. Signs indicating the direction of lawful traffic movement shall be placed at every intersection where movement of traffic in the opposite direction is prohibited. SECTION 12.08.382 - 12.08.400 RESERVED DIVISION 8 - RESTRICTED USE OF CERTAIN STREETS 12.08.401 Truck routes--Establishment 12.08.402 Truck routes--Designation. 12.08.403 Truck routes--Use required--Exceptions. 12.08.404 Truck routes--Exemptions. 12.08.405 Commercial vehicles prohibited from using certain streets. 12.08.401 Truck routes--Establishment. The following streets and portions of streets are designated and established as truck routes: (a) Rancho California Road from the Westerly City Limit east to the Easterly City Limits. (b) Winchester Road (Route 79 North) from Jefferson Avenue to the Northerly City Limits. (c) Jefferson Avenue from Cherry Street south to Via Montezuma. (d) Front Street from Via Montezuma south to Rancho California Road. -27- jec/ORD10358 (e) Ynez Road from Winchester Road (Route 79 North) south to Rancho California Road. (f) Route 79 South from Interstate 15 east to the Easterly City Limits. 12.08.402 Truck routes--Designation. Whenever any ordinance of this city designates and describes any street or portion thereof as a street the use of which is permitted by any vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit three tons, the City Traffic Engineer is authorized to designate such street or streets by appropriate signs as "TRUCK TRAFFIC ROUTES" for the movement of vehicles exceeding a maximum gross weight limit of three tons. 12.08.403 Truck routes--Use required--Exceptions. When any such truck traffic route or routes are established and designated by appropriate signs, the operator of any vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit of three tons shall drive on such route or routes and none other, except that nothing in this section shall prohibit the operator of any vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight of three tons coming from a "TRUCK TRAFFIC ROUTE" having ingress and egress by direct route to and from restricted streets when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares or merchandise from or to any building or structure located on such restricted streets or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling or construction of any building or structure upon such restricted streets for which a building permit has previously been obtained therefore. 12.08.404 Truck routes--Exemptions. The provisions of Sections 12.08.401 and 12.08.402 shall not apply to: (a) Passenger buses under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission; or (b) Any vehicle owned by a public utility while necessarily in use in the construction, installation or repair of any public utility; or (c) Any vehicle delivering street construction materials for street construction or repairs. 12.08.405 Commercial vehicles prohibited from using certain streets. Whenever any ordinance of this city designates and describes any street or portion thereof as a street the use of which is prohibited by any commercial -28- jec/ORD10358 vehicle, the City Traffic Engineer shall erect and maintain appropriate signs on those streets affected by such ordinance. SECTION 12.08.406 - 12.08.450 RESERVED DIVISION 9 - DRIVING RULES Sections: 12.08.451 12.08.452 12.08.453 12.08.454 12.08.455 12.08.456 12.08.457 12.08.458 12.08.459 Driving through funeral processions. Controlled intersections. Clinging to moving vehicles. Driving vehicles on sidewalks--Generally prohibited. Bicycles on sidewalks--When allowed. New pavement. Driving on rims Of wheels. Restricted access. Excessive acceleration. 12.08.451 Driving through funeral processions. No driver of a vehicle shall drive between vehlcies comprising a funeral procession while they are in motion and when the vehicles in such procession are conspicuously so designated. 12.08.452 Controlled intersection. Section 12.08.451 shall not apply at intersections where traffic is controlled by official traffic signals or police officers. 12.08.453 Clinging to moving vehicles. No person riding upon any bicycle, motorcycle, coaster, roller skates, skateboard or any toy vehicle shall attach the same or himself/herself on any moving vehicle upon any road-way. 12.08.454 Driving vehicles on sidewalks--Generally Prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly allowed by another provision of this title or other applicable law, no person shall drive a vehicle (including any bicycle or unicycle) within any sidewalk area or parkway except at a permanent or temporary driveway. 12.08.455 Bicycles on sidewalks--When allowed. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions Of Section 12.08.454 bicycles and unicycles may be ridden along -29- iec/ORD10358 portions or segments of sidewalks wherever expressly permitted by resolution of the City Council, but not until such sidewalk areas have been appropriately designated by the city engineer with signs or markings to give due notice to the pedestrian and cycling public. 12.08.456 New pavement. No person shall ride or drive any animal or any vehicle over or across any newly made pavement or freshly painted marking in any street when a barrier or sign is in place warning persons not to drive over or across such pavement or marking, or when a sign is in place stating that the street or any portion there of is closed. 12.08.457 Driving on rims of wheels. No person shall drive, operate tow or otherwise move any motor vehicle, equipped with rims to accommodate rubber tires, over or across any street in this city with tires removed or deflated so that the metal flanges or rims are in contact with the pavement, except to the nearest edge of the pavement from the point any such condition occurs through accident. 12.08.458 Restricted access. No person shall drive a vehicle onto or from any limited access roadway except at such entrances and exits as are established by public authority. 12.08.459 Excessive acceleration. No person shall operate a vehicle on a street or alley in such a manner as to facilitate its speed by means of leaving rear-wheel frictional rubber marks, caused by rapid acceleration. SECTION 12.08.460 - 12.08.500 RESERVED DIVISION 10 - PEDESTRIANS Sections: 12.08.501 Crosswalks--Establishment--Signs. 12.08.501 Crosswalks--Establishment--Signs. (a) The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to establish and maintain crosswalks and to designate them by appropriate devices or painted signs upon the surface of the roadway. -30- jec/ORD10358 (b) The City Traffic Engineer may place signs at or adjacent to an intersection in respect to any crosswalk directing that pedestrians shall not cross except in the crosswalk so indicated. SECTION 12.08.502 - 12.08.600 RESERVED. DIVISION 11 - VIOLATION OF CHAPTER - PENALTY Sections: 12.08.601 Violation of Chapter - Penalty. 12.08.601 Violation of Chapter - Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred ($200.00) dollars. SECTION 3. 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 decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1991. ATTEST: RON PARKS MAYOR JUNE S. GREEK City Clerk -31- jec/ORD10358 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, 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 day of , 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field City Attorney -32- MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 1991 A regular meeting of the Traffic and Transportation Commission of the City of Temecula was held on Wednesday, February 27, 1991 at 7:00 P.M., at the Temecula Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knox Johnson. Commissioner Sander led the flag salute. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Staff Representatives Mark Greenwood and Doug MacPherson, Sergeant Jim Domenoe, and Gail Zigler, Minute Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION BUSINESS MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1991 1.1 Approve the minutes of December 19, 1991. C~AIRMAN JOHNSON amended page 3 under 4.1, total AYES should read "5". COMMISSIONER ROBERT2 moved to approve the minutes of December 19, 1991 as amended, seconded by COHNISSIONER ~ODNICK. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1991 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 23, 1991. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS amended page of 5, line 7, deleting the word "he". by TTMIN2/27/91 -1- March 4, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTE2 FEBRUARY 27° 1991 COMMISSIONER GODNICK moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None HANDBOOK FOR BOARDS, COMMITTEE8 AND COMMISSIONS 3.1 Receive and file Handbook. COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO moved to receive and file the Handbook as presented. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson, CHAIRMAN jOHNSON introduced Max Giliss, who was present to give an update on the progress of the Mello-Roos/Ynez Corridor. Mr. Giliss discussed funding issues and proposed dates for construction to start and be completed. 4. CALLE PINA COLADA 4.1 Receive and file staff report. CHAIEMANJOHNSON opened the discussion for public comment at 7:15 P.M. JAYME CHRISTIAN, 30762 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula, presented a petition to the Commission by the homeowners requesting that Calle Pina Colada be closed to through traffic. Ms. Christian advised the Commission of the speeding cars on their street and the safety hazard. LAURA UPTOWN, 30869 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula, also spoke in favor of closing Calle Pina Colada to through traffic. COMMISSIONER GODNICK abstained from comments and decision due to a possible conflict of interest. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS recommended that the street should be posted for 30 mph. accompanied by the efforts of the presence of a traffic officer. TTMIN2/27/91 -2- March 4, 1991 TI~-FFIC 3ND TR3NBPORTATION CONNISSION MINUTES FEBRU3RY 27, 1991 COMMISSIONER SANDER moved to have the streets posted for 30 mph., AYES: NOES: 0 ABSTAIN:i seconded by COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. 4 Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson None Godnick COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONER ~UERRIERO moved to present the approval of a 30 mph. speed zone sign to the City Council, seconded by COMMISSIONER SANDER. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Godnick CHAIRMAN JOHNSON directed staff to do an investigation into the closing of Calle Pina Colada to through traffic. 5. AVENIDA DE LAREINA 5.1 Receive and file staff report. CHAIItM~NJOHNSON opened the discussion for public comment at 7:30 P.M. DAVID CIABATTONI, 41646 Avenida De La Reina, Temecula, presented a petition to the Commission from residents, proposing many solutions to the problem of traffic and speeding on their streets. Mr. Ciabattoni advised the Commission that their street is used as a short cut, for high school students and parents dropping off students, from Rancho California Road to the high school. The following individuals also spoke in favor of the recommendations made in the petition: HATBY HAMILTON, 41681 Avenida De La Reina, Temecula. BETTY KIMBRO, 31231 Corte Alhambra, Temecula. LAVERNE STAFFORD, 41652 Avenida De La Reina, Temecula. TTMIN2/27/91 -3- March 4, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 1991 JOE HEIN, 30414 Corte Alvera, Temecula, discussed the students coming onto his street during school hours to smoke marijuana and requested that law enforcement patrol this area. JOE BEQUEN, 41640 Avenida De La Reina, Temecula, spoke in favor of the recommendations on the petition. MARY GIORDANO, 40369 Avenida De La Reina, Temecula, spoke in favor of the recommendations on the petition. COMMISSIONER GODNICK moved to place a Stop Sign at Corte Alhambra and Avenida De La Reina, and attempt the closing of the parking lot at the high school while staff continues to investigate. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS suggested the need for street striping and posting of speed limits. COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO recommended that a meeting be arranged between the High School Student Body such as a public forum, and concurred with the recommendations for Stop Signs, with the recommendation that a Stop Sign be placed at Calls Bahia Vista, striping and posting of speed limits. Commissioner Guerriero concurred with recommendation (1} by staff; however, he suggested that some improvements needed to be completed. CBAIRMAN JOHNSON declared a recess at 8:00 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:10 P.M. MARK GREENWOOD ran the videotape presented by the residents of Avenida De La Reina reflecting the traffic concerns they have presented to the Commission. COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO recommended that staff investigate what the School District's future plans are for the dirt parking lot and look into the placement of a traffic control officer during the afternoon hours to direct only right and left hand turns from that parking area. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON suggested that staff investigate the closing of the street during school hours. COMMISSIONER ~ODNICK moved to place Stop Signs at Corte Alhambra and Avenida De La Reina, speed limit signs be posted for 25 mph. and center striping be done if possible, seconded by COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. TTMIN2/27/91 -4- March 4, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMI88ION MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 1991 AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER GUEARIERO moved to investigate with the School District the placement of a traffic control officer at the entrance/exit of the dirt parking area to initiate right and left turns only, not allowing straight-through traffic. COMMISSIONER GODNICK commented on the difficulty of controlling that type of traffic movement and suggested it would be better to close that parking area. COMMISSIONER GUEARIERO withdrew his first motion and moved to have staff continue to investigate this situation with the School District for alternative measures to improve traffic conditions, seconded by COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6. VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC ORDINANCE 6.1 Received Revised Draft Ordinance CHAIRMAN jOHNSON opened the discussion for public comment at 8:35 P.M. GEORGIANBEBE, 31025 Lorreta Avenue, Winchester, spoke in opposition to proposed traffic ordinance 12.08.226 relating to commercial vehicles. She requested the Commission look at issuing parking permits for one-half acre or one-acre or more parcels. Ms. Bebe stated that many residents purchased these lots so that they could park their trucks on their property. TTMIN2/27/91 -5- March 4, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 1991 COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO moved to forward the proposed Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance to the City Council, seconded by COMMISSIONER ROBFaTS. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberrs, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 7. CALLE MEDUSA 7.1 Receive and file Sub-Committee Report. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON opened the discussion for public comment at 8:45 P.M. GARY TAYLOR, 40811 Calle Medusa, Temecula, addressed the Commission with the traffic conditions on Calle Medusa. He advised the Commission that a state assemblyman had visited them to discuss their problems. Mr. Taylor addressed the need for Stop Signs, posting of Speed Limits, etc. EVOHNE TAYLOR, 40811 Calle Medusa, Temecula, concurred with the problems addressed by Mr. Taylor. JOE ASHCRAFT, 40397 Calle Medusa, Temecula, presented the Commission with a signed petition from the residents of Calle Medusa opposing the rumored commercial bus route on Calle Medusa. BRIANSAMPSON, 40655 Calle Medusa, Temecula, addressed the traffic volumes on Calle Medusa and a concern that the volume will increase. Mr. Sampson added that any solution proposed by the Commission, be a solution that remedies the problems and is not just a temporary solution. Mr. Sampson stated that he felt Stop Signs and Speed bumps were an important solution for now, while staff continued to investigate a solution. LINDA BRUNGARDT, 40397 Calle Medusa, Temecula, addressed Calle Medusa shown as an arterial route on all the maps; however, by all other definitions, Calle Medusa is a residential street. Ms. Brungardt requested that the City assist them in having Calle Medusa changed on the maps to an residential street. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON requested that a motion be made to continue the meeting beyond the 9:00 P.M. adjournment. TTMIN2/27/91 -6- March 4, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISBION MINUTE8 FEBRUARY 27, 1991 COMMISSIONER GODNICK moved to extend the meeting beyond 9:00 P.M. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS seconded. CBAIEMANJOMMSON requested that staff address the comments regarding the arterial route. MARK GREENWOOD advised the Commission that Calle Medusa was designated a residential collector street. COMMISSIONER GODNICK moved to hold a public hearing on March 27, 1991, time and place to be posted, with recommendations by staff, seconded by COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 8. TRANSIT BUS SERVICE 8.1 Presentation by Tom Mindiola of the Temecula Valley Transportation Company. TOM MINDIOIa% provided a brief presentation on his proposed transportation company in the City of Temecula and answered questions by the Commission. He stated that the company would consist of seventeen (17) passenger/wheel chair vans which will run on propane. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON requested that staff distribute a copy of Mr. Mindiola's proposal to all the Commissioners. The Commission as a whole expressed strong support for Mr. Mindiola's proposal. CITY 9.1 TTMIN2/27/91 OF TEMECULA COORDINATING COMMITTEE Information MARK GREENWOOD provided a brief report. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON requested that staff include a copy of the Coordinating Committee agenda in future Traffic and Transportation Commission agenda packages. -7- March 4, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 1991 10. TRAFFIC ENQINEERS REPORT 10.1 l~X GREENWOOD addressed the following: - Opticom System Towne Center driveway closed to left hand turns. He indicated that the are some enforcement problems which they are trying to control. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON commented that the signs are hard to see. - Engineering Department is pursuing the investigation of traffic situations near the schools. Ynez and Winchester traffic signal project is being undertaken by the County and the contract has been awarded. Distribution of letter sent to Chairman Johnson requesting that a traffic be installed at one of the entrance/exits off Rancho California Road into the Towne Center. The City Engineering Department has been requested to install a signal at this location. 11. COMMISSION REPORT8 11.1 · CHAIRMAN JOHNSON requested that staff survey streets and establish a priority list for streets that need immediate improvements. · COMMISSIONER SANDER requested that staff advise him of when and where Assessment District 161 meets. COMMISSIONER ROBERT8 requested that when the signal is placed at the Towne Center, staff look at the other exits with the possibility of posting "No Left Turnset. MARK QREENWOOD advised that there was a development in that area that had been conditioned to close some of the medians. TTMIN2/27/91 COMMISSIONER GODNICK discussed the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and Traffic and Transportation Commission and addressed the installation of the 4-way Stop Sign. He advised Mark Greenwood that when he voted on the -8- March 4, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRAN2PORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 1991 recommendation by staff, he thought that ACS was going to be busing all of it's employees and therefore needed this 4-way Stop Sign; however, he indicated that ACS is not busing all it's employees, that most of them are parking on the premises, and he ~ould not have voted in favor of the recommendation had he known this. MARK GREENWOOD advised the Commission that staff was investigating this situation. COMMISSIONER ROB~RTS recommended that a sub-committee be formed with all representative from all the City Commissions. AJO~ENT CHAIRMAN JOHNSON adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Traffic and Transportation Commission for the City of Temecula will be a noticed public hearing on the Calle Medusa sub-committee recommendation to the Traffic and Transportation Commission with notice to occur at least 10 days prior to the meeting of Wednesday, March 27, 1991, 7:00 P.M. Chairman, Knox Johnson Secretary TTMIN2/27/91 -9- March 4, 1991